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

wire that a man charged under it shall be adequately, infonmed e hy its terms and shape of the crime iMputed 'lto him, so that he may know how to prepare his defence; lend one of the most important objects of an indictment of this kind is that the defendant may have the charges presented to him in such a form that this House, as an appellate court, should have the enpportetnity of seeing and 'judging whether, on the several-points, a crime has been committed. The charge involving the crime, may embrace an innocent act, which could only be made an act of guilt by. leaving the person charged with-the means of seeing and knowing whether be was convicted on a charge involving legal guilt, and to deprive the criminal of appeal in such a case would not be consistent with the genernl principles of law, and which should receive great consideration before it re ceived the sanction of the House. Looking to the doc trine of conspiracy, it was impossible. not to feel the ex treme mischief which it had done, and is calculated to do; the crime of conspiracy does of consist in an act done; it is complete when -tho s intention is formed. Much is left to uncertainty; it is not like any other crime. You were left to infer inten, Cons from acts of a very doubtful nature. Most of the political cases that - ttniVe occurred in which in justice is supposed to have been done, have occurred in canes of political conspiracy. To say that the party is protected by the jury because the matter is for the jury, is to give an answer supposed to afford safety to the sub ject. But the whole history -of the country shows . this to be utterly fallacious. The objects of purzons in the worst periods of our history have always besn accomplished through juries. The difference between the safety which prevailedaat one time, and the insecurity which existed at another, had been when the peinv:en of appeal to pro , cure other judgments on the 'questions of law on the nature and character of the crime, upon the nature and charaster of the evidence, was when facilities were given for appeal in those several matters. How stands the case of conspiracy here ? Your Lordships are aware of the facts to which this indictment refers, but the question here is as to the form of the indictment, and I ask -of your Lordships if such an indictment can-be sus tained, what security is there for the subject if those Patties have been tried and convicted according to law ? .Fhe charges are of such a nature as to convey nothing sufficient to enable your Lordships to say that they constitute an illegal act or not. In the course of the tile' it was held that those acts could not be tendered in a case of misdemeanour, and when your Lordships look to the indictment pur porting to, prove those charges, you will find that they are made up from circumstances occurring from January to October, a period of ten months, by the selection of speeches of different persons, not made in the presence of the others charged, of reports of newspapers, done in the-ordinary course of business, giving the news of the day. Oee of-the objects was to procure a dissolution of the-Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland—a great political object, no doubt.; but when in the history of this country was it, that certain parties did not hold opinions on some great political subject ? That con formity of action should result from coincidence of opinion, might be naturally expected—not upon any par ticular transaction in which the parties had any indivi dual interest, not conspiring to obtain goods by fraud, to affect the character or interests of individualine tint in a conspiracy to obtain Parliamentary reform, to obtain a 'epee! of the Corn-laws, to prctb"ht Catholic Emancipa• tion, that was to say, there must be a coincidence of opinion, lending to uniformity of action upon any great event affecting the interests of the country. There was a charge of exciting the subjects of her Majesty to dis affection against the Government. In what age of the country was it that persons had not endea voured to excite disaffection against the Government? Did the Government mean the Constitution, or the form of the Government, or the persons administering it ? Why, may not the present Government be charged with exciting; disaff'ction against the late Government ? Each of the parties of the present day seemed desirous of producing disaffection and hatred towards what was called the Government ? If the parties were guilty of malting seditious speeches, let them be tried for it. I would call attention to what was done at the Revolution in France. There was then a conspiracy to excite dis affection ag ainst the Government. One drunken woman uttered a few idle words. tending, it was supposed, to bproduce hatred towards the Government, and she was anged for it. I could find many parallels to this in dictment, where the parties charged have been hanged. I would ask cf your Lordships to consider whether a charge of this kind, seeking to establish guilt by those means,- can be the subject- of a prosecution ? But here a course of conduct is permitted to be pet sisted in for two months—and there is no limit to it—the time rosy be extended indefinitely until the victim is caught. There are these transactions allowed to go on, until by an accumulation of acts, each innocent in itself, it is sought to take the chance of the weakness, or the in firmity,. or the prejudices of the jury, to lead them to a conclusion, nit that any particular act has been dune, but to some conclusion which is utterly false and un founded—that the defendants met together and con spired. Do your Lordships believe that the jury were told that Government endeavettred to ascertain when and where those parties entered into a conspiracy ? that they were not to convict them unless they could come to the conclusion that there really hail been some common consent and agreement betweenethe parties ? No such thing. In an ordinary case, such as a- -conspir acy to defraud or obtain • money under false pretences, if' you see parties acting together for that common illegal object, it might be evidence to go to the jui . en n andit might be for them toconsider whether the so acting together could be considered as proof of some corn ton agreement. But when a case is on in which great publio" interests are concerned the principle does not apply—then the acting in concert cannot be taken as proof of conspiracy, and it mu,t be shown that the several parties actually met and conspired. My Lords, r submit that all the counts of the indictment from the fifth to the end arc bad—bad for g enerality. They are framed in terms unknown to the law, and arc wholly destitute of legal precision. The fifth count charges that the said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas Mathew Ray,' Charles Gavan Duffy, Thomas Tierney, Peter James-Tyrrell, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously contriving, intending, and devising to • cause and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of oar said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said . .subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm as by law established heretofore ; to Wit on the'dfirle . Znth day of February, in 'tale year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, with force and erms, to wit, at the parish of St. Mark, in the county and the city of Dublin aforesaid, maliciously and seditiously did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and w7th divers other persons whose names - are to the jurors afairesaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and disaffection - amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and sedi tious opposition to the said Government and Constitu t on ; and also to stir up jeadoustes; hatred, and between) different classes of her Majesty's subjects,- and efpecislly to promote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of and - hostility towards and neainst her Majesty's subjects in the other parts of the United -Kingdom ; and especially in that part of the said Unit( d Kingdom called England, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm. to the evil exa-nple of all others in 'the like case offending, and against the' peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown arid dignity. Now, what is meant by creating discontent and disatrec- - Lion ? What is the legal meaning of these words ? What is the crime against which a party thus charged is called to defend himself ? Why, at the time the Bill was pro. prof granting Catholic Emancipation, there were many persons who endeavoured to persuade the people that if the King consented to the measure he would be violating his coronation oath—that it would introduce Popery, • and upset the Church. They endeavoured to excite a. spirit of hostility to the government which supported that measure. Now, who were those men - Who thus en . deavoured to excite discontent and disaffection ? The words conveyed no legal charge. To what are we in debted for every legal change whieti is brought about but to the attempt made to excite discontent and dis affection with the existing state of things ? It is impos sible to produce any change except by such means. • Now ought such words to be intreduced into a criminal in • elicement, and left to the jury without any explanation tf . their legal meaning ? Arc the words to be looked out in "Johnson's Dietienary," and is the meaning, there found to be attached to them ? The charge of disaffec tion does not necess a r4 imply guilt. 'Some of the .greeteA_ patriots that ever lived might be liable to a sirhilar charge. They are- also charged with unlawful and seditious opposition to the Government._ Now, what is meant by illegal opicaiOn ? Who is to decide what is meant by seditious Apposition ? Is it to be left to - the jury ? They wil.detertnine, according to their ]party politics ; if they niire — efethe same party with the Unverument, they will probably consider all opposition eeditious ; - if- they are oppose-.l to it, it will be hard to convince them that any opposition can be seditious. :But how is a man to know what he is called upon to de -fend himself against when he is accused of seditious .opposition ? It may be a refusal to pay taxes—it may be ecrue other act which -fa to show that he has been -guilty of seditious opposition. Now what act except the coiurnission of the crime of se.lition—a crime to be sepa .rately proved—is there to give .meaning to the words .seditious opposition. If - the Word seditious is to be re jected as surplusage, as a word of no meanine, then the count stands for offering opposition to the Government, whieli is no crime at all. • Now, your Lordships should -recollect that you aro now dealing with a criminal charge, and that, therefore, the most rigid construction is called fun I submit that the fifth count is of too general a nature 7 —that it embodies no legal charge, and that from the wording of it the party charged cannot tell what it is that he is called upon to answer. • It is of the utmost importance, in order to secure the due administration of justi c e, th a t th ere s h ou ld b e upon every criminal charge suffiaeol e te enable a court of ap peal to see more clearly than they could in the present caso what was attempted to be charged. In the present case no bill of exception could be tendered to the sum ming up of the Learned Judge, and the only course, ex cept- coming to that 116use e would be to apply for a new trial. When they could not bring the charge of the judge before a higher tribunal, - the indictment ought most clearly to describe the offence of which the party was charged. The importance of individuals having a fair means of defence, and the necessity of the indictment conveying some definite charge which the party might grapple with, had been clearly stated by Lord Ellenho rough in the case of the King v. Perry. In that case the .Than suffered his whole imprisonment before his writ of error was argued, although upon the arguing of that writ of error, he was found to be an innocent man. (The Learned Counsel then proceeded to refer to - the state ments of Lord Ellenborougkin the case of the King v. Perry, and then proceeded.) In the count to which A am - n ow referring, there are no overt acts • • THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 5, 1844. r attached, but if there were, they did nothing to show clearly what the charge was. Now, apply the doctrines of Lord Ellenborough to the present case the indictment in the King v. Perry referred to several transactions, but in this case it refers to a variety of subjects. It is scarcely possible, I will venture to say, for any individual to be able to meet such a charge as is made in the present case. Certainty, in matters of a cri minal charge is one of the great principles of the law that should be acted upon always, and never lost sight of in a criminal charge. Such, then, my Lords, is the fifth count. The sixth count charges the assembling of a large number of persons, for the purpose of changing and altering the Government of the realm as by law established. The question is, were these meetings illegal ? they are not charged ns being so. lite,lstiand 2d counts, which charge the illegality of the meetings, were overruled by the jury. Here was intimidation at a legal meeting charged as a crime. Lord BROUGHAM—The count says for an unlawful and seditious purpose. Sir THOMAS WILDE—The count ought to have stated how it was unlawful. The count says, procuring divers subjects of our Lady the Queen to meet and assemble together in large numbers, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of intimi dation to be thereby caused, alterations in the Government, laws, and Constitution of the realm. There is no charge that the-meetings were unlawful, or that . they were called together for the purpose of intimi dation. In fact there is not a ,single circumstance that gives to these meetings any illegality. If they had been illegal what, I would ask, would be said to the Execu tive for allowing them to go on ? Look at Hunt's case, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for attending an illegal meeting. There is no charge ,that the objects of the meeting were illegal. It is stated that a meeting of a great number of persons was caused, but nothing is asserted as to the conduct of those who attended the meeting. The LORD CHANCELLOR—There is no allegation in this count that any meeting was held. Sir T. WILDE —I thank your Lordship. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The charge is a charge of conspiracy to do certain acts.; there is no statement that it was followed up. The question, therefore, is the question of law, whether the conspiring of persons to do the acts which are here stated is a. sufficient allegation— conspiring to do that which on the face of the indict ment is stated to be illegal. Sir T. WILDE—W bat I complain of is, not that the indictment states it to be unlawful, but t hat it does not show it to be unlawful • that it does not show that which it ought to have sh own, in order to enable you to say that it charges a crime. The LORD CHANCELLOR—As the object of the con spiracy the parties must be supposed to have met toge ther, and to have agreed to this. Sir T. WILDE —Yes, so I understand it. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The charge is that they agreed to cause a meeting of a number of persons in order by a demonstration of physical force to procure changes and alterations in the Government, laws, and Constitution of this realm as by law established. The question is, whether, if parties conspire and unite toge ther for that purpose, such meeting is unlawful. Sir T. WILD E—W h e t her the agreement is unlawful ? The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes. Sir T. WILDE— Well, then, I say that the statement that they meant to intimidate by causing a large meet ing is not a statement of an agreement which forms in itself a crime. Lord BROUGHAM—Conspiring together was once stated to be assembling—to be assembling a portion of the people of England together on Salisbury Plain, for the purpose of intimidating the Government. Sir T. WILDE—The question, my Lords, is, who is to be intimidated ? The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you are considering this indictment you must suppose the parties to have met together, and to have come to this agreement : count stated no such thing. If half a dozen of those gentlemen publish pamphlets at various times in order that certain portions of the administration of the law might be corrected, not doing this for any idle purpose but to improve the tribunals of the country, could it be said that they were bringing the tribunals of law into disrepute ? Were those gentlemen guilty of conspiring to bring the tribunals of the country into disrepute, be cause they sought to induce persons to withdraw from those courts, and submit their disputes to other tribunals to be constituted and contrived for that purpose ? I say it is perfectly legal to do so, for there was nothing ille gal in the object or the means. Your Lordships have passed many Acts to abolish or improve tribunals which were in disrepute—that is, which did not answer the pur pose for which they were intended, or in the place of which better may be substituted. - Suppose a person should say it was not a wise or a prudent thing to have recourse to the ecclesiasticul courts — that it was costly, and would be followed by no good effect, could it be said that he wanted to bring the tribu• nals of the country into disrepute, so as to constitute an offence punishable by law ? Here then was nothing ille gal in the object, nor in the means as far as could be ascertained ; on the contrary, the object appeared to be a good one. If it was intended that those other tribunals should have something illegal in their character, that would be illegal, and in the next count an attempt was made to introduce an allegation for this purpose. The allegation in the 9th count, that the defendants sought to assume the prerogatives of the Crown in the establish ment of courts for the administration of the law in con tempt of the Queen's authority, is much too general. There is no parallel fur it, except in the case of the seven bishops. It is not stated how this is to be done. Were they to have a great seal, and set up some office for the purpose of creating courts, or was it by Act of Parliament, or what other mode was to be adopted? I cannot imagine how this usurpation is to be carried into effect. This count is not more sound than the last. Lord BROUGHAM—I am not prepared to say if a person set up a house as a court of law it would be illegal. Sir T. WlLDE—There are, in this very city, coffee houses where persons are ready to decide causes, and your Lordships frequently recommend resort to be had to them. The next count is the tenth, to which I will now call the attention of your Lordships. lam afraid one of the Learned Counsel who will appear before your Lordships will be under some apprehension from the framing of this count, for he had in troduced a Bill to provide an appeal in criminal cases, and the present case of the Queen v. O'Connell will not diminish the necessity for such a Bill. The 10th count charged the defendants with an attempt to bring the tribunals of the country into disrepute. Is it a crime to bring the tribunals of the law into dis repute without a cause? This is charged as having been done unlawfully, but what is there in the body of the charge to show that it is unlawful ? The mere intro duction of the words unlawfully and maliciously, does not make that a crime which could not be so under other circumstances. Now the law does not presume that the tribunals of the law are so perfect that no man may not have good grounds for bringing them innocently into dis repute. But what courts were to be brought into dis repute—there is no allegation stating what were the courts—there is no overt act set out. Now, suppose some listener at a door bad heard these defendants say we will agree to bring the tribunals of the law into disrepute, and had heard nothing further, either as to the means by which, or the objects for which, this was to be done, I submit to your Lordship, that would not be sufficient to convict, as it might-be with a perfectly legal object, and by per fectly legal means, that this was to be ; and, it Lord Ellenborough's remark, that it was necessary that every man accused of crime should know precisely that of which he was accused, in order to be able to defend himself, is to go for anything, then this count fails. The eleventh count charged " The said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas Matthew Bay, Charles Gavan Duffy, Thomas Tierney, Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray, and Richard Barrett unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously contriving, intending, and devising, by means of intimi % dation and the demonstration of physical force, and by causing and procuring large numbers of persons to meet and assemble together in divers places and at divers times within Ireland, and by means of sedi tious and inflammatory speeches and addresses to be made and delivered to the said persons so to be assem bled as last aforesaid and also by means of the publishing and causing and procuring to be published to and amongst the subjects of her said Majesty divers unlawful mali cious and seditious writings and compositions, and fur ther contriving and intending by the several means aforesaid to intimidate the Lords spiritual and tem poral and the Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of G rea t Britain and Ireland, and thereby to effect and bring about changes in the laws and Constitution of this realm as by law established heretofore, to wit, on the thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, to wit, at the parish of Saint Mark aforesaid, in the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and with other persons whose names are to the jurors aforesaid unknown, to cause and procure large numbers of persons to meet and as semble together in divers places, and at divers times, within Ireland, and by means of unlawful, seditious, and inflammatory speeches and addresses to be made and delivered at the said several places, on the said several times respectively ; and also by means of the publishing and causing and procuring to be published to and amongst the subjects of her said Ma jesty, divers unlawful, malicious, and seditious writings and compositions, to intimidate the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and the Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom -of -Great Britain and Ireland, and thereby to effect and bring about changes and alterations in the laws and Constitution of this realm, as now by law established, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and of the laws of this realm, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." New your Lordships will observe that in this count, the charge is with attempting to intimidate the Lords and Commons, for the purpose of altering the law, without any mention being made of her Majesty. I conclude that it is meant to be charged that the Lorehrand Commons would be induced to alter the law by intimidation. Now, I think your Lordships will never admit that the House of Lords and Commons could be intimidated to — Lord CAMPBELL—There may be a conspiracy to do that which may not be accomplished. There may be a conspiracy to intimidate, but the Lords and Commons may meet it with firmness and resist the attempt. Lord BaouGuem—But if it were accomplished— "Let us assemble a great force—so great, so enormous, that it shall produce intimidation and alarm, and cause a change in the Government and Constitution of the country." They may have failed to accomplish tho purpose ; but are parties, by meeting together and agreeing to such a scheme guilty of an unlawful act or not ? Sir T. WILDE—Any epithets which may be intro duced, I apprehend, are not material. It is a meeting of a large number of persons. The LORD CHANCELLOR—YOU cannot say that epi thts are immaterial. " Seditious" is an epithet, and it has a specific meaning. Sir T. WILDE—But your Lordship used the words " Freat " and " enormous," and I say that such epithets will not be material. Now, I say, that this agreement, this cospiracy, is not charged in terms sufficiently pre cise to constitute a legal offence. Of course, the indict ment is addressed, or purports to be addressed, to a sup posed agreement between the several plaintiffs in error. The indictment supposeg an agreement to the effect set forth. (Their Lordshipi here consulted together for two or three minutes.) I say, my Lords, it must be looked at with reference to the object here stated. Lord CAMPBELL—What meaning is to be attached to " physiCal force ?" When was it first inserted in an indictment? Sir T. WILDE—Let us first see, my Lord, what is meant by " demonstration." I believe that word is at least entitled to the merit of novelty. I have not been able to find it used in any other legal form. Before, however, I call your Lordship's attention to those words, I wish to ask what is meant by "intimidation?" Who is to be intimidated? how, by means of intimida tion, is the e ff ect to be produced of procuring an altera _ _ ,oia'of the law? It is not to " break the law;" it is not to "set the law at dellance;" it is to procure an alteration of the law. Does that mean by legal au thority or otherwise ? Is it a sufficient charge that by a great number of persons meeting the Lords and the Commons will be intimidated, and that they will be induced, under the influence of that intimidation, to consent to au alteration of the law contrary to their con victions, and as to what the interests of the country re quire ? Are these persons to be supposed to have libelled your Lordships, as well as entered into conspi racy, by imagining that your Lordships would be in duced by intimidation to repeal an existing law? But it is not said that your Lordships are to be intimidated, or that the. House of Coriiinoni are to be intimidated. Who, then, is to be intimidated? Are these persons a set of maniacs who met for a purpose which they could not possibly accomplish. It is not stated that these persons intended to procure their object by operat ing upon her Majesty, or upon your Lordships, or upon the House of Commons ; what is stated is an agreement to call meetings of large numbers of persons, thereby trying to intimidate, and by this intimidation, so called, to procure an alteration of the law. I sub mit to your Lordships that it is absolutely necessary, in order to mike this intelligible, that it should be stated who it was upon whom the intimidation was intended to operate. so as to procure, as a consequence, an alteration of the law. Surely it is not enough to leave this uncertain. And, then, how is this intimidation to be produced by the " demonstration of physical force.?" Is it meant that physical force is to be used ? No ; it is simply stated that by the meeting of a number of persons, some how or other, the alteration is to be procured. Is any thing more meant,by a demonstration of physical force, than the caning together of a number of men and women ? Sure?) , that is not such a demonstration of physical force as can be supposed or intended to have the effect of intimidation. I know of no authority for such a position. In the case of Lord George Gordon, the in dictment was for high treason, for levying war ; and the court laid it down, that the bringing of an immense mob round the Houses of Parliament, and personally Intimidating the Legislature, was not a con spiracy, but a levying of war against the King. Lord George Gordon was tried for high treason, on the ground of personally intimidating the Members of both Houses of Parliament, surrounding the lobby, assaulting Members, and pulling the Bishops out of their carriages. That was an intimidation that could be understood. But the intimidation here was confined to meetings in Ire land, at a time when the Legislature was not sitting— when it was uncertain how many of the Members, or which of them, would ever meet together again. Intimi dation is stated without saying who it is to operate on ; I contend that such a charge is infinitely too gene ral and too ambiguous to be made the subject of a legal charge. How is such a - charge to be met ! Was in timidation the necessary consequence of a large nnmber of persons meeting together for a political purpose ? Lord CAMPBELL—Might there not be an unlawful agreement in the city of Dublin, to call meetings in Pa lace-yard, Westminster, for the purpose of overawing the Legislature ? Sir. T. WILDE—The count says meetings in Ire land only. The LORD CHANCELLOR — YES ; meetings at places " within Ireland." Sir T.Wn.nssubmitted that the charge of intimidation was too vague, general, and indefinite. The next count varies from the sixth by adding to the general object of procuring any alteration in the laws, the special means of proceeding to procure a repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is not the alteration of the law that is the quebtion, it is the means by which that alteration is to be effected—that is the whole gist of the indictment. To entertain the legal question in the indictment we must consider that such meetings have been held. Sir THOMAS WILDE—Yes, my Lord. But what I complain of is this, that the charge in the count is not such a one as the defendants can answer. I complain that it is not shown to whom the intimidation is to apply. If it was stated that it was meant to apply to par ticular persons, it might be shown that the means taken were not sufficient to make it so apply, but, as it stands, it is impossible to say whether it is directed against the .whole Irish people, the Legislature, or her Ma jesty. The seventh count is the same as the sixth. The eighth count charges defendants with a conspiracy, " To bring into hatred and disrepute the courts of law established in Ireland for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with and claims upon each other from the cognisance of the said courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judg ment and determination of other tribunals, to be constituted and contrived for that purpose." Now, first of all, your Lordships have often been en gaged in framing Acts removing certain kinds of juris • diction from one tribunal to another. It often happens that merchants and traders present petitions to both Houses of Parliament, praying for alterations in the ju risdiction by which their differences and disputes are settled—the pending alterations in the laws of bank ruptcy are cases of that kind. Lord CAMPBELL—This count charges an unlawful ob ject—the last one charged the use of unlawful means.' Sir T. WILDE—Both counts proceed on the assump tion of an illegal object, but the defect of the count is not Rain f ort h h ow that object is to be carried out Sir T. WILDE—I will suppose the alteration in the law to have been effected. I will suppose that, at the time of the Reform Bill, persons had been indicted for hold ing large meetings for the purpose of intimidating the Lords and Commons.. Such an indictment could not be sustained. Would their Lordships admit that such a thing could happen as that, by intimidation, the Legisla ture could be induced to alter—and how could that which they not accomplished, subject a party to an in dictinent for conspiracy, when, if they had accom plished it, they would have been subject to no such in dictment? An agreement to do that which it was impossi ble to accomplish was no crime. Would the law intend to say that such . an effect could be produced, and if it could not, how could the agreement to produce such an effect constitute a crime ? To what intimidation does the in dictment refer ? It may refer to the intimidation to be produced by setting before the Lords and Commons the political . ..consequences which must ensue from a.. certain course of conduct. Now, was it not lawful to lay before the Legislature. the consequences of the doing, or failing to do, certain acts. There was nothing degrading, as in the sense of personal intimidation, in such conduct. Is it the intimi dation of the whole body, or only of individuals? If a number of persons is ho had particular opinions agree to gether to endeavour to - induce the Legislature to alter the law, is that neclsarily a crime? If an important alteration in the law is required, in what situation are the subjects of this country placed, if they are not to express any opinion for the purpose of attracting the at tention of the Legislature to the subject? Lord BROUGHAM—This is laid as by seditious speeches and writings. Ild be Ind to know, if this is the Sir E. WILDE-1 g' charge, if those seditious speeches ought not to be set out, that your Lordships might see if they were seditious or not. If, a person makes seditious speeches he is liable to be prosecuted for it, and an agreement to make seditious speeches is not an offence. There is merely a general allegation that intimidation was to he used. Why, that is only what every great and powerful man is in the habit of doing when he objects to an: act which the Legislature is about to do. The allegation of inti midation as made in the indictment d.,es not constitute an unlawful act. ° Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose it had been to corrupt the Legislature. Although the law would not suppose that possible, it would be an unlawful act. Sir T. wmpz-I should say, ray Lords, that an What tribunals were they from which confidence was to agreement to corrupt the Leeislature—the_ Lords and be removed ? They might be of such a character that the Commons—would be treated asareidle crime. your Lordships yourselves would be disposed to say, the Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose A, B, and C joined toge sooner they were put an end to the better. They might gether, having got 100,0001., to offer 1,0001. each to 100 be attended with delay, with expense, with many other Members of the House of Commons to vote in a certain circumstances that might render them anything but a way, would not that be illegal ? remedy. And here are no false representations alleged Lord BROUGHAM—It would require 1,000,0001., and to be used with regard to them ; there is no statement that would not be enough.—(A laugh.) how the defendants proceeded against these courts, Lord CAMPBELL—That I suppose is your price ? whether by writing or by speech. Sir THOMAS WILDE—I doubt very much, my Lords + Lord CeiumiELL—The count does not say all the whether that would be treated seriously as a crime. courts of law. The case put to me does not appear to create the diffi- Sir TnomAs Wienz—The count only says, the tri- culty lam presenting to 3 our Lordships' minds, be burials. Whether the defendants have proceeded by cause to corrupt the Legislature would be looked upon writing, or by speeches, is not said. as impossible to be effected ; but to intimi- The LORD CHANCELLOR—I see this indictment says, date it—that had often been done. Is not " bringing the tribunals into contempt, and withdrawing the apprehension of consequences the motive constantly from them the business that goes to them, and submit- of action in the Legislature ? Now, is the intimidation ting the same to the judgment and determination of other here alluded to one of personal violence; the count war tribunals, to be contrived for that purpose." The indict- rants no such conclusion ; there is no appearance of the ment does not say that these tribunals are not to be use of violence, nothing to warrant the supposition " contrived" by the Legislature ! that personal violence was the species of inti- Lord BROUGRAM said the charge was that of destroy- midation intended. how many persons, I will ask, ing one kind of tribunals for the purpose of establishing have been intimidated by a threat of resignation.— others, like destroying the Ecclesiastical Courts in order (Laughter.) Why, such a threat has produced greater to establish Diocesan Courts. consequences than the millions or hundred thousands Lord CAMPBELL said that the Commissioners ap- that have been talked of. - (Laughter.) pointed to inquire into the operation of the Ecclesias- Lord BROUGHAM—Even when it was impossible. tical Courts were in some danger under this indictment. Sir THOMAS WILDE—What, my Lords, was Sir THOMAS WlLDE—Beyond all doubt, the Commis- the apprehension that produced Catholic calm sioners who made this report have committed an offence. cipation ? It was an operation in the under- Whether it can be prosecuted or not, is another standing. The number of persons who meet is question. important, as showing public opinion. - The crime in the Lord BROUGUAM—It should have set forth—And to present case is striving to intimidate the Lords and extend their jurisdiction: to. other tribunals than those Commons, 'and that is no crime. There is nothing already established by laW, or to be established. shown except that it was intendecno operate upon the Sir THOMAS WILDE—The next count had the effect understanding and the law. Th e law will not adopt of doing-that. It charged them with "using and usurp- that as a crime which is calculated to alter the opinions ing the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of of the Houses of Lords and Commons. courts for the administration of the law _;" but the eighth .... Lord CAMPBELL—Do you maintain, Sir Thomas Wilde, that there is no good count in the indictment Sir T. WILDE—I am prepared to maintain that, but I don't think it necessary. The present case is of import ance far beyond the interest of the parties concerned. It involves the whole criminal justice of the country, and it will be for your Lordships to decide whether the general charges made in the indictment are sufficient to substantiate a criminal charge, and one for which parties are liable to suffer imprisonment. Indictments of this general nature in all times, and in cases, lead to great evils, and bring the law into great disrepute. If these parties have been guilty of the acts laid to their charge there was a much better mode of indictment then the present. The question has been repeatedly put, whether there was a good count in the indictment, and if it nas stated that there was, the judges generally applied to the good count. In criminal cases the judge always asked if there was any good count. The judg ment of the Court in a criminal case placed the judge in the situation of a jury. Lord BROUGHAM—With this difference, that the judge knows which count is good and which is bad, and the jury does not. .Sir T. WILDE—I think your Lordship will find that that does not operate as a distinction in this case. If all judges are supposed to know at all times what judgment they ought to give, writs of error are dead and useless forms. The law, on the contrary, supposes the possi bility of error in judgment. The law gives an appeal from one Court to another on that assumption. Lord BROUGHAM—I remember taking this point in the court of error before the judges, and Mr. Baron Wood said, ." We contend in the court of error that the judgment was given below upon the count, which is gOod. Sir T. WILDE—A judge cannot say, if the Court below has given judgment upon two counts, that he in tended :o give it only upon one. There is no difficulty, whatever in a Court having before it a defendant for judgment.—(Their Lordships here consulted fir about five minutes.) Why is it that, in civil cases, the Court feels it necessary to arrest the judgment altogether, where general damages arc found ? The Court arrests judgment altogether, because it can not give judgment upon a bad count, having no legal power to fix the proportion of damages. Care was taken that the verdict for damages should be given on counts which were unobjectionable. In a criminal case there was no difficulty whatever. It is perfectly competent to the Court to arrest judgment upon the bad counts, and to pass sentence upon the good ones. There is no reason which applies to civil cases that does not also apply to criminal. In a criminal case the Court is bound to give judgment upon the good counts, and upon those counts alone. Judg ment is supposed to be compounded of the several offences of which the party has been found guilty. There is no ground, therefore, for the supposition, that in a crimi nal case the Court is authorised to give judgment upon the whole record, good and bad, if there be a good count ; and the mistake has arisen simply from the judges saying in criminal cases, when objections have been made that some Counts were bad, " We will not arrest judgment"—that is, there shall not be an absolute arrest of the judgment upon the whole record. Nothing was ever heard of so absurd, as that the judgment upon the entire record is good,wben there are several bad Counts and one goodone. It would be quite an anomaly if the Court could pro• trounce a judgment which was in truth applicable only to one count, as though it were applicable to the entire. record. Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose there were one count only in the indictment, and that count charging a clearly indictable offence, stated several things which would not be indictable ; and there was a general verdict of guilty upon the whole count. If judgment were given would the whole count be vitiated ? Sir T. WILDE (as we understood) intimated that he thought it would. Lord BROUGHAM—Was " The King v. Pellatt" a case in error ? Sir T. WILDE—Yes, my Lord. The Learned Counsel then referred to the judgment of Lord Ellenboraugh, in ,support of his argument. If the Court gave judg ment on the whole of the counts might not intend inents .be made in the absence of evidence ? But the record states that judgment is given on the whole of the counts. What is the record ? A memo rial as to what the law is. If damages of 100/. were given in a civil action on matters, some of which fur nished cause of action and some not, how would a court of appeal deal with that judgment ? Refuse the whole of it. What is the use of a writ of error ? Its object is to see what the Court has done on the record. Who could doubt that here a judgment has been pronounced, and that the party is suffering an imprisonment upon that judgment'? And should any legal legerdemain pretend that this judgment had not been passed on certain parts and part against a ju d gment on a civil bad, th e j u d gment wou ld of the record ? Surely it w as sent up here as the record action, t a io v n e , ri p ty ar . t glnood n an be refused. A writ of error is given only on the presumption that an error has been committed in the Court below. Yet when the writ comes before this House are your Lordships to be told that something has been done different from what the record states? Would not the effect of that be to leave all in a state of uncertainty. Parties were put to an enormous expense in having their decisions examined by this House ; and after this, were they to presume that the Court below has done just what is right ? What the Court below has alone is not a matter of intendment, it is inscribed in the record. The object of the writ 'of error is to bring under review what the record opinion that one years' O'Connell is a punishment that applies t o the offences stated in these i d m ec p l r a i r s e o s n . m If imprisonment it i acrd d yo 2 u , r o L oo rd fi s n h e ips o ' n Mr. counts, this House is then in the situation in which it would stand with respect to a decision of the Court be low, in which a jury has given damages on several counts, some good and some bad. Tnere are no means of disentangling these counts , or of saying what portion of the year's imprisonment , or what portion of the fine is adjudged to any particular count ascompared with the rest; and as you cannot apportion the punishment in one case any more than you can apportion the damages in the other, the judgment given on th e w h o l e of t h e rec3r d cannot stand, if any portion of that reco r d i s bad. The proper course is this, to send the record back, and to correct it, according to the; facts, if any mistake has occurred; but nobody ever heard of that being done in a case of this description. UI am asked for authorities for the reversal of a judgment on a record partly good and partly bad, my answer is, the universal practice and general principle of the law. On every appeal the case is treated as if it was an original hearing, and the judgment given in the Court below is not considered of the slightest authority; and here I refer your Lordships to the record 'tself. On that record sentence has been passed with nect to the offences disclosed in it. These words resp, are not to be treated as idle words. It is a matter of clear law, that the record must speak for itself, and if judgment has been given upon it, it must be supposed that it is upon the whole of it. What would be the consequence of your acting otherwise ? In future times in inspecting the record, what is to guide those who seek instruction from it as to what your Lord ships' judgment has been, except what you chose to enter. Whatever decision your Lordships come to, that will be the guide. But let me ask how the defendant have the record f rame d i n s uch a way as to stands ill point of plea here ? Is he not t o g ive him the mea ns o f p l ea di n g one way or the other. is he to plead that he has been convicted, and are the Court to conclude that he has been autrefois con vict? Surely in a case of such a complicated nature as this, it is of importan ce th at t h e record should speak for itself. When there was a necessity to have the record pro perly framed, with a v i ew to a be an extremely vicious practice to it would ce to say he has never affirmed it, if i t b e the course of the courts below, which I deny, t n en t e r jUd*Ment upon a bad count of the indictment, because it would pass on the good counts. There was no necessity for such a course being pursued. Supposing that there were some counts good and some bad. If the Crown was entitled to judgment upon the good counts the defendants would ba equally entitled to judgment on the bad counts. There is no reason why j u d gme nt should extend beyond the legal bounds to whi c h it i s applicab le. Lord CAMPBELL —All ow me to ask you, supposing oftle t C h o e ur c t ou o n f t Q s, ue th en e 's 7 th ßench in or sake, was a bad count, b ow d o - ou suggest that it ought stlhrelsaatyld, for argume n t' s thought that one to be entered ? Sir THOMAS a WILDE Th t he should go thereof with out_— bail. The LORD CHAN CELLOR —Can you give me any in stance of a record i n a cr i m i na l cas e so framed ? Sir T. WILDE—I am not aw are of any such thing, but it is easy to account f or i t , b eca use there was no advan tage in requiring the record to be properly entered, supposing the judgment to be,critered on a count which is good. The opinion of the Court is taken on a motion for arrest of judgment, and the Court say we give judg ment on the good count, and the record is scarcely made up at all. What i s t h e f o undation of the difficulty here ? Cannot a diff eren t judgment be given on different counts, even on par t s of a count and parts of a plea, supposing the judgment to be dissimilar, in a ques- 1 tion of this description, where sentence. is passed, and which still may or may not be supposed applicable to each of the counts? That a judgment ever passed which was applicable to all the counts upon which it was entered, I very much doubt. But most extraordinary it is that a . prisoner is to suffer under sentence, which, as appears in the record, is applicable to three or four several offences, and that he was to be told when he ap pealed against that sentence, that a surmise would be made that it was intended to be entere - aiift - that which it was not. Suppose there be three counts in the indictment, and that the Court of Queen's Bench holds the first to be good and the others bad—that the Court of Ex chequer holds one to be good, which the Court of Queen's Bench has pronounced bad, and that your Lord ships decide that that count is good which they both pronounce to be bad, and that the other two are bad. What is to be the intendment? It is perfectly impos sible that there should be any intendment at all. It would be perfectly absurd that if a man was convizted on eleven counts, and suffered sentence, and that a Court of Error found possibly one of the counts to be good, that he should suffer under the accumulated sentence of the eleven counts, each containing different offences. There is no foundation for it; and no authority can be produced for it. Whenever a court of law has refused a motion for arrest of judgment on bad counts, it assigned for a reason that judgment was given on the good counts. Lord CAMPBELL said, is there no case of au error after judgment ? Sir Tuomas WILDE—No, my Lord, we have sent to the Crown-office, and we believe there is not one. What ever be the intendment it cannot be doubted that there may be indictments for several distinct offences, that some of them may not legally subject the party to pu nishment, and sentence be given on the whole. left conspire tc, cheat A. B. out of the remaining horse. Now here are three conspiracies between different persons at dif ferent times. Such would be found to be the conviction in the present ca Eight persons would be found to have convired to do certain acts. Some of those are found to have conspired to do other acts, and there is a third conviction for conspiring to do otb er acts, referring obviously to different times, and with respe ct to some of the a c t s t o different persons. (The Hon. arid Lean ied Gentleman here read the finding of the jury at length or the first and second counts.) Now, by this finding there wiere eight persons convicted of one con spiracy, seven perm)l is convicted of another conspiracy, and three persons cony icted of a third. Now, on the record, there is one entire char ge. The first and second counts contain one charge only, but the finding makes them guilty of dis tinct offences, son - , Ie distinct as to the persons, and all as to their objects. The se offences may be more.or.less extensive; they may be the w hole : , or a portion of the count, but upon the finding the defer dant can only be guilty of one offence. It Was not competent for the jury to find and the Court to give judgment upon perfectly distinct and independent offences, although those offences are part of what is the entire charge, and although each of these might have - been the subject of an indictment. This finding, there. 'ore, cannot be a good one. If there are three perfect ly distinct legal offences, they cannot be convicted of one en tir e offence. The first objection in this part of the case is, th: .upon those two counts, each being entire, the jury did not convict the defendants of one entire offence, but convicted th em of three distinct offences. On the third count, your Lordshi us . will find that Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, a r&' found guilty of the whole of the third count, and that Mr. J-olin O'Connell, Mr. Steele, Mr. Ray, and Dr. Gray, are not 1 ound guilty of the whole of it ; they are not guilty of that:. part of it which charges them with conspiracy to excite di affection in the army, and the Reverend Thomas Ti' . ;rticy was found guilty of that part only which relates to tl ie exciting of disaffection in the army. Here your Lordships will observe that Daniel O'Con nell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of the whole matter of the count. They were charged with con spiring together with Mr. Jo' grr O' Connell and the other de fendants to accomplish certain objects, and Mr. D. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are ft nind guiltyof conspiring to do thatof which Mr. J. O'Connell and the others who conspired with him are not found guilty. It is impossible that Mr. D. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr.. Duffy could have conspired with those other persons within t those other persons con spiring with them, for the natualo of a conspiracy is, that a mutual agreement or contract lir:S been entered into to effect the common object. The count c] targes eight persons with conspiring together, and they fi.aid that the eight are guilty, but that five of the eight were. not guilty of what three others were convicted. If the aoq uittal of the five be right, the conviction of the three mush, be wrong, and here the same objection arises of finding t.vo offences, and I think this finding is erroneous, and ougl it to be set aside. The LORD CHANCELLOR—SUM )01;e a case of three persons being indicted for conspiring to lo an act, of whom two are found guilty and the third acq aitted—would not that be good ? Sir T. WILDS--I do not apprel end you can find that two men conspired with a third; and find in the same record that the third did not conspire with the n. _ . _ At this period of the argument, the Lord Chancellor and some of the Judges retired for the purpose of refresh ment. On their return Sir T. WILDE resumed his argument as follows—l was stating to your Lordships that I was certain no au thority could be introduced for the extraordinary proposition, that where judgment was entered upon an indictment in which a writ of error would issue, it was shown that some of the counts were good and some of them were bad, the judgments should be considered as entered upon the good counts, and not upon the bad ones? Suppose your Lordships should decide that the sentence passed was applicable only to some of the counts, and suppose Mr. O'Connell to be again indicted upon the counts which were decided to be bad how could he plead autrefois convict—a autrefois convict ? On this point I will draw your Lordships' attention to the case of the " King v. Wolf." In that case a jury had been allowed to separate, in a case of misdemeanour. In the morning the defendant's counsel had objected to a continuance of the proceedings. Lord Tenterden, who presided, said he would not stop the case, but that he would take care to have the fact stated upon the record. The defendants were convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and a fine of 10,0001. A writ of error was brought, and Sir Charles Wetherell appeared to argue the case before your Lordships. The indict ment was produced, and on the postea it was entered that the Court had been duly adjourned. Lord Eldon imme diately stopped the case, saying that he could look only to the record—that Whether the jury separated or not, was a qu:stion they could not enter into, as the record stated that the Court was duly adjourned. The writ was dismissed, and the parties suffered the imprisonment. I mention this to show how implicitly your Lord ships hold to the record even when it may be equivocal as to the purpose for which an entry wasmade. Now, I ask, how would your Lordships deal with a plea of autrefoia convict if put in by Mr. O'Connell, with regard to one of these bad counts ? How would you deal with such a plea if it were brought before you on writ of error and the record showed a conviction on that count ? Why, a counsel would be unworthy to stand before your Lordships who should attempt to argue such a plea in the face of such a record. Suppose an indictment for perjury and assault—an indictment on two counts—sup pose the party convicted and again indicted for one o' the offences. He would plead autrefois convict. By and by the man produces the record of his conviction of perjury and assault, he suffers the punishment — will the liouse, in such a case, deal with it otherwise than stated in the record ? The truth is, the record must be dealt with as it was found. I cannot produce it in order to show that in point of fact • the Court pronounced a judgment of a particular kind, because that was not admissible. If it was found that the counts were good which we say are had, the intendment will be the same. There is no case in which an intendment is given, except upon the state • ments of the record, and your Lordships cannot give judgment in this case, except upon the statements in the record. In the case of the King and Fuller, that was an in dictment charging the defendant with attempting to get seamen from the service; there were several counts in that indictment and several objections. There was an objec tion made to onecount in particular, and upon that a mo tion was made in arrest ofjudgment, but it did not succeed. Now in the present case I submit that the several counts I have adverted to are not good in point of law. Ido tint mean to admit that the other counts are good, be cause I apprehend the objections I have urged to the other counts will equally apply to them. I have now addressed your Lordships as to the effect of the general judgment upon the good and the bad counts ; and I will now refer the House to some authorities, to show that counts in indictments of such a general nature have been continually held to be bad. The Learned Gentlemen then referred to Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, Curwood's edition, and the 3d Institute, in order to show that general counts in an indictment were held to be bad. In the case of the " King v. Richardson," in Ist Moody and Robinson, the parties were indicted for a conspiracy against Sir Henry Parley. The case was tried in the county of Somerset. The indictment charged that the defendants did conspire, confederate, and agree to cheat the said Henry Parley, and certain overt acts were also stated. - The overt acts not being proved, at the close of the case for the pro secution counsel for the defendant observed that the count could not be sustained, inasmuch as the count was too general, and stated no specific act by which the Court could judge whether the conduct of the defendant was unlawful or not. Lord Denman said, "My opinion is that the indictment ie. bad in point of law. The alle gation is too :general, and it does not convey any specific idea which the mind can lay hold of to judge whether any unlawful act has been done or not." My Lords, my great objection to this indictment is, that it constantly , introduces terms such as those which the Noble Lord here refers to as indefinite, and having no legal and precise meaning. Reference was made in the ease I have just cited to the case of the "King v. Gill," 2d, Barnewall and Alderson, a case which is so often referred to on account of its laxity, that it is hardly to be considered an existing authority. The Learned Counsel then referred to the case of " The Queen v. Parker," tried in the Central Criminal Court. In that case the object of the conspiracy, charged had been accomplished. The indictment charged that the parties en tered into a conspiracy with each other and with other per sons, by divers means, to acquire and obtain goods from divers liege subjects of her Majesty, and to cheat and defraud her Majesty's subjects by false representations, and that the defendants received the goods which had been obtained by false pretences. The jury said that the parties had, by means aforesaid, unlawfully gained possession of the goods, and cheated and defrauded their owners. Now, in the present case there is no mention of the persons to be in timidated; there is entire silence as to the means by which certain ends, and those not ordinary ones, are to be accom plished, and the generality is infinitely greater here than in any of the cases to which I have ref erre d. I n th e " Ri ng v. Cooper," 2d Strange, there is the case of a person in dicted for stirring up strifes, quarrels, and disturbances against his Majesty's subjects. That was held to be a bad indictment. The indictment in this case was for stirring up Irish subjects against English subjects. In the "Queen v. Rowell" a number of persons were indicted for conspir ing and agreeing with one another to do certain indecent acts in a public place and in the presence of her Majesty's liege sub jects. Mr. Justice Patteson said "he could not admit an indict ment for treasonable, or for indecent or other bad practices to be conveyed in such loose terms. From such words used in common parlance the specific offence might be inferred, but those loose words could not be admitted into a legal do cument." Mr. Justice Williams and the other Judges con curred with Mr. Justice Patteson, and their judgment Was respited. Lord BROUGHAM—What are the words of the indictment —I mean what are the adjectives used to describe the in decency ? Sir T. WILDE—My Lord, the words are very offensive. They are " to do certain indecent, lewd, nasty, and unnatural acts." But, notwithstanding all these words, the Court held that the indictment was too loose, and could not be sustained. Such, my Lords, is the general doctrine, and there are a great many other cases similar to those which I have referred to; but I will not now trouble your Lordships with them. I stated to your Lordships that, in the case of the "King v. Fuller," it was argued that the Court would give judgment upon a good count, although the other counts were bad. In the case of the " Queen v. Ingram," the Court held that thefine could not be inflicted upon good counts, the others being too general. That case is reported in Salty. I will now beg to refer your Lordships to the case of "Grant v. Astell," I st Cooper, page 776, in which the decision was the same. The position which I wish to present to your Lordships is that the indictment consists of several counts which are bad by means of their vagueness. Some of these counts do not con stitute any legal charge, nor any pretence for a legal charge. Other counts are expressed in too general terms to constitute a legal charge, and the judgment which was passed upon all these counts cannot be sustained in point of law. The judgment has been passed for a greater number of offences than were charged in the indictment—a greater number of offences than the defendants had pleaded guilty to. I must call your Lordships' attention again to the first count. It first sets out some overt acts, omitted in the next, although in respect to general charges the first and second counts were the same. Now, I must call your Lordships' attention to this first count. The charge is that the defendants conspired and agreed with each other and with divers other persons unknown to raise and create discontent and dissatisfaction amongst her Ma jesty's liege subjects stir up hatred and con tempt of her Majesty's Government—to excite hatred and jealousy in the minds of her Majesty's Irish subjects towards their English fellow-subjeets, and to create discontent in the army. I have now read to your Lordships the first count which charges one conspiracy to do certain acts, and to acomplish certain specific purposes. There is no doubt, my Lords, that this count presents but one charge, that is of a conspiracy to do certain acts. I am not here to say to your Lordships that the defendants might not be found guilty upon part of that count. Although it was bad in part, yet it might be severed, and the verdict might be taken upon part. The finding could only be on one conspiracy, and the judg ment of the Court could only be on one offence. The verdict of guilty of conspiracy could only apply to one illegal agree ment or association. There are not several agreements alleged, but only one; but the jury have found the defendants guilty of three several conspiracies, though the indictment presented a charge of only one. It would be found the same as if it stood thus :—Eight persons conspired to cheat another person A.B. of three horses, black, white, and grey. Eight persons are supposed to conspire, they are proved to have met in a room—that' they came to an agreement to cheat A. B. out of his black horse; but a part of them declined to become parties to cheat A. B. out of another horse. Two persons out of the eight retire from the room, and those who remain enter into an agreement to cheat A. B. out of another horse. A portion of them again retire, and those who are The LORD Cumienta.ou—ln a- conspiracy between A, B, C, and other persons, if you find guilty of a conspiracy, it is not necessary that C and B sl tould be joined in the con spiracy. Sir T. WlLDE—Every indictn tent for a conspiracy must be framed in one of two ways—either that persons unknown had conspired with A and B, or. that A and B, and others unknown, had conspired ; but you must always prove the conspiracy as you charge it. The LORD CHANCELLOR—IS it, necessary to prove a con spiracy against all the persons who are made parties to it ? (At this period of the proceectii gs it was announced that the Royal Commissioners were in waiting to give her Majesty's assent to certain Bills.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—We, will renew the argument after the Commission is over. Counsel were then ordered to -withdraw, and the Royal Assent was gives by Commission to certain Bills, for which see our Parliamentary report. After the Commission the argument was resumed. Sir THOMAS WILDE then resumed—Your Lordship was asking me a question respecting! the acquittal of one defen dant, when three were charged ,)13 an indictment for conspi racy. 1 know of no case in w taf•ch a record properly en tered and properly prepared a.lows incongruity on the face of it. In this case, instead of finding that Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Puffy conspired with each other, and witk certain persons: unknown, to do certain acts, the jury find that they are grLifty of the premises charged. On the first and second counts they find them guilty of con spiracy with each other to do certain acts which form a part of the premises set out in those 'c ounts. In an indictment against those persons for conspiracy with each other to do certain things, if the guilt of one of the three is not esta blished, the proper mode of entering the finding is, that as to No. 3, not guilty, as to Nos. 1 and 2; guilty of conspiracy with each other, to do so and so. _ Lord CAmpnELL—l....that an essential part of the agree anent? Sir T.MLDE—The essential part is, that it is an agreement with several to do certain acts which constitute a conspi racy. The indictment here charges a conspiracy not only with the eight defendants who were living at the.time of the trial, but with a ninth who was not living. The LORD CHANDELLon--Three persons are indicted for conspiracy, and two have been found guilty of the premises, whilst the other is not guilty. Will not that do? Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. I must pray your Lordship not to use the word premises, without stating its meaning. The LORD CHANCELLOR—I made use of the word premises, because it is in this very count. Sir T. WILDE—And I use it for the same reason. But then, when your Lordship uses this an as objection, I ask what is meant by premises? The word " premises," I ap prehend, means that they are guilty of having entered into the conspiracy charged in the count. If it does not mean that, who can tell what it does mean ? If the . word "premises" be a legal word, there must be a certain meaning attached to it. Suppose they were to be in dicted again, what would be their plea? The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think it is precisely the same question. Sir T. WlLDE—Surely it would be a different offence? The LORD CHANCELLOR—Not at all. Suppose the parties are charged with conspiring with A, B, and C, to do certain acts, and the jury were to find that they had conspired with A only, would not that be sufficient ? Sir T. WILE.—Yes, my Lord. But your Lordship omits the most material part of the question : that B and C have been acquitted, and the conspiracy with them is denied. Upon this occasion a conspiracy is charged against eight; three are found guilty of the premises. If it was com petent to . find them guilty of conspiracy with the other five, why was not the verdict consistent ? For which charge_ had they received judgment ? 'This applied, to a certain extent, through all the subsequent counts. He conceived, therefore, that the record was defective in what it had not found, and inasmuch as it had not found an acquittal;;" for instance, the whole were found guilty on the premises when the jury had negatived the possibility of that guilt by the acquittal of certain persons with whom they intended to conspire, and on which intention a portion of the charge was founded. There is a verdict of not guilty in favour of the defendants, which ought to have been followed up by judgment. A ver dict was of no avail which was not followed up by judgment., and he was not aware of any case where judgment was not pronounced in which a verdict of acquittal was found. The defendants were acquitted on tke count charging them with attending an unlawful. assembly, and upon this acquittal the judgment of the Court was not pronounced. Lord CAMPBELL — Is , that an error of which you can avail yourself 2 You can only avail yourself of that by which you are damnified. Sir THOMAS Mu:we—Those for whom I appear, and the other defendants, may be damnified in this respect, that a verdict of not guilty could not be pleaded to another indictment. The LORD CHANCELLOR—We can repair that defect here. . Sir T. WILDS—I am not aware that in a criminal case, where the Court below does not pronounce judgment, your Lordships have ever added it. The LORD CHAN CELLOR-I am informed that the Court of Queen's Bench has done so in a case called " The Exeter case," and upon the distinct ground of its being discretionary. Sir THOMAS WlLDE—There are many things which the Court of' Queen's -Bench would do which this House, sitting as a Court of Error, would not do. I consider that the verdict is good for nothing till it is sanctioned by judgment being pronounced. I have now stated the mo st hnportant points which I intended to address to your Lordships, but there are some others of a technical nature, upon which Mr. Peacock will address you. My Learned Friends will address your Lord ships upon some of those points which I have abstained from urging at greater length in consequence of the shortness of time. They will address you on the challenging of the jury and the constitution G.f the jury-list. Lord BROUGHAM—YeII do not mean to give up the point with regard to the swearing of the witnesses. Sir T. WILDE—The - Very reverse, my Lord. But my Learned Friends and myself have agreed that there are sepa • rate points upon which each should address your Lordships ; and I was afraid that if I should address myself to those points, that I would occupy too much time, and would pre vent others from being heard. I now co nc lude what 1 had to say in the outset. The Learned Gentleman concluded his argument at five minutes to five o'clock, and the further hearing of the case was adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF. QUEEN'S BENCH, Juty 3. At Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.) LAKE V. TIIE DUKE OF ARGYLL. This was an action brought to recover a sum of money for printing the biliq reports ,. &c., of the British American Association. The atimrs of this Association have been fre quently before the pubic. The work in question was ad mitted to have been done, and the prices were adniitted to be reasonable ; but it was con.tended for the defence, that there was no evidence to fix the Duke with liabilities Lord DENMAN, in summing up, said the Duke's merely be coming president would not make him liable for the debts of the Association. The Duke could only become liable by his own conduct, and by doing that Which induced persons to give credit on his account. The jury, after retiring to consult, and remaining absent for about an hour, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff.— Damages, 1451. Mr. Platt, Mr. Swann, and another Learned Counsel were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin and Mr. James were for the defendant. JULY 4. (Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN and a Special Jury.) BODMER V. BUTTERWORTH. This was an action to try the right to a patent for certain drawing frames, rollers, &c., used in the cotton and wooll en trade. There was not th e slightest interest in the case. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 3. (Sittings at Nisi Prius before the Special Jury.) LORD CHIEF BARON a n d a REDMAN V. WILSON. This was an action to recover the sum of 2,500/. on a policy of insurance effected with the Indemnity Assurance Company on the barque Lord Wellington. Mr. Jervts, ,and with him Mr. Iloggins, was Counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Erle, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Forsythe, appeared forthe defendant, who represented the above Com pany. Mr. Redman, the plaintiff in this case, is a shipbroker, car rying on business in Lime-street. 'The vessel which is the subject matter of the present inquiry belonged to this gen tletnan, by whom she was extensively repaired during the years 1838, 1839, and 1840. In 1841 he intended her to go in ballast to Sierra Leone for a cargo of teak. That she might be in a fit condition to perform this voyage, he caused her to be entirely overhauled by the Messrs., Green, Wigram, .and Green, shipwrights, whilst she was lying in the West India Export Dock. Here she received 50 feet of new rough-tree timbers, 10 or 15 feet of new gunwale, and a new raft-port. She was fitted with two new mizen channels, had a beam clamped, her rough-tree timbers were examined, 9 broken ones being replaced, herchain bolts were found to be good, and her shears fair. These repairs were chiefly made on the larboard side ahead. Persons who had bad the care of making them confirmed the above particulars, and said that the caulking she underwent Would have infallibly dis 'covered a bad plank.- These being completed, and the vessel deemed seaworthy, she was insured for 2,5001. on the 6th of July, 1841. Being afterwards chartered by Messrs. Laurie and Hamilton, she sailed on the 15th of that month. During her voyage she met with a great deal of foul weather. She came to an anchor at the Nore, and there experienced a heavy gale, in which she parted a cable and rode heavily. The weather continued much the same all the way to the Downs. Here it increased, and down the Channel she had more or less of it. On the 21st of August she came off the Cape de Verde. Here she was once or twice on her beam ends, and made a little water. On her first arrival at the coast. of Africa the wind blew off the shore, but it after wards changed to S.W., and she was obliged to go under 11 heavy p.'ess of sail to keep off the lee-shore. This could not fail to have the effect of straining her considerably. She arrived at Sierra. Leone on the 2d of September, discharged her ballast there, and then proceeded up to Tasso Island Here she arrived on the 12th, and began to load the timber At the end of the month, however, a severe illness, natural to the climate, attacked the whole crew, arising from the damp ness of the timber, which is bent in the water, and floated by cork-wood. it is customary at this place to load vessels by means of a class of natives known by the general name of Kroomen, as Europeans are sure to sink under the unhealthi ness of the country. At the time of this visitation 300 loads had been put in, 500 being the complement. The Dittos lasted 50 days, bat the vessel was fully loaded by the 7th Of November. She was then brought down with her cargo to Freetown. On the 9th she was exposed to a tremendous tor nado. Shortly after this date she underwent a survey by three persons from various vessels then at the port. Before this she had drifted two miles, having two anchors out, and was then brought back to Forra Bay. The result of the sur vey was, that she was found to make a little water, and the pumps being worked, very little was brought up. A second examination, by three other persons, was afterwards insti tuted. On this occasion a part of the cargo was removed , and she was found to leak much less in consequence, the quantity being only three feet and a half in twenty-foul' hours. Her knee-beams were.found strained. In this con' dition it was very difficult to replace the grew, or keep the Kroomen at work, and though the aid of the magistrates wee procured, it was ultimately abandoned, as being impossible. When it was then perceived that there was no convenient place for laying a vessel tip, it was agreed to sell her. TO was effected by her captain, Mr. Walker, who obtained 230/• for her, under the direction and advice of the surveyors. IS° blame rested upon him. Mr. ERLE, for the defendant, contended, from the evidence as it then stood, that no substantial injury to the vessel had arisen from bad weather. On the other hand, he could show , and to a certain extent he was borne out by the plaintiff, that the injury was occasioned by the teak having been put in improperly. The long leverage of some of these heavy beams would throw the sternpost away from the ship's side. This was where the leak occurred, the workmen could not stop it , not having power to bring the separated parts together. Th e vessel bad borne the best name in the Sierra Leone trade, during former voyages ; and th e d amage , h e cou ld s h ow , most certainly arose from the cause be had already assigned. le addition to this, he had very good grounds for cotnplainingi in the name of the insurers, of a want of überrima fides, or good faith. He was aware that such a charge was only to be urged with the greatest caution, but he had not done unadvisedly. The jury gave a verdict for plaintiff, with damages 2,7061• The inquiry lasted till half-past five o'clock. JULY 4. (Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and A Special Jury.) REDMAN V. HAY. The hearing of this case, which occupied the Court a grel 6 part of yesterday, was resumed this morning. It was an Ile' tion to recover on a policy of insurance effected with the In' demnity Assurance Company on the freight of the barque Lord Wellington. There was no point of interest in the feel of the case, the whole question turning on the terms and conditions of the policy, and as to wh e ther or not they I,Bd _, been complied with in the navigation of the ship. OP some discussion between the Chief Baron and Counsel (M r ' Martin and Mr. Tomlinson) as to the form of the verdict' the jury were directed to find 'for the plaintiff, with dr, , mages, 1,5221. ALEXANDER V. PRATT. This cause was similar to the last, being an action brougb oi t by the plaintiff to recover a sum of 3,0001. on a policy assurance, granted by the General Maritime Assurance COn pany, on the barque Cecilia, 325 tons admeasurement. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 4. (Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and $ Special Jury.) NICKELS V. HASLAM. This was an action to try the validity of a patent of cots° machinery, invented to facilitate the carding of cotton. The whole matter, as far as it had proceeded, was of the nios dry and technical character, possessing not the slightest terest to the general reader. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 4. (Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) • IN RE GRANT. Win. Grant, boot and shoe merchant, Swaffham, appear ed to pass his final examination. The amount of the bankrupt's liabilities was originalli 421. 2s. 6d., for which Messrs. Thomas and Co., of frida* street, put in an execution ; and the losses attending the sale _7 the bankrupt's stock by auc ti on , w ith th e a tt en d an t expeßar' amounted to upwards of 140/. The bankrupt was unopposed, and passed his examinatO IN RE WHITE. The bankrupt, Jonathan Williams White, holds a situatit l in the Court of Chancery, as clerk ofaccounts, with a salsa of 4001. per annum, which, however, in consequence of duty, averaged during the last three years and a quarter 5," The amount of his liabilities were 6921., and he offered , lay aside 1001. per annum to meet his creditors. A few of. those attended, and said that they would with draw their opposition if the bankrupt advanced his Ow to 1501.—He was finally put back to amend his schedule. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD ,COURT. (Before the RECORDER.) Sharrington Bach was charged with uttering a forged b of exchange, knowing at the time that it was forged. A The case has recently been before th e p u bli c , w h en it If"' investigated at the police-office. 'og The case was not sustained, the principal witness hal l failed to satisfy the jury that the name to the bill was forgery. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. This was the last case, and the Court adjourn e d to the •Oh of August. CORN AVERAGES. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORT 4 t. of For the Week ended June2O. 1341. made up from the Retur!ta the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in Englan" Wales, per Imperial Quarter. Wheat...» 555. 9‘l. Oats . ...... 225. Iht., Beane...." 385. of Barley 34s. 0.1 Rye .. ...... 355. Od Pea5e ......... 30s. • AVERAGES OF THE LAST SIX WEEKS. Weeks ending WHEAT. HAELEY.I OATS. I EYE. I BEANS. I FE ' May .25 1- 55 10 ,30 1' 21 2 1 31 7 33 11 '3 3 7 June I 55 6 30 7 21 7 34 0' 34 10 3 1 i 8 55 6 31 9 21 11 33 II 35 11 3 4 1 15 55 9 31 4 22 6 32 4 36 11 34 g 22 .... 29 55 9 34 4 22 9 35 0 36 0 19 ,.,.. IMVICRIAI AGORICGATX AVERAHEZ OV THE Fix %Vitro - • Wheat 55. Bd. 1 Oats 4, Sari,' 3ls 101 1 Rye ..... .... 335. 62.1 Pea5e.........34a. DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN. 11 11 Wheat ... ..... 17i. Od. . m.. Oats ....... 61. Od. 8ea...... 6 , .. 6 4. Barley . I ..... 7s. Od. Rye .—.... 9 . &LI I Pease..„..... 11' MARKET NEWS.-(YESTERDAY' ) 118 Y IVLABILETS. Slarrimm.D.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ 108 to 4148; i l e g ; ful ditto, 41 5s t o 4/ 10 s ; fi ne U p l an d di tto, 4 / 1 23 to 41 Clover Hay, 41 15s to 6/ 6s ; Oat Straw, 11 123 to I/ Wheat Straw, 11143 to 1/ 16s per load. Owing to the show` weather the trade to-day was heavy, at barely late rates- sr CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay 4/ to 41 45; ; ful ditto, 4/ 5s to 4/ 123 ; fine Upland ditto, 4l 14s te" ; Clover Hay, 4/ 12s to 6l ; Oat Straw, 1/ 143 to 1116 s; `V he Straw, 1/ 16s to 1/ 183 per load. Supply but moderate, 3 ' . " trade rather dull. WHITECHAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 31123 to 4/ 45 ; 4 8 1 ,; ful ditto, 416 s to 4/ 12s • fine Upland ditto, 4l 14s to 4 1 ; Clover Hay, 5/ to 61 ' l2s ; Oat Straw, 1/ 12s to 11 1' to Wheat Straw, 1/ 14s to 1/ 168 per load. A model s , supply, and a sluggish demand. New Meadow Hay 11 selling at from 31 5s to 415 s per load. ,LT 3.—grime sheep were rather scarcL in demand at full prices. In all other ki n d o f stock, the supply of which was seasonably good, only a limited basin was doing, at scarcely last week's quotations.—Beef f ro 3l ; 2s 8d to 4s ; Mutton, 2s 6d to 4s ; Lamb, 4s to 5s l rea , i",, to 35 10d; and Pork, 2s 6d to 3s 8d p e r tabs. SupPl 9. Beasts, 41; Sheep and Lambs, 3,048; Cal v es, 54 ; Pigs, f ROMFORD, JULY 3.—We had on l y a mo d erate su pply 43 , stock on offers to-day, yet the general demand was i n, sluggish state, and in some instances had a downward to dency—Beef, from 2s 6d to 4s; Mutton, 2s 6d to 4s; 1,11W 6,1 4s 2d to ss; Veal, 3s to 3s 10d; and Pork, 2s 6d to : or e per 81bs. Suckling Calves, 18s to 265; Quarter-old St Pigs, 16s to 20s; and Mach Cows, with their small 0 1 ' - 161 to 19/ each. 0 LEWES, JULY 2.—Be e f, f rom 3 s 2d t o 4 s 2d ; M u tt o n to 4s 2d ; Lamb, 4s to 4 s 10d ; V ea l, 3 s 4d to 4 s ; an d , ' ‘). l e . 2s 4d to 3s 6d per 81bs.—A limited supply, and a stead,' mand. SOUTIIAL MEAT MARKETS. JULY 3, - ihr 'hi , e , antl , Mr. Pressly, of th e Stamps and Taxes Office, iin o p u official communication to parties seeking informatio n the subject, explairs distinctly that every aperture ll' n o , muting light, howe v er ma de, and th roug h w h a t e ver terial, whether in a cellar, wat er - c l ose t, & c ., o f a hen s is liable to the window duties. TIT 1 0 ' THE HONOURABLE G. SYDNEY SMYTHE'S t i . -- S RIC FANCIES."—We are requested to state, that fr i jo r i Colburn, of Great Marlborough-street, has this ' e published "Historic Fancies," by th e H on . Ge t)r . ;II Sydney Smythe, M.P., in 1 vol. Bv o ., p r i ce 125., b 0 can now be had of all bookseller s . M r . C o lburn ; a s also just published -2. The M emo i rs o f a Babyl°litlie Princess ; dedicated, by permission to her Majcsty , , ,g, Queen Dowager, 2 vols. s ma ll B vo ., 21 s . b o und; ba r The Marchioness of L on d on d erry ' s N arra ti ve 0 ,,t p ot Visit to the Cou r t s o f Vi enna , Constantinople, A t " - or Naples, &c., 1 rol., Bvo. 14s. bound.-4. ConingsuP on cl the New Generation, by B. Disraeli Esq., M.P., S e v e Edition, 3 vols.-5. Miss Strickland's Queens of o f land, Vol. 7, comprising the Sequel of the Li re of Queen Elizabeth, and the complete Life of Ann e Denmark. r si \fter th. After the ceremony of Thomas Campbell's vo g at Westminster Abbey, last Wednesday, a meeting c a t held at the Polish Association, 10, Duke-street , w o James's, at which a portrait of the departed pc:e ll, to presented by . Colonel Szyrma, from his countrynie b c ll the Association, of which, as is well known, COO 00 was the first President, and its founder in 183 2 . i i e f this occasion, speeches were delivered by Lord Du m e' Stuart, Colonel Szyrma, and Count Krasinski, coinh r ad morative of the many and signal services Campbell h o rendered to the cause of Poland, of which, bin ° „et earliest youth, he was one of the warmest and mos t severing advocates. f d' GUANO.—The most easy and simple method ° tb' tecting • adulteration in guano, and also ascertaininin I , of quality of the article, is the following :—Take four poti i l , c lo o; guano, and add one quart of wat er f or e ver y pound of b II feig stir them well together, and then let them stand for Pi lit oe, days; if the guano be good, it will float an e gg or a 1 31) 4 of and if it float well, add water i n h a lf pi n ts until the e b t , Sa potatoe sinks to the bottom; and that guano which &I f sOf egg with the greatest quantity of water is the best. 0 0 4 earth or sand has been mixed w ith th e guano it will be at the bottom of the vessel.—Lancaster • • :DIED. On the 19th ult., at hcchester Frances, wife lurry W. Hillier, ILINT, Ho f London : Printed and . Published by MURDO IrO. g u n / 1 „f No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Officerf m l ti ' Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the u" -- Middlesex, Friday, July 5, 1844. 11,4 VOltne "•---.--.... CA A q, b e „,, er i T ea P f !urli• T, tarty 11* 1 4iS te: ; eonvil w C. w, I I Just aiw tati Ratio hr Pair 1 -In. 4 , t-14 pal `lt ° o de , 4andl Ib4 T , et the A Fir get - 11 '04 Th, e tier, ~_._ , T 1 0 '-w'tnSure Lingle breas I keit DI &au t Merv,' 110 0' c Laini "web( hu They ant th Cu m , neltnsi N. lAloci tmsiti curr y : tler ne way sine th e 31 Share, Yor Pan itr Nra peXc , t .,Obs 4 " le _ Caz