 |
Margate Crime and Margate Punishment
Anthony Lee
6. Justices of the Peace at Margate.
The absence of local Justices of the Peace was one of the motives for Margate’s unsuccessful attempt in 1784 to obtain a Charter of Incorporation, separating the town from the jurisdiction of Dover. The Committee established at Margate to oversee the application for a Charter published its final report in 1785, summarising their understanding of the Attorney General’s position and what they saw as the best way forward.1 Although the Attorney General refused to support the application for a charter on the grounds that it would be against the rights and privileges of Dover, he did accept the arguments for an improved system of justice at Margate. The Committee reported that the Attorney General had suggested that ‘a power might be given by the Crown to elect a certain number of resident magistrates, from a list to be returned and chosen by the inhabitants of Margate . . . and that a House of Correction should be erected for the confinement, or punishment of offenders, and that peculiar powers might be given to our bench, to render applications to the Court of Dover, unnecessary in as many instances as possible.’
 |
Figure 1. Cover, Report of the Committee appointed to conduct the application of the inhabitants of Margate, for a system of police, 1785. |
The Committee believed that the Attorney General’s suggestion would allow Margate to achieve ‘a fair and impartial administration of justice’ and that the town should unite to achieve this end. They then made a number of specific proposals. For the selection of magistrates they recommended that ‘the names of six persons, respectable and substantial inhabitants of the said town and parish [the town of Margate and the parish of St. John’s], possessed of freehold property of the yearly value of fifteen pounds, or occupying lands or tenements of the yearly value of thirty pounds, or possessed, bona fide, of any other property to the amount of five hundred pounds, (this qualification to be proved upon oath) be fixed upon, chosen, and returned by the inhabitants rated, or liable to be rated, to the parochial assessments, in public vestry assembled; out of whom three shall be elected to act as magistrates for this town and parish, who shall continue in office three years and no longer, and then be succeeded by the other three, nominated and returned by the inhabitants as aforesaid, who shall likewise continue in office three years and no longer. That at the expiration of the six years, the inhabitants shall again choose and return six more, and three shall in like manner be elected out of that number.’ The magistrates were to have the same powers as the County Justices at petty sessions and it was proposed that ‘they shall appoint the Peace Officers, and other parochial officers usually appointed by Justices of the Peace’ and ‘shall have a power to appoint as many Constables and other Peace Officers as may be necessary for preserving the tranquillity and property of the inhabitants.’ It was also envisaged that some kind of gaol should be built in Margate: the inhabitants were to ‘erect or convert any present building into a House of Correction, for the punishing, confining, and securing of offenders.’
The Committee summarised the advantages of the proposed system:
It will secure to you . . . the freedom of election, the uncontrolled exercise of your suffrages in the choice of your own Bench, and it will be your own fault if you choose any, in whom you have not the greatest reason to place a confidence. Should any person, so chosen, make an improper use of the powers with which you invest them, you will have an opportunity of removing them from their offices and your confidence; and this must necessarily prove the means of insuring to yourselves, the most equal and impartial administration of justice, independent in a great measure of the Bench and Court of Dover.
The report concluded:
It is declared to be the opinion of the inhabitants, now assembled, that the aforesaid plan and system in all its branches, is the only one, short of a Charter, that can effectually give them relief, and remove the evils they now complain of; and that as it is in itself founded on the plainest principles of moderation — formed on the scale of public utility, calculated to reconcile the jarring opinions of individuals, and to silence the clamours of faction; and is by no means subversive of the rights and privileges of the Port of Dover, which will still essentially and virtually retain its jurisdiction; it must disarm the members of that Corporation of every pretence on which they can ground any future opposition, and amply satisfy the views and wishes of those persons in this town and parish, who prefer the system of a limited magistracy to the more complex and extensive scale of a public Corporation. In a word, this system can meet with no opposition, but what may be made to any plan, however unexceptionable, by the insatiable ambition or restless spirit of overbearing, turbulent, or interested men.
Despite the pleas for support the proposals of the Committee seem to have come to nothing. Hasted in his History of Kent published in 1800 concluded that the decision of the Attorney General ‘so far discouraged them from the further prosecution of a charter, that all further intentions of it from that time fell to the ground’.2 The idea of loosening the ties to Dover had, however, taken root and in 1787 Margate applied for, and was given, a local bill that allowed them at least some modest degree of self government, through a board of improvement commissioners, as already described in Section 2, The Margate Constables. Unfortunately, although the bill allowed some local policing, it did nothing about the lack of resident magistrates.
Finally, the growth of Margate made the need to travel to Dover for all legal matters so obviously nonsensical that something had to be done. The first issue to be addressed was that of small debts. It was claimed that many debtors in Margate refused to pay their debts, believing that the cost and inconvenience of going to Dover would deter their creditors from taking any legal action against them. To solve this problem a small claims court (The Court of Requests) was established in Margate in 1807, to recover debts under £5 in Margate, Birchington and St. Peter’s.3 The court was to meet in Margate at least once a month. The first Commissioners making up the court included the Mayor and Jurats of Dover, the local Justices of the Peace, and 113 of the great and good of Thanet, including Francis Cobb and eleven of the other Margate Improvement Commissioners. Appointments were for life, as long as the Commissioners continued to meet the conditions described in the Act establishing the court; the remaining Commissioners were to elect any required replacements. The requirement to be a Commissioner was to own real estate of the annual value of forty pounds, or to have a personal estate of the value of one thousand pounds.
The next small step towards freedom was an Act of 1811 ‘to provide for the better execution of the office and duty of justices of the peace within the Cinque Ports’.4 This recognized that there were not enough justices of the peace in Dover to allow any of them to live close to Margate or to the other liberties of Dover ‘by reason whereof great inconveniences, and many defects of justice have frequently arisen.’ To solve the problem, Justices of the Peace for all the Cinque Ports liberties were appointed, with the expectation that some would be living in or near Margate. The Cinque Ports justices were appointed by the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and ‘commit to the gaol of the Port, within the liberties of which the offence was committed’.5 Although they had the usual powers of justices of the peace, they could only act in the liberties and not in the Head Ports themselves. Strangely an additional restriction was added to the bill as it passed through Parliament, stating that they were not ‘by this act authorized or empowered to grant licences, or certificates for licences, to any victualler resident within any liberty belonging to any Cinque Port, ancient town, or corporate town’;4 the restriction was renewed in the 1828 Act ‘to regulate the granting of licences to keepers of inns, alehouses and victualling houses, in England’.6As Daniel Maude, one of the Government Inspectors for the Commission reporting on Municipal Corporations, wrote in 1835:5
The consequence is that . . . the Dover Justices go over to Margate to license the publicans of that town . . . It is not easy to see what advantage was contemplated in withholding the power of licensing from the Cinque Ports Justices. The latter might be expected tobe better acquainted with the necessity for public-houses and with the conduct and character of the parties applying, from residing and acting in the district, than the mayor and jurats of the distant Port, who are not called upon to act in it on any other occasion.
Was this restriction included in the bill at the request of the Dover brewers? They were certainly a power in the town, and one on which Maude specifically commented:
There are seventy-three licensed public-houses within the town and port [of Dover]. Of these, twenty-five belong to one firm of brewers. One of the firm is a justice; his partner was a justice, but resigned about two years ago; the remaining partner is a common-councilman. The first-mentioned of these partners is related to another three of the justices, one of them being his brother. This firm has been connected with the corporation as long as can be remembered. Another seventeen licensed houses belong to another brewer; he was a common-councilman, but resigned a short time ago. He has, or lately had, the following relations amongst the justices, father, two uncles, one cousin and two brothers-in-law; they were, probably, not all justices at the same time.
The new arrangements introduced by the Cinque Port Justices Act meant that preliminary legal hearings could now take place in Margate in front of a Cinque Port magistrate, although, if the magistrate determined that there was a case to be answered, the accused would still have to be sent to Dover to be held in gaol awaiting trial. The Thanet Division of Dover, covering the parishes of St. John the Baptist, St. Peter the Apostle, Birchington and the Vill of Wood, was served by six justices, of whom two, the Rev William Frederick Baylay and Edward Boys of Salmestone, represented Margate. According to the local newspapers, they had an immediate effect on law and order in the town. Reporting in January 1813 on the arrests of William Turmin and Edward Herod for two burglaries in Margate, the Kentish Gazette commented that the arrests were due to ‘the activity of two of our new Magistrates (the Rev Mr Baylay and Edward Boys esq) and by the cautious proceedings of their clerk and peace officers acting under him’. Herod, in fact, was ‘apprehended without any warrant by Mr Marsh, a very active Peace Officer’.7 Turmin and Herod were committed to Dover gaol for trial at the next Sessions [10. Margate Criminals].7
The good work of the new magistrates continued. In February 1813, reporting on the case of John Crok, the Kentish Gazette said ‘this is the fifth prisoner committed from [Margate] in the short space of three months, and all of them chargeable with capital offences. Four of the five must have eluded justice, had that place continued without resident magistrates . . .’.8 The Kentish Gazette contrasted the present position with that before 1811 when ‘the inhabitants of Margate had to travel to Dover to execute any warrant of search or apprehension, or other proceedings, from a magistrate.’8
These changes for the better did not extinguish thoughts of total independence from Dover. In 1825 a further bill amending the 1787 Margate Improvement Act was passed and this bill, unlike the previous amending bills, did not include a clause reminding everyone of the jurisdiction of Dover over Margate.9 Indeed, the act actually contained a clause allowing any appeals against orders made by the Commissioners appointed under the Act to be made to the ‘next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be held for the Eastern Division of the said County of Kent,’ in other words, for appeals to be heard at Canterbury rather than at Dover. At the third reading of the bill in the House of Commons, this clause was objected to by Edward Bootle-Wilbraham, one of the MPs for Dover, but was supported by John Calcraft the younger, the MP for Wareham and formerly an MP for Rochester, a Whig in favour of parliamentary reform.10 In the debate, John Calcraft argued that a major aim of the bill ‘was to secure regular Sessions for Margate at Canterbury, which was only sixteen miles distant, and where a worthy Chairman might preside, instead of the present Sessions, which were held sometimes once in five, sometimes once in fifteen months at Dover, which was 23 miles distant from Margate.’ The argument was put more bluntly in an editorial in The Morning Chronicle:11
They [Margate] wish to withdraw themselves from a local jurisdiction of very worst description, to a jurisdiction of a very different kind, which has also the advantage of being much nearer to them. But the irregularities to which we have alluded, are not the only circumstances which lead them to prefer Canterbury to Dover. The Grand Jury at Canterbury is composed of gentlemen of education and respectability, and the Magistrates are as respectable as any in the kingdom. On the other hand, the Grand Jury of Dover is composed of persons, whose education and situation in life are not exactly such as to make them the most eligible people in the world for the discharge of the duties which devolve on them.
At the time, The Morning Chronicle was running a very personal campaign against the Recorder of Dover, William Kenrick, the official responsible for conducting all trials held at Dover. Kenrick was a Welsh judge and Justice of the Peace for the County of Surrey, as well as being Recorder for Dover, but he had an unsavory reputation, and had been accused of having abused his power as a magistrate for personal gain.12,13 The Morning Chronicle reported gleefully that a Common Assembly in Dover in June passed a resolution ‘that it was important that the person filling the office of Recorder should have their entire confidence; that therefore, under existing circumstances, Mr Kenrick should be requested to resign the office’.14
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, by 1829 none of the Cinque Port Magistrates were resident in Margate.15 This was considered at a meeting of the Improvement Commissioners who concluded: ‘That it appears to this meeting that it is now evidently more necessary than it was at the time of the appointment of the late resident Justices in consequence of the very considerable increase of inhabitants and visitors to this place and that the difficulties experienced by the public by there being no resident justices is very sorely felt and that immediate steps ought to be forthwith taken to render the evil.’ It was agreed that a Committee consisting of Daniel Jarvis, Thomas Cobb and Robert Salter should decide on ‘such measures as may appear most advisable to procure the appointments of resident justices’.15 In January 1830 the Committee reported that: ‘on the 18th of October [we forwarded] to his Grace the Duke of Wellington as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports a memorial requesting that he would recommend to his Majesty fit and proper persons resident in Margate to be appointed Justices of the Peace for the Cinque Ports, and from communication with the Deputy Lord Warden, we are led to believe that measures have been adopted to appoint new magistrates and also that reference has been made to the present bench for the names of such persons resident here to be inserted in the New Commission which is about to issue’.15 The Commissioners then agreed ‘that the Magistrates be earnestly requested to include in their recommendation the name of Daniel Jarvis Esq who at our solicitation has consented to undertake the duties of the office in the event of being appointed’. 15 The Commissioners Minute book recorded in November 1830 ‘That the Magistrates had in their wisdom thought it right to select two names from the following list viz (Daniel Jarvis, Gibon Rammell, Robert Garrett, John Gore, Thomas Blackburn, Francis Forster, George Finnis, Edward White, Robert Wells and James Wright) which was recommended to them by a meeting of the Commissioners held on the 15th of September last, who were not Commissioners, viz Mr George Finnis and Mr Thomas Blackburn’. 15 Although the town had got what it wished for, two resident magistrates, the Commissioners clearly took great offence that the men chosen by the Dover Magistrates were not Commissioners.
In 1835 the chances of Margate gaining its independence from Dover increased very significantly with the publication of the report of the Commission on Municipal Corporations. The Commissioners had concluded that ‘the existing Municipal Corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the confidence or respect of Your Majesty's subjects, and that a thorough reform must be elected, before they can become, what we humbly submit to Your Majesty they ought to be, useful and efficient instruments of local government’.5 As a result of the Commission's findings, a Bill was drawn up and brought to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell in June 1835. This, the ‘Act to provide for the Regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales,’ generally known as the Municipal Reform Act, was passed and led to the reform of 178 of the existing boroughs.16 The reforms ensured that all ratepayers would have a vote in council elections, that each town would be divided into wards, with councillors being elected for each ward, that the elected councillors would chose aldermen who would form one-quarter of the council and that the council would elect a mayor. The act also separated the running of a town by the town council from the judicial role played by the town magistrates. For Dover this meant an end to the Court of General Sessions and Gaol Delivery and its replacement by a new court, the Borough Quarter Sessions, supervised by a recorder, a barrister appointed by the Crown. Disappointingly, the reform did little for Margate which, as an unincorporated town, remained under the jurisdiction of Dover, but at least the annoyance of Dover issuing licenses to Margate’s publicans was addressed in an 1836 Act, ‘for the better administration of justice in certain boroughs’ which proposed that the power to issue licences in Margate should be transferred to the Cinque Port justices.17
In 1836 Margate again considered applying for a charter, this time under the provisions of the Municipal Reform Act, which had explicitly encouraged unincorporated towns to petition for incorporation. In April a requisition was circulated asking the Deputy to call a public meeting to discuss the raising of a petition for a charter and after some hesitation, he agreed.18,19 At the meeting G. Y. Hunter detailed all the problems caused by administration from Dover and the Rev W. F. Baylay ‘endeavoured to confute and explain away the supposed difficulties enumerated by Mr Hunter.’ Despite Baylay’s best efforts a motion to go for an Act of Incorporation was carried almost unanimously: ‘there being only five dissentients, all of whom, either as a clerk, surveyor, &c. were the paid servants of the town’.20
A petition was duly sent to Lord John Russell at the Home Department asking that Margate be included ‘in any Bill which your Lordships may intend to submit to Parliament for the incorporation of Large Towns’.21 The petition argued that ‘it is essential to the preservation of the Peace of the Town that there should be an active Bench of resident Magistrates and a well organized body of Police.’ The petitioners felt that not only were the police in Margate ‘totally inefficient’ but also that the Cinque Port Magistrates were failing in their duty: ‘one is a respectable and intelligent Clergyman of the Established Church whose pastoral duties are sufficient to occupy his attention, a second is a retired Solicitor, two others reside more than three miles from the Town, another lives in Germany and the sixth is a Barrister who is most frequently attending to his professional business in London.’ It was suggested that these problems would be overcome if Margate was awarded its own Charter of Incorporation. This was followed in March 1837 by a petition to the King, praying for a charter of incorporation.22 Predictably, Dover objected and at an ill-tempered meeting of the Dover town council in March 1837, it was agreed to petition the King against the proposed charter for Margate. An amendment was proposed ‘that the council should petition the King to grant to Margate a charter, subject to Margate paying a proper sum to Dover towards the expense of converting the late town-buildings into a gaol,’ but the amendment was defeated.23 Even in Margate views were divided. A meeting of the Improvement Commissioners in March 1837 was worried about the costs of a new gaol, and decided to oppose the petition, even though by this time the petition was before the Privy Council.24 The question of the costs of the Dover gaol ultimately proved to be fatal for Margate’s ambitions. In May the bad news was received from the Privy Council that the petition was rejected:25
Dover has incurred a considerable debt in erecting a gaol for the common benefit of itself and its non-corporate members . . . and Dover has a power of taxing its non-corporate members towards the discharge of this debt. A large part of this tax is raised from Margate, but as soon as that town is incorporated the power of levying such a rate would be at an end. This would be manifestly very unjust towards Dover.
This failure reopened old wounds in Margate. The Kentish Chronicle suggested that the Margate Reform Association, rather than working for reform, was in reality more interested in mounting personal attacks on F. W. Cobb and on the Margate Pier and Harbour Company.26 It was suggested that ‘the members of the “Association” are the puppets; the strings are being pulled from behind the scenes by the master-spirit of Margate agitation,’ a clear reference to Joshua Waddington. Nevertheless, the Kentish Chronicle was firmly in favour of reform:26
We are decidedly of the opinion that a town consisting of so great a number of inhabitants . . . should have the means of preserving the peace, of protecting the property of the inhabitants and their inmates, and of confining and punishing offenders against either. The police of Margate is very defective; it required to be increased, and properly organized, to be effectual as a terror to evil doers . . . in order to bring the administration of justice at Quarter Sessions nearer to the doors of the people, we recommend that an effort be made, by applications in the proper quarter, for an adjournment of the Quarter Sessions from Dover alternately to Margate and Ramsgate.
Although the reference to Ramsgate was clearly a mistake since Ramsgate was under the jurisdiction of Sandwich and not of Dover, the idea of a Quarter Sessions alternating between Dover and Margate was apparently even supported by the Recorder of Dover: ‘So impressed is the learned Recorder of Dover with the inconvenience and injury inflicted on the inhabitants of Margate by the present system, that we know he has communicated to the authorities of Margate his willingness to adjourn the sessions from Dover to Margate, for the trial of Margate prisoners, if a prison were provided for their safe custody before trial’.27 The problem of what to do about the Dover gaol rumbled on for many years. In 1852 the Canterbury Journal repeated the old arguments:28
Margate has attained that position which should give it a separate jurisdiction in magisterial matters, rather than being under the control of authorities living so far off. The town of Margate is separated from Dover by nearly twenty-four miles; much loss of time and expense are incurred in going there as witnesses, and serving on grand and petty juries; some fifty-six householders are compellable to attend Dover session during the year, although crime in the parish is of an unimportant character, there being upon an average twelve trials for felony, and fifty-two committals for trial for trivial offences; and sessions often occur when there are no prisoners committed from this place. There are about ten inquests, for which the coroner has to be sent from Dover. If prisoners happen to be remanded by the magistrates for any length of time, they have to be taken to Dover, and brought back again for committal. The publicans' licenses and swearing-in of constables have occasioned an annual visit from the Mayor of Dover. The average amount of the liberty rate for the eight years preceding the report was nearly £600 per annum.
Subsequent attempts by Margate to obtain a Charter have been described elsewhere. [A Charter for Margate] An act of 1855, the Cinque Ports Act, removed some of the legal problems associated with Margate becoming a borough independent from Dover.29 The act ended the ‘jurisdiction and authority of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle in relation to civil suits.’ The act also suggested that it would be ‘expedient’ if Margate and the other members of the liberty of Dover ‘should be severed therefrom,’ and that if Margate or the other non-corporate members of Dover should obtain charters of incorporation, then the justices of Dover would cease to have jurisdiction over the towns. However, Margate would have to continue to pay a rate to Dover to cover the debts incurred by Dover on behalf of the non-corporate members, principally those incurred in building the new gaol in Dover.
When it became clear that Margate’s application for a charter was likely to succeed, the 1855 Cinque Ports Acts was modified so that the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions at Dover over Margate would not end until Margate was awarded its own Court of Quarter Session.30 Finally, after almost seventy five years of trying, a Charter of Incorporation was obtained in 1857. It did, however, take another ten years to end the supremacy of the Quarter Sessions at Dover. The way was cleared by yet another amendment of the Cinque Ports Act, passed in 1869.31 The bill agreed that when a court of quarter sessions was granted to the borough of Margate, the Treasury would determine a capital amount that should be paid by Margate to Dover to end all financial liabilities to Dover. Until the Court of Quarter Sessions was awarded to Margate the town remained in an odd position. Under the Municipal Corporation Act, Margate, when it became a borough, would appoint its own justices with jurisdiction in Margate. However, all prisoners committed by the justices of Margate had to be sent to Dover to be tried at the Quarter Sessions at Dover. There were then three sets of magistrates with jurisdiction in Margate: Margate’s own Justices of the Peace, the Justices of Dover, and the old Cinque Port Justices. It was not surprising that this could lead to confusion. An example was provided by the case of a pauper lunatic, Sarah Martin, who had been living in the parish of St John’s but had then been moved to the Isle of Thanet workhouse.32 She had been seen by David Price, one of the justices of the borough of Margate, who had agreed to her removal to the Camberwell lunatic asylum. The parish of St John’s initially paid the expenses of her removal and for her stay in the asylum but when it was determined that her place of settlement was Faversham, Faversham was asked to pay for her. Faversham objected, on the grounds that the relevant Act controlling commitment to a lunatic asylum required that the initial decision to commit be made by a borough magistrate, and that David Price was not a ‘borough magistrate’ in the meaning of the act, as a borough, by definition, had to have a quarter sessions; since Margate did not have a quarter sessions, it was not really a borough and David Price was not really a borough magistrate. The argument was rejected, not unreasonably, but the case illustrates just how difficult it proved to be to unravel all the complexities of the old Cinque Port system.
References
1. Report of the committee appointed to conduct the application of the Inhabitants of Margate for a system of police, 1785.
2. Edward Hasted, The history and topological survey of the County of Kent, 2nd edition, Vol. X, W. Bristow, Canterbury, 1800
3. An act for the more easy and speedy recovery of small debts within the parishes of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Peter the Apostle, and Birchington, and the Vill of Wood, in the Isle of Thanet, and County of Kent, 47 Geo III c7 1807.
4. An act to facilitate the execution of justice within the Cinque Ports, 51 Geo III c36 1811.
5. Parliamentary Papers, First report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the municipal corporations in England and Wales, London, 1835.
6. An act to regulate the granting of licences to keepers of inns, alehouses and victualling houses, in England, 9 Geo IV c 61 1828.
7. Kentish Gazette, January 1 1813.
8. Kentish Gazette, February 16 1813.
9. An act to amend and render more effectual several acts relative to the paving, lighting, watching, and improving the town of Margate in the Parish of Saint John the Baptist in the County of Kent; for erecting certain defences against the sea for the protection of the said town; and for making further improvements in and about the said town and parish, Geo IV c 1825
10. Morning Chronicle, March 24 1825.
11. Morning Chronicle, March 31 1825.
12. Morning Chronicle, April 15 1825.
13. Morning Chronicle, June 15, 1825.
14. Morning Chronicle, June 11, 1825.
15. Edward White, Extracts from the minutes of the Margate Commissioners Book 6, 10 January 1816 to 23 January 1833, Manuscript, Margate Library.
16 Municipal Corporations Act, 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c.76 1835.
17. A bill for the better administration of justice in the Cinque Ports, 6 & 7 Will. IV c 105, 20 May 1836 .
18. Kent Herald, April 28 1836.
19. Kentish Observer, May 5 1836.
20. Kent Herald, May 12 1836.
21. National Archives, PC1/700, Petition 10 May 1836.
22. Morning Chronicle, March 2 1837.
23. Morning Chronicle, March 27 1837.
24. Canterbury Weekly Journal, March 18 1837.
25. Kentish Observer, May 11 1837.
26. Kentish Chronicle, June 6 1837.
27. Kentish Chronicle, October 10 1837.
28. Canterbury Journal, October 30 1852.
29. Cinque Ports Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c 48 1855.
30. A bill for the amendment of the Cinque Ports Act, 20 and 21 Vict. c 1 1857.
31. An act to amend the Cinque Ports Act, 32 and 33 Vict. c 53 1869.
32. W. M. Best and G. J. P. Smith, Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Exchequer Chamber. Vol II, London, H. Sweet, 1863.