The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

knowin g against what it was he was called to defend himself' cold in what his guilt consisted. In no other construct:on of the law could there he any safety. Ile wished to save all parties who might hereafter be accused fro m the (hunters arising from the abuse of the law of roeseiracy. He would conclude in the eloquent worth which had been used by en eminent person in another Place--" I wish the law net to he a two-. dgcd sword of freed and oppie seTon, but the staff of honesty and the slit, hl of innocence." irelieei.e. appeared for Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. T. M. Ray, and Dr. John Gray, and as his Learned Friends tvli" 11 ' 1 preceded hint had addressed their Lordships more or less on all the points which had arisen in the ease, he should be best discharging his duty by advert ine principally to these points which he thought of vast impertance, not only affecting . the interests of those 'hem he represeeted but - as affecting the right, just, and satisfactory adwinisiratiun of the criminal law of this .ei roue.H e would, therefore, proceed at once to state his first objection, which,, if his statement should be sus tained in their Lordships' opinion, would at.once appear manifeetly fetal to the whole 'judgment, and that was, that all these defendants had been convicted, and were eutfering the se n t ence o f t h e C our t, f or a greater num b er °f effenees than had been found or 'presented- by the had ever pl ea d ed to, or been heard on, and - above all fur greater number of offences than the petty jury were sw "rn or had any authority to try. He ventured to !tdmelt to their Lordships this objection, in the first 1 1, 116t a"ee because if it were admitted. it would ofatal t o t h e whole judgment, and he could f belie ve t h at their Lordships would assent to the ex trraaretrl,f the inary proposition which was contended for on the Crown—that if there were one good count in t 7 l l indictment for conspiracy it was sufficient to sustain b %judgme nt , although all the other counts might be in law. But even if that proposition were admitted, it 'auuhf be no answer to the objection which he was and 'bout t o make, which stood out clear, alone, prominent unconnected with any other. He could satisfy their (rel s hiPs, from a comparison of the counts of the in dict'nent and the finding of the jury, that these several efeedants had been indicted for one conspiracy, neces• wetly laid et one time and place, and on one occa- Lr en d that they had been convicted of three con ..hte'r'i,s, each separate, and were now suffer-. sentence of the Court on three c0n %%7 21 ; Ae les, ea c h i n t h e i n di c t men t' b e i ng c h arge d 0 1‘,' 1 , 1 oue conspiracy. To disencumber this part h - s ubject from all irrelevant matter, he would limit his to the first count, which, for this -pur tna ' Tul this p ur p ose on ly, h e wou ld s uppose a good m t .i — v alid cou n t i n l aw. H e wou ld ma k e no re f erence t o )e defendant who was dead, and they would find that Pume cou nt charged eight different persons with one con race- to do fi ve di f f erent acts, an d e ff ect fi ve diff erent re Ni t e oaee, each of which he would assume to be unlaw- Their Lordships would find, when the count and nothingd e e l i s g e h t t hroughout the whole record, that the count c th 'persons with one conspiracy, and under .t at count several persons ere found guilty, and had dtiu g n i'eut passed upon them far three conspiracies. Ile could not go into the first count at any great length, te nt he would lir-idly state the effect of it. ehat count charged eight persons, on a day and place named, L with having been guilty of an unlawful cons . pi- I acts • ae) , to d o the following five different unlawfu . A i r 3 t, to create disaffection and discontent areainst the Queen's Government. Secondly, to create ill-will be tween one class of the people and another. Thirdly, to effect changes in the Constitution lea demonstrations of Physical force, f o r th e p ur p ose o f i nt i m id at i on. Fourthly, endeavouring to bring the tribunals into contempt ; ', 11,1 , fifthly, for creatin g di scontent an d di saffect i on in tne army. Here the count charmed eight persons with O re oi con s piracy .to effect five unlawful acts. But the end of the . ding jury was wholly different . ; that found that the eight . defendants were guilty of conspiring to do two Me aes t nil acts—to create disaffection to the Government and and jealousy between one class of her Ma- Jesty's subjects and a no th er . H e wou ld class those Se°findings tog e th er , an d ca ll i t num b er one. en and eight were found guilty of another conspiracy, eMlspiraey of altogether a different character, and enill_leer. and different purposes—namely, a conspiracy to a , t change s in the Constitution by physical force and tatimidation, and also to bring tee tribunals of the country into disrepute and contempt. rhe LARD Of th e —II ANCELLOR—A.re the seven found guilty ia l3 P'racy to du 1,2, 3, and 4 ? `-a nte nnv—ci yes ; t h ree are f oun d gu il ty o f con d, are to d o N o. 5 ; that was creating disaffection in of ali t n, Yeand therefore those three were found guilty Th e e conspira c i es , 1,2, 3 , 4, an d 5. M e 1. !.. °110 CHANCELLOH—That is to do all ? h.teer— Yes. "aiur a i 14)11 D CeraeleeLeort—l think, Mr. Kelly, the w for yo ' n to .. have proceeded would have been '1)• thr ee i f q ate „,, were found guilty of doing all; seven were "aild of 'doing 1,2, 3, and 4 ; and eight were b le e l Y of doing 1 and 2. clit th e i i ; L lr admitted that that, perhaps, would have „ s uch /e au "'ter course to have adopted. He would treat Lie ntleie eh ers eParately, to avoid confusion. The Learned the co u then read the finding of the jury on all at ii,„„tuti's, which has already been given several times t u Now from those findings it would befound eonspiipap.arent that eight persons were charged with one ve objeec•i,"lY, the one time and place to effect those 'oekine te — , e ene whole question then at once arose Was it''a ;ernduretternS of this finding, was . it . a finding,. one only ? of guilty of three conspiracies, or of ord anotherCM APBELL— ? °f one conspiracy and part of KELLY would rather say one conspiracy, be cause it was necessary to bear in mind the d.f wL't.L -' between t h e conspiracy and the object of it. "en one conspiracy was found, when one unlawful ti - Otnent, amounting to a conspiracy, was wade, it stituted an indictable offen ce . 'The question was, • Wh ether it was possible, lookin g a t thi s fi n di ng , to put t"ilY other conetruetion upon it, than that it was a find eig ef three conspiracies, where conspiracy only . was ntrged in the indictment. He had already reminded sir Lordships that every conspiracy must be laid with they'i and place. In the first count they would find that e was a charge of but one conspiracy, at one time ne occasion. The fir s t finding was that the iee wer o e guilty of one it conspiracy to do two unlawful • Was that, or was not, in itself a verdict of one tu sht Iplet e offence—a crime upon which, if the record ; 11 ",PPed the re , t h ose eight prisoners might have had th `,'grn . ent passed upon them ? He began, then, with ei„s•—There was, in the count, a charge against the t person s o f one conspiracy. One conspiracy was all ' l e r ged, and th e d e f endants were found guilty of one, le there. wa s not hi ng to prevent the sentence of the (;curt from being passed upon them for that offence. jury what followed? There was then the verdict of the .t.hat seven of th ose e i g h t persons were gu ilt y o f "_3(luetiiittiittirtiedifffreeremnt and distinct conspiracy—a conspiracy be f the first as a conspiracy to murder conspiracy to rob a garden. The re. b y lat from a tated a perfect and complete offence, punishable th w, .and within the language of the charge contained Th e e Ill t diettnent. this e e :? 11 . 0 CHANCELLOR—The real mode of trying jut e , a would be to turn the finding of the jury li r. 'PM, and then see what the count would be. • te st, ''''. - ELLY would be quite willing to accept that wo u l d Meet only to this observation, that the count ir.thr•eclsell to this defect, that it would be one count t h e; ece different offences. He undertook to satisfy torolo4ordships that a count so framed, supposing it not th re „ fen to the o bj ection t h at it contained a charge of f er . offeuces, would be a good count a n_ niree several consp i rac i es . Wh at wou ld suc h t e rm be ? It would be that Daniel O'Con ereateand seven others • unlawfully attempted to 04 th di saffection, an d did un l aw f u ll y an d so f or th, D aris r l e Ist Of January, 1844, at Dublin, and in the eoi e b i Of St. Mark' s , un l aw f u ll y , ma li c i ous l y , an d so on ea oth er n conspire, an d con f e d era t e , t o an d w i t h eac h th e and to and with divers persons unknown, to bring tet4"vernment and constitution of this realm into con 'h , an d to raise jealousies, hatred, and ill le_• eekw e ee eu t i eeti en different classes of her Majesty's , and also that the said Daniel O'Con -0t14,,," the s ame d a y, an d ( nam i ng the six to e 0 at Dublin, &c., did unlawfully combine, &c. N,i s it t li gr , by violence and intimidation, the l a ws and urn, e ," t l° l l of this realm, and to bring the tribunals of Fatdi)untry i nto disrepute and contempt ; and that the b e a year O'Connell did, on the same day (or it might bee ali a r afterw ar d s ) consp i re , & c ., t o sprea d disaffec jealousies in her Majesty's army. That would uneall'ereet count, or, to speak in the language of cri ilfdiehl ple adings, th at wou ld b e th ree goo d coun t s i n an y by Ar ent fur three several and distinct conspiracies turait:e several persons. It was an inconceivable ale ated ai '", t ti lat five persons should be declared to be guilty Lo rd g!dity of one and the same conspiracy. feem Ls eeeneeet.--You say that the three who are 1 sea guilty of Nos. 1,2, 3,4, and 5, are found guilty of of three i e l nore than once. Rho ii-lkena, said that, according to his view, those ad b een found guilty in each finding eseiie guilty Le r 7,"nspiracies. that in'o.?itiPhELL—Then it would be the answer—and favourable to the applicants—that those three We re th ic k% e times found guilty of counts 1 and 2. Mr, Nth, , E "Y—That is not so ; for eight were found re„„et!'i conspiracy to do certain acts—seven of conspi— de.'„3" do certain other acts—and three of conspiracy to t or e ci o ther sep arate and distinct act. gun, CA MPBELL—D O you say that they are found Of three conspiracies to do 1 and 2 ? these .lELLY replied that they were not found guilty l;eilt time 8 on those two counts. They were once found lewin3:.o4ll_,those two counts, then found guilty on the fol- Th er e . r . 0, and, lastly, found guilty - on the fifth count. Spi,aeie"Cre three separate findings of three separate con that Ulla 8. Suppose there were an Act of Parliament guilty of certain conspiracies should be certain " a penalty of 100/., and it; under that statute, sets.....%nersons were indicted for conspiring to do several _ nr „ s ultie of the persons indicted were found guilty of t aili in the acts, others of the same acts, and also of cer ,elher acts charged —and the remainder were further F l tiltY Of the other acts charged. Now, the first , c a b le l iabl' to 100/. penalty, would not the second be ,bke 200/, ts - " '.14 , statute. atlnled the tm t t h iff ird i to O/. ? If l it were under z : v tl'd eight of them') plaintiffs in this the penalty were f indicted, ell to 200/ e to • each, and three to 300/. each ? 100/• each, Lo • • si einie CHANcELLoil—Would not this be the most iittli! v ay of putting it ? S uppose A, B, and C, being " eor , 4 _ ea t ogether, a s i n t hi s case, were found guilty of vv l) ltlng with others t o d o certa i n of the acts charged, B e e f oun oth guilty of con s pi r i ng, w i th others, to do certain pl ace of the acts, in the same time, and in the same .0 was fo un d gu il ty of conspiring, with the ferrT _ do one other of the indictable acts. ht r q CA MPBELL—AIthough th e acts m i ght be as the in their nature as t o storm t h e Tower, and violate , x cifts , ti ty of a woman. --" j'ORD CHANCELLOR—You ma i nta i n that these Would be of three conspiracies. Mr. KELLY held that they were so, and that there oarzht to have been a separate indictment for each. The Loan CHANCELLOR then left the Wo Asack, re questing Mr. Bally to,suspend his argument for a short Cmo, as he.(the Lord Chancellor) was obliged to mare the House in consequence of a communication which he hal jest received. On the Chancellor's return, - Mc. KELLY resumed—He said that he was willing that this case should be subjected to every possible test that could be imagined, and therefore he would venture to remind their Lordships that the very essence of criminal conspiracy was the existence of one common object—one object common . to all— one object to winch all and each were party, in Which all and each were implicated. But if a less numberorthose engaged in a conspiracy chose to • enter into another conspiracy, the latter object was surely , not to be made common to both. Directly there was a conspiracy, say by three out of eight, and the object of the three, proved to be (EFL-I:rent to ih?e object of - the eight ; it had no longer the incidents of the same conspiracy, and it never, either in law or in justice, could be dealt with as one conspiracy. ' But he (Mr. Kelly) would not deal vaguely with abstract points, but reduce the case to the most minute dimensions. Sup-. pose these eight persons—and he would pur sue the idea of the Lord Chancellor himself—suppose these eight persons to assemble at the same time, and in the same room, and agree to rob a garden—and- that then three out of of the eight—the remainder dissenting l —enter into a distinct and separate agreement to break into the house and murder the proprietor suppose (to put the case in the least favourable way) them to be actually round the same table, was that one conspiracy—or were there two conspiracies? The common object clearly was to rob the garden—not an innocent object certainly—but the atrocious object was the object of the second con spiracy, namely, to murder the inhabitants of the house. It . that be one conspiracy, then was he (Mr. Kelly) most lamentably at fault in his view of the law. Could any one be so absurd as to suppose that evidence against 'the whole three, or one of the three, was to be evidence against those who had only undertaken to rob a garden ? They must be treated as perfectly distinct—as separate conspiracies—or every rule of law, of justice, and of common sense, would be most grossly violated. Again, there fore, he repeated that upon a count con taining a charge of one crime, no person whatever could be convicted of two. Ile could not help calling the at tention of their Lordships to a case which recently oc curred at the Central Criminal Court, and the hearing of.which was presided over by a judge who had the longest and the largest criminal experience of any one upon the bench . The me was the one of larceny at Buckingham Palace, where a great variety of things had been stolen. the robbery extending over a very lengthened period of time. But that crime, thus extend ing over so long a period, was put into the indictment as one act of larceny alone, and the Learned Judge very properly instructed the jury that they must find the pri soner guilty of one specific act of larceny and one only. He would ask them whether a number of persons in dicted fur one crime could be convicted of three several and distinct offences ? The address to the jury by Mr. Baron Rolfe on the trial of Mr. Fergus O'Connor and others bore strongly upon this point. That Learned Judge said, that in order to convict all or any of the defendants, they must convict them of one and the same conspiracy. But if they found that some of the defen dants had opposed any violence, and that others had used no violence, that one had proposed a voluntary absti nence from labour, they might convict them all, but on different counts ; those who had taken part in the violence would be convicted on the counts re lating to violence ; but those who stopped short of violence, on the other portions of the indict ment. He had supposed that certain parties had entered into a plan to rob a garden, and that a portion of them had entered into a conspiracy to murder the inhabitants of the House. He would ask - whether that which took place on the same day in the same place would be one conspiracy, or would it he two conspiracies. No doubt that evidence against one of the eight persons to whom he had alluded, as to the conspiracy to rob the garden might might be evidence against the whole, but could it be contended 'that evidence against three of those eight, those three having conspired to murder the inhabitants of the house without the knowledge of the other five, was evidence against the whole eight. five of whom had agreed to rob the garden, but had never heard of the design. If on the trial a witness should be called to prove that one of those eight had committed a certain unlawful act, .not at all with reference to the object which the eight had in view, but in reference to an act contemplated by three only, the other five having never heard of it, would that he evidence against all the five ? The judge would be bound to receive the evidence, but he should caution the jury as to applying the evidence to that part of the case that related to the conspiracy of eight, because that evidence related only to another and different conspiracy, had a different object, and in furtherance of that different object confined to the three. His Learned Friend must contend that if persons are charged in the same indictment, eight with conspiring to do one thing, and three with conspiring to do another thing, in furtherance of which they were guilty of somewhat more criminality, would the evidence against them be admissible against the eight likewise ? It would he right to admit it if it was one and the same conspiracy, but he ventured to say it was an abuse of words to say that a conspiracy by eight persons to cause disaffection to the Queen's Go vernment, was the same conspiracy as a conspiracy by three out of the eight to bring . the tribunals of the country into contempt, and thotigh he had so far adopted the suggestion thrown out that this might have taken place within the same cham ber, and at the same time, they must remember it was perfectly consistent with the finding of the jury, that the conspiracy of the three might have taken place on the Ist of January, and the conspiracy of the eight had not taken place till the Ist of June probably. See then what the consequence was, if this was treated as one conspiracy—an act done by one of three persons who had entered into a conspiracy in January,. that act being done in February, March, or April, would, according to this, be evidence against the eight who had never entered into a conspiracy till January. This was one of the many absurdities that would follow, if this was taken as one and the same conspiracy. A conspiracy was either an illegal agreement to obtain some lawful object by some unlawful means ' or to obtain an unlawful object by any means whatever ; but one common object was still and always of the essence of conspiracy. The he would say with all confidence that an agreement to obtain one object was not the same thing as an agreement to obtain another and a different object. He would not embarrass the case by any technical illustrations, but lie would suppose an agreement entered into at the same place, and signed at the same time by the parties in the same sheet of parchment. (The Learned Counsel was proceeding when our Re port left.) MOVE ir AND CoMMERUIAL NEWS. CITY, QUARTER TO THREE. The Cotton Market was rather dull at Liverpool yesterday. In shares a limited amount of business was done and the market closed heavily. Taken altogether, the returns rela tive to the receipts of the revenue are held to be satisfactory in the mercantile circles. Indeed, for some weeks past, it was well known that the demand for merchandise of most sorts has been brisk. But however satisfactory the receipts of the customs and excise, the time of the " takings," under the head of " property-tax," is referred to with disapprobation. Scarcely any one is there to be found to approve of this item, and who does not express an ardent wish that it will, at the time appointed, be erased from the quarterly returns by the receipts of the national resources. We have the West India steamer announced. She brings about a million and a half of dollars, besides 31,710/. in silver win, and articles of value. Her accounts are dated the 24th May, from Tampico, and the 9th June, from Vera Cruz. About 161,000 dollars are understood to be for the Mexican dividend account. New Zealand papers, to Feb.:3, state that the production of flax was increasing. Captain Fitzroy had visited Wel lington, and received the settlers very well, though, as is said, with something ofthe " quarter deck" in his manner. Bargains have been made to-day in Consols for next week at 984 to 99, the divide lads being then payable. For the Account day they are 981 to 99—the market is good. Ex chequer Bills realise 745. to 765. premium. Bank Stock is worth 199 to 4, a further rise; and India Stock, ex dividend, 284 to 284 k. The Reduced Three-and-a-Half per Cents. are 1021 . t0 1; and the Three per Cents. 99a to The Foreign Market has been very dull, but nominally Mexican is higher, say 35a a, the news being considered favourable. The Deferred are 15i to a. Spanish Actives are nominally 23i, and the Three per Cents. 33% to a. Brazil Bonds are firm at 83. Dutch Two-and -a-Half per Cents. realise 60% to 61. The Railway Shares are generally firm, and the supposed settlement of the dispute with the Grand Junction has sent up Birmingham to 125 and 126 premium. BRITISH FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. (From the Official List.) 8ank5t0ck.......... ........ 199% Igg 3 per Cent. Re duced Annuities ....... 99%% 3 per Cent. Consols. Annuities .....».-.•»••••. 96% 99 985( 3% per Cent. Reduced Annuities 10 2 3„,% New 3% per Cent. Annuities 101106% Long Annuities, Expire sth Jan. 1860 12% India Stock 914% 284 Bank Stock for Account Consols for Open ng . . Exchequer Bi ll s, Tia. N . & 1 0001. ..... ..... ..... 76 pm. _ _ ... ... Ditto ..... 74 pm. Ditto Advertised. .... FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Brazilian Bonds, 5 per Cent. Mexican Bonds, 1 837, 5 per Cent. . ........... - Ditto Deferred Stock 1514% Spanish Bonds, Five per Cent 1840 Z% Dutch 2% per Cents.... ....... . ................» CO% 61 Dutch 5 per Cents.... - ... .. 100%% PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE. RAILWAYS. PAID. PER SHAMS. Birmingham and Gloucester Ditto New Bristol and Exeter............... ..... 70 ..... Chester and Holyhead 5 ... ..... 4 ...... to Chichester and Brighton Edinburgh and Glasgow sp 63 to Great Western ..«....».............. 75 Ditto 14 Shares Ditto Fifths London and Birmingham. lOO 226 Ditto % Share , London and Brighton 5O ......•. 46% London and South Western 41% 826 Ditto Eighths 334% ... to London and Croydon Manchester and Birmingham ... 40 ......... 556 to North Midland • Ditto % Shares 4O 47 to South Eastern and Dover ... ...... 32% Ditto New Trent Valley York and North Midland .....».. 50 lOl 104 ... to 106 Ditto Scarboro' Branch ..... ... 2% MANCIIEsTER STOCK EXCHANGE, J ULY s.—There isp a decided improvement in our market, and a good inquiry for London and Birmingham, Grand Junction, Trent Valley, and Liverpool and Manchester, at improved prices. London and Birmingham, Quarters, 25 ; Manchester and Leeds, 107 ; Huddersfield and Manchester Canal and Railway, 365. 3d. premium ; Barnsley Junction, 2a ; Trent Valley, 10a ; Man chester ttudßirmiDgham, Quarters, 3-A i premium. r i l 11 1 4 _ 1 4 S N, LONDON, SATURDAY EVRNING, JIT_LY 6 1844. THE REVENUE FOR THE YEAR AND QUARTER ENDING JULY 5, 1844. No. I.—An Abstract of the Not Produce of the Revenue of Great Britain in the Years and Quarters ended sth of July, 1843, arid r;th of Juiy, 1841, showing the Increase or Decrease on each head thereof. " QUARTERS ENDED YEAR QUARTERS ENDED YEAR ended ....... ,---.... end e d Year ended July 5. Quarter ended July 5. -, ~. \ ,-......-----.... Oct. 10, Jan. 5, April 5, 1 July 5, July 5, Oct. 10, Jan. 5, April 5, July 5, July 5, increase. 1 Decrease. I Increase. 1 Decrease. Customs 1811 1813 ism 184'3 1843 : 1841 11344 1844 1841 1811 :- • • - Cons iidated Duties ... 4,647,472 ' , ;274,00 I 3,193,5.6 3,3 1•, ,73 •- 4,276,151 3,674,421 3,5 . 29,',.1,1 3,802,521 - Sugar Duty to C onso li. - -" _ - dated Fund - _ . 262,54(1 1,253,733 - - -- - - _ - .Ditto to Supplies - - 420,796 1,066,714 1,253,357 1, 1 82,544 654,100 - - - - - Total Customs . s (44,1 977 4,014. 080 4 oi9 537 4,55 - ' 2O 18,9 4,809 5,1E:9,5(48 4,766,963 4,604,40 4,60,V5 1x,7%0,154 ; Customs ....... 835,319 312,0:9 . ~ , Excise :3,72;1,0.35 3,022,M3 1,767,373 3, 03 0, • 1 3 11, 45,;29 3,!)60,550 3,1Z0,771 1,85 ),681 ;11;59 , 11,01 - 4.602 it Excise I 420M73 85.179 - - Stamps 1,631,490 1,661,75; 1,59;125 1,659,010 6,445,370 1,650,366 1,523,6:',3 1, 0 39,011 1,705, 1 33 ti,b19,063 I ; Stamps .... ..... 72,1191 4 9 023 Taxes 177,4:37 1,836,11.3 142,693 1,98 ~ , 43 I 4,'91,129 194,11 N. 1,51i5,5'.57 144,685 1,980,874 4,197,516; 'itaxes 6. 387 5,043 - - Property Tax 313,814 257,212 1,886,232 861, •09 3,317,997 2,017,904 454,415 1,992,859 752,495 5,24 7 ,663 !Property Tat 1,929,666 9,224 Post Office 168,000 141,000 144,000 145,0110 598,01; 160,(90 143,000 174,003 155,001 632,000 ;Post Office ... 34,000 ...... 10,000 - Crown Lands... - 42,509 4(4,090 35 000 1'2,5 0 120,000 • 0,000 30,9 0 6.;,44)0 30,000 145,. 00 Crown; I. ands 25,000 2,500 Miscellaneous 2;924 21,537 541,555 1,06:3,524 1,647,511 17,714 11,917 41,2 42 , ,1,77 48' , ,141 'Miscellaneous 1,154,401 641,337 Total Ordinary Reven...e 11,1394,197 11,143, 7 63 10,320,522 P,333, - 9'3 46,800,375 10,86,172 11,829,581 10,513,933 13, 1 39,408 48,969,142 I Total.:.! 3,3A168 1,151,401 41.8,574 653,661 Imprest Moneys, &e,...,, 111,070 107, 1 97 . 16,907 6 7 ,1.0 1. 0? 254 31,205 50,131 54,244 49,018 187,71'3 Imp. Mlaeys 114,551 - 18,112 Repayments of Advances 180,211 ' 35,247 124,048 133,21.7 677,713 230,932 33 • ,069 226,284 274,557 1,063,833 'Rep. of Adv... ::86,120 26,350 -- -. - ----- -- Total Income ... 12,285,478 11,1E6,107 10,469,477 13,539,2 0 47,780,342 13,8 ,1,409 12,21 1 ,777 10,791,511 113,36 ~ 81 50,- 0 20, 678 . Total ... 3,709,283 1,2'..8,952 494,924 671,2 - 23 ...,----..;-- Amount applied to Con. 9,047,560 6,860,0:4 9,7613,264 6,41 41,06 32,110,359 11 1 ,:,23,636 • 7,859,893 7,6V5,972 8,994,078 ; '45,013,5,9 s Deduct De- Deduct } solidated Fund1,26%952 494 924 crease Increase. - , Ditto, as Advances :3 r Increase on Decrease on 11 , '' of the Year ,061,291 4,626,053 - 567, 8 3 0 6,905,273 15,16.3,447 3,1h7,773 4,060,383 2,918,539 4,191,627 14,353,322 2,44 % 336 j the Year. the Quarterlj ' '''''' Total. , 12,285,478 11,486,107 1 10,469,477 1 3 , 5 3 9 ,2z - 0 17,780,3-12 13,851,409 1 12,211,777 1 10,794,511 13,362,931 50,5120,678 1 No. ll.—lncome and Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Quarters ended the sth July, 1843, and the sth July, 1844. Quarters ended July 5. S WI A Y F Z AND 13ublic Opinton. " Who run., may read." roamr.4:?rz. The whole of the French Court will go to Dreux on the 13th, the second anniversary Of the death of his Royal High noti% the Duke of Orleans. On this occasion, masses will be said•in all the Catholic churches in France. Madame Adelaide returned on Wednesday to Neuilly from Auvergne. She slept on Tuesday night at Fontainebleau. The Duke de Montpensier left the Princess at La Charite, in order to come more directly to Neuilly, and thence to Vincennes. The Count de St. Aulaire had arrived at Paris. Letters from Rome (20th ult.) state that that morning, at half-past ten o'clock, his Holiness the Pope, attended by a numerous cortive, left the Vatican and proceeded to the Villa di Malta, to pay a visit to the King of Bavaria. On the ap proach of the Pope hellg announced, the King repaired to the entrance of die villa to receive his Holiness, who stayed a considerable time with his Majesty. The -king intends .shortly to leave the Holy City for Palermo. Much rain has of late fallen at Rome, but at present the heat is intense, 25 degrees Reamur (89 Fahrenheit). The Moniteur publishes the comparative returns of the ge neral trade of France with her colonies and foreign countries during the years 1841, 1842, and 1843. The amount of her imports dirrim.7. the last year was 1,186,000,000 f., viz., 863,000,000 f. by sea, and 323,000,000 f. by land. In 1841 the imports had been 1,121,000,000 f., and in 1842, 1,142,000,000 f. The number of vessels engaged in the import trade in 1844 was 16,411,—viz., 6,106 French, and 10,305 foreign, the former measu in; 639,637 tons, and the latter 1,376,240 —in all 2,015,897 tons. The exports amounted in 1843 to 992,000,000 E—viz., 704,000,000 f. by sea, and 287,000,000 f. by land. In 1841 the exports had been 1,065,000,000 f., and in 1842, 940,000,000 f. The number of vessels engaged therein in 1843 was 11,585,—viz., 5,325 French, and 6,260 foreign, measuring, the former 565,282 tons, and the latter 665,454 — in all 1,230,736 tons. The Minister of the Interior has just addressed a circular to the Prefects, demanding a report upon all the public works executed in the departments since 1831, and an ac count of what remains to be done. _ . A Toulon letter of the 28th ult. informs us that the whole of the squadron of Rear-Admiral Parseval-Deschines has re ceived orders to proceed to the African coast. It consists of the Ocean, Neptune, In§lexible, and Marengo, ships of the line. A courier who left Barcelona on the 29th, brings official accounts of the resignation of the Marquis de Villuma, as Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Queen of Spain. General Narvaez, for the present, is charged with his portfolio. I.A►W aND POLICE. In the case of Halifax and others v. Verner, which was heard in the Court of Exchequer, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, thereby declaring that he was not a share holder in the Talacre Coal and Iron Company. •At the Westminster sessions, • Domenico Maestro and Guiseppe Gatte, the two Italians who were sentenced to im prisonment and hard labour by Mr. Hardwick, at Marlbo rough-street Police -court, for cruelty to Italian boys, in send ing them out to beg, appealed 'against the conviction. The statements made by the complainants on this occasion having differed materially from that made previously at the Police court, the conviction was quashed, and the defendants dis charged. The report of the Governor of Westminster Bridewell, of the state and condition of that prison, was presented; and it appears that there are 414 prisoners. namely, 301 males, and 113 females, besides 10 children, all in goo d h ea l t h . Mr. W. Burt,3 many years poor -rate collector for the united parishes of St. Margaret and St John, Westminster, under went a very lengthened examination, at Queen's-square, on the charge of embezzling upwards of 600/., the moneys of the governors of the poor of the said parishes. The order was made out for his committal, and the witnesses were then bound over to prosecute at the Central Criminal Court, but at the desire of the gentleman who had been engaged to defend him, and who would not be in town for some day s , he - was ordered to be brought up again on that day three weeks. At Union-hall, Elizabeth Johnson the wife of a fish-sales man in Billingsgate •market, and residing in Red Cross-street, Southwark, was brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with wounding her husband in a very serious manner, by stabbing him with a table-knife, while in a passion, arising out of a dispute. The man's life is in danger, and he could not appear to give evidence. The • prisoner, who appeared absorbed in grief, said that her husband was in the habit of ill-using her, and that in the excitement of the moment she snatched up the first thing that came to hand, and that was unfortunately a knife, and struck him with it. She added that no one could regret it more than she did. Mr. Cotting ham said that he should remand the prisoner until the condi tion of her husband was made known. COUR.T-P.ASHIONILIIZE. The Duchess of Kent is expected to return to Frogmore House from the Continent on Saturday the 13th inst. The Ladies Patronesses, under whose direction the grand Waverley ball will take place, held their last meeting on Friday afternoon, at Willis's rooms, on which occasion no less than thirty Peeresses and other ladies assembled to complete the final arrangements for the forthcoming festival. The demand for tickets has been altogether unprecedented. The Marquis of Waterford arrived at Mivart's Hotel, on Monday last, from Curraghmore, Ireland, and has since gone to High Cliff, near Christchurch, Hants, to visit Lord and Lady Stuart de Rothesay, with whom the Marchioness has been staying during the Noble Marquis's absence in Ireland. The - Earl of Devon left Bryanstoa-square early in the week on a visit to the Venerable Dowager Countess For tcscue, at Wier Gifford, Devon. Viscount and Viscountess Beresford gave an elegant enter tainment last evening to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, at the family residence, in Cavendish-square. The Royal Duchess, attended by Lady Georgiana Bathurst and the Hon. Captain Liddell, arrived precisely at eight o'clock, and was welcomed by the Noble and Gallant Vis count and Viscountess. There were present to meet her Royal Highness the Duke of Montrose, Marquis of Salisbury, Earl and Countess of Jersey, Earl of Mansfield, Earl of Dun more, Earl and Countess of Kinnoul, &c. The Duke of Sutherland and the Marquis of Stafford have left Stafford House, for the Albion Hotel, at Brighton. Lord and Lady Beauvale are expected to leave Hyde Park-terrace early in the ensuing week, for Germany. IMISCMLLAIMOUS. The extensive improvements in Woolwich Dock-yard, under the direction of Captain Denison, are rapidly progress ing. - On Thursday the last brick of the stupendous chimney intended to carry, over the whole of the adjacent buildings, the whole of the smoke from the newly-erected foundries and boiler-makers' sheds, was laid. In form it is octagonal, with an area for the flues of the furnaces within the base of twenty feet in circumference, and the walls at the bottom are six feet in thickness. The measurement within, at the top within the walls, is six feet clear. To the summit of the brick- work from the ground is 210 feet. It appears from the provincial papers, that there have been copious falls of rain in all parts of the country, and that the crops have been much benefited thereby. The grain is every where well spoken of. The hay crop is a most lamentable failure ; but there will, in many places, be good second crops. A Cork paper says the other day, when the Ministers were in difficulty, the people bad written on the walls of Cork, " Hurrah for repale, boys, Peel's out ;" some one afterwards wrote underneath, "Ah but Dan's in." The Summer Assizes for the Northern Circuit will com mence at York on Wednesday next, when the commission will be opened by Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Cres well. There are about sixty prisoners for trial, five of whom are charged with a murder near Bradford. There are also several serious stabbing cases. The sale of Bibles, formerly the property of the Duke of Sussex, was resumed at Messrs. Evans's auction-rooms, Pall mall, on Friday. The number of lots disposed of during the five days' sale is 986, and the amount realised exceeds 2.0001., the principal purchasers being Messrs. Rodd, Pickering, Leslie, Thorpe, Taylor, Brown, Longman, &c. Dickins's " Martin Chuzzlewit is in rehearsal at the Lyceum, under the direction of Mr. Stirling. LLOYD'S. SHIPPING.-(TRIS DAY.) LONDON, JULY 6.—Wind N.E. light breezes and cloudy. DEAL, JULY S.—P.M. Wind moderate.—AtTd. Ins, Lakeland, China ; Mohawk, Ferguson, Bombay ; Ohaine, Wilson, Algoa Bay ; Vestal, Trinidad ; Skibbelar, Montserrat ; Duncan and Sophia, St. John's. Sid. Tecumseh, Thirteen, and Rokeby, lchaboe ; John Hall, Belize; Laurel, Quebec; Grace Darling, Medina, and the rest of the outward-bound. PORTSMOUTH, JULY s.—Wind S.W. to N.E.—Arrd. Maria Cecilia, Langbourn, Matanzas. COWES, JULY s.—Arrd. Solide, Enesson, Rio Janeiro. PLYMOUTH, JULY s.—Wind N. to N.W.—Sld. Instillia, Ichaboe. FALMOUTH, JULY s.—Wind N., fresh breezes. Arrd. Louise, Follet, Pernambuco ; Adventure, Thomson, ditto; Chanticleer, Dominica. OFF WALDEMAR.—Rasunise, Anea, and sailed for Ham burgh ; Eliza Rellick, Gonaives, and sailed for Liverpool. OFF DOVER, JULY s.—Sheppherd, Nanacott, Swan River, Feb. 23. OFF EASTBOURNE, JULY s.—Palestine, Sydney, New South Wales, Feb. 24. PENZANCE, JULY 3.-:-San Matheus Rodiguez, Maranham, for Liverpool. Sailed Mountaineer, Quebec. OFF SALCOMBE, JULY 4.—Morayshire, Smith, Port Phillip; Patelina, Strong, River Gambia. BRISTOL, JULY s.—Sld Margaret Parker, St. John's, New foundland. SWANSEA, JULY 4.—Arrd. Britannia, Valparaiso (107 days) ; Eliza Heywood, Fox, and Alexander Johnson, Swan, Valparaiso ; Gipsy, lurpin, Cobrero , Wood, and Maria Hardy, Metcalf, Cuba. Ltvisnroor., JULY s.—Wind N.E , moderate.—Arrd. Reso lution, Evans, Maranham ; Wauman, Gibbs, La Guayra •, Carolus, New Orleans; Alexander, Mobile. Sld. General Garnett, China; Enchantress, Rio; George Canning, Ma ranham ; Marmion, Jamaica ; Mersey, Charleston ; British Queen, and Severn, St. John's, New Brunswick; Agenoria, Quebec. Off port, Elora, China; Manilla, and Undaunted, Callao; Sir Charles Napier, Valparaiso; Cornelia, Mobile; Prince Charlie, Montreal ; Selina, James Tincan, Ursula, Severn, and Esquimaux, —; Deva, Malabar; John Bull, E. Parvis, and lmaum of Muscat, —.—.. ICHABOE.—Acrd: Amy and Joseph Hume, London ; Charles, Liverpool ; Robert Kerr, Belfast ; Zenobia, Cape of Good Hope. SUNDERLAND, JULY 4.—Sid. Thalia, Ichaboe. On , PORTSDIOUTH, JULY 4.—Seagull, Trinidad. OFF EDDYSTONE, JULY 2.—Louise and Emelie, Vera Cruz. OFF CAPE CLEAR, JUNE 30.—Eliza, Ichaboe. CORE, JULY 3.—Arrd. Sirius, Ichaboe. Off, Argyle and Commodore, Ichaboe. . . SOUTHAMPTON, JULY 6.—Arrd. Thames (steamer), West Indies, left Tampico May 24. Jamaica June 8, Havannah 9th, Barbadoes 18th, Bermudas 20th; has 61 passengers, 1,419,203 dollars, 317!. 10s. British coin, 883 oz. gold dust, 2,2280 z. silver, 2,4040 z. Plata Brats, 203 serons Cochineal, 9 boxes Vanilla, 91 serons Indigo. MELANCHOLY SUICIDE AT BRIGHTON-On Thurs day, the 27th ult., a gentle Man named Hinde, a retired wholesale chemist and druggist, left his lodgings. in West street, Brighton, and a reward was offered for his discovery. He was not found till yesterday (Thursday) morning, when the body was discovered in an out-building of an unin habited house at the western part of Brighton, with his throat cut in a dreadful manner. A Coroner's inquest was held on the body the same evening, when the Jury returned a verdict of " Temporary insanity." DOG-STEALING.—On Tuesday next, Mr. Liddell will call the attention of the House of Commons to a petition presented last session, praying for further protection against the depredations of the dog-stealers in the metropolis; and move for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of the said petition, with a view to the correction of the evils complained of. It is said the gold and silver plate, at Windsor Castle, is valued at 2,000,0001. A single gold service of George IV. contains all the dishes requisite to dine 130 guests. A lady residing in Stamford received, last week, through the Post-office, a gooseberry pie, which had been sent to her from a young friend at Cambridge.— Sfinnford Mercury. 3,301,473 1,252,733 4,557,`i06 3,013,1'43 6W,010 1,934,831 861,709 145,000 32,500 260,524 E 03,000 67,181 138;207 1%552,810 3,802,521 1,066,714 4,8'9,235 ,130,494 1,705,013 1,989,874 752,485 30,00 n i'118,187 181,0'0. 49018 274,537 13,377,83 INCOME. Customs.—Consolidated Duties Sugar applicable to the Consolidated Fund Total Customs Excise Stamps Taxes Prope ty Tax Post Office' Crown Lands Miscellaneous Produce of Silver from China Imprest and other Monies Relmyment of Advance. To Cash brought to this Account to be applied to pay off Deficiency Bills 13,551,810 13,377,883 THE STATE TRIALS. (SECOND DAY.) WRIT.OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5. THE QUREN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Mr. PEACOCK (in :continuation from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday) said—Now this was one of the objections in the King v. Walker, that there would be two judgments on the record, for if the court of error added to the judgment of the court below, that would make it a new . judgment. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the court below could cure the defect in the same term. Mr. PEAcocK—They could do so if it were a mere mis prision of the clerk. The LORD CIIANCELLOR—I take it that this was a mis prision. Mr. PEACOCK submitted that it was an erroneous judg ment of the court, and not a misprision of the clerk. it was laid down in several authoritie;„ among;CoThJ;, Bacon's Abridgment (Error No. 2), that when the defendant brings a writ of error, he comes for a reversal of the judgment, and the Court cannot amend, but must reverse the judgment. When the plaintiff brought a writ of error, he applied for that judgment from the Court above, which the Court below should have given. In this case, therefore, he submitted that the judgment of their Lordship's must be to reverse that of the Court below. He apologised for occupying their Lord ships so long, and thanked them for their indulgence. Mr. HILL, who appeared for Messrs Steele and Barrett, said that in the division of the labour made amongst them selves by the counsel on the part of the plaintiffs in this writ of error, it had been assigned as his portion to address their Lordships on the objection to the witnesses being sworn before the grand jury and not in open Court, and, secondly, on the objections to the arraigns, it was made imperative by the Act of Parliament, that after the witnesses had been sworn and their names placed on the back of the indictment, the swearing should be certified by the initials of the foreman placed opposite each name. Before the year 1816 a practice prevailed with some grand juries in Ireland to find bills with out examining witnesses, but on written statements. The Act 56th George 111., was passed to corre c t thi s p rac ti ce , an d enacted that no bill of indictment should be returned as found unless the witnesses were sworn in open Court; so that their Lordships would see that if there had been any doubt at common law, it was put an end to by that statute. From the passing of the Act it was clear that witnesses should be sworn in open Court, as was the case in England. But on the part of the Crown, another statute, the Ist and 2d Victoria, c. 37, was relied upon, and from it it was contended that in all proceedings before grand juries in Ireland, as well in the Court of Queen's Bench as in Courts of Session and Assizes, the wit nesses should be sworn by the grand jury. Now, he would call the attention of their Lordships to the Act itself, which was but short, and he would read the whole of it. It was entitled an Act to enable the foreman of the grand jury or any other grand juror to swear witnesses, and the preamble stated that the Act was intended to remove the inconvenience and delay occasioned by swearing witnesses in open court. He (Mr. Hill) apprehended that the best way to interpret an Act of Parliament was to read the body of the Act, and not to take the preamble alone. There were many authorities for that position, but he thought it was so well understood that he need not trouble their Lordships by arguing it. He would proceed, therefore, to the enacting part of this Act, and the whole question would turn on the enacting parts of the Ist section, which was to the effect," That in all cases where indictments sball be laid before grand juries in Ireland, the names of the witnesses shall be indorsed upon the back of the indictment by the Clerk of the Crown at the Assizes, or the Clerk of the - Peace at Sessions, and the twelve grand jurors being present, it shall be lawful for the foreman, or other juror, to administer to each witness the oath or affirmation," &c. Lord CAMPBELL asked was there any analogous Act in England? Mr. HILL said there was not. It was material to remark that their Lordships had to ascertain what was the intention of the Legislature, as shown by the means appointed, for carrying out that intention. The Act did not give grand juries an unconditional power to swear witnesses. They were only empowered to do so when the names of the witnesses were endorsed on the back of the bill, and that could not be done by every one, but only by the Clerk of the Crown at sessions, and the Clerk of the Peace at the ' assizes. He could not see any ground for saying that there ' was the slightest ambiguity in the Act, or that the duty laid upon the clerks desi gnated could be assume d b y any other as a duty to be performed or a privilege to be exercised. He understood that much stress bad been laid by the Crown on the introductory words of the enacting clause, which were, "that in all cases that may come before grand juries in Ireland ;" but he contended that those words were not to be taken of themselves, but must have their meaning defined by the remainder of the sentence; and if so much of this clause as made a perfect sentence were examined, it would be found to fix the meaning of the former part. If they were to take a detached phrase in any Act of Parlia ment, or in any other writing, they might make the sense of that appear the very opposite of that which was intended. As Mr. Erskine once said, 3-on might prove from the Bible that " there was no : God," by omitting the important sen tence which preced e d — . The fool hath said in his heart." Let their Lordships try that experiment—let them try that mode of illustration upon the words before them, and the sense would be exactly the same. Without changing a single word it might be read by putting the latter part of the clause first, and then there could be no possible cavil about the meaning. Suppose it had been stated that the clerk of the Crown at assizes, and the clerk of the peace at Quarter Sessions shall enter on the back of the bill of indictment the names of the witnessea, and send them before the grand jury, in all cases where bills were laid before the grand juries in Ireland. The construction that he put upon the Act of Parliament was, that the word assizes wa s used there in the popular sense. He did not know whether it was intended to be urged that the word assize included, propria vigore, the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. The present use of the word assize, and perhaps the only use, was the one now given to it; at all events, it was a part of popular speech in the reign of Richard 11. ; and Chaucer, in describing a sergeant, said " He was full oft a justice of assize." With respect to the word assize as connected with nisi prius, that was as old as the statute of Westminster; but their Lordships were aware even after that statute it was neces sary that a new statute should be had to enable trials to take place in the Courts of Westminster at nisi prim; instead of at bar. Now, the definition of assize given by Lord Coke, in. his 2d Institute, page 422, was, that before Magna Charta assizes were only to be taken in the Court of Common Pleas. The LonD CDAricnuou—We all know, Mr. Hill, what the meaning of the Clerk of the 'Crown at assizes is. We have had much experience On tha, Wiest, and the Judges will have practical experienced it again very shortly, if you only allow them.—(Laughter.) Mr. HILL would do all in his power to' enable the Judges to do so, and after the observations' that had been thrown out by their Lordships, he would proceed to another part of the that t e then,q co u n es id tioenx,tendwas--Was word s an d mean i ng o f t h e w--Was there upon this Act Act to the Court of Queen's Bench ?' It was assumed in the judgment below to be the clear and evid en t i n t en ti on o f th e L eg i s l a ture that these enactments should in c l u d e th e C o urt of Queen's Bench. N ew, how were th e i r L or d s hi ps to col lect that such was the in tention, and th a t th a t was the t ru e construction? It was supposed t o b e i n th e ti t l e anythingcase. and preamble. With regard to the title, lie need not argue that it was no part of the bill, any more than the word " assizes" included the Court of Queen's Bench. But supposing it to be so, would it not be a verrstrang e construction to take the general terms of a title which ought to be short, and which in the present case was short enough, and suppose that they defined the operation of the Act? 'rake the case of the Statute of Frauds, the title of which was, "An Act to prevent Frauds and Perjury." Was that an Act to prevent all frauds and all perjuries? It would, indeed, be an invaluable Act if it had such an effect. This was an Act to empower grand juries in Ire land to administer oaths to witnesses upon bills of indict ' ment. The title could not be expected to contain the limi tations of the Act substantially. Sitting in a court of error on an indictment coming from Ireland, their Lord ships must be presumed to know the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench in that country; and that the number of criminal cases .in that Court, as in the Court of Queen's Bench in England, was exceedingly few. The only words which at all bore on the question in the preamble, were the following That the administra tion of the Court has been productive of delay and other in conveniences." Did it necessarily follow that it was produc tive of delay and inconvenience in every case, and in every court? Surely they bad seen that day proof that there were some courts in which the swearing of witnesses in open court was not considered such an inconvenience as called for the in terposition of the 'Legislature. He apprehended that the full meaning of this Oreamble would be satisfied if, in the majority of instances, it had been found productive of delay and incon venience. • When their Lordships saw th a t th e li m i te d mean ing which he ventured to put upon the Act would extend to 9,999 out of every 10,000 cases which were tried in Ireland, surely they would be of opinion that there was sufficient left, if they deducted the number of cases in the Queen's Bench, to satisfy all that was averred. Lord CAMPBELL-IS there not in Dublin a Court of Oyer and Terminer, analogous to our Central Criminal Court? Mr. Him—There may be, my Lord. Lord CAsirDELL—Would you not allow that that Court is an assize ? Mr. HILL—As far as I am aware of the constitution of that Court, it is not an assize. -It never was so called. CHARGE. Permanent Debt Terminable Annuities Interest on Exchequer Bills issued to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund Sinking Fund The Civil List Other charges on the Consolidated Fund For Advances, and to pay ofrExchequer Bills issued for Advances Total Charge Th a Surplus The Amount of Exchequer Bills issued to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund for the Quarter ended April 5, 1813,, and paid off out of the growing produce of that Fund for the Quarter ended July 5, 1814, after deducting £300,000 paid off out of Sinking Fund The Amount issued in the Quarter ended July 5, 1814, in part of the sums granted by Parliament out of the Consoli dated Fund for Supply Services The Surplus of the Consolidated Fund, Quarter ended July 5, 1814 ... The probable amount of Exchequer Bills required to meet the charge on the Consolidated Fund, Quarter ended July 5, 1814 Lord CAmrriELL—There are a .great many persons tried in that Court, but I do not know that it will affect your argument. Mr. Hir.r.,--Lord Bacon mentions, as one of the incidents of an assize, that it is under a commission. The LORD CIIANCELLOR—This indictment was found there, was it not? Mr. HILL—No, in the Court of Queen's Bench, before what was called in Ireland, " The Term Grand Jury." It was not found at an assize in every sense of the word, and if that Commission Court could be considered an assize, it would not assist their Lordships. He would now call their Lordships' attention to the second point which he maintained as arising upon the construction of this Act. His client (Mr. Steele) had assigned for error in fact, that the witnesses upon whose evidence - the bill was found had not been certified in the manner pointed out by the Act, as having been sworn before the grand jury. The point would only be material, if their Lordships should be of opinion that the construction he had put upon the Act was erroneous. Then it resolved itself into this question, supposing the foreman of the grand jury to be the proper person to , swear these wit nesses, and not the officer of the Court in open Court, then they could not - have been duly sworn ; and, at least, the indictment had not been duly returned, because the foreman of the grand jury had not put his initials so as to authenticate the fact that they had been sworn at all. The Legislature felt this difficulty, that if the authority to admi nister the oath was transferred from open court to the close and secret room of the grand jury, there would be no means by which the Court could be informed that any oath had been administered, or that it had been administered to one witness more than to another. The grand jury being sworn to secrecy, the defendants could not themselves attend, nor could any part of the public attend, to see what was done, and the only means of removing this difficulty was a statutory regulation. The cause was this. The officer of the court endorsed the names of all such witnesses as were likely to be called before the grand jury. But the grand jury were frequently satisfied with a fewer number of witnesses than the prosecutor had prepared. They found the bill, he supposed upon the evi dence of the first witness. How, unless the certificate was made as pointed out by the Act, was the court to know upon the evidence of what witness the bill had been found ? It was an unusual proposition that where the course of pro ceeding in a court of justice, according to the common law, was changed, where a new tribunal,, if he might be per mitted to use that French word, was chosen, then the power by which that change was effected must be strictly pursued. After the 56th of George 111., and probably before it, it was illegal for grand juries to find bills upon the testimony of witnesses not sworn, and the effect of that bill was to provide that they should be sworn in open court. That was a declaratory law as well as an enacting one, and it was conclusive that the common law course was that the witnesses should be sworn in open court. There were some safeguards to the administration of justice arising front that regulation. There were some advantages to the defendants in their early notice of what witnesses might be called against therri ; it enabled them by quickly and promptly collecting information either to cross-examine those witnesses effectively or to contradict their testimony. It was thought right however by the Legislature to change that proceeding; doubtless for good reasons. But it gave a very exact and admirable mode of distinguishing between the names endorsed on the back of the indictment where the witnesses had been sworn, and where they had not been sworn, and the mode, therefore, of pointing out and returning a true bill. The evidence upon which the Court was to be satisfied that the bill brought into Court, and stated to be found by the grand jury was a bill found according to the course of the law, was that the certificate should be attached to the bill. It was worthy of remark, that not only was this the mode prescribed-by the statute, but it was the only mode in which the Court could ascertain the facts; but it had not provided any other, and scarcely could provide any other. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Point out the page in which the defect is stated. Mr. HILL—It would be found at page 83 of the defendant's appendix, where it was stated that, " neither the foreman nor any other member of the said rand jury did authenticate by his signature or initials, as is required by the said re cited statute, that the said witnesses or any of them had been sworn or has made such affirmation or de claration as aforesaid, nor did the said foreman or any other member of the said grand jury authenticate in manner aforesaid that no other witness or witnesses save the said hereinbefore mentioned witnesses were so sworn and affirmed or examined by and before them, pursuant to the provisions of the said recited statute ; and, therefore, in this there is ma nifest error ; and this the said Thomas Steele is ready to verify, to wit, at Dublin, in the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid." Would it be said that this part of the statute was merely directory ? He apprehended it was not for the reasons he had pointed out. It was a new power con ferred upon the grand jury—one not known to the common law—one that must be used as it was given, and used strictly as it was given. It was given by the Legislature, with cer tain safeguards attached to it—certain means by which the Court was enabled readily to know whether the prescribed law had been followed when the jury were sitting in their secret chamber. Let him put the case of an indictment for perjury. If the witnesses gave their evidence before the grand jury, in the absence of the certificates prescribed by the statute, how was the evi dence to be given? How was it to show that the jury were sworn, the grand jury themselves being sworn to secrecy. This was the prescribed form established by law, and must, therefore, be evidence. Was it not the statutory law that bills should be returned in a certain manner. But here was a new mode pointed out on account of the jury having new duties to perform—that of swearing the witnesses. Their Lordships were slow to construe any Act as a directing one when it had reference to criminal proceed ings. But their Lordships had never construed any words as directing where those words made a change in the course of the common law. His Learned Friend (Mr. Kelly) had directed his attention more fully to thie.part of the case, and would address their Lordships more fully upon it. He (Mr. Hill) should therefore proceed to the next point. Lord CAMPBELL said it would aid them very much if he would state how the question was to be raised, on the writ of error or on a writ coram nobis ? Mr. Mu. said that question applied to the portion of the pleadings which would devolve more upon Mr. Kelly, but it appeared to him that if the plea of abatement was good in form, then it might be argued as a plea of abatement. If the objection to it was made that it did not set forth a sufficient number of facts, then the question might be raised. Lord CAmrnELL—Then you think it competent to take the question both on the assignment of error and the writ coram nobis. Mr. HlLL—There could not be a doubt about it. lie now proposed to lay before their Lordships a very im portant, point in the argument of this case. He would endeavour to show that the court below had come to an erroneous judgment when it disallowed the challenge to the array, or rather when it allowed the demurrer of the Crown to that challenge of the array, assigning, as they did, that that challenge was not valid. Their Lord ships, by the argument of. his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, had been put in possession of the general terms of the challenge, as it stood upon the record. He did not, there fore, think it necessary to go over with particularity the form of that challenge. He would advert to it by call ing their attention to the provisions of the Act, which at present was in force in Ireland for the purpose of regulating Juries. There were two Acts for this purpose : one of the 3d and 4th William IV., and the other the 4th and sth Miliaria IV., being an Act to amend the former one. On these the question mainly rested. In the 4th section of the first Act, chap. 78, they would find that it was made the duty of the sheriffs to issue precepts for the collection of the grand jury cess in the month of July, there to be returned with the names of persons duly qualified to act as jurymen. The 7th section states that the collector is to make out alphabetical lists of the persons liable to serve on juries—to deliver those lists to the clerk of the peace without fee or reward. The Learned Gentleman then read the 9th section of the Act of Parliament, which prescribed the mode in which the jury : list was to be made out. The averment of the challenge in the case of Mr. Steele would be found in page 66 of the ease of the plaintiffs in error. It was stated that the general list, which was the duty of the Recorder, who had caused it to be made out, to deliver to the clerk of the peace, was not so delivered, and it stated that a certain paper writing, purporting to be a general list, was illegally and fraudulently made out, and that it omitted several names which ought to be inserted, which was to his Wrong and damage. The first question which he proposed to argue before their Lordships was one which at first sight their Lordships might sup pose it was scarcely necessary to argue, namely, that there was a great disobedience of the statute, and that after all the labour which had been gone irough in the making out of the list ; the fruits of it were lost to the public in general, and to this challenger in particular, by the fraudulent act of some one who interfered during that part of the proceedings pointed out by the Act, which said that the Recorder, or Justices, shall cause this general list to be laid before the Clerk of the Peace, and that by such intervention a document became the foundation of the jury list, which was not in obedience to the Act of Parliament, or in conformity with it. The challenge stated that this was to his prejudice, and that it was so intended by whosoever concocted the fraudulent document. If this was not a wrong and matter of great public concernment—if it was not a matter which demanded a remedy in the loudest possible voice, he knew not what did. He was not speaking here of the number, more or less, which was omitted from the list. That was not the thing material. He stood upon this allega tion, that a real and substantial injury had been committed, which gave this gentleman ground of challenge. The ques tion was, Could there be a doubt that this was wrong, and that some remedy was requisite ? The labour of the Re corder, and of so many 'officers who- were engaged 4.700,398 • upon the list was thrown away, and the value of the document was destroyed, as regarded the challenge. He could hardly have a doubt of this if he had not read the judgment of the Court below. The course of argument which the Learned Judges pursued was this :—That they thought themselves justified in examining this question by putting some extreme case, and they asked by that process of sophistry, if he might venture to say so with regard to those learned persons, for whom lie felt all respect, which was so frequently practised by those who did not wish to arrive at the truth—" Would you say that the list is void, because one name is omitted, or because there is a reversion in the order of a single name ?" He was not called upon to argue how much this was in disobedience to the Act of Parliament, because the ques tion here was not the question if more or less fraud was im puted; and the question was far superior to the number of names omitted, namely, that it was of damage, and the injury averred was as precise as possible, because, as their Lordships saw, the damage was prospective, because the damage was not arrived which it was the object of the challenge should not arrive, but which impended over the party. He was surprised it had not occurred to those learned persons who put this extreme case to put. the other extreme, whether if all the names had been omitted but one it would be good. Supposing a rat had gnawed out one of the names, would that not render the list invalid ? Supposing a more hungry rat had gnawed out all the names, would not that render it invalid? But .if a rat of discretion—a rat that knew what he was about—gnawed out cer tain of the names, would not that render it invalid ? Suppose it true that the names which had been omitted had each a mark on the side. Suppose it to be impossible to imagine that the loss of any number of sheets could account for the names omitted from the jury list. Suppose the names ought to have been spread all over the book. Suppose it appeared from the record, and he would not travel out of the record, that this was a great cause arising out of a great political and religious contest, and that there were indications to show the religious and political feelings of the persons whose names had been omitted, and that those names had been omitted in consequence. Now, in a case like this, in which fraud was distinctly alleged, he was at a lots to understand why inquiry should be refused, even if it was demandable as a strict right. Inquiry ought to have been courted if each party had been equally desirous to have .the jury list, which they ought to have had, fair and impartial. If the will of the Legislature had been complied with in every particular there would have been difficulty enough in the then social state of Dublin in procuring a fair and imparital jury This great question was the agitating the country. It would be no aspersion on the great body of men from whom the jurors were sworn, to say that there was not among them any one to be found who did not entertain strong feelings on this great question on one side or on the other. Indeed, he should feel little respect for any one man living in Ireland who had not strong feelings on one side or on the other on this vital question. This case had been brought to trial under the able direction of his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland. Every fact was to be subjected to the investigation of the jury, and every member of that jury was almost certain to be biased on one side or the other, without any fault of his own. Now if a case could• be imagined which beyond all others required a strict—he might almost say a superstitious compliance with every portion of the Jury Act—it was the case before the House. It was expected that the trial would operate on public opinionit was intended that it should be held up as an example to the people of Ireland; could that be done in any way except by convincing the people that all was done, not from vengeance, but from justice, and to vindi cate the law? If that were the object in view, he could only say that the means taken to effect it were most unfortunate. Above all things it was necessary that no suspicion should rest on the impartiality of the jury. On that point, he would quote the language in which, on one occasion which might be considered epoch in law, one of their own Lordships had expressed his deliberate opinidn :—" I should be guilty of no exaggeration—l should be led by fancy into no error if .I said that all the vast establishments of this great empire— that King . and Lords and Commons were all instituted for the simple object of putting twelve good men into a box." If that were so, surely it was of infinite importance that the intentions of the Legislature to secure these twelve " good men" should be attended to. What was the meaning of" good men ?" It was meant that they should be impartial and intelli gent. But as no general words introduced into an Act,ofParlia ment could produce that particular effect, the Legislature had laid down certain qualifications which ought to be com plied with before the jury entered the box. Now, what was the remedy if these provisions were departed from ? The challenge of the array. It was admitted, he believed, that that right was not taken away by statute. But that omission was coupled with an exception, the ob • ject of which was to show that the right could not be used in the present case, and for the purpose disclosed in this chal lenge. Now he proposed to show that the challenge of this array constituted the great right from which this great wrong was to receive an effectual remedy. In England until the Revolution, and in Ireland until the Act of the 3d and 4th William IV., ie sheriff was the- only officer, who, by him self or his subordinates, could refuse the challenge to the array. In Coke upon Lyttleton, section 136, it was said that a challenge of the array would lie for noniridifferency or default: of the sheriff. There could be no doubt Lord Coke, in laying down the right of challenge to the array in these raw and general terms, and in reference to the autho rities, it appeared that this right to challenge the array existed in all cases in which the sheriff was, or in the contemplation .of the law might be, a partiakperson, or where, in contemplation of law, he stood in-such a re l a ti on to one of the parties as that he lost his impartiality. So suspicious was the common law upon the subject, that it was thought right to set aside the sheriffs, and direct a venire to the coroner, when he stood in any relation, even that of god father to a child, of any of the opposing parties. He had found cases in the old books replete on the subject of chal lenging the array, though in modern times those cases were not so numerous. there was a case in the lith of Edward 111., in which the Sheriff who empannelled the jury was related to some of the parties, and un the array being challenged, the panel was d po ivashed: in an other case, where the under-sheriff empannelled the the jury, and where he was found to have seine connexion with the parties, the appointment of the jury was quashed upon the array being challenged. Would it not then, he would ask, be a most monstrous thing, to put a con struction upon the Act that would put an end to that important remedy of challenging the array ? Could. there be anything more important than such a right ? It had been a subject of eulogium by Sir W. Blackstone, and even so far back as the time of Cicero, the appointment of jurors was matter of consent between the par ties ; and Blackstcne says that the system in this country was very much upon a par to that which existed in ancient Rome. Ile would put this upon the same footing as the writ of certiorari by which the inferior courts were prevented from running into licentiousness and from departing from law and justice. Then came the question whether the right of chal lenge was taken away by Acts of Parliament that were supposed to take it away. He considered that the subject was not to be deprived of this great remedy except by express words. He urged the right could not be taken away, or its efficacy injured, • except by express words in an Act of Parliament. It appeared to him that the circumstance (.1 the Act taking away this right in express terms was no unimportant part of his argument. It showed that the Legislature had in view this right of challenging the array, and that unless a change of society should render the right valueless, the Legislature was unwilling to abridge the force and efficacy of this great remedy. The proposition which he meant to submit, as con sequent upon the observations which lie had made, was that wherever officers were appointed for the purpose of executing any portion of those duties which anciently fell upon the sheriff, and where, in consequence of such interposition, the array had some vice in it which, in ancient times, would have been met by the remedy in question, there that remedy still existed, for the same purpose as it existed in ancient times, The principle of the remedy was that there should be power to destroy every panel which had a vice in it. Applying that principle he thought their Lord ships would have no difficulty in saying, that the right of challenge was still preserved in all its integrity, and it was peculiarly applicable to the case then before the House. This was denied in the courts below. It would be said that there was no power of interfering with reference to the various offences. The question had been treated as though theitobject was to ascertain whether the offences were deserving of punishment or not. If that question aisise at all, it was only :.s a secondary or collateral one. main question was this, was that document which was the r, of all these collections of names and inquiries with qualifica tions, a sound or an unsound document ; was it a do cument which gave aid to the sheriffs? It was said that a judicial power was given here to the justices, repre sented by the recorder, which must not be interfered with by the challenge of the array. In the present case there was no complaint of any adjudicatiqn made by the recorder, • either of an omission or the retaining of names which ought to have been excluded. The complaint began after that ad judication was made—after the exercise of judicial power, if it were properly so called, which he very much doubted, was at an end. The office was then merely a ministerial one for the purpose of " causing" —to use the words of the Act— the adjudications to be collected into a general list to be taken to the clerk of the peace." There was no semblance of a judicial power, it was simply the work of an intelligent clerk. Up to the point of the adjudication no complaint ex isted, but after that adjudication some power intruded itself upon the scene, took this list, and dealt with it in a frau dulent manner. One of the Learned Judges was of opinion that the challenge was good. He asked this pertinent ques tion, " What was the difficulty when the eror was discovered of rectifying it? How was the paper lost ?" This was a question Which he thought it would be very difficult to answer on the plat of the Crown. If the list for the former iQuarters ended July 5. '.. 1813 I 1844.---• 8,258,669 618,667 26,607 8,214,169 60.,0•23 5,379 5'3,857 97,! . ,97 m 1,04,5 1:7,‘.2.76 97,422 599,1 , 31 191,501 9,791,897 3,760,9 3 13,552,810 4,191,617 3,158,51,1 10,219,337 3;158,546 13,377, , Si 3,667,317 1 e t r year had been sent, by the Recorder, there could not Vave aeon any hesitation. in sending it back, on the ground that it was a mistake. It had been said that a difficulty arose here from the circumstance that the jury were a special ury, and one of the Judges had expressed doubts whether :thy chal lenge to the array existed in the case of a special jury. He quoted the case of the King v. Edmunds, in Barnetvalt and Alderson's Reports. In this case a challenge was inacl.e to the array on the ground of non-inditlerency on the part of the Master of the Crown -office. Lord Tenterden de livered an elaborate judgment in that case, in which he stated that the challenge could not be allowed. The Master of the Crown-office being the person who has, to strike the jury in the charactor of an also', the Learned Judges in Ireland seemed to have supposed that tit:: Recorder stood in the game position of disor, and thereffire his lists could not be challenged; that the challeng,e to 'his list must •be in a different character, and. in' a different mode. But how could that apply to a - case in which the objection to the challenge was, that the Re corder was a person over whom the Court had no power. His proposition would be, that whoever was entrusted by the law with the selecting of a jury must necesFarilv, as i'ar as • those proceedings were concerned, come under the power of. the Court. The question the Court had to consider was not how that list came into existence, but whether it was in itselfa sound document, and whether it gave assis'ance to the Sheriff, or whether it was calculated to mislead-him. Tlle'r Lordship? predecessors had thought the power of challenging the array so great, that no statute law could take itrawty. He was proceeding to cite the case of the King v. Buiridge, in Lord Raymond's Reports, when The LORD CHANCELLOR said—You are now beginning a fresh point. Are you likely to finish your arguments in a few minutes? Mr. HILL—No, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we will adjourn till ten o'clock to-morrow. THE DERBY DISPUTE. WOOD v. PEEL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,—I am, as the solicitor of Mr. Alexander Wood, the plaintiff in the above issue, desired by him to beg. you will insert in your Journal the follow ing exculpatory statement : Mr. Goodman being the owner of the horse called Bunning Rein, and indebted to Mr. Wood in a considerable sum of money, sold the horse with his engagements to Mr. Wood, in consideration of the debt, and of a further advance, upon the terms that if the horse should be the winner of the Derby, Mr. Wood should, in addition thereto, pay Mr. Good man, or his nominees, so much of the stakes as should excefed the amount of the debt, the advance, and subsequent ex penses. This transaction occurred after the horse had been proved, to the satisfaction of the stewards at Newmarket, to be Running Rein, and Mr. Woo I was assured by Mr. Good man that there were numerous other witnesses who could prove that fact, besides the one who was examined at New market. The horse having been entered for the Derby in the name of Mr. Goodman, was, upon the sale taking place, transferred into - the name of Mr. Wood ; the horse being afterwards alleged to be fixer years old, Mr. Wood caused hint to bo examined by an experienced person, who pronounced him to be three, and not four years old. I refrain froin mentioning the person's name, as, after he found the tide of public opinion to set in strongly against the horse, he at first wavered in the opinion which he had given, and afterwards retracted it. This and a similar occurrence—of which the public are well aware—respecting Leander, and the assertion of one of the highest veterinary surgeons, publishel in the sporting journals, that the mouth of a horse is a fallible cri terion of its age, induced Mr. Wood to Lelieve such to be the fact, and that an examination of the horse's mouth would not further the ends of justice. Immediately, however, that it appeared upon the trial, that the production of the horse was desired by Colonel Peel's advisers, for the purpose of identity, and not the mere examination of his mouth, Mr. Wood de termined that he should be produced if the trial proceeded, and his firm resolution on that point produced the sudden termination of the trial. Mr. Wood's beneficial interest in the stakes being but small, he endeavoured to avoid a lawsuit, and to have the dispute decided by the stewards. But the instant that Col. Peel commenced the action, in which the issue Wood v. Peel was framed, Mr. Wood refused, in my presence, and with my ad vice, as his solicitor, to litigate a matter in which he had so little interest, but being most positively assured, and believ ing that the horse was Running Rein, he, upon receiving. a bond of indemnity, permitted those who had a greater inter est than himself in the stakes, to use his name for the pur pose of trying the question, and to employ theirown attorney, _the use of Mr. Wood's name being necessary for the purpOse. In conclusion, I beg to contradict an erroneous impression which I hear exists, that Mr. Alexander Wood is the same person as, or related to, or connected with, the plaintiff in the action, Wood v. Ledbitter, which was tried a few days since. Mr. A. Wood is a corn chandler and coal merchant at Epsom, where he has resided and carried on that business nearly 20 years, and where his real character as an honest and upright man is well known. Mr. A. Wood has been at my office every day this week, for the purpose of seeing and consulting me on the above matter, but I have been unavoidably absent, otherwise I should have been present with him at the trial, and have of fered this explanation at a much earlier period. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, 1, Lincoln's Inn-fields. A. It. STEELE. THE REAL METHOD OF SEAL BREAKING. Public attention has been of late very properly directed to. the odious system of espionage which has been long prac tised at the Post-office, under the authority of the British Secretary of State ; and many of the journals have pre tended to describe the agency by which the operation of taking fac-similes of seals has been accomplished, but evi dently with little knowledge of the subject. Some of them have stated that the imitation seal was produced by placing, a plate of lead on the wax impression, which, when smartly struck, presented a perfect fac-simile of the original ; but this is a palpable absurdity. The operation is much simpler; and by the process adopted at the Post-office, a score of, spurious seals can be produced in a few minutes, and with the utmost precision and certainty. The spurious seal by which it is intended to reseal the opened letters, is taken in plaster of Paris, and with so much accuracy as to defy de tection. It is, in fact, the process by which our beautiful casts of medals and coins are taken, as well as that by Which the lower gangs of coiners are enabled to cast exact fac similes of our silver coinage in base weal. It appears that in the secret, or inner bureau of the Post office, the appropriate apparatus for casting is always in readiness. It simply consists of a small cylindrical, annular brass mould, about an inch in height, which opens and shuts like a bullet mould. After the seal has been oiled, to prevent the plaster adhering, this mould is placed upon it, and the plaster of Paris, mixed in the usual way, is poured upon it. In about five minutes it hardens, or acts, as it is techni cally called ; and in about as many minutes more is fit for re-sealing the letter, which has been opened by the applica tion of a hot iron to the seal, and a copy of its contents duly taken. If a wafer should have been used, a little hot water or steam will soon remove the obstruction.—Atlas. RAILWAY RETURNS. We extract from the Railway Magazine the sums received on the principal Railways of Great Britain for the week ending on the day of the month prefixed to each. The return includes the money received for passengers, parcels, carriages, horses, mails, and mer 7 chandise : Week al. ended Name of Railway. .E Tot . s d. June 29 Arbroath and Forfar 202 12 6i 30 Birmingham and Derby Junction 1,585 0 10 28 Birmingham and Gloucester 2,925 11 0 30 Brandling Junction 904 13 3 28 Chester and Birkenhead 539 15 2 27 Dublin and Drogheda . . . 942 5 8 July 2 Dublin and Kingstown 1,608 2 10 June 30 Dundee and Arbroath 3Ol 16 04 29 Durham and Sunderland 364 0 0 29 Edinburgh and Glasgow 2,124 0 8 30 Eastern Counties atld Eastern 4,529 19 1 29 Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr 1,411 7 9 29 Glasgow and Greenock 1,004 4 10 29 Grand Junction 8,751 4 0 29 Great North of England 1,730 5 7 . 30 Great Western 28 Liverpool and Manchester 29 London and Birmingham 30 London and Blackwall 1,413 8 8 30 London and Brighton July 2 London and Croydon 4 Loitdon and Greenwich BB2 14 10 June 30 London and South Western ....... 27 Manchester, Bolton and Bury 836 5 li. 29 Manchester and Birmingham 3,244 15 9 29 Manchester, Leeds, and Hull Assoc 6,897 4 6 29 Midland Counties 29 Newcastle and Carlisle 1,901 10 1 30 Newcastle and North Shields 462 9 2 29 North Midland 28 North Union and Bolton and I'reston 1,502 7 2 July 1 Paris, Corbel!. and Orleans 1 Paris and Rouen 6,229 0 0 June 29 Preston and Wyre 473 11 6i _ _ 29 Sheffield and 3fanchester July 4 South Eastern June 29 Taff Vale 30 Ulster 30 Yarmouth and Norwich ....... 29 York and North Midland 625 1 16 4,999 12 7 852 15 7 480 4 1 415 14 4 2,504 1 6 LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE JUNCTION RAIL WAY.—This line is .projected to connect the Blackburn and Preston Railway with the Leeds and Bradford Railway, pas sing through or near the several towns of Blackburn, Church, Accrington, Whalley, Clitheroe, Padiliam, Burnley, Collie, Skipton, Keighley, 13inA1ey, Shipley, and Bradtbrd, forming a continuous line from the port of Hull, on the cast coast, to the ports of Liverpool and Fleetwood, on the west coast, with a branch at Accrington, through the town of Ilaslingden, to the Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway—forming A direct communication with the town of Manchester., The length of railway to be made, including th e b ranc h a t Ac crington, will be about 45 miles. A branch to . Shipton is also suggested. Sir George Strickland, Bart , M.P.; Sir C. R. Tempest, Bart.; It. Townl e y P ar k er , E sq . ; C. Rorls,- Esq. ; M. Wilson, jun., Esq. ; and other gentlemen interested in the district through which the line will pass, are members of the Provisional Committee.—Raibeay Record. TIIE CROPS.—The wheat. looks exceedingly well; and an average crop of both winter and spring-sown grain is expected. Barley and oats are said to be also in good condition, while the hay is a complete failure.— Jiro/vie/et Jotirnal, July 5. THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM AND GrRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COM PANlEs.—Deputations from the boards of direction of the above railways met at Birmingham on 'Wednesday last, for the purpose of arranging the difficul ties which have recently arisen between them, and the chair man of the Liverpool Stock Exchange announced on Thurs day, that the deputations had come to a complete and amicable understanding. The immediate effect was an in crease in the value of time respective shares to the extent of 51., with the prospect of a further improvement. SUICIDE OF A GENTl.F.MAN.—Yesterday moming the establishment of Mr. Thurey, of Finsbury-square, was thrown into a state of the most painful excitement by dis covering that that gentleman had committed suicide, by hanging himself in his bed-room. It would appear that the deceased had attempted suicide twice previously during the night, but failed in consequence of the line breaking. This was known by letters written by the deceased after each attempt. Mrs. lhurey and family are on the Continent, whither the deceased was about proceeding in a few days. A number of Welshmem arrived at Seghill on Tuesday afternoon, to take the places of those pitmen for merly employed at the colliery, but who are at present on strike. A number of persons assembled, but there was no inclination to a breach of the penee.—Neweastle paper. BOAT DEsTßoyno BY A - WHALF,—Last week a boat belonging to Orkney, engaged in the herring fishing at the Lewis, while proceeding to sea for the prosecution of the fishing, was struck by an immense whale, mid so much shattered, that she almost immediately sank. The crew clung to the mast and oars, aud were taken up by another boat.—John o Groat Journal, ~~; that it ill et her it the inure iould c able n the 1c .OP ss could vet of iefl V V~