The Sun. — London, England, 1844-09-04 00:00:00

wir o s , The di s ti n • , "eY must assume, unless the contrary, ws th at etl3' shown, that what the judges had done in a cct r es was to enter up judgment on the good aii4o l count. Upon a writ of error they were not They to conjecture or decide upon probability. ,1 10 13" must look to the record, and unless the record toirie.adtionrigthe face of it a manifest error in the aps of punishment they could not reverse the )sd grae nt• That was said by one of the learned anci g,es who was in favour of arresting the judgment, 143 ' ) 3 7 consulting the terms in which the judgment to o P r onounced, t h ey wou ld fi n d t h a t th e ju d ge s meat this into th e i r cons id e r a tion when judg fore, w as pronounced. They should not, there sleet ran the hazard of reversing a judg take ' u pon a point which it appeared was 1414 into consideration by the judges when judg theeovras pron ounce d ; an d, i n d e p en dently of this, let th ee look to the record itself, and see whether in the tak e it there was any ground for the objection NC Every record must be construed according to retor gal op erat i on. They could not go ou t o f th e rs ent ci s Now, wh a t was th e judgment? The judg part; In this case was, t h at t h e cour t a dj u dged the 11 , 4 'es for their offence aforesaid to be fined and ims eo rd ° ! le cl• There were two of the counts defective ac heeling to the unanimous opinion of the judges, eoa st llse they charged no offence. Could they then, ruingthe the re cor d according to the language of th e record and the legal interpretation of it, when the Judgment of the judgment were for offences, say that th'imgnlent applied to those counts which bore on th at le e of them no, offence whatever ? He would say sire w ns as inconsistent and incongruous, and he was st tee ; i 'elr Lordships would not sanction such a see con sosit°n• The Learned Baron who was in the mi aes 3' med to feel the force of that, and gave no s f i w t er to it. B u t h e a tt e mpted to obviate the force er r° hY referring to the other counts which were not Ive r ne°ll s in themselves, but on which the findings It vi a defecti ve , an d t h e en t er i ng o f th em erroneous. ess e as the unanimous opinion of the judges, and he of shined with them in that respect, that the findings wes e lJ a rY, which could not:be sustained, and which eos a ireneoua, were altogether null and void. He and" e red that such findings were no findings at all, to that a good count upon which there was eo tthf s4 ing was the same thing as a bad It ‘i „ -- On which there was a good finding. th e as a mere nullity—it was not for the offence upon sd s ree erd, but upon the finding of guilty. Now, he e Pted the op i n i on o f t h e j u d ges th a t th e fi n dings were at all, Ruled the and, therefore, that there were no findings come Such were the conclusions to which he had Ras on on the record. He was of opinion, if the record es s6 P i r ,erly c ons t rue d, it would be considered as , aid. -11 T ing an award of judgment which was properly itself the present case, on the face of the record opi n he considered there were no defects, and in that loges he w as supporte d b y th e au th or ities of the first of the l an d. N ow , w h a t w ere the authorities? b' o " t he first was the case of the King v. Powell. h,„"ere the judges who presided on that occasion ? Taa s ', S nell men as Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice ke nt ln, and Mr. Justice Patteson. Now, the judg (leol i v 'at had been given in that case he considered , s. 4l ad s sL a Upon the present one. Another case that •th at — "ll referred to was that of the King v. Rolls. tis linf w as the case of an information for the suborna 1t on e Perjury, and in that case it was decided that gidg m assignment was good it would support the of ei shy nt, and it could not be invalidated on a writ Ras The third case that had been referred to court a t of the Queen v. Ingram, and in that case the n ci peided that the judgment was good if there ti l t 'Y a sufficient count to sustain it. But then ss e t,iles e , w i ere another class of cases upon writs of error 'ed then, to which he would now refer, and which Iver s a line same conclusion. It was said that there efiikrstinctions between cases in error and in arrest 1 1 4 en g ; nl, ent —he could not see that ; and in support of 'itlir` a „,'°ll he might advert to the case of the King v. reos e ,,that case was an indictment for obtaining tet e ,'" under false pretences; the judgment was en !hat b li „? and a writ of error was brought, and upon ' 1 44 s 'lng argued by Mr. Fielding, whom many of th e vv,,44ordships as well as himself could remember, ject er p t t of error was dismissed, and the two counts ob ,ei a ,T were declared to be valid. Such was the decision 'llls ti li",,Ten as Lord Kenyon and Mr. Justice Buller. that and Learned Lord then referred to the oh "lat n ofMr. Baron Parke on this case, and observed vilest e Learned Baron said thejudgment was a judg dl)3, the tr ansportation, which could only be supported dinar"w° counts. Now that was a most extraor 41tIlii, a nswer, for it made an additional objection. Were p twas a general judgment, and all the counts "vo e r,s and the judgment would apply only to nd ',lie counts, then, according to the principles ,ueet, e ;" e .t a for, that judgment would be erroneous, `ao 't was a general judgment sustained only by Riv en e( ! a nts. That was the answer attempted to b Onl So that there was an additional objection, not eo t i nt :",,ere the counts were defective, but even if the Psi n - i° 'lad been good the judgment, according to the is eh Nde in uestion would be an erroneous 4 becauseq it was , sustained only by two of the Therefore, he apprehended that that f a a strong and almost decisive authority in Iv : lir of the present judgment. But t h ere th e another authority, which occurred about hi _satne time, not quite so stringent an authority, but 14 0 ? exactly in the sa me direction. It occurred, he th e m F l ,d, the ye ar b e f ore. H e a ll u d e d t o th e case of it w K ing v. Mason." There was a good count, and o ve ns contended, and the count admitted, to be defec- Iles ea 13 Y whom wa s th a t c a s e argued? By R gen -lasi„ri whom they all remembered—a most acute Ritter, c onversant with every technicality connected Did A ine profession—he alluded to Mr. Marryat. coul d Marryat make the objection that this count adosi ti nl4 be s us t a i n ed ? There was a bad count No ed to be bad, and this was a general judgment. 41 1:' t4 thin Instead of doing that, he confined Did Mt to g. t hat 4 „ labouring the invalidity of the special count. `eat s i i "‘ that show what his opinion was ? Did not Zesisi st ( , ) w also what was the opinion of the court, ad alof the distinguished individuals to whom he 'etes a ; e adY referred ? If not, would they not have Poie'"td and said, " Why do you labour this to b Marryat, there is one count admitted , 4 141u7 and therefore the judgment cannot be sus or d There was another authority in the time of l 'essj' i don, the case of Hill, referred to by the at % s et ' Baron, That was the case of a person tried *l ee ; assizes f o r obtaining money under false pre- The indictment contained several counts. g e e r tY was found guilty ; he was sentenced, and a s to ;,, r al judgm en t was pronounced. The question tot a ii''e sufficiency of the counts came under the arg n ' e ration of all the judges. As the result of the tetis tl af en t, one of the counts was decided to be bad : mPo ti - : in that case there was :a general judgment e'er was record, c o nsisting of several counts, one of 'eeref vf as admitted to be bad. A writ of error, 11 1 "' e, under such circumstances would, according Jad s .' s doctrine, have prevailed. What ought the ti el M to have done after they had decided the ques taatt Accordi ng t o this doctrine they ought, as a %te r er of course, to have recommended the t hin g u " a pardon. Did they do so ? No such h i t a t i • The judgment was carried into effect. Zosse he not th en made out, by a host of he e s P e nding authorities, the position for which sipie°ntencled ? He said it depended on prin * kes'tnd that the record in this case was sufficient, Ilip,""ng to the legal authorities. The principle was 4 re 's' r rte d by the host of authorities to which he had the Court by L o rd Mansfield, in the first instance, in of King's Bench, by the subsequent autho the fiat an earlier period than Lord Mansfield, in sent the e of Lord Ilolt, and brought down to the pre elipone• No such objection was ever made, though es en ''uniti es for making the objection had constantly Dosi t , re d• Therefore it 'was perfectly clear that his ess il c 'n was c orrec t. Though the point had never all,' e xpressly for opinion before the judges, it had 1 4 4 4 8 been considered free from doubt—an estab- P°int of law. Difficulties had been urged, to d'leLLy h ai ll . e should for a moment refer. One was the pa rt. arising from a pardon—a pardon as to a sa s , was not at all necessary for him Ca use s ? single word upon that subject, be %aid th l the judges, even the dissenting judges, is t , nt ere 'as nothing in that agument. The argu- w k j , rai ow_ equally apply to an indictment upon ,sTjo et ; e°l lnts, where such of the counts was free from hat tts - " . It proved, therefore, too much, and on whi e h -c ollat it had no validity. Another difficulty whi c h h ad been insisted upon was the difficulty in Party would be placed on pleading autrefois rota he ghat h a d received a satisfactory answer ; `t• e learned judges; there was no foundation for Was on all case s o f pleas of that kind the question t vide e - ! °f identity of error. It was a question of s 4 eli eti 'e• Th e question was whether the corpus nix% which the party had been convicted, was That v e tl which the judgment could be affirmed. ,%irletiwea e, s a difficulty which could only be settled by whichand the o bj ec ti o n was not one, therefore, h ac f °u ld prev a il on the present occasion. Now, u eisi es been sa i d t h at t h ere was no express de ease°ll the subject. A word as to that. If g t hat ao were so clear, so free from doubt, e ntert ai en an, either b arr i s t e r, attorney, or judge, even point heed any scruples with respect to it—if the a nd r ee - : been uniformly and constantly acted upon „ d - • - gn'sad, was it to be said, because there was t ° be tthl " upon the point, that therefore it was not i tt L t ca'te e : ri „ nsidered as the law of the land ? Why, the ``'e led ts , this conclusion, that the more clear fai n , the more free from doubt, the more uncer that, would be. It was usage, practice, recognition, the 40evolistituted. the law of this country. Many of ackt ow 7 i r,les and opinions which were a part of the °Nile edged law of the land, were doctrines and Vain . 43 with respect to which they would look in he " tor an re e direct decision. The practice, the usage, isli s h i .,°sniti on , were considered as precedents esta- Nsl a i ni t,ig the l aw, and this was the foundation on Zt w" tile common law of was based. ,a s ad • , Mated in this case this coun that there never before was a doubt on the subject, and the Learned Baron confessed that he had heard the point for the first time with surprise. No case was cited, no authority referred to, no dictum, no text-writer for the objec tion which was now for the first time in this extra ordinary case advanced. Under these circumstances, would they, or would they not, recognise the decision of the great majority of the judges? As he had said before, that in a question of this kind of technical law, with which they were every day and every hour conversant—when they found a great majority of the judges, with that eminent lawyer, the Lord Chief Jus tice of the Court of Common Pleas, at their head, pro nouncing a clear, a distinct and decided opinion, nothing but a case free from all doubt—a conviction amounting to absolute certainty—could justify their Lordships in rejecting such authority. And it was, therefore, on these grounds, on the ground of authority for the reasons which he had humbly stated, on the ground of the recognition of this principle as a principle re• cognised in the law of England from time immemo rial, that he called upon their Lordships to resist this objection. He should say no more upon this point. He requested their Lordships, in supplement to his deficiencies, to refer to the papers upon their table, and to the able arguments which the judges had re ferred to on that subject, and he was quite satisfied that after a due and careful consideration of the whole subject, it was impossible that they could yield to this objection. With respect to the other points it was hardly necessary for him to say a word, and for this obvious reason,' that all the judges had concurred in the opinion, that the other objections could not be sustained. To one of these objections, however, he should very shortly advert, because he believed that his Noble and Learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, entertained a strong opinion as to that part of the case. The objection to which lie begged leave now to refer was the objection as to the jury, the challenge to the array. The court below had decided that the challenge to the array could not be sustained. The judges, when they had consulted on that occa sion, had unanimously decided that the challenge to the array could not be sustained. On looking into the law books he believed they would find that there was only one principle on which the challenge to the array had ever been allowed. It was something con nected either with the prosecution or the conduct of the officer by whom the jury were summoned. Lord Coke said that if the sheriff was unindifferent—if he was not equal between the parties—that was a ground of challenge to the array ; if he committed any fault in returning the jury, that also was a ground of chal lenge to the array ; if he was in such a situation as to lead, under certain circumstances, to an inference that he was in favour either of one side or the other, that, too, was a ground of challenge to the array. These were :the only grounds. They were confined to the sheriff, or the other officer, whoever he might be, who returned the jury. But in this case there was nothing on the record imput ing anything whatever to the sheriff. He was not stated to be indifferent—he was not stated to have committed any fault. It was not suggested that he was nct equal between the parties, or that there was anything in the nature of favour. There was nothing, therefore, upon that record, according to the law of the country, as laid down by all their best writers upon the subject, to raise the question of challenge to the array. He knew of nothing in any law-book, any decision, or any text-writer, that extended the challenge to the array beyond the limits he had men tioned. He would suppose, as was said by the Lord Chief Justice, the challenge to the array to be allowed. The writ must be sent to the coroner. What would the coroner do ?' Why he must pursue precisely the same course which had been pursued by the sheriff—he could not deviate from that course. It was said, " You might go to the last book—this book is defective, but you might go to the last one." He was quite satisfied that upon a proper construction of the Act of Parliament that would be impossible. When no book was made then the Act of Parliament gave power to adopt the last book : but when the book had been made up, as it had been in this case, it was not a case which came within the Ac tof Parliament, and the jury could not be selected from the last book. It was almost impossible, considering the number of jurymen inserted on the jury-books for the city of Dublin—it was almost impossible to suppose that mistakes would not constantly arise ; and the conse quence must therefore be, that the books would be defective ; and if they were to go back to the last book, in all probability that would be defective also. But was this a case without a remedy ? Undoubt edly not ; but the appeal to that tribunal was not the remedy which the law allowed. It had no authority to sanction it, and no decision to support it. What the remedy might be was not before their Lordships at present. They were dealing with the record only. The matter of inquiry which had been raised was, whether this was a remedy which the law had I pointed out for a defect of this kind, which had been alluded to. He was satisfied that it was not. He would not have addressed himself to this argument, if it had not been for the profound respect which he entertained for the opinion of his Noble and Learned Friend at the table (Lord Denman). The learned judges had'pronounced an unanimous opinion on the subject. That opinion corresponded with the opinion which had been pronounced in the courts below ; and for himself, he took the liberty to state, with al de ference for his Noble and Learned Friend, that he entertained no doubt respecting it. It was hardly necessary for him, under these circumstances, to refer to the averments on the record. There was, how ever, this single fact, which was remarkable, that although the traversers said that they knew nothing of the making up of the lists, and that they were made up without their concurrence, yet none of them stated that they did not know that the books were made up of defective lists. This was all he had to say on this part of the case. There were several subordinate points on which the learned judges had expressed an unanimous opinion, and there was no reason to think that any of his Noble and Learned Friends would differ from this opinion. With respect to the point of discontinuance, the answer of the Lord Chief Justice was conclusive, that there could', be no continuance entertained oon sistent with the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Then, again, as to the plea of abatement, and the de murrer to that plea, nobody could doubt that either in the criminal or the civil law that plea ot abatement was altogether vicious. Then there was another point, which was a subordinate one, namely, as to the swearing of the witnesses before the grand jury. The Act of Parliament applying to this part of the case was passed for the purpose of general convenience. He humbly submitted these ,reasons why they ought to concur with the learned judges in the opinion which they had formed with respect to the great bulk of the questions which had been sub mitted to them, and-why he thought they ought to concur in the opinion of the great majority of those judges, pronounced distinctly, firmly, and without hesitation, in opposition to the doubt and hesitating opinion suggested by the two learned judges to whom he had referred, but with respect to whom, however, he begged leave to express the deep sense he enter tained of their attainments and profound learning. He submitted that on all these grounds, and under all these circumstances, the judgment ought to be affirmed. Lord BROUGHAM expressed the satisfaction he felt at having received in the consideration of this case the able assistance which had been given by the learned judges in their answers to the questions which had been proposed to them. It was a fit and proper course to call for that assistance in disposing of this case. But they had adopted it without any regard to the supposed difficulty of the questions which were likely to be raised before them. They had called in the learned judges because the case was one of great public importance—it was a Government pro secution. It regarded an exteusive conspiracy, and, above all, it was a political question—one of exceed ingly great temporary interest among the parties which divided the country, and which also divided the two branches of the Legislature. Nothing, therefore, could be more desirable than ;that they should as far as possible and consistently with their duty call in the aid of the learned judges, to ask them how the points of the law which might arise in this case would be regarded, and would be dealt with by them sitting in their own courts — those courts ' from which all cause of party feeling, whether of one class or of the other, was ex cluded—where all bias, whether from popular in fluence or the authority of the Executive power, was barred—those judges, who were placed by their exalted position and their unsullied character above any such vulgar control, who kept themselves un moved on their elevated heights— " Despicere unde queas alios faseri per viam erantes." They had had the benefit of that help, valuable in all cases. He agreed, however, that they were not bound up by the opinion which those learned persons had given. The question had not been referred to their decision, they had only been asked what their opinion upon the points submitted was. The court of error was to be guided, not by particular precedent, but by the general course of precedent, and by every usage. That such had been the opinion of the profession and of the judges there could be no doubt. The most important points which were now before their Lordships were those raised in the 7th, 3d, and 11th questions, which had been submitted to the learned judges. In the opinion which had been expressed by the majority of them he fully concurred. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had been fifteen years on the bench, while another of those learned judges had been constantly engaged for forty years in the courts of criminal jurisdiction, while a third had been more than half a century engaged in the same course, and all these had decided in favour of affirming the judg ment which had been pronounced by the court below, and they had decided that there could be no diffe rence between a case in which punishment was fixed by law and one in which the punish- ment was left to the discretion of the judge. The other judges all concurred in the opinion that such was the practice. They all concurred in opinion that a sentence passed in this manner could not be taken to be a sentence passed upon the aggregate of the counts, but must be considered as one sentence. Mr. Justice Patteson stated that he believed this was the first time such a point had ever been mooted. There was but one universally received opinion in favour of the assumption that one good count was sufficient to sustain a judgment. Even Mr. Baron Parke himself did not dispute that point—he in ex press terms admitted it. He said that ever since the commencement of his professional life the distinction between criminal and civil cases had been well esta blished, and it was with surprise that he had heard it disputed at their Lordships' bar for the first time in his life. The Learned Baron did not doubt as to the existence of the rule, but lie doubted whether it had not been carried too far—whether conclusions had net been drawn from the dicta of various learned judges which went much further than could be supported by those dicta. But all the judges, with two exceptions, held that the rule declared the law correctly. Mr. Baron Parke was the only one who at any length entered into the objections. But the Learned Baron stated that he had founded his opinion with much hesitation, and expressed great doubts rather than any decided opinion. No less than eight times had that Learned Baron expressed his doubts. He said he must pause—he doubted if he could answer those questions in the affirmative, and he concluded by stating, according to the opinion which he had de livered viva voce in their Lordships' House, and which differed in that respect from the written opinion, that he doubted whether he ought to advise their Lord ships to affirm the judgment—an incorrect expres sion, as the judges were then to communicate infor mation to their Lordships, and not to give them advice. Those doubts, however, were not expressed by any of the other learned judges in giving their opinions, and that fact certainly entitled those opinions to greater weight, while the great doubt expressed by the Learned Baron tended to diminish the weight to be attached to his authority. It had been universally held by all the learned judges that the sixth and seventh counts were invalid. Now, he - (Lord Brougham) felt the greatest reluctance to differ from those learned persons, but he must say that the argument of the Learned Lord Chief Justice on that point had failed to satisfy him that the offence had not been set forth with sufficient certainty in those two counts ; perhaps he ought to say that he felt so doubtful on the point that he was unable to agree. The Latin word for fear, or causing to fear, was sufficiently clear and precise, and he thought the object alleged showed with sufficient precision on whom the intimidation was to be exercised. That object was to procure a change in the laws. Now, that change must be produced either by means of the Parliament, or in opposition to the Parliament. If it were to be brought about by means of the Parlia ment, then it was clear that it was the Parliament which was not to be intimidated. If the change was to be brought about in opposition to the Parliament, then that was in itself an offence ; but when he considered how much greater was the experience of those learned judges in criminal jurisprudence than was his own, he was bound to suppose that he was wrong, and that they were not wrong, and he could not set up his inexperienced judgment against their experienced ones; and so with regard to the third and eleventh counts. If he were inclined to doubt with the Learned Baron, seeing there were seven judges of a contrary opinion, he should have no confidence in his own doubts ; and if he were called to consider the doubts of the Learned Baron himself, he shculd have still less confidence in setting up his doubtful opinion against the clear and unhesitating opinions of the other learned judges. But it was immaterial what might be his opinion with regard to the 6th and 7th counts, because the same points would be raised on the finding of the jury on the four first counts, which were admitted to be bad ; and it was clear that a bad finding on a good count was equally incapable of supporting the judgment as a good finding on a had count. Therefore the point was equally raised by the finding on these counts being bad, as by the 6th and 7th counts being bad. He came now to the only point on which there was any difference among the judges—namely, the 3d and 11th questions. He had already stated the difficulty which he should have in differing from the clear and unhesitating opinion expressed by a large proportion of the learned judges, but his opinion went entirely along with theirs. The first thing that struck him was, that the universal opinion of all the judges admitted that such was the rule. Mr. Baron Parke himself expressed his surprise at hearing the contrary stated; not merely was the opinion against the objections urged, but the practice had always been conformable to that opinion. Could anything be more desirable than that such practice should be upheld ? It was an appalling course which they were called on to adopt when they were desired to decide that in all those cases without number in which verdicts had been returned upon several counts, one of which was bad, and in which sentences had been passed and executed, that every one of these judgments would have been reversed if they had been brought before their Lordships by a writ of error. It would be with insuperable reluct ance that he should come to such a decision. Ile must see clearly that all that had been done before had been done in error, before he could pronounce a judg ment of reversal. No mere doubt, however grave, would justify such a step, and when he found that the large majority of the judges were of opinion that the universally received doctrine was correct, he could not doubt but that such was the practice of ages to the uncontradicted law of the land. But it was said that this doctrine must be received with qualifications, that the case was a new one and had never been decided on argument. He would ask how much of the known and admitted law of the country would be struck out, were all struck out on which no decision had been formally pronounced? Might they not say that that doctrine had no decision to support it because it had never been denied. The present opinion had never even been brought into doubt. But it was said again that if the objection had been raised, it could not have been met. But to that his answer was, that this supposition had no weight ; for, if the objection had been raised, the majority of the court before whom it would have been raised had heard it already argued, and it had been by them disposed of. Therefore, he did not state it as a possibility, but as a fact absolutely and un questionably true, that if the objection had been taken and argued in the court below upon the pre sent case, it would have been overruled ; and the re mark with which he was now dealing, would, as an objection, be displaced. But the objection was really of no amount, for it was the duty of the court, in passing its judgment, to bear in mind those counts to which there were so many and such potent ob jections..., But it was said that these arguments applied to decisions on motions for arrest of judgment only, and that these were not of the same weight as the authorities upon writs of error. He answered — first, that some of the cases which had been quoted were on writs of error, and not on motions in arrest of judgment; and, secondly, he did not go with those who gave no weight to the decisions on motions for arrest of judgment. He held that those latter decisions very strongly and clearly showed that the courts would have given the same judgment if the cases had come before them upon writs of error. His reason was this—that he held that nothing could be more absur d and inconsis tent than for the courts to have taken t hat course which they would have taken if the distinction now pressed were admitted. For to what would it amount but this—that the court, in motions in arrest of judgment, had said "we will not arrest a judgment, hut pro nounce it, although it will be nought, and when we sit on the other side of the wall in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, we will reverse it." The deci sion was not to declare some counts bad, and then to enter up judgment on the counts which are good. This was not the course in this case, or in any of those which were cited. The course which was adopted was to enter the judgment generally, the effect of which was to keep the judgment on all the counts, the arrest being useless, as there were good counts on which the judgment could be given equally as on the bad ones. Therefore, the judgment was upon all the counts—on each rather than on all—on each severally rather than upon all conjointly. The court must have held that the judgment could not be reversed in error, else they must have granted the motion and confined their judgment to the good counts. It was absurd to suppose that the same court sitting in error would not affirm the same judg ment which, when sitting in arrest of judgment, they had affirmed. The court had never said that all the counts were good; but when it was argued that some of the counts were bad, the court said, "Be it so; but there are counts which are good as well as bad counts, and let the judgment stand on the good." Let their Lordship listen to what the state of the law was. The defen dents had only to bring the writ of error the moment the judgment was entered, for there was no decision as to which were the good counts, and which the bad, for the writ of error, if brought, must be delivered. But the fact was, no writ of error was brought in any of these cases but the present; and what could be more manifest than that in those cases such was the opinions of the parties themselves and their counsel. It should not be forgotten that this view was supported by the venerable authority of Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Mansfield. But, on the other side, no opinion, even of a text-writer, had been brought forward to support the opinion, or rather the doubt, of the Learned Baron ; but the Learned Baron admitted that the au thorities, so far as they went, were against him. But the Learned Baron quoted no authority, no dictum of a judge, nor either of a text-writer. In referring to Lord Mansfield's dictum, not decision, he (Lord Brougham) must observe that there might be a question on which that eminent judge was right in expressing his doubt of the law in civil cases ; for as long as juries gave their verdicts as at present, he (Lord Brougham) did not see how it could be otherwise. But in criminal cases the law was clear from any doubt. The cases decided, whether in arrest of judgment or in writs of error, naturally deserved more weight than these dicta. He thought the attempt had not been success ful to show a distinction between decisions in arrest of judgment and in error. In the case of thd King v. Mason (2d Term Reports), which was tried in the King's Bench, there were 6 counts and 2 were clearly bad, yet it was ruled that the judgment was good. That case had been taken to rule that the counts in an indictment for obtaining money upon false pre tences must be so framed as to set forth the pretences. The punishment was discretionary—imprisonment or transportation—and it was argued in that case, as in the one now before their Lord ships, that the higher punishment might have been awarded upon the bad counts. 'The judg ment, however, was affirmed. The Noble Lord then quoted the case of King v. Young in support of the same view. It was objected, that in the latter case the objection was not raised as to what counts were bad ; but that argument had no weight, for it would have been the duty of the Court to point out, if it had been overlooked by counsel, that such or such a count was too general and was bad. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to the case of the King ‘ 'v. Powell in 2d Barnewall and Adolphus, to show that the court considered the words crime and misdemeanor as a nomen collectivum. It was to be borne in mind, as one of the learned judges, Mr. Jus tice Maule, most accutely observed, that the sentence and conviction only proceeded so far as the evidence at the trial and verdict pointed out the species of punishment. In ineteing out the quantity, the court looked beyond the verdict and the evidence — in pronouncing sentence, the court took other matters into consideration, but the sentence cc.uld not come before the court of error for that. The record must be so framed that there must be a good find ing and a good count: to justify a sentence of that species and description. The manner in which it was framed was immaterial, the punishment being such as the law warranted for an offence so laid and a conviction so had. When called on to pronounce his judgment in this case he felt himself in this predi cament with his Nobfe'and Learned Friend—that the nine learned judges, as well those who on technical points differed, or rather, had their doubts, as well those who were dissentient as those who concurred, had declared with one voice, that upon the merits they had no doubt at all, that upon the great merits and substance of the case they had no doubts at all, that a great offence had been committed, an offence known to the law, that a grave offence and crime had been per petrated, and that a punishment warranted by the law had been inflicted, all the judges concurred. That there were counts in the indictment charging cri minal offences were to be found against which no pos sible exception, either technical or substantial, could be urged ; that these counts, even if they stood alone, would be quite sufficient to support the sentence, and that the sentence was one which the law warranted justifiable,' and he might even say commanded, there was no doubt. Upon those great features—the leading and essential substance of the case, —all the learned judges had a clear, una nimous, and unhesitating . opinion. To all the points which had been urged, both those which were essential, and those which were of a technical nature, and urged with a degree of elaborate learning and ingenuity which he had never heard equalled either while he practised as an advocate, while he sat as a spectator, or while he presided as a judge, the learned judges had given the greatest attention. The learned judges took time to consider for weeks upon the results of those elaborate arguments, they con ferred together again and again ; each heard all that his fellow judge had to urge, each had the benefit of all that his brethren had to suggest, and the result of _ the whole was that seven out of the nine pronounced an opinion that there was nothing in the objections taken, and that notwithstanding the technical infor mality of some counts, the judgment must stand. Two of the judges gave a contrary opinion, one at least, a contrary opinion, and the other would not concur in consequences of the doubts which weighed and pressed upon his mind. They were now called on to elect be tween both, and the question was whether they should take their information on the law as ilaid down by those who were daily and hourly administering—it from seven or from two. It was the usual course when they consulted others on whom they placed great and just reliance, those in whom they confided for their integrity or impar tiality, who were without that bias which those who consulted them might feel that they were not free from, and when they found discrepancies to exist, to weigh a little the grounds which they gave, but above all it was the common course of rational and sensible i men, so consulting, to see were the great majority was one way or the other, and when the great majority was one way, and the small minority the other, that created naturally a leaning towards that course, and towards that counsel which was supported by the ma jority; but how incomparably was that increased when the seven had a clear and distinct opinion, and the two only doubted ; when the seven did not hesi tate or pause, when they had no sort of dubity or hesitation, and were unanimous one way ? It was the more natural thing for a person to take the opi nion of a majority who had no doubt, than the hesi tating and doubting opinion of the small minority. That was a case in which he, unlearned compara tively with those learned persons, should hesitate to set up his opinion and judgment against theirs, par ticularly when such an opinion was fortified by the large and long-continued experience which they pos sessed. All those learned persons agreed that this was the very first time this objection was taken, and that all lawyers, all judges and courts, heretofore overlooked it, or rather acted on the supposition that it was untenable,anda very g reat assistance to him in formingat his judg ment. He called for au th or it y th e o ther ways th but he called in vain, for while the learned judges who were for the practice of the law, as it stood, pro duced cases, the dicta of judges, the authority and opinion of the profession on the other side, against that law, and in favour of the law that they were now required to set up, pulling down the former law—not one dictum of a judge —not one sentence of a text writer—not one shadow of a case had been pro duced. That being dealing with a case so repugnant to him, and that he was taking the safer and the surer course in steering , and cjanmd ge his ets o the case he felt more free in by those authorities and decisions, and to tak as his vitlhi'leeolsPem important opinions the s t ' b o e p y i n i i l o a n d s a s o l f: e d t h f o o s r e . materially differed with his noble Friend, g l l e j a a e i r d n n e e o s learned the Lord Chief Justice of the Court and of Queen'sc Bench —he meant the challengeof questiLoneianrnweldiich he so question the learnad • the array. judges were unanimous. He felt strongly the importance. Upon this_ of this subject, because it went to court on the matter, The court was con stituted of the . judge andtwelve men • those twelve men had jurisdiction , . tlie jurisdiction of the by being selected in a en, dwa ys , it had n argued, particular manner. Well, then, the question was, whether they had been selected in a lawful manner. how array of deciding this he must consider bee nselected. The challenge to the be on account of the indifference sheriff or the re turning officer. Now there e of the had been no authority cited to show that there could be any ground for the challenge to the array. If suc h a course was For ey was purposehaal to be adopted, a year might go by without their having either • a special or petty jury, and his opinion therefore was that upon this point decidedly that there ought to be no venire de novo. He would say little or - nothing po int that the point that had been raised as to the hardship on the tra versers in suffering imprisonment pending the writ of error ; the fact was, that the law was so, but whether it was to continue so was another questi • on. He had now performed his duty to the best of his abilities in this important case, and he 'had, therefore, only fur ther to state, that feeling himself bound to look to the authorities of the judges, upon those authorities he must give his judgment as to the plaintiffs in error. Lord DEissiasi then proceeded to deliver his opi nion. He would first advert to the judgment given in the court below allowing the demurrer to the challenge of the array. If such practices as had taken place in the present instance in Ireland should continue, the trial by jury would become a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. To the traversers' challenge of the array, on account of sixty jurors being omitted, the .Attorney:General for Ireland had de murred, and by so doing had admitted that such a fact had taken place. One of the learned judges was of opinion that the challenge should have been allowed, and with that opinion he entirely concurred. He felt bound to disagree, therefore, with the opinion given by the Learned Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. lie thought the principles he had laid down in his judg ment were erroneous. The question was w h et h er t h e party had had a lawful jury to try him, and on that point he regretted, but at the same tune he felt bound to differ from his learned brethren. He had no doubt that their Lordships were aware that when the judges were consulted, it was competent for any judge, who was a member of that House, to attend that consultation, but he had been so struck with the proceedings that had taken place in Dublin that he had written to Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had been prevented from illness from attending their Lordships, or even leaving his room. Now there were many circumstances in the present case, to which it was necessary to advert. lie would, how ever, first call their Lordships' atten tion to the letter he had received from Mr. Justice Coleridge. He said, speaking of the question of the challenge of the array, I answer this question with much doubt, being unable to look to the authorities on the subject. All questions touching the formation of j u ries, must be examined by the judges with cri tical care. It must be admitted that the Recorder sent no general list to the sheriff, but that some spuri ous list had been made out by some person. " That this has been done fraudulently, and with in tent to prejudice him on his trial ; that from that spurious list the jurors' book and special jury list had been made, and the present array selected, and that the traverser himself was wholly unparticipant in this fraud, and protested against the array being constituted from the list so framed." Here, he said, is a confessed and serious wrong, and the only ques tion is, whether a challenge to the array be the proper remedy. It is said, first, that the sheriff is not in default, and secondly, that if the challenge be allowed, there is no book from which any other jury can be selected. With great deference, I submit that neither of these is an answer. He then put a particular case, in which the sheriff might have made an imperfect array, and there might be no default, and yet the challenge must prevail. He then said, in answer to the second objection, that the only consequence was that the trial might remain untaken, and he ex pressed in strong language his own opinion that it were far better that no trial should be taken under those circumstances, than that it should be taken subject to the heavy suspicion which these facts must bring upon it. Now, on Monday, when the Lord Chief Justice stated to the House the entire agreement of all the judges upon this point, he did not feel himself justified in alluding to that letter, because he had concluded that the Lord Chief Justice had had some subsequent communication with his brother Coleridge, in consequence of which he might pos sibly have seen ground for altering his opinion. But when he left their Lordships' House, he found on his table another letter from his brother Cole ridge, written the day before. He had before said, that he thought the argument in favour of the over ruling of the demurrer was too technical for the decision of a great constitutional question ; and stating, upon the view which he took of the balance of inconveniences, in his note of Monday, he was much struck by what he (Lord Denman) had written on the question of challenge, and at present, like himself, awaited the better arguments that were to be adduced on the other side. He did not, therefore, stand alone in thinking that the jury should not be selected out of any list, and that there should be a remedy for any injury which might be done. He would briefly state what opinion appeared to prevail in the court below on this subject. There was originally, perhaps, some notion that that the challenge to the array was taken away altogether; but that was clearly not the case, because there was a particular provision which preserved the right. It was also questioned whether a challenge laid to the array where a special jury had been struck out. That difficulty having been got over in the Queen's Bench in England, he did not think that there could be any diffi culty in settling it in the same manner. His Noble and Learned Friend said that the prin ciple of challenge to the array rested solely on unindifferency in this conduct on the part of the sheriff. The judgment which he had formed on that point was like that of his brother Coleridge, who, in the letter which he had written to him, stated what he considered to be the state of the law at present. The substantial duties of the sheriff in former times were to collect the names of those who were fit to he on the jury, and enter them in a panel, and these duties belonged to the sheriff alone ; but, by the late Act of Parliament, those duties were divided between the tax collectors in the first place, the Recorder of Dublin in the second place, and the sheriff in the third place. The tax collectors performed a duty merely ministe rial ; the Recorder, in the first instance, performed a duty which was judicial—decided upon claims and objections. It was then his duty to sign and settle the list which was to be the jury list for the year. The complaint in this case was, that after the Re corder had exercised his functions ; after he had determined what should be the list for the ensuing year, somebody else said " It shall not be the list." The handing over of a perfect list to the Recorder by the sheriff was a ministerial act, and that act had been incorrectly performed. The chal lengers said, " the judicial act has been improperly performed, but you have deprived your own judicial act of the weight and authority to which it is entitled." He could not help believing that, if that view of the case, which his brother Coleridge had stated much more clearly than he had done, had been presented to the learned judges at their consultation, they would have thought it worthy at least of consideration. His Noble and Learned Friend had truly stated that that objection was to the conduct of the returning officer. Who was the re turning officer? Why the Recorder was the return ing officer for the purpose of this trial, and in his opinion the Recorder—though without the slightest imputation on his motives, which was disclaimed by all—had been guilty of a default, when he had handed over to the sheriff, as a list of the jurors, that book which was not the list which the law required, and which the Recorder himself had declared should not be the list. He had written a great deal more than he was desirous of troubling their Lordships by reading. Not only did be differ from his Learned Brother the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, as to the principle on which the challenge to the array was to be allowed, but also as to the consequences which were likely to ensue. The Lord Chief Justice said no object or advan tage could here be gained if the challenge had been allowed, for if the challenge had been allowed the jury process would have been directed to some other officer. Now, there, he ventured to think, there was a mistake. The default was not that of the sheriff, but of the Recorder, or clerk of the peace, who made out an incorrect list. The Act of Parliament expressly provided for the want of the jurors' book being returned. His Noble and Learned Friend said " Here is a book returned." But what book ? The Act required that that book should be returned which was correctly made up from the list ; but this book was incorrectly made up. It was asked whether a single defect would vitiate the whole list. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas said that, according to the argument used, if the cess collectors omitted a single name, the list would be altogether vitiated. He begged to differ on that point from the learned judge. All that had been done previous to the decision of the Court of Sessions would not be affected. This reductio ad absurcbm was met at the bar by an opposite case of much greater extent. It was asked what would be the effect of omitting 60 or 600 names? He thought the inconvenience would be very great if the party were not tried out of the book ; but it should be remembered, that the decision in the case of the " Queen v. O'Connell" was not a decision in any other case. The Lord Chief Justice said there must be some mode of relief from the inconvenience occasioned by such an omission. So said all the learned judges—so said his Learned Friend on the Woolsack, and also his learned friend who had just addressed their Lordships. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had raised his expectation indeed in one part of his argument. His Noble and Learned Friend said, "is the party without remedy? No, he is not." He (Lord Denman) had waited to hear what that remedy was. Where was that redress ? What was there to prevent any one of the Queen's subjects accused from being tried by such a jury as the law never approved of ? " Oh, said his Noble and Learned Friend, "excuse me; I will tell you what the remedy is on a future occasion." Now, if the Learned Lord Chief Justice of England and the judges of Ireland could not point out any remedy, what secu rity was there to the Queen's subjects ? He would go a step further, and he would say that he would never believe that there was no remedy, until the well known constitutional principle of challenging the array—unless that ancient practice were repealed by a direct Act of Parliament, he would not believe that there did not still exist a remedy in such cases as these. The objection having been well taken, it ought to have been allowed ; and not having been allowed, the trial had erroneously proceeded. In the 20th of Edward 111., it was argued that a case was vitiated by the party being de prived of his right of challenge, on account of the omission of individuals from the list, and it was replied that there were good names enough re turned by the sheriff ; but it was held by the court that the document was one and indivisible, and the consequence of that would be that one error would vitiate the whole, and the whole was accordingly set aside. What made this case the more remarkable was, that a charge of indifference was brought against the sheriff, and he was tried and acquitted on that charge, but it was held that he was to blame for the difficulty that bad arisen. He (Lord Denman) could not leave this subject with out adverting again to the want of remedy. It had been thrown out by some learned persons that application to the court should have been made. Were the Queen's subjects to apply to the discretion of the court in order to have a lawful jury to try them for their lives, for their liberties, or for their most important interests ? Was it a thing for a motion, on affidavits and written depositions, when the party accused was always the party swearing last, and after all the matter was referred to the discretion of the court ? But on this case such a motion was made and was refused, but on what ground it was refused he did not know. He knew nothing further of the pro ceedings than what he had seen in the papers. Ile under stood that the whole jury list of Dublin consisted of 717 names. Now, the special jury list of course to affect of course the panel. It was not im p robable b u e • o r u . d s b i e x t a y v enrayminconsiderableoutp r p o o p r o t i r o t n i n o f w a this n n o u u m o i that if those sixty names had been on the panel, that the that of number. thooa so lle otherfrpoomin t He did not entirely agre e with the learned j ud g es in thinking that there were onl y two ob j ec t io nable jury ,ou l d n o w mi g ht proceed have be to en t drawn eh coun ts. was by no means clear that there was anything illegal involved in the expression of opinion against courts of law for the purpose of having other counts submitted that would he more satisfactory; but however it was quite enough for his argument espe cially as all the learned judges had given an unani mous opinion that they were bad counts—that two counts in the indictment were bad. The question was, whether the judgment that had been pronounced, and the sentence which had been passed, could be good under the circumstances ? The question was A and B are good counts, C was a bad count, and the court pronounced sentence upon the defendants in respect to A, B, and C. Here were three counts, on all of which evidence had been taken, and a verdict was taken upon each of these three counts. A conviction was obtained, and the court proceeded to pass sentence, and the punishment was awarded according to the discretion of the judge. Now it was possible that the court had taken into account the bad counts as well as the good ones. They had been told that they must assume that judg ment had been pronounced on the good counts only. Now in the first place, he had a serious objection to that. The presumption was in direct contradiction to a notorious tact. If they were to assume this, future students at law in Dublin would, on a reference to the reports of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, find that the fact was contrary to that which their Lordships had assumed. The law judges had stated that two of the. counts were bad, while the Court of Queen's Bench had declared that they were perfectly good and un exceptionable. This put the question entirely out of court. He had felt with his learned brethren great surprise when he heard the ingenious argument which had been addressed to the court on this subject, and he confessed that he never felt any doubt on the sub ject until that argument was submitted to his mind. Now, the question was, whether in point of fact there was legal ground for doubt to be entertained. It was not the first time that a court of justice had taken that view. He remembered at the time that his Noble and Learned Friend, now on the Woolsack, presided over the Court of Exchequer, a case was brought before that court, in which it was proposed to overrule not the mere dicta of judges, not merely an opinion which had been received with favour in Westminster-hall, but a series of decided cases run ning through a period of fifty years. His Noble and Learned Friend, now on the Woolsack, had examined those cases, and in giving judgment had stated that inasmuch as the decisions in those cases were clearly founded in error, they were not binding. That was the case of Hutton v. Vann, which had afterwards come before there Lordships' House, and their Lordships were of opinion that they were bound by the authorities, but that had not pre vented his Noble and Learned Friend who presided over the Exchequer from entering into the con sideration of those cases, and of deciding that they were not good in law, as they all originated in a mistake which had crept in in the time of Lord Mansfield. He had heard his Noble and Learned Friend, with that admiration with which he had al ways heard him, lay down the rule on this subject. Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell (whose judg ments will be given in full in our next edition) con curred in opinion with Lord Denman, and, after a few words from Lord Brougham, the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was reversed, Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell voting for reversing the judgment, and the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham for affirming it. The effect of this decision is, that Mr. O'CONNELL AND HIS FELLOW PRISONERS WILL BE SET AT LIBERTY. ADMIRALTY COURT-(THIS DAY) The first Surrogates' Court during the vacation was held this day at Doctors' Commons, for the purpose ol hearing applications, several of which were upon the list, but nono of them possessed much general interest. THE CASE OF THE EDWARD AND JANE. In this case the claim arose from certain services ren dered by four fishermen to the above vessel off the port of Romeney during a severe gale, in which the vessel had sprung a leak. The sailors went on board, and by their exertions in assisting the crew, who were very much exhausted, alleged that they contributed mainly in saving the vessel. For this service they claimed a sum of 401. as salvage money. By the owners it was answered that the services of the applicants were not wanted, or if they were, not to that degree at all which they alleged, as the ship was well manned, and after the departure of the claimants was enabled to gain port, where she underwent some very slight repairs, and proceeded on her voyage. The case had been already argued before the Court during the term from which it stood over to the next Surrogates Court. This day it was further adjourned by the consent of the proctors on both sides, as the owners were not as yet fully prepared with their answer. _ _ The Court then adjourned, the next day for sitting being fixed for the 9th of next month. CONSISTORY CO URT--(THISDAY This Court met to-day for the first time since the ter. mination of the general sitting, to dispose of short ap plications. No case of general interest came before the Court which was ordered to stand ajourned to October 9. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. WARWICK RACES.—TUESDAY. The Trial Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 25 added, for two yrs old, sst 71b ; three yrs, 7st slb ; four yrs, Bst 71b ; five yrs, 9st ; six yrs, and aged, 9st 41b ; mares, &c., allowed 31b. One mile. (5 Subs.) Mr. Collett's Corranna, 5 yrs (Whitehouse) 1 Mr. E. Buckley's David, 5 yrs Mr. Mostyn's Alamodc, 3 yrs 3 7 to 2 on Corranna. Won in a canter by a length and a half. The Guy Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h ft, for three yrs old, colts, Bst 81b ; fillies, Bst 41b ; untried, &c., allowed 31bs. The mile course. (6 Subs.) Mr. Wreford's b c by Camel, out of Wadastra (31b), and Lord Warwick's The Mule, divided the stakes, and The Mule walked over. The Leamington Stakes of 25 sovs. each, 15 ft, and 5 only if declared, with 100 added ; the second to re ceive 501. Two miles. (99 Subs., 76 of whom declared.) Lord Exeter's Algernon, 3 yrs, 4st 101 b (Sharp) 1 Mr. Jaques's Advice, 3 yrs, 4st Mb Mr. Scott's Mosque, 6 yrs, 7st 91b Mr. G. Payne's Johnny, aged, 7st 81b Mr. Westley's Counsellor, 5 yrs, 7st 41b Mr. Denham's Julia, 4 yrs, 6st lOst Mr. Mostyn's Brunel, 3 yrs, sst 131 b Lord G. Bentinek's Black Gentleman, 4 yrs, 7st 71b 0 Mr. I. Day's Loadstone, 3 yrs, 4st 71b 4 to 1 agst Advice, 5 to 1 agst Algernon, 4 to 1 agst Johnny, 7 to 1 agst Counsellor, 7 to 1 agst Black Gen tleman, and 8 to 1 agst Mosque.—A fine race between the first two, and won by a neck ; Counsellor a moderate third, Brunel a bad fourth, and Johnny fifth. The Welter (Handicap) Stakes of 10 says. each, h ft, with 25 added. Gentlemen riders. Two miles. (4 Subs.) Mr. Shirley's Nonsuit, 5 yrs, 12st (Capt. Peel) 1 Sir C. Cockeroll's Niobe, 3 yrs, lOst 21b Mr. Manning's Fairplay, 4 yrs, list 51b Even on Niobe, and 2to 1 each agst the others. Won by a length. The Maiden Plate race was not run when the train left. ST. LEGER BETTING AT WARWICK. 4to 1 agst Ithurel—t. Illto 1 agst Valerian—t. 4 to 1 agst the Cure—t. 112 to 1 agst The Princess 6to 1 agst Red Deer Il2to 1 agst Foig-a-ballagh Bto 1 agst Bay Momus 1 —taken 6 to 5 was laid to a large sum on Red Deer agst Ithuriel ; these bets, however, must not be received as an index of their relative positions in the market. (RECEIVED THIS DAY.) WARWICK RACES—TUESDAY (CONCLUDED). The Maiden Plate of 50/. Heats, two miles. Mr. Hobson's Charity, 4 yrs, Bst 41b Mr. Jones's f by Pheenix, out of Pluralist's dam, 3 yrs, 6st 121 b 1 2 dr Mr. Stephenson's Epilogue, 3 yrs, 6st 121 b 24 dr Mr. Fowler's Gipsey Queen, 4 yrs, Bst 41b 4 3 dr Won in a canter. LATEST BETTING AT WARWICK. YORKSHIRE HANDICAP. sto 1 agst Mickey Free 17to 1 agst Rowena ST. LEGER. 4 to 1 agst Ithuriel 110 to 1 agstThePrincess(t, 9 to 2 agst The Cure 11 to 1 agstFoig-a• ballagh 6to 1 agst Reed Deer (t) 11 to 1 agst Valerian 8 to 1 agst Bay Momus BETTING AT MANCHESTER.—TUESDAY. GREAT YORKSHIRE STAKES.-5 to 1 agst Mickey Free, 7 to 1 agst Rowena (t), 7 to 1 agst Artful Dodger, 12 to 1 agst Glossy, 12 to 1 agst Advice. ST. LEGER.-4 to 1 agst Ithurieli( t ) , 4 toi agst The Cure, 7 to 1 agst Red Deer (t) , 9 to 1 agsL3 Valerian,l:ll _ to 1 agst Bay Momus, 1 0 to 1 agstFoig-a-1 a gh ' o I agst The Princess, 2 5 to 1 ag st Godfrey, 35 to 1 agst Milton. ECCLES RACES.—MoNDAr. A Sweepstakes of 3 sous. each, with 20 added ; 3 yrs (.Id, 7st 71b; 4 yrs, Bst 101 b; 5 yrs, 9st 41b; 6 yrs and aged, 9st 10Ib ; half-bred allowed 71b, mares and geldings 31b; winners 51bs twice, 81b extra; the second s aves his stake. One mile. (10 Subs.) Mr. Robinson nd Lady Sarah, 3 yrs (Sykes) 0 1 Mr. Hall's Visco unt, 4 y rs Mr. Thompson's br gby Shrigley, out of Pellella 3 0 The following also started :—Mr. Jones's Miniature, 4 yrs ; Mr. Palmer's Betsy Bird, 4 yrs ; Mr. Holke ' Cinderella filly, 3 vrs ; Mr. Jones's Country Lass, n s yrs ; Mr. Fowlers Marourneen, 5 yrs, and Mr. ~,, ford's The Mele,3 yrs.-6 to 4 on Lady Sarah, who''wl'o"n the deciding heat by half a length. The TratTurd Park Stakes of 3 sous. each, and 30 added ; the second saves his stake ; 3 Yes, 7st 71b ; 4 yrs, Bst 101 b ; 5 yrs, 9st 41b ; 6 yrs and age d, 9 s t 10 Ib ; half-bred allowed 71b, mares and l win ners once Sibs extra ; ( .4 Subs). Mr. twice, 1 0hs extra. Heats, twice geldings 31b ; round and a distances 4 Bird Mr. Palmer's Betsy yrs Mr. Owen's Alice, 3 yrs' 2 1 2 '2 1 1 Won cleverly. T o he Pony Stakes of 2 sous . each, and 10 added, 6 subs., were won, in three heats, by Mr. Doble's Work sop Lass (Frost), beating Yorkshire Lad, Mi;s Mary, and two others. THE FLAX CROP.—The flax crop in the county of Monaghan never presented a finer appearance, and we are credibly informed that there is more than double an average crop on the ground.—Banner of Ulster. / THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1844. li r .4 AILA SUMMARY OF NEWS AND pnialtr Opinton. " Who runs may read." FOREXON. The Messager states that the Duke d'Autnale is ex pected at Neuilly within a few days, the Queen having expressed an anxious desire to see him, and the present tranquil state of Algeria permitting his absenoe from Constantine. Captain Bouet, immediately after his arrival at Paris, went on to Neuilly with letters from the Prince de Join vile to the Queen, which the Captain was charged to deliver into her Majesty's oven hand. Hussein Bey and Achmet Bey, the Egyptian Princes, were presented to the King at Neuilly on baturay. The grand military manuvres commenced at Mete on the 28th ult. The day being very fine, an immense multitude had assembled to witness them. The Dukes de Nemours and de Montpeniier were loudly cheered. General Baron Tavernier, one of the most distinguished officers of the Republic and the Empire, died last week at Colmar, aged 76. The Toulonnais repeats the rumour about the inten tion of the Government to appoint the Duke d'Aumale Governor-General of Algeria, and says it has reason to believe that this will take place before the end of the present month. The last accounts from Gibraltar represent the health of Mr. Drummond Hay to be in an alarming state, from the fatigue and anxiety he has experienced in his lats.. mission to Morocco. The Paris Globe states that M. Mauguin is about to proceed in a few days to Madrid, to urge the claims of the French creditors on the Spanish Gownment. lie will act in concert with the English Commissioners, for the purpose of having the claims of the creditors of this two countries attended to. We learn from Tilsit that the river Niemen has again become flooded, raising the level to 15 feet. On the 20th ult., the bridge of boats was broken through by a large beam brought down by the torrent, so that al communication between the two banks was prevented. The railroad between Nuremburg and Bamberg, is Bavaria, was opened on the 25th ult. The train ran the 16 French leagues in 1 hour and 33 minutes. The Toulonnais of the 29th ult., states that, since tha organisation of hospital-stoemers for the transport di sick soldiers from Algeria, the deaths during the passag have not been more than one in four hundred. Frog& October 1839 to July 1 of the present year, 7,917 s were embarked for France, and of these only nine died on the way. Nearly all the standards taken at the battle of Isly are of silk, richly embroidered with gold, and bearing sen tences from the Koran. One of them, which is of white ground, has the following inscription :—" There is no other God than God, and Mahomet is his prophet. If God pleases, the holy war must triumph." The parasol of the son of ege Emperor is of red silk, worked with gold and siver. LAND AND POLECE. At the Mansion-house George Hey, the young man who was some days ago examined upon a variety of charges of embezzlement, 'brought against him by t Melville, of the house of Cruikshank, Melville, and Of, was brought up for re-examination before Mr. Alder man Wood. After a lengthened examination, the magistrate said he would remand the prisoner till Pie depositions should be made out, and then commit him for trial. Henry Foulkes, the driver and proprietor of a Ken sington omnibus, and Matthew Balls, jun., driver, and said to be part proprietor, of a Brixton omnibus. was summoned by the police, before Mr. Hardwick, at Marl borough-street, for furious driving, whereby the lives of her Majesty's subjects had been endangered. The riefendants pleaded Guilty, and were sentenced to hard labour for one month. The defendants, whose con-. nexions are very respectable, and who have up to the transactions referred to by the police, maintained .the reputation of extremely civil and steady drivers, ap peared thunderstruck at the sentence. At Marylebone, John Blake, a youth about eighteen years of age, was charged with having stolen property of different descriptions to a large amount belonging to his :uncle, Mr. John Dyke, Park-place, Paddington green. Mrs. Dyke quitted London six weeks ago with her husband, who was in ill health, and said that on their return they discovered that Blake, who had been left in charge of the house, had plundered the same of a vast deal of furniture, &c. The prisoner, who admitted his guilt, was fully committed for trial. At the Woolwich Police-court, six seamen, belonging to the ship Brant, of Dantzic, were next charged with secreting 1591b5. of tobacco in the forecastle and hold, by which they had made themselves liable each to pe nalties of 100/. The prisoners admitted that certain portions of it belonged to each of them. Mr. Grove, not having the power to mitigate in this case, sentenced them in fines amounting to 6001.; and, in default. to Kingston gaol. COTIRT-PASEXONABLIII. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Here ditary Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburg Steitz, are expected to honour Mrs. Lawrence with their com pany to-day at Ealing Park, for the purpose of witness ing the performances of the loway Indians, whti,are en gaged for the occasion, and will take up their poiltion on the lawn in front of the mansion. The Marquis and Marchioness of Westminster are entertaining company at Moor Park, near Riekmans worth ; the Earl and Countess of Antrim, Lord and Lady Prudhoe, Lord and Lady Parker, .Sce., are amolK, the lisitants. The Marquis, who continues in improved health, will not proceed to Eaton Hall until the end df the month. The Earl of Albemarle will give his annual " hurvat home " to his numerous labourers on the Quidden i hrun estate, on Wednesday next. Lord Bury, his Lordship' s eldest son, is passing the season in the Isle of Wight. Lord and Lady Robert Grosvenor, and their youthful family, arc expected to remain at Ryde until the close of the month, and then return to town en route to the Mar quis of Westminster's seat, Moor Park, Rickmansworth, ' for the autumn. Lord and Lady Prudhoe have returned from a tour of the German Spas. Lord Dungannon has arrived at his seat, Brynknall, Denbighshire. Lady Dungannon and the Misses Irvine are passing the season at his Lordship's chaleau at liontleur. The Duke of Beaufort has left town for Ryde. The Duchess does not return to the Isle of Wight, but is expected to prt.,cced to Badminton, on Thursday, for the season. IbILISCELMILNEOI7II. By the statute of the 7th Victoria, cap. 35, which re ceived the royal assent on the 19th of July last, the making of lists, and ballots, and enrolments of the militia of the United Kingdom, is suspended until the first day of August, 1845. On Monday, being the anniversary of the great fire of London, the form of prayer appointed by Act of Parlia ment to be used in commemoration of that event was read at the church of St. Mary Aldermary, by the INv. 11. B. Wilson, 1).D., incumbent of that, and of the united parish of St. Thomas-the-Apostle. With the exception of St. Paul's Cathedral (now closed), this is the only church in the city where this solemnity is still observed. The accounts from all parts of the United Kingdom of the weather and the harvest, are of the most favour able description.' Earl Howe has given 101. to be distributed in prizes to the allotment growers of Hinkley for the best ma nagement and cultivation of their respective pieces of land. ' On Monday the Lord Chancellor laid on the table of the House of Lords a return of the number of Royal Com missions assenting to public Bills during the present session ; also noticing the dates at which such Bills seve rally were read the first time in the House of Lords. There were 11 commissions, the last being on the 9th of August. To that period, inclusive, 105 Bills received the royal assent and became Acts of Parliament. Of that number 45, or very nearly one-half, were read for the first time in the House of Lords, in the course of July ; 11 were read for the first time in August. FROM THE MORNING PA PERS OF THIS DAY. MONEY MARKET and CITY N EWS. eNIXO. TIMES.—The prenalum C on iT g Y el i lda 'u t E P s ii p rts T Ev ik9i- per mille, which, at the English Mint price of 3 e l. xc lr l s a . n l , o e id o . f lk . ounce for standard gold, gives an . London. perat short 0 33 cen:. t 4 h 7 e i, ex it ch f a o n ll g o e ws at th i: t ari g ' 3 be 9 ing an 2 ll s dearer in London than in Paris. . Paris on i the English Mint price of 3 100. per mark, which, at By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 4U per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13 9i and the exchange at Ilamburgh on London at short b e i ng 13 9, it follows that gold is 0.23 dearer in Londoa than in Hamburgh. The course of exchange at New York on Landon i 4 104 per cent., and the par of exchange begreen• Eng. land and America being 109 23-40 per ceniKt follosek that the exchange is 0 . 1 8 per cent. in favour of Engles& But the quoted exchange at New York being for bilis at 60 days' sight, the interest must be added to the above difference. SUN.—Stocks closed quietly this afternoon, but there was still an absence of general activity. Consols were 94- 99 for Money, and 99 for Account. The Unfeinded Debt remained as in the morning, and in the heavy in vestments there was no alteration. There was no feature either in the Foreign Market, if we except a slight advance in Mexican, NIZ., to 351 i. Chilian, On the other haw], declined to 101. Portuguese Converted were at 44, ant Spanish Three per Cents. at 33i1. Dutch Two. and-a.llalf per Cents. touched 611 f• The additional transactions in Railway Shar!s b*'° rn been these : —Bristol and Gloucester were 26 + ; E astern L ; Union, 1 I Great Western, 66 ; Birrenirft e m cis 54 ; Croydon, 3 1 ,1 to i i ; ,, cx New ; Manelw ` and z, i 7 6 • North Diu* Half, 23 ; Newcastle and I,Y r i p ? ' aftm S o uth i t Briti:Ai, - i ' l ; Northern and Easte , _ Norwich and Brandon, 9' 4 1 ; South North Midland, Searbo- Eastern, 4-i to si'i • , ; York and Devon, 11 ; 1 premium. 131aCkwall have been 9- 4 , rough Branch, 221 ; and Orleans, 3 ' Brighton, li ; and Togrf,. and Bordeaux, Thames and Medway, 9 discount. There was a general steadi ness this afternoon in the rates of the Foreign Ex chan g es. k a ding bullion froin the port of Lon on The following is the oflicia d l return for the of thweee ekports of Thursday last: — £1,600. Silver Bars to Hamburgh London , _ 65,700 oz. A return has been made of tla growth of wool, from which we find that the total quantity produced in Essex is 2,372,64 0 lbs. ; the value of which is 118,041111. The total wool produced in England is 102,803,758 and the total value at Is. per lb. (the ratitekoned above) is 5,140,1861. Yorkshire produces the greatest quantity, 8,263,658 lbs.—Essex Herald.