The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

• O'CONNT , T.I , Trasn3 'THE QI:EEN, THE WEEKLY CHRONICLE,-.of..:SATUR DAI and StiliDAY 'will' tldi report of these interesting proceedings in the House of Lords ; also of the Im portant News from India; Meditated Con/EL:test of the -Punjaub by Ellent,crong,ll, and retreat of British Troops before the Beloochees ; the Sussex Peerage Inquiry ; the Exhibition of Frescoes and Statuary at Westminster Hall; the extraordinary case of Running Rein, the Wiener of the Derby ; the Parliamentary. 'lnquiry into the Frauds, Vorgerles, and Espionage of the Post-office ; the Horrible Massacres on board the Saladin , and all the News of the Week. Office, 337, Strand, and all Newsvenders. TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF TEE LONDON JODTT-STOCt B ANK. LaDM aND AVACANCY having occurred in the direction Of your affairs by the lamented death of Joshua Scholefield, M. P., I take the liberty of offering myself to your consideration sts a Candidate. Should Ibe so fortunate as to be selected to 1111 the vacant seat, my best energies shall be devoted to the interests of the Company. I have the honour to be, Ladies and Gentlemen, your most el , ..dient humble servant, RICHARD JENKINS, G.C.B• East India house, Lead,nhill-street, July 5, 1844. HER M AJESTY'S THEATRE. fo_MOltilOW EVENING, JULY iVill be pet r tined fiossini's Opera Sena, OTELLO Mada.no Grisi ; Emilia, Mada , ne Bellini; Imiro, lago, Sig. Foroasx i; Rodrigo, Sig. Corelli; II Di.ge, Sig. ; a:id Otello, Sig. Ma. in. A s ter vihich, a " DIVERTI*NE AENII," in which will 'be intro duced a new Pas ate Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St. Leon. Pas de Deux by Mdiles. Scheirer and Plunkett, acd i.ke awned Spanish ance "La Saragossa," tiv Mdl e. Fanny Linter. To conclude with a Divertissement. entitled LA VIVANDIERE, tntr-s:ocing the Redowa ; or .iriginal Polk of Hungary, by Mdlle. Cents and M. t. Leon. _Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be made at the Box Office, Opera Colonnade. - - HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor PUZZ I respectfUlly informs the Nobility, Subscribers to the o,wra, his Friend ON s, and I'HURSDA Y the Public.thatNEXT, HI )8eN1..1 I I' will take place ULY 11, On which oc.:asion Don s be pre esnted (for the First Time this Season), tti's celebrated I)era, ANNA BOLENA. Henry VIII.. Sig. Lablache ; Percy, Sig. Moriani ; Smeaton, Signora Favanti; Anna Bok na, Madame Gi lei ; Jane Seymour, Signora Giuseppina Rosetti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her Brat appearance in London). In the course c,f the Evening, Signor Puzzi will perform aSolo on the Hors. After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT, in which Mdlle. Fanny Miler, Mdlle. Cerito, M. Perrot, and M. St. Leon wilt appear. To be followed by the Second Act of GUILLAUME TELL. Matilde, Madime Perviani ; Arnold.), Sig. :Mario; Walter, Sig. Ir. Lablache ; and Guillaume Tell, Signor k ornasari. To conclude with a Favourite Ballet, in which all the principal Artistes of her Majesty's Theatre will appear. Application for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be m i.la to Signor Puzsi, 38, Jermyn-street. St. James's, and the Box-oaice, Opera Colonnade. Doors open at Seven. The Opera will commence at Halt-past Seven o'Clock. 'THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKLT. BENJAMIN WEBS' "ER LES ER THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES. With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Hunsdon, Mr. Stuart; Lord Bellamont, Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Griison, Mr. Strickland; Hcmy, Mr. H. Hell; Captain Bippett, Mr Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr. W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdoe, Mrs. W. Cliftbrd ; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss Julia Bennett; Mrs. Grigson. Mrs. Glover; Bridget t rim. Mrs. Humby. Atter the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing " Fayre Rosamonde." To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir Charles Coldstream, Bart., Mr. Charles Mathews; Sir Adonis Leech, Mr. Tilbury; Wurzle, Mr. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia Bennett ; Lady CI utterbuc k, Mrs. Humby. Te conclude with THE TRUMPETER'S DAUGHTER; or; Love and the Polka. Philli pot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste; who will dance the celebrated Polka. Orchestra Stalls, be. ; Boxes, ss. ; Pit, Ss . ; Gallery, •?s.; Upper Gallery, Is. Half-price—Boxes, 3s. • Pit 35.; Gallery. Is. ; Upper Gallery, M. Doors opened at Hale past Six, and the Performances commence at Seven. Tickets and Places to be had of Mr. I. T. Archer. .4 the Box elite, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STit Ek.T. LESSEE, Mr. J. M. MADDOX. • THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be perform d the celebrated Opera, L'EISIR D'AMORE. Adina, Miss Austin ; Nemarino, Mr. Allen ; Doctor Dulcamara. Mr. Paul Bedford. After which, LOVE AND CHARITY. In which Messrs. Fits. amen, Oahe , ry. and Mrs. Stirling will perform. To conclnde with a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of Aladdin. Abanazar, Mr. Paul Bedford; Aladdin, Mr. Wright; Princess Badroulbadour, Mier E. Stanley. IHEAI'RE ROYAL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA HOUSE.___ Under the Manai;;;;t7( Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be performed a New Domestic Drama, entitled THE MO. MENTOUS QUESTION. Characters by Messrs. Diddear, F. Vining, J. W. Collier, Miss Fortescue, and Mrs. A. Wigan. After which, a Wand Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called OPEN SESAME ; or, a Night with the Forty Thie .es. Dassarac, .M r. Keeley; Morgiana, Mrs. Keeley. to be followed by an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLKA M(kNI A. Characters by Mr. t. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. l'seeley; Miss Woolgar, and Mrs. Keeley. To conclude with THE THREE FRA DIAVOLOS. Principal Characters by Messrs. F: Vining, Keeley, Wigan, Diddear, Miss Woolgar, and Mrs. Woollidge. ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF A WI'S. Proprietor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. great Success of the Chinese Feast of Lanterns, and 1 , /.:lv Military and Naval Spectacle. THI:7. EVENING, JULY 5, Will be repeated an entire • new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or, The Conquests of Amoy by Bntish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments, gm., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Navy. Feast ef '250 Lanterns. After which ' a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROT AL COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE FI IiST; or, The Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats sof Horsomanship by Monsieur Louis Tournsure, S g. German!, Herr eisback, L 3 Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, Ike., with Mr. R. Smith's highly trained Steeds. to conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLE-CHASE; or, Enj. lances Harvest Hume. The doors will open nightly at six o'cloct, and the cerformances commence at seven. Box-attics opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been reconstructed and decorated with care and splendour. Acting and stage-manager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. DAY IDGE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be performed an entirely new Aquatic Spectacle, introducing Three Scenes of Real Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA RACT ; or, The Enchanter's Spell. _titer xhich, a Ldliputim Ballet, entitled 4 ' Napoleon's Gene rosity," in which the Brockstedt Family—three German Lilliputians, only 28 . 32, and 36 inches in height — will perform. 'Jo conclude with a New Drama, called THE CARPENTER OF ROUEN in which Messrs Hudson Kirby, Hicks , Neville, Vale, Heslop,Johnson, Mrs. Daly, Miss ferrey, and Mrs. R. Honner will perform. Places and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box. otlice, from Eleven to Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. Daylight View of LONDON in the OLDEv TIME! Painted by Denson and Telbin. The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond all tinnier precedent; the artist, the amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea ben, and ire unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex hibition ever witnessed. To view it only as a vehicle for the terrific display at Dusk is unjust ; it should he seen in the calm stillness of the qu.et Evening, with its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa-' cious Lake, to be fully appreciated. The Evening PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Men iays, Tues.' days, Wednesdays, and Thursdays) conducted by Mr. Godfre y , are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in doing justice to the awful representation of THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON. Its fearful eh traeteristica are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same tune so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic .Att, that delight is predominant over terror; and the Thousands whe nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechnist, hzs achieved a matchless triumph. The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect g a t..., and combining so many and interesting ieatures, are by far the w rist attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. eedii:3 of the Animals at Five—Concert at Stx—Conflagration at Dusk. Admitt ince, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICC'ADILL) . IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONE (SHILLING Admission to THE NAT OLEON MU SEUM, the most magnificent and extensive Collacticn of Histo rical Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to have been formed by One Person, during.,Twenty , five years of elaborate research, at a cost ot 60,000 guineas, and to completely illustrate, in the most in structive and interesting manner, the most important part of Euro pean history, viz.--4.!IIARLES 1., OLIVER CROMWELL, and L MIA XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., mutt! e EMPEROR NA.POLD in 1821. This unique Museum has beets often during the last and present year, by the Royal Faml:i. the Duke of We;lia4teli, the Foreign Princes, Arritass.adors, an I their Ladles, also, many thousands of the Nobility and Public; and the Pro. i vielor has recently been able to increase. by sever:il very thus pie:nres, dun, his previ6us almost Incredible number ant variety of MSS.. Works of Art, and a - multitude uf valuable Roll r , and other in this most instructive and, as hundred:3 have said it eight t, be, a Natiopal Museum. Many thousand have hisoected it, end 'CIIIRTY PRINCIPAL EDMORS of the PUBLIC PRESg ;;ave stated that It ought to be seen by every one. The price ot admix. :we is red:leed to ONE SHILLING: n. NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the Egyptian 11.11." Fieesoillly, daily from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATFIER.--►S[TN OFFICE, JULY 5. IiERMOIdETEK, Lowest, 55: Highest, 68: Ncon, 59. BARoMETER, 29.65.—Wern, N.E." • N.urr.-The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the fr.,ezing poLit, and 55 temperate. In Baromateis fair is trutally placed opposite 30, and rain - at 29. WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TlitS 13 minutes after 51 Evening ... ZO minutes after 5 4:0. k l / 2 4 # , c ,-4--,.,- . ~ l Pz.,, , , N4.z , A l'n . i,i‘'-' b-4 . • . . • i ',l• :•74.1? 1 1 4 i -f ,, ,. - -Jo - it g . •:- •- A ~, ... 4 ` ii, -7..7 ,s'llie,.' . ...rj: •-r7t'.., . 4 10. -,,,,,4.;/,..• ~. --"*.• i _..'511, , r47:0116:10: . . , ..,- - ,„ 0 ..,,- A ' ECOND 4.4... , ir - ToTrAOMIK • - (4 mid IA 1111 C LONDON, FRIDAX, JULY 5. 1844. --...._ A vast number of Bill's received the Royal Assent in the House of Lords, a very significant symptom of the speedy termination of the Session. The Earl of AffsTo gave notice that he would ask Lord, lIADDINGTON this evening whether it was the intention of the Government to send a naval force to the coast of Morocco to protect the interests of British subjects. The Marquis of CLANRICARDS gave notice for Monday of a motion relative to the war pending in the West of Africa. The Earl of RADNOR, after adverting at consider able length to the obnoxious and anti-English prac tice of opening letters at the Post- office, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the system of open ing letters at the Post-office. The Duke of WELLirTwrom fully admitted that the question had assumed a shape which required inquiry. After defending the practice -to a certain extent, and exhibiting a number of bugbears to justify it, he moved as an amendment a Secret Committee, to be composed of the following Members—Earl Somers, the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and the Bishop of London. We regret to find from a few remarks made by Lord NORMANDY, that the practice was not confined to the Tories, and tha t the power had been exercised in Ireland against suspected Eibbonmet). It is a detestable powCf, .ncl whether exercised by Whigs or Tories, will be universaiii denounced. We have never heard -one-disiaterested onan say a word in i support of such an un-English practice. Party feel. I ing is not mixed up in the luestion, Tories, Whig and Radicals, if we except the Government hacks, are unanimous in the opinion that the Post-ufficc should be sacred. Extreme cases may occur. In times of danger, and more particularly when rebel lion prevails, the Habeas Corpus Act may be suspended, blit that can be done only by Act of Parliament. Let the same rule apply to opening ' letters. Nothing but the safety of the State can justify it, and the permission should not be given without a specific Act of Parliament, which would put every man oa his guard. In that case no man or woman would write to a friend, but in the belief that their correspondence might be known to the Grahamites, and that every family communication might be read by the underlings of office. We agree, however, ith that consist , nt and honest lawyer and -ta'esnian. Lord CAMPBELL, in every instance it would 14• rto put an e,:d to this obnoxious Folder. The Earl of RADNOR withdrew his motion. The Conamitti e was appointed, and ordered to meet on Thursday. In the Commons, Mr. CHRISTIE presented a petition from CHARLES HENRY RUSSELL, the plaintiff in cer tain actions against noblemen and gentlemen for gam bling, any gave notice that he would this day move that the petit:Ter, AC - cording to his request, be heard at the bar of thelkouse. Mr. SHELL gave ce of a motion for this day, relative to the French pu "csessions in Africa. In answer to a question fi :ran Mr. WA LLACE, Mr. GLADSTONE said it was the firm . determination of the Government to go on with the RailNsYs Bill. Mr. P. M. STEWART asked Sir Z93BEET PEEL, whether the report was correct, that (;..'vernment, after haying carried the Bank Charter Bill, Neude d to interfere with the banking and currency of :... l e° t " land and Ireland. Sir ROBERT PEEL gave an answi." which would lead to the belief that he is about to make an inroad upon the Scotch and Irish banks. Mr. HUME denounced the practice of opening letters at the Post-office, and said, if the House had appointed him on the Committee, he would have declined to attend it. He would have nothing to do with Secret Committees. The Bank Charter Bill, after some conversation and several attempts at amendments, was read a third time, and passed. Sir JAMES GEAUAM moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. An amendment was proposed by Mr. BoaTnwica, the discussion on which, or rather on the general principle of the -Bit, occupied the House the re mainder of the night. On a division the amendment was negatived by a majority of 180. The Bill was then committed pro forma. The House immediately resumed, and adjourned at a Quarter past Two. In moving last night, in the House of Lords, for the appointment of a Secret Committee to inquire into the practice of detaining and opening letters at the General Post-office, the Earl of RADNOR justly remarked that when the Home Secretary of State thought that the public safety required an examina tion of private letters, he ought to open them on his own responsibility. If the law were to be violated with the object of securing the safety of the State by seizing upon correspondence, then, added the Noble Earl, " the Minister ought to violate the law on his own responsibility, and having done so, he ought to come down to Parliament and boldly say he had done so, because there had been a public necessity for it, and call on Parliainent:to protect him from the conse quences. Those who urged the necessity of opening letters in order to secure the safety of the State, sup posed the case of correspondence, the seizure and examination of which might prevent rebellion or dis turbance at home; but such a necessity for the inter ference of the Home Secretary could never have been anticipated with respect to the letters of foreigners. It appeared to him that this detention and examination of the letters of foreigners was a breach of the laws of hospitality which was revolting to the public mind." This is well put by the Noble Lord. The law on the subject of opening private corre spondence at the Post-office, which was never in tended to be other than a dead letter, except in ex treme cases of necessity, which the Legislature has no right to anticipate, should at once be abrogated ; and the Secretary of State—as Lord RADNOR sug gests—should open suspicious letters on his own respon sibility, plead the imperative emergency of the case, and claim the protection of Parliament for the con sequences of his act. Rarely, if ever, it is to be hoped, will he be compelled to have recourse to this step ; but while the law exists as at pre sent it arms him with sufficient power to have recourse to such an obnoxious stretch of au thority, which, in the hands of a suspicious, unscru lous, tyrannical Minister—and such have existed, and may exist again—could not fail to be attended with the most injurious and demoralising consequences. As regards the Committee, to which the Duke of WELLINGTON unhesitatingly acceded, on the plea that there was no alternative, we must honestly confess that we are very doubtful whether any really good results will follow from it—first, from? the absolute se crecy which is to be attached to all its proceedings, and secondly, from the nature of the inquiry which it is proposed to enter into. Another curious feature in the business, which we do not pro fess at all to understand, is, that the Lords' Com mittee are to have the benefit of the advice and assist ance of two law Peers, while lawyers are rigidly ex cluded from the Committee of the House of Commons. Surely there is some inconsistency here ! What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the aid of a lawyer is considered necessary in the one Committee, we should have thought, as a matter of course, that it would have been considered equally m cessary in the other. The whole affair, we suspect, will end, like many others of the same sort, in smoke ; little or nothing more will be heard of the proceedings of either conclave ; but, meanwhile, a substantial good has already been effected, for public attention has been strongly fixed on the subject, public indignation and astonishment everywhere ex cited, and the consequence will be, that no private letters will ever henceforth be opened at the Post office, whether with or without the warrant of a Home Secretary, unless the necessity of the case be made so apparent to Parliament, that no rea sonable man can possibly object to it. The most remarkable feature in the whole affair, and not the most creditable to our vacillating Government, has been the high, authoritative ground which they took on the first mooting of the question by . Mr. DUNCOMDE, and the readiness with which they immediately afterwards abandoned that ground. In the first instance, they were strongly opposed to any thing in the shape of inquiry, and would give no explanation at all ; yet, not three nights afterwards, they were unanimously in favour of inquiry, with a view to afford the fullest: explanation ! The truth is they have been influenced, in this as in every other cage, by sheer motives of expediency ; and have granted the Committee, as they will be pretty sure to grant a repeal of the corn-laws, the instant it suits their views of expediency to do so. As for acting upon principle, and the convictions of their own un derstanding, such a thing never once enters into their calculation. so. ' • The whole " talk" of the 'House of Commons, this session, has not afforded us so much amusement as a lachrymose and vituperative little attack made, on Tuesday night last, by Mr, ARTHUR ROEBUCK, on the conduct " of the daily press of this country," touching the Post-office exploits of Sh. JAMES GRAHAM. When serpents cast their skins, accord. ing to a popular superstition, they assume with their new cuticle all the vigour and sprightliness of renas cent youth. Whether lifr, itozsvcic has experienced, is Ms own person, the genial influences of some such vivifying process on throwing by his gown of ' "stur and involving himself in one of silk, we do not undertake to determine. But, under some consciehtious conviction of such a fad only, could " he," Mr. ARANWR ROEBUCK, whose freaks we have watched for these last fourteen years, " assnro the Right Hon. Baronet that be fully sympathig.ed t o the feelings he had expresced," The association of .`.` itogppot and sympathy" would be too ex travagant— too luclici'4u3lif Monstrous —for the Wang, even, of a Bath electioneering placard? It w ool mot impose pp. the credulity of a Bath chair: man. 6 . $ Etirpethy".,,e}l.4 (9r A political superior too nutliTi4 l . o o4 l 'Ce#lll . de-• ...from the spleneLle, _ fig - nouncer of all parties, and all part,..2 4. ."4-414° From the waspish, petulant aspirant after i ' impracticable honours and hopeless elevation ! Why we could more readily credit a rumour that the Duke , of Yosues bronze ststus, from the somewhat more' ; majestic isolation of its position, had heaved a sigh "natural sympathy" (for his Royal Highness's sur viving creditors), than that Mr. ROEBUCK. has any such graceful weakness in his moral or physical com position. If he ever had it, we should say "it withered all" —like OPHELIA'S flowers—When the common catastrophe of extinction overtook the re nown of his friend, M. Paersmar, and the insurrec tionary efforts of Lower Canada. But Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded to :my that "advantage had been taken of this incident"—(the whole subject matter of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S inculpation—the fact of opening the letters—the mooted question whether one or more warrants were requisite for his authority to do so) all are compressed into this conven ient " incident")— ' advantage has been taken, he says, " to call down public indignation upon an officer who has done nothing more than tread in the footsteps of his predecessors." (Exemplary Sir JAMES ! He would not even break open sealed letters except under warranty of precedents !) " This opinion has been aided and created out of doors, by all the vile arts which attach to the daily press in this country." What means this ? That the " daily press" has no sympathy with Mr. Roznuce.? We trust it has not. Mr. ROEBUCK, as the Morning Chronicle well observes, " is, in his small way, as unpopular as Sir JAMES GRAHAM ; 1 ' and, after these marked advances on the part of the " sympathising" silk gown, we should not be astonished to see them figuring together as partners, in a political " Polka dance," for the re mainder of the session ! Mr. ROEBUCK passes from the imputation of " vile arts" to the daily press, to the declaration " that a iouler instrument of calumny cannot be found." No? j Not in the wholesale, unmeasured , unfeeli n g , insolent invectir .against distant Lieutenant-Governors of colonies, an absent military commanders, and ,de ceased civil and .stofessional authorities, with which the House of connions has been occasionally ours together, in endless of all that has been arra i g nments, night after tsigli t, said or done, wr itt e n, directed, or transacted , b y the Government of the day at home, and its representa tives abroad ? With such remarkable instances of individual slander on record, does Mr. Rows/xi ( ven ture to talk of " all the foulness of the calumny of the Public press having been heaped on the Right Hon. Baronet ?" Come, come, Mr. Roznuce.! You are troubled, we fear, either with a short memory, or a bashful unconsciousness—" temporal acti." But since we, for our'parts, cannot give to Mr. RoEs BUCK credit for any such mere "prejudices"—(more important principles pass by that designation, in his system of ethics, than simple emotions) —as "sym pathy" for any human being:in existence,—save one —we must suppose his " sympathy" is for the conduct of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. He would " tread in the footsteps" of Sir JAMES'S predecessors. We wish him joy of his prepossessions. We have often ob.- served, that on questions wherein the personal rights and liberty of the subject have been found in collision with corporate or pecaliar claims, or with the accidents of industrial occupa tion (such as those of female and infant labour in factories, or such as those wherein, tin. example, the " privilege-of-Parliament" pre tensions have been urged to their highest flight ;) Mr. ROEBUCK—with an inconsistency peculiarly graceful in the noisy advocate of democratic institu tions and the working classes—has taken a part utterly opposed to the popular—to the generous view of the great majority of the community. Perhaps a! vulgar love of paradox—perhaps the simple fact that " a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind"—may prompt his vote on such questions, or questions of► that class, and may incite him to the rescue of the! Home Secretary on this occasion. It is not worthi while examining how this may be. But we have! just one grain of curiosity touching another topic,l personal to this busy declaimer and silent barrister.' What are the past distinctions, the present ser vices, or the existing position of Mr. ROEBUCK (saving always the rights of that most fussy and obtrusive of dignities, identified with an acci dental M.P.)—on which the Learned Gentleman ,deems himself at liberty to hold such disrespect ful, such abusive, language of the " daily press of this! country ?" We never heard him even suspected of. any such superiority in position, in services, in dis-! tinctions. His ill-breeding in all this, being the' Learned Gentleman's misfortune, we don't insistl upon. If he cannot help that, however, he is not,! therefore, at liberty to advert to the press in terms of insult and contumely, for having discharged what has conceived to be its duty, on a great public guess' tion. Does Mr. ROEBUCK imagine that the official' conduct of members of the Government is not publid property, and, therefore, a legitimate subject for an; discussion of the public press ? Or has he such al freehold, whether in fee-simple, or in (imaginary) expectancy and remainder, in the ministerial repute; tion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that, like that other herd of a farce, who over-estimated his own prowess, h will not allow even the boots of his mightiness to bd challenged ? Really, Mr. ROEBUCK has no excuse for his over weening folly. A man so infirm in temper, so un4 genial in temperament—without poetry, without sentiment, without the power of attaching others, of appreciating in others the softer or more generous purl poses in which he is careful to show himself deficient; such a man might surely learn to be practical, conk sistent, temperate, in his public deportment. Hii idiosyncracy, and the crude, harsh, utilitarian chas racter of his philosophy—(such as it is)—suggest no excuse for these escapades of peevish imprudence, and atrabilious resentment. We have one word more for our parting. In the true King CAMBYSES vein he thus concluded: —"/ will not do honour to one more than another of these detestable channels of public information by-- naming them !" Horresco referens. Their doom, then, is fixed ! For ourselves, we shall endeavour to live on, notwithstanding. We have taken a part — perhaps no inactive one—in the general delinquencies of our unhappy brethren. What we might have gained, first in our own good opinion, secondly in that of the public, had we been selected, by name, as an excep tion to this fearful sentence, ..we cannot tell; but it would have been little, indeed, if we may judge by the terrible constancy with which we support ourselves under our actual calamity. Mr. ROEBUCK will not "honour" one journal more than another by naming any one of theni. An overwhelming avalanche of silent destruction ! An awful but voiceless ruin ! And yet—(such is the indomitable levity of these " detestable" natures)- 1 that the Chronicle replies to these " words of power" with this irreverent exclamation—" Heaven help the poor irritated little gentleman !" We shall only add, of the distinction thus barbarously withheld from us and our brethren, that we can imagine no dose so in finitesimal—so, utterly imperceptible to the highest microscopic power—in the homoeopathy of political depreciation, as—the " honour" of Mr. ROEBUCK'S nomination. Madrid journals of the 27th ult. have been received, but they are filled chiefly with rumours. It is re ported that an extensive conspiracy has been dis covered, that the Marquis DE VILLUMA will retire from the Ministry, that the Royal Family of Naples is expected at Barcelona, and that the Cortes are to be dissolved forthwith. The Three per Cents. were done at 281 at 60 days, and the Five per Cents. at 20i at 30 days. Several of the Paris journals continue their attacks on the demand made by the KING for pensions to his sons and daughters, but we find nothing in the articles deserving particular notice. The excitement is dying away awl probably little more will be heard of the affair till some motion is 1114de in the Chambers for a provision to the Duke DE NEMOVRO Rs Regent. In the Chamber of Deputies the discussion on the Paris And Strasbnrgh Railway Rill was brought to a close on TuesdaiT. AI. AaAoo moved an additional article for limiting to one-tenth of the whole the number pf, foreign-made Iccomotives to be used on the line, I,oo} a view to encourage home manufactures, but the motion was reipptpd by a large majority, 191 to 62. The sum voted fOr carrying Okc works is 88,700,000 f. The line is to run from Paris by Esserpay, Chalons, and Nancy, with branch lines to Rheims . apd o aiithentic accounts have been received from IgeT *an the 27th ult. ? when the Vrencb § - 71-7,1 „ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 5 3 1844, troops retained their position. The following curious details respecting the Emperor of Monocco, in a , letter from Tangiers, appear in the Algerie, a paper , published at Algiers : " The Emperor is suspected of having poisoned his prede cessor and cousin Solyman, and he is now constantly afraid of a similar death himself Except his son,' says the letter, nobody can approach him. It is he who serves him at table, and always first tastes his food. For a length of time this duty devolved on Sidi-Mahommed, the Sultan's eldest son; at present it is the task of Muley-Ali, his younger brother. Both of these vim are born of the same mothe4 called in the country Rhamouna, and she is an Englishwoman. Sidi- Mohammed, the heir-presumptive to the throne, is a man of about thirty-five years of age ; his blue eyes and fair beard betray his half British origin. Abder Rhaman, who is about sixty, is strong and active, and of a cruel and brutal charac ter. Sidi-Mohammed replaces his father in all difficult cir cumstances. At the conflict of May 30th, at Lalla-Magrania, it was he, it is said, who commanded the Morocco troops. He, besides, for a length of time kept up relations with Abd-el-Kader, whom he encouraged in his struggle against the . French.' The people of Morocco state that, without him, the ex-Emir would have given in years age. The correspondence between the Khalifs and the future Sultan has always been exceedingly active.' " The trial of CADOT and ROUSSELET, for the murder of M. CADOT, the banker at Pointoise, was brought to a close on Wednesday, when the son was acquitted, and the other convicted of murder, but, according to the verdict of the jury, under extenuating circum stances. He was condemned to the galleys for life. THE BOURSE-WEDNESDAY, Lc. , J L II Lowest es 3 t . Last Price. Price. Price. Price. French Five perCsnts 122 20 .. 122 35 .. 122 20 .. 122 25 Four-and-a• Half..• 113 25 .. 113 25 .. 113 25 .. 113 25 Four per Cents. Three per Cents... .• 81 95 .. 82 05 .. 81 95 .. 82 05 'Bank of France ...•••• 3015 —3015 —3015 ..301;‘ Belgian Bank.. .. Belgian Fives, 1840 1842 „ 1081 .. 108 f .. 108 f .. 1081 Threes• •••• • •• •• 78 90 .. 78 90 .. 78 90 .. 78 90 :Spanish Threes, ex div•••• •• 33 .. 331 33 33 , Passive .••••• •• •••• 31 .. 5f .. 51 51 Portuguese Five per Cents.. 46/ .. 461 .. 461 .. 46/ Duteh Two-and-a-Half .• ••• 611 .. 614 .. 611 . 611 Neapolitan. ....... .... • .. 9S 60 .. 98 90 •. 98 60 .• 98 90 Boman . •• RAILWAY SHARES. VersaMes,L.B........ ..... 250 .. 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75 Rouen Rouen to Havre.. ••••• • • • 770 . • 772 50 .. 770 .. 772 50 O r l ean s „. „ ..............1000 •.1003 75 ..1000 ..1002 50 Strasburg M Bale . 248 25 .• 246 25 .. 241 25 .. 242 50 Avignon to Marseilles...." 775 .. 775 775 . 775 RAILWAY SHARES FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15ra JULY. St. Germain Versailles, R.B. ••••• . 380 .. 380 .. 380 .. 380 L.B.•••••• Rouen . ....... —. • —.1006 ..1000 —lOO2 50 ..1002 50 Rouen to Havre.. 772 50 .. 772 50 .. 763 75 .. 770 Strasburg to Bale • • Avignon to Marseilles .. THIS.- DAY'S NEWS. QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice WtourstAlt and a • : Special Jury.) CURLING AND TOVNO V. COLLINS, PRYCE, WARBURTON, AND OTHERS. Mr. Whately, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby appeared fbr the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Price for the defendants. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well knovn ship-builders, at Limehouse, against the defendants, sharehoMers in the once cel e brated British and North Ame rican Steam4NP Company, to recover a s um of 1,744/., the amount alleged to be due for repairs done to the British Queen steamer, once t 11,7 nroperty of the Company alluded to, Z! but since sold by them to . the Belgian Go vernment. It was stated to the Court by the Learne Counsel for the plaintiffs to take such a sum from each one of the . %event' defendants as he might have been, by the non-paymen: hiLealls, in debted to the association itself. Should counsel for ,L'a defend ants wisely consent to this arrangement, then the questiO for the Court and jury, would be merely one of liability. Counsei for the defendants at once admitted this to be a very hand some offer, and would not therefore trouble the plaintiffs to prove the various items of account, but would confine their efforts to contesting the question of liability. Upon this evi dence was at once adduced to show that all the defendants had signed the deed of partnership with the exception of Collins, and that he (Collins), as well as the rest of the de fendants, were all of them shareholders in the Company. On behalf of Warburton, witnesses were put into the box to prove that the handwriting of Warburton to the deed was not the handwriting of the present defendant to the action, Peter Warburton ; and it was urged generally for the other defendants, that they had not held themselves out to the world as responsible parties in connexion with the British and North American Steam-ship Company. The jury, how ever, found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, for the several amounts due and unpaid by them as shareholders in the Company. EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF BARox and a Special Jury.) HALIFAX AND OTHERS v. VERNON. Mr. Erle, Mr. Watson, and Dir. Bovill, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Unthank, for the defendants. This was an action brought by the eminent firm of Glyn, Halifax, and Co., bankers, to recover the sum of 4,1371. 17s. 10d. from the defendant, Colonel Vernon, M.P., alleged to be a shareholder in the well-known Talacre Coal and Iron Com pany. The case appeared of a very intricate character, and likely to occupy the Court Yery many hours in its unravelling. When our reporter left Mr. Warwick Werton, jun., was under cross-examination, a determined effort being made to extract admission from him that several sums of money, subscribed by shareholders to the Talacre Company, had, by witnesses father, in conjunction with Alderman Thomas Wood, been applied to the purposes of the St. George's Harbour Com pany. Many strange disclosures were expected to be made before the conclusion of the case. COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL and a Special Jury.) YOUNG v. WILCOX. _ _ This case, which is an action to recover for repairs of damage done to, a ship-yard and dock, was partly heard yes terday, and was resumed by the Court this morning. The trial, which presents not the slightest feature of interest or importance to the public, was likely to occupy many more hours than those already consumed in its hearing. MONEYAND COMMERCIAL NEWS. CITY, QUARTER TO THREE. The Cotton Market at Liverpool yesterday was quieter. Sales, 5,000 bales, at steady rates, including 500 Surat, at p 1 3d. to 31d. ; 500 Perham , at ad.to bad ; 200 B a hi a , at 51d. to d Bi r mingham and Liverpool , and Manchester Shares were in good demand, Chester and Birkenhead, 291; Eastern Perpetu al, 1/. 13s. 4d . ; Grand Junction , 227 ; Ditto New, 41; Hull an d Selb y Quarter, ni ; Liverpool and 6.; and 1W butE Egyptian, othersti an, a quiet.t6d. to c 714—Grand unction, Manchester, 231.; Ditto, 32/. Shares, 381 ; Ditto Quarter Shares, 26* ; Manchester and Bury, 3* ; Midland Counties, 95 ; North Midland, 95 ; Ditto Half, 47* ; North Union, 971; South Eastern, 351 • , York and North Midland Half, 201 Paris and Lyons, 2/. 15s. ; Paris and Strasburg, 3811. Arrivals from Australia bring news to the 20th March from Van Diemen's Land, where trade was rather improving* though for a long time to come the utmost caution will be necessary in making shipments to the Australian colonies. Sydney is evidently suffering the most, as up to the latest date' insolvencies continued there. We learn from New Zealand, under date of the 27th of January, that Governor Fitzroy, was determined to deal accordin to law with the natives concerned in the Wairau massacre. The Funds, owing to an anticipated good revenue return, are again very firm, and there is a steady business doing. Consols have touched 981 1. The Three per Cent. Reduced Annuities 991 to 8 ; the Three -and-a-Half per Cents. 1021 tol, and South Sea Annuities 981. Bank Stock has been firm at the improvement to 198 and 199. Exchequer Bills realised 745. to 765. premium, supporting the improvement of yesterday. East India Bonds are 965. premium. A rally has occurred in the value of Spanish Bonds, Which are marked 231 1 for the Five per Cents., and 331 1 for the Three per Cents. Mexican, are 351 to 1; Dutch Two-and= a-Half per Cents, are firm at 61; and Russian at 112. The Railway Shares are steady, and a moderate business is doing. Great Western obtain 501 to 511 ; Birmingham, 1221 to 123 ; Ditto, New Thirds, 35 to tol ; Bristol and Glou cester, 16 to 1; Norwich and Brandon, 5* ; and South-East- ' ern, 11 to 1/ premium. Blackwall are 91 discount. London and Westminster Bank Shares are 6 premium. BRITISH FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOC. Bank Stock fo r (Fr Account om the (Ra K cial List.) 198 199 sss 3 per Cent. Reduced Annuities 99" 334 per Cent. Reduced Annuities 102%34 India Bonds,l,ooo .. ..... ... _ i • Ditto under 1 , 000 ................ ". " . " 95 South Sea Stock '""'"''" .— Ditto Old Annuities Consols for Open ng ..,..».».«.«.«.«.»....« ggNii Exchequer Bills, I%d. 1)6(1 ' 1,0001. •••••••I •••••••••••••••• ..' •••••••••••• 74 pm. .."'"'" 7a pm. Ditto 5mai1...... " ...... .... •-•• ... ...... .1. • - 7,1 r mi. — . Ditto Advertised. —. Pm FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Mexican Bonds, 1 837, 5 er Cent. Ditto for the Account, S 5 ..... ' 3s l' Russian Bonds, Imo, s per Cent 119 Spanish Bonds, Five per Cent 1840 s ., 23 Vsoi Ditto for the Account. ******** " Ditto Three per Cent. . ..." 334% Ditto for the Account—::::"."... '"''' ***** 33 54.- Dutch 2% per Ce ts "*"...."... 61 n ...... ****** ........ ....... ..... Dutch 5 per Cents PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE. RAILWAYS. PAID. ?SR SRAM 1 Bristol and Gloucester 3O ......... 46 1 % Chester and Holyhead Eastern Counties .... .......... 93 .....» ll Great W estern . .... -:----- ..... 75 .... ..... 126 ' Ditto Fifths • •••""'"' " '».. 12 Loudon and Birmingham. lOO .222 Ditto New Thirds 9 ... ...... 373( % ... to Ditto k Shares 2 ......... 26% ...... to London and Black wa l l 16% ...... 750 Norwich and Brandon South Eastern and Dover • 9 e% ...... 35 Ditto New '''''''' 4 .... le% % ... to Trent Valley .. . . 2 ......... 9%......... to 10 York and North . iiaizd . — . 7: 6 2,,•••••:•• - t. - Ditto Scarboro' Branch ..."..• ••• '';' '. " 21 Orleans, Tours, and Bordeaux ... .. - ..... '''' itii to Paris and Orleans ..". .... 20 to Parisand R0uen.........7 ............ 20 ......... 39U . 54 Joixr sTOCIL BANKS. London and Westminster ....... ~. 20 MANCHESTER S TOCK E xcIiA NGF,, JULY 4.—The business to-day is by no means extensive, but the market exhibits a firmer appearance. Eastern Counties, Registered, 131 ; Lon don and Birmingham, 221 to 223 ; Manchester and Binning ham, Quarters, 3i premium ,• Manchester and Leeds, Half Shares, 44 ; South- Eastern, 3411; Trent Valley, 8* i. DEATH OE M. 0 oCHOLEFIELD, MEMBER FOR BIR MINGIIA3I.—We regret to announce the death of this gentle by paralysis on Minh Which took place at his residence in Manchester buildings, at 3 41E4 yesterday afterP9oP• Ile Yr4s Atackeil once pronounced to be anptless• Few men were more this day se'nnight, Wid ills recoveTy Tr4s esteemed in private life than the deceased Member for Bir mingham, and 1 1 6 has left 0 w i l low 841(1 SOYCIAI ellii4r01:1 tg lament hiA lOSS,:-.-7'fpie+l, WHITE SPARBON4.—AbcAIt three weeds ago a lad residing at con tained live young ones, foil! . of them perfectly white, the fifth administer *d to their yonod .of the natural colour • they were secured in a cage, and so fed brown." the : othed the placed that 04gi PPW4 Iv fed by the parent birds, both of rPwaY, Dorset. took a s parrowisnest, which Which were constant in ' dally attendance, and evinced' the both the parent biro The four white ones bait greatest anxiety and iMpatience until' were permitted io are trrovin.' The' ve, in the mine cage, are itt the posses3iori or 4c,t, Rolls 'ott l ith I.b. t . Niretacult. • i '. ! . . . natural COTOlir ; . THE STATE TRIALS (SECOND DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) THE QI7ZEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHER 3. Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the arguments in the above case. Counsel having been called on, Mr. Prsioom said that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or to make any observations on that part of the case which related to the generality of the counts, but he would en deavour to sllow their Lordships that judgmedt had been given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had been charged against them in the indictment, and he would submit to their Lordships that in cases where punishment was discretionary, and where it appeared that the court had given any . part of the judgment fur offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences badly . charged in the indictment, it was a ground for reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict having been entered in the way it was on the third count. He would also submit that the judgment was bad for want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of the indictment of which the jury had found the parties not guilty ; and finally, he would submit that judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their Lordships had no power to amend the judg ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be fore their Lordships could pass their judgment, and that as punishment was discretionary with the court which tried the parties, that their Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment. With regard to the first point, he would submit that the parties had been found guilty of three several and dis tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three distinct conspiracies under the second count, sad that under each the parties were charged with one offence. The case would be simplified by treating this part of it as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be cause the second count was the same as the first, with the exception that it set out the overt acts. Their Lordships would observe that by the second count nine persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire, confederate. and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and diaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Ma jesty's subjects in. the other parts of the said United Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said United Kingdom called England." Now he would not contend that the jury were not justified, under this count, in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others guilty of a distinct and separate conspiracy. The jury found the parties guilty of one thing, and then they found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing ; 'hey found them guilty of so much as charged them with to cause others to meet, but they acquitted Ul na"'m of coliniring unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi tiously to procure SSIld assist them to meet. The LORD CHANCEL; O B—Are you quite sure that is in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement in the case. Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordships that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77. He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with the other parties. The words of the finding were— " And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said first and second counts of the said indictment, respec tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilt) of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr. Tierney, but with 'each other and divers persons un known. The words of this part of the finding were these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say that the said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, John Gray,and Richard Barrett, are, and each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend ing and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in the tribunah duly and lawfully constituted for the administration of justice, and further contriving, intending and devis ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra tion of great physical force, to procure and effect changes to be made in the government, laws and Constitution of this realm .as by law established, did un lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown, to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at vs rious times and in different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition, and 'demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and Constitution of this realm as by law established ; and further, to, bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta blished in Ireland for 'the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with a nd claims upon each other from the cognizance of the said Courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said residue of the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is so above charged." So that they were found guilty of conspiring on what he would call No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3. Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven without the eighth were found guilty of charge No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind. Then with regard to the residue of the remain der the jury acquitted all the defendants except Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with regard to this third part none were found guilty of con spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus— " And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said premises in the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously in tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising, and intending to create discontent and disaffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army, did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac quitted except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy. They were found guilty of conspiring with each other but not with the other six. If that were an offence punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there was still something behind, and of that the jury found Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:--" And as to other the premises in the said remainder of the said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof." They were not found guilty of conspiring to cause seditious and un lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were " And further to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure, and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici ously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstra tion of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the govern merit, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by law established ; and further to bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire land for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege sub . je cts in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjadication of their differences with, ar.d Claims upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said court s by law established, and to sulisnit the same to the judg ment and uptervaipation of other tribunals, to be consti tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crows). and dignity. While the finding was, that they did lawfully and seditiotislf combine, arid dpUseira .' 4 .6 e' a i le cll iers subjects of 'her Majeity meet, th e y w ' prenbt: foilfid guilty of causing them " unlawfully and tiously" 'to meet, which are the werds of We indictment, and, thetefore, 'they are acquitte d' of that 11004.91 'the charge. ' ' • Lord BROUGHAIVI—The words of the finding are " to I meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and se ditious purpose," The LORI) CHANCELLOR—As I understand the objet- Lion, it is, that they are not found guilty of having con spired unlawfully and seditiously to meet for an unlaw ful and seditious object. Mr. PEACOCK said that was the case. Daniel O'Connell, Barrett and Duffy were found guilty of so much of the residue of the remainder as related te the charge of endeavouring to corrupt the army ; bat they were acquitted of something, and he contended that this was the portion of which they were acquitted. Mr. Tierney was acquitted of the greater portion. Five were ac quitted of that portion relating to the corruption of the army, and three of the rest of the charge. The LORD Cnateem.toe—Does not that mean that the three Were found guilty of all ? Mr. PtacocK--No.They were acquitted of something— of all the residue of the remainder. Now they were charged with conspiring, unlawfully, and seditiously to meet : they were found guilty ofconspiring to cause to meet. The LORD CHANCELLOR—To cause them to meet for an unlawful and seditious purpose? Mr. reaccicx—Yes, my Lord. The jury had pro fessed, however, to find them not guilty of that offence; they had found them guilty of all the residue of the re mainder except that, and they must, therefore, have in tended to find them not guilty of something. There was also another part of the residue of the remainder : the parties were not only charged with conspiring with acl other, but with Mr. Tierney. It was clear that such a conspiracj , might take place ; but the death of one of the conspirators could not acquit the others, and yet by the verdict, of the jury all were acquitted A* the charge of conspiring with Mr. Tierney. They were found guilty of conspiring with eight persons, and not with the ninth. Now those very parties might be indicted to-morrow with conspiring with Mr. Tierney ; and what had they got to defend themselves with but the finding of the jury ? The LORD CHANCELLOR— Suppose they were indicted with conspiring with Mr. Tyrrell ? Mr. PEACOCK—The finding of the jury would be a t reed answer, but he should have to deal with that more fully by and bye. Now although the jury had found them not guilty of that part of the charge, the Court had given no judgment of acquittal. The jury had also found Mr. Tierney not guilty of certain parts of the indictment, and the Attorney-General bad entered a nolle prosequi ; but there still remained in the indictment five persons who had been acquitted of attempting to excite discontent ;n the army • those persons were John O'Connell, Mr.. Steele, Dr. Gray, and Mr. Ray, and the Court in giving judgment upon them gave it for that on which they had been 'found guilty, but they had given no judgment of acquittal. He submitted that on this finding eight persons had been found guilty of a joint conspiracy, No. 1. Seven were found guilty of conspi racy with each other, but not with the eighth, to do No. 2. Three bad been found guilty of conspiracy with each other, but not with any other parties, to do No. 3. He supposed his Learned Friend the Attorney-General 'would contend that it was an offence to excite discontent in the army. If that was so, Daniel O'Conuell, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. 'Barrett had been found only guilty of it ; and how could that be said to be any portion of the conspiracy of the eight to do some thing else, that was no portion of the conspiracy of the three to raise discontent in the army ? Unless the Attorney-General could say that it was an offence— unless he could do that he could not support the finding of the jury. The jury had found the parties guilty of three conspiracies, and the jury had given judgment against the parties for three conspiracies, in which they had been found guilty on the first count. Which of the three offences was the punishment for, if it was not for the whole ? And if it was for the whole then Mr. O'Connell had been convicted of three offences under one indictment that only charged him with one. Was it to be supposed that the Court would give the same amount of punishment to a man that was found guilty of one conspiracy as it would upon a man who had been found guilty of fifteen? The Court, it was true, in cases of misdemeanour, had a discretionary punishment, and in the exercise of that discretion they had sentenced Mr. O'Connell to a year's imprisonment and a large fine. Mr. John O'Connell not having been found guilty of conspiring to cause discontent in the army, was to have nine months ; whereas Daniel O'Connell, who had been found guilty of the same offence, was to have one year's imprisonment and pay double the amount of fine. Why was that ? Was it not because Mr. Daniel O'Connell was considered by the Court to have been guilty of a greater number of offences, though their nature was the same, than Mr. John O'Connell ? The one had been found guilty of simple conspiracy, the other of endea vouring to cause discontent in the army. Therefore he thought their Lordships must assume that the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, in apportioning the punish, went, had taken into consideration the finding of the jury, and the extent to which the defendants had been found guilty ; and he submitted that if they had passed judgment upon the defendants for se veral offences for which ' they, bad never been indicted, and which had never been presented Against them by the grand jury, their punishment had been aggravated by the finding of the common jury upon the first count, and that consequently judgment had been pronounced against them for a greater number of offences than they had been found guilty of. The jury naving acquitted some of the parties of a conspiracy, to ause discontent in the army, and the petty jury having found them not guilty of that conspiracy, he appre hended that the conspiracy of which the others had been found guilty was a separate and distinct conspiracy, and that the conspiracy to cause discontent in the army was a separate and distinct conspiracy from that of which they were found guilty conjointly with the other five in the first part of this finding. Suppose seven persons were to go into one room and conspire to do certain ' things. Three of them said " Let us all conspire to do two things." The other four said, " No, we'll not go to the extent of No. 1, but we'll go the extent of No. 2." In that case, he contended, the three would not be guilty of conspir ing to do. No. 1 and No. 2. The conspiracy, inslaw, de pended not on the act, but on the combination and agree ment between the parties. If seven parties agreed to do one thing, it was perfectly distinct from an agreement between three of them to do another thing ; it was a distinct conspiracy and separate offence. He thought he could not better illustrate this than by reading the charge of Mr. Baron Rolfe to the jury who tried Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The Learned Counsel then read an extract from the charge. The Judge said, that in order to convict all or three of the defendants, they must con vict them of one and the same conspiracy. If they thought that all the defendants, or any number of them, had combined together for the purpose of carrying the Charter, and some of them said, " I will not use any violence, I will give no countenance to any thing hut voluntary abstinence from labour ;" an d others said, " I will give my countenance not only to voluntary, but also to forced abstinence ;" if they found the parties all agreeing in one act they might convict them all upon separate ceunts. So here, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, might have been found guilty—assuming the evidence to be sufficient— under separate and distinct counts, of having - conspired together to cause discontent in the army. But having been found guilty under the first count of one joint offence, they could not afterwards be found guilty of a separate and distinct offence. Lord CAMPBELL—The question is whether it was a separate and distinct offence, or a part of the general offence. Mr. PEACOCK—Suppose all of them had been found guilty of conspiring to create discontent in the army, except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and then Mr. Daniel O'Connell himself had been found guilty of conspiring to cause discontent in the army. Would that be a good conspiracy ? One person could not conspire. If Mr. Daniel O'Connell was found guilty of alone conspiring to create discontent in the army, that finding was faulty. With whom did he conspire ? Certainly not with the others, who were not fouled guilty of conspiring with him. If Mr. Daniel O'Connell had alone been found guilty of conspiring to cause discontent in the army, the finding that the other seven were guilty of some other conspi racy, would not support the finding as to Mr. Daniel O'Connell of being- guilty of conspiring to cause dis content in the army. If that were so, then Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the others, were found guilty of three distinct offences. Now, the same rule, he believed, held in every case, in civil cases as well as in criminal. If several - persons were charged in an action of trespass, with a joint trespass, and some of them were found guilty of part of the trespass, but all could not be found guilty jointly of part, each must then be found guilty of nome other part separately. Unless their Lordships could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy be tween eight persons to di one thing, was the same as a conspiracy between other persons to do another thing, he thought their Lordships would agree with him in what he had stated. The grand jury had presented ten offences, and the common jury had found the parties guilty of fifteen. In one action for trespass in which several parties are charged with one joint offence, which is proved against some of them, and not against another, the jury roust acquit him. He quoted, in support of his argument, the case of Heron, Alexander, and others (3d Campbell's Reports, p. 35), in which Lord Ellemborough said, that they could not find one prisoner guilty of a separate offence ; and the other two guilty of one offence, Ile believed that the rule was universally adopted hi e f a ut u of justice. It was impossible to cite any (ze,eel either criminal or civil, in which several partit s charged sith one joint trespass, and the whole of them are found guilty of a part of the trespass, each of them is found guilty of separate parts of the same offence. If a jury could go into that, it might go into as many conspiracies as it pleased ; and by ringing the changes on all the charges of the indictment, it might find Mr. O'Connell guilty of a hundred conspiracies ; whereas, when the defendants have been found guilty of one joint conspi racy, the count is, as it wer9 4 ;:eihansted, and the jury had no right to go ell tinging them guilty of any more. Mr. p. O'Connell was thus found guilty of three offences; he did not mean to say that be might not have been found guilty of nay one of theta ; he would not go ilito that point, but he contended that ' elle pally ought to be found guilty of more than one offence. die submitted that defendants could not be found guilty of cite joint offence and then guilty of sepa rate anti distinct offences. The next point was the tinaing on the third count, which charged all the defen dants with " unlaa fully, maliciously, and seditiously, contriving, intending, and devising to raise and create , discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjec,4 4 our said Lady the gaen, and to excite liege subjects to, hatred and contemp t 00vt-r nmen t an d constitution of law established, and to .2:echo littO:ed, &4114ic!!', and ill-will amongst different shidsubjects, and to mate discontent and • ill4nffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst otherS . her 'Majesty's subjects serving in her Maiesty's the LORD CHANoELLoft.,-,Have you left your first point ? Pv : Acoc4 l 4 4 4kixil Lord,: The LORD CuANcELLon—Then now enunciate yoi (cond. cur Mr. PEACOCK proposed on this point to show that the verdict on this count fOund Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found the other five defendants not guilty of conspiring with the former three. The verdict in that respect, therefore , was repugnant. The verdict was bad on account Of its ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding three persons guilty of conspiring with six others, when four of these others were found not guilty of conspiring at all. The rule of law was this, that if a party is once Put on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a one, as to prevent that p erson f rom b e i ng put on hi s t r ial again for that same offence. The verdict must be such an answer on the judgment, that on a second trial the prisoner shall be able to plead either previously convict or previously acquit. He cited the case of ‘• Hunger' ford in 2d East, 518," in which the prisoner was indicted for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to the value of 61. The verdict found him not guilty of the burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence of death was passed. The case was reserved for the con sideration of the judges, who held that the finding was sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the env) , should have been "not guilty of breaking open h night," as that would have been mo re dis tinct. It appeared to be the constant cou!s• in indictments for murder, in which there was a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, to enter the finding as not guilty of the murder and guilty of the manslaughter, or of killing and slaying, although the charge of murderin cluded the killing and slaying ; therefore, though the finding of the jury might warrant the officer in entering judgment, still he did not enter up the judgment so se to appear distinct. Now the question was, what was lb! meaning of the words—" Guilty of the premises ? Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found guilth with other persons, to do several things. They were found guilty of `the premises—that was, guilty of con spiring with each other. If one person was indicted far conspiring with another, and divers other persons un known : say that A and B were indicted for conspiring with each other, and divers others unknown, and that 1 3 was . acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the entry of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiriug with persons unknown, not that he was guilty of cote spiring with B and persons unknown, sad therefore the entry of the verdict would be, that A was pig of conspiring with persons unknown, B not guilty. But the verdict here was "guilty not the premises," that was to say, guilty conspiring the other way. Whether it was that the jury found the eight guilty of conspiring together. though they found four not guilty, or whether they meant to Lind t he whole eight guilty, be did not know. The LORD CHANCELLOR—IS it an objection to the • finding that it is argumentative of the inference fro. the argument being clear ? Mr. PEACOCK said it was not clear what the pal meant here. The LORD CHANCELLOR said this branched itself into two points—one was, whether it was an objection to th' finding that it was argumentative if the inference clear ; the next was, whether it was clear. Mr. PEACOCK said that if it was certain what the jutl meant, he did not apprehend that it would be an objec: Lion ; but where it was not certain, the finding was W . ,. Lord CAMPBXLL—There is another wa y i n which this may be viewed. The jury are to find a true verclio 4 according to the evidence. This might be to shop that A, B, and C, conspired with D upon their 0 4- acknowledgment, so that there would be no evidenc e against D, and D would be acquitted of the conspirs4 with A, B, and C. Mr. PEAcoci—That was what he wanted to shelf their Lordships. Supposing that A and B were dieted for conspiracy together, leaving out the us°"" words, " with others unkown." Suppose that A ee r s fessed that he was guilty of consp i racy w i th 134 would be no evidence upon which to convict B, but it would be evidence to convict A. But if there was failure of the evidence against B in point of law, A could not be convicted, because it was a contradictory flails! in the record. If A, B, and C, w ere c h arge d w ith " joint conspiracy, A and B could not be found guill of conspiring with C in th e same ver di ct i n w hi c h C found not guilty of conspiring with them. The LORD CHA.NcELLoß—Supposii,g that A is ins dieted for conspire 7 with B and C, and that he M I ; fessed he conspired with B and C, and that the jutry upon the trial find that C is not guilty, because there I I : no evidence against him ; and then, supposing that and B are guilty of the premises, and in the same fie" icg it is found that C is not guilty, * would not that do? Mr. PEACOCK submitted it Would not. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The meaning of " Noti Guilty" in that case must be, that there Was no eviden t to find them guilty. Mr. PEACOCK submitted it would not be suffieie l ; The verdict, if it was o n e , an d on one record, mu st 4 consistent. The jury could not , upon t h e confessionty/ Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, an d D u ff y , fi n d t h em g°ii of conspiring with others. What they should find I v o that they were nut guilty o f consp i r i ng w i t h e 4 0 j other. They w e r e t o look to the finding of the jui•YelA they must presume th a t th e j ury meant w h a t found, for, if there was a difference, the recu lij a would be entered u p accor di ng l y, and therefore it oula only be on the conf ess i on o f t h e t h ree that they et'ore be found guilty of conspiring with others, when esi , others were not found guilty of conspiring with th (The Learned Gentleman then quoted " Cogla Digest," title Pleader, s. p. 23, to show that a vei; which was repugnant was void ; a n d a l so 2d Havvillub, Pleas of the Crown, b. 2, p. 47, s . 8.) H e wou ld s mit that if a person con f esse d t o consp i racy w i th all olß h,t, L o but if the jury for want of evidence foetal that P er- 10 not guilty, that the conf ess i on o f t h e other wou ld void, because the r ecor d wou ld b e repugnant ; for if confessed to be guilty of conspiracy with B, and 0 r found not guilty, A co u ld no t b e f oun d gu il ty of con'Pre". ing with B, for there would b e a re p ugnancy on the, 0 cord. So when in an indictment A was c h a rgetioj . principal, and B as accessory, if A was acquitted, 13 ee io not be found guilty ; even it' B con f esse d t h at A wastre principal, and that lie had been a ccessor y, b ecaus e tin; would be a repugnancy o n th e recor d i f i t sa id that was guilty as accessory to it, and yet th a t A WO guilty as principal. ti The LOAD CHANCELLOR—The question is, how - that be since the alteration of the law ? You have authority, I suppose, sin ce th e a l terat i on of the law , Mr. PEAcocH apprehended that the alteration of t o t law, by which acc essor i es cou ld b e convicted w it" ,„ - the conviction of the principals, would not make - f r .difference if both parties were included in the same t v cord. The acce ssory m i g h t b e convicted upon a 6:„ 1,1" rate record, but h e cou ld not found guilty i n the 6 ,, 0 t record which acqu i tte d hi s principal, inasmuch as t" if would then be a repugnancy in the record. Th er efore! oo certain parties were f oun d gu i lty on their own con f e ss l o of a joint conspiracy with others, and those other Pe r n it were acquitted, the verdict against those parties 0 0 w ,,, own confession cou ld no t stan d, b ecause there would a repugnancy on the record. eif l 4 l The Lop CHANCELLOR--Does not the P- 11 00 0 apply here that the Court can correct any replig° it they can show clearly what the jury intended. fe r Mr. I'EA COCK apprehended that th a t w a s an merit in his favour, because, if the repugnancy lowoel existed in fact, th e C ourt cou ld not h ave correcte d it . "•, 1 were bound to h a ve it th a t .h e C ourt h ad entercoe verdict accordi ng to t h e trut h • an d f i nding of the cso The Court did not take it as a minute of the jury' l ol they entered it according to the actual finding to de`' to a court of error what that real finding was. tis The LORD CHANCELLOR--I believe the finding ° I) , iti record must be presum e d t o b e t h e very wor d s e' t , jure. Mr. PEACOCK h a d b e f ore di rected their Lordsbe Aws attention to Comyn's Dig e st on argumentat i ve ver" It was there stated that verdicts founded on argette and inference are void. (The Learned Counsel l est quoted sev era l cases from Comyn's Digest and '7O O Abridgement, in support of his position.) In li c ;1 1 23d of Comy n ' s Di gest, it was said, '• So if a veR ' repugnant, it i s vo id . " (The Learned Counsel sbo.,4sfi quoted several cases in which verdicts had been tie ° l td void on the groun d o f repugnancy.) He suisl i that in the pr esent case t h e verdict aus repugna°ti, 00/ else that it required argument to show that it Nvin t .i; repugnant. If i t was repugnant, it was void, on o '' p s was only not repugnant by reason of its 0 11 , argumentative, th en i t was vo i d for being4t4 argumentative verdict. If t h e ver di ct were taken 011 as an argument to show that these parties had ogle guilty of conspiring with each other, there was 11 0 iro d meta to sh..w it' the partie s h a d entere d i nto a consi'doo with each other, or with Mr. Tyrrell, who was 31t. Were they g u ilty or not guilty of c o n s p ir i ng wit h ,81 Tyrrell ? The verdict was uncertain, am biguous' unargumentative ; and if it was nut i ntended to sayot) ther they were guilty or not guilty of conspirii4 oltl i re Mr. Tyrrell, then it was b a d , b ecause it did nut 01 116 , whole matter a t i ssue. In Comyn's ]sign's"i tiPj " Pleader," i t was l a id down that a, verdict .;•.as ' 1 0" nothing as to the remainder, to the whole, if it found only p art o f th - e. issue and fof laid down that a ver , i; - ' that was " Coke upon Little t- in which . ' 14 ambiguLlusly .on 227 A, t au - thority: r s ta tu i t : e t : l : . ..ct finding matter mice . insufficient, and nojudgment 0,1 4 / given o'':*reon. For these reasons he (Mr.o f sn_ailitted that the verdict upon the third colle t 's/1,cl; void, either for repugnance, or ambiguity, or 00 . , er clie ing upon the whole matter charged, .and if the ' was void on that count, then he submitted that th e : 0 0 11 ,_; ment was also vo id, b ecause some port i on o f the toliPe ment.must have been given in consequence of the 4 "beil the party guilty on that count, and the judgrue° l ', ate; void as to that count, was void altogether, hti m peti l Lordships could not say how much uf the pulli s 'i r tie .6 had been given in consequence' of the finding the !iv , 1 1 guilty on that count. This objection applied F it; the sixth and all subsequent counts. The tried s liir to which he wo u ld ca ll the attention of their If!! util , was, that upo n t h e reccrd there was a disc onu°Tb between the finding of the verdict and the s entenc e ' venire was retu rna bl e on the 15th January, and tirci y ,; 0 8 day " the said j urors of the said jury so empalU' ay aforesaid, being duly elected, tried, and sworn.' , ,o the truth of th e several matters in the infl'ictme° t iett ° o said specifi e d an d charged agai ,t the said ,r O'Connell, J o h n O'Connell , themes Steele, ,e - boll i ",f Mathew Ray, Ch r.:bol' i or Gavan Duffy, th e Rev. ;O s Tierney, Jobe ‘e.e.. ray, a n d Ri c h ar d Barrett, the 10 A t) the i 6 Al::es as aferesaid by the jurors aforesaitL iv - stud court here before the Queen herself; is do 'Jai tinued until and upon Wednesday the thirty-fir st ,' dot aanuary, in the year of our Lord one thous's° s i 5 hundred and fo r ty-f our ; and now at this d ay , th for 4 1 say, on th e sa id t hi rty -first day of January trio much as it app ears to the Court here tha t , t' s ' o •t of the sa id i ssues so joined as afe r b '„ e t/ 0 0, s not, nor can the said trial thereof h . / eluded on thi s same day it is ordered , i ;d 0 0j said court here, th at t h e said jurors so emnall e) : sh clf.i sworn to try th e sa id i ssues s h all have leayo *i d l the said ju rors s h a l l o this same d a y f rom t h e b ar of this coif, hat.,sis court here ya the - opt bQ -wrrow, that is to say, , , • u g ai l ) P. me to the bar of I °. ‘ clPi (1 1 Gr e,.t file ~Lr pre Ipd I), Th any the tioi ere cha t Were f went The ag a ri Air. of the that made added Lrij, rc a eert, Th e that tl the 4i but t f : eertai i Th e fur t{ u of .„e