The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

jeartse they had given their verdict upon both counts. iWhat, then, became of the case ? Supposing the :ury had given that verdict, and the writ of error - was brought, it would award a venire de novo, so that the case would be sent back to the jury to assess the damages on the count that was good. That was the course in civil eases. But what did his friends pal‘opost in criminal Bales? Why, that the record *bald be eent back to Ireland. The analogy would be to ask :the . court of error to send the record back to the CeUrt.be low to pronounce judgment upon the entitle thit; WaS good. But his Learned Friends did not auk their Urd ships to do that; they asked them to reverse the judgment altogether, and to set the parties free. Ise would. now state the reason why, in his "opinion,l the Principle which was admitted in civil_' tta'sCPS not apply in criminal eases. The jury breeglit verdict, guilty or not guilty ; they aseesed 4.emeges they awarded no punishment. If he were chrtegel on an indictment with two offences, if one count Was'bacl, the jury who had found him guilty had found hire guilty upon each count. So, if one count was good, that would support the verdict and the record.: ; Judgment followed the record ; the record followed the verdict ; and if the record and the verdict were warranted, how could the judgment be erroneous ? That was the prin ciple in civil as well as in criminal cases. He.wouldolow call their Lordships' attention to a few eases in the books in which this point had been adverted to. When his Learned Friend said that they found no distinct ease in point, his answer was, that no one had ever thought of raising the question. There was not an assia:s—not an Old Bailey seasiens—not a quarter ses sions, in which cases did not occur in which this point arose. There would have been an infinity of write of error, and it was impossible that the question could have been left so long without being brought under the notice of the courts, if the law had not been clear. No sittings could have taken place in which the point did not occur. He would now advert to the principal cases which had been Grant on the other side. The first was the ca se of Grant v. Aspland, which his Learned Friend said had no reference to a writ of error, although the judge had made an extra-judicial observation on the. 'point. Now, it so happened that the case was on ik writ of error.' It was a writ of error to the King's Bench in Englandfrom the King's Bench in Ireland, in an action to recover copy hold tithes. There were several counts. one o which was defective, and Lord Mansfield, in giving judgment, said, that he exceedingly regretted that so ill-founded a rule as this, via., that where in several counts one was bad the judgment should be set aside, had ever been admitted ; more especially upon snchan absurd fiction as that when the jury assessed the da mages, they assessed them on all the counts, which wai not the caae; and Lord Mansfield went on to state that what made the rule the more absurd was, that it did not hold goodin criminal prose cu ti ons , for thatwhen the verdiCt of eeilty was once returned, one good count was sufficient Ie support it. There was a case in Cooper's Reports, in which Lord Mansfield had said the same thing. Then there was the case of the King v. Fuller. His Learned Friend, in referring to that case, seemed to imagine that this question could only arise in eases of misdemeanour, and that there could be no such thing as an indictment for felony with different counts. If his Learned Friend had had as much experience in the criminal as he had had in the civil courts, he would have known that it was (mite as common to have indictments for felony with ,everal counts as for tnisdemeanour • and that the same question would aris e if th e punis hment were discre tionary or fixed by law ; and the general rule in indict ments for felony was, that if the record warranted the verdict, it was not erroneous because one of the counts on the indictment might be defective. Then there was the caseof the King v. Rose, ed Lord Raymond's Reports, p. 886. This was an indictment for perjury, and some of the assignments were defective, and on that ground the court was moved in arrest of judgment. But Lord Bolt and the whole court gave it as their opinion that if all the assignments were wrong but one, that one Would he sufficient to authorise the court to give its judgment. Then there was the case of " the King v., Powell," 2d Barnewall tlnd Adolphus, p. 535. This was a writ of error to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that established the principle that if one count of one indictment was suf ficient to support a judgment, and the verdict supported that judgment, the judgment was not erroneous. It was a case that was tried at the Surrey October Sessions, and there were two counts in the indictment. The first was for an assault with intent to ravish, and the second was for a common assault. Now the first count would warrant judgment of imprisonment with hard labour—the second would not. The jury re turned this verdict—" The said Henry Powell is guilty of the misdemeanour and offence in the raid indictment specified as alleged against him." He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. The verdict was brought before the Queen's Bench on writ of error, as the terms of the verdict could apply only to one count, and it did not specify which, and therefore it was contended that the judgment to hard labour was erroneous. Lord Tenterden gave it as his opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed, inas much as the verdict warranted the judgment. Lord Caatessee—lf the second count had been for perjury the same reason would apply. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It is impossible to make the distinction. Lord BROUGHAM—Had tho party, in the case you put, boos guilty of an assault to commit a rape, and guilty of perjury, and one of the counts had been bad, the judg ment of the court would have been passed, not upon the count which was bad, but upon the count which was good. The ATTORNIIT-GENERAL—The verdict of guilty was guilty of both; the second must be defective, but the first warranted the judgment of the verdict. His Learned Friend had stated that there was no instance of a court of error acting upon that rule. The 'case of Powell was a direct authority for it, for that was a arse in error. Then there was the case of the King v. Brady, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, which was reported in the 2d of Jeff and braes, p. 643, in which the Court of Queen's Bench laid it down that if, in a case of judgment being given one count was bad, that was not enough to vitiate the judgment if one count was good. Then there was the case of the King le Connor, which was argued in the ghteen's Bench m Ireland in 1839, in which it was stated, in the argument of counsel, that if one ount were good judgment could not be re , ersed, and cited several cases on that point. It was quite impossible for the court of error to inquire into the nature of the judgment of the court below. It , eirely was a fallacy to say that the judgm e nt was made up o a number of counts ; that was not so in point of practice, nor, he apprehended, could it be considered so in any way. If the judgment were a judgment which the law authorised, the writ of error could know nothing of the motives or inducements of the court below ; and if any presumption was to be made, surely it must be that the court below, in affixing punishment, affixed it only upon counts which warranted it. No doubt the artteunt of the punishment was discretionary with the court. The court of error had only to see whether the judgennt was one which the law allowed. Lord BROCOHAM—The admission of a writ of error seems to admit that the judges may by possibility have given judgment on a wrong count. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—NO doubt ' • but what he said was, that a court of error would look to see whe ther a judgment had been given which was not war ranted by law. Lord BROCTGIIAN—The presumption you say is, that the court below gave judgment upon the right count, but it is just possible thttjudgee in the court below may have given judgment on the wrong count, may have theught the e rong count right. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—NO doubt it was possible, ut the presumption of law gas, that the jutment of the court urns a judgment warrwed by law, and if lerought up to a court of error, theTourt would presume that it was warranted by law. - Lord CAMPBELL—In that case a writ of error is a very imperfect remedy. The ATTORNEY-GZNERAL said, he spoke only of the presumption of law. If the law were not right, the proper course would be to make it so by Act of Parlia ment. Let him take any of the ordinary cases which came before the assizes. He would take the case which his Learned Friend had put. He sup posed a conspiracy on one day of two men to steal a loaf, and he supposed a conspiracy on a second day between the same two men to burn a house and murder the inhabitants. He supposed that the parties wore tried, and that, on their being tried by the jury, and the filets being investigated, the defendants were found guilty of both the offences. Here was a case in which two persons were convicted, on trial by jury, of a conspiracy to burn down a horse and to murder the inhabitants. Well, then, be would suppose that, in the second count of the in dictment there was a defect. According to his Learned Friend, in order to do complete justice, they must allow these men to go free by reversing the judgment. If this argument amounted to anything at all, it went to show that the Legislature should pass some law to prevent the giving of different counts in the same indictment. Surely, it was arguing all on one side to say that justice was not done, because in one particular case the punish ment might have been increased by a defective count. The occurrence was not a probable one, and if they wanted theoretical perfection, they must go to the Leeislateire. 'fake the csse of a man, named Good, tried for murdering a women. In that ease, it was necessary to have ten or twelve onunts in the indictment. The jury found the prisoner guilty generally upon the indictment, and the evidence warranted the finding on six or eight of the counts. Should they, because there was a defect in one of the count*, suffer such a party to commit murder with impunity? Surely it would not be improving the law of England, to pass an Act declaring that where there were several counts upon an indictment. and the jury had and the party guilty of all, ho should, if one were bad, he disc harged? Lord Cs,st 2naLL—Where there is only one murder, the proper mode would ba to find. the prisoner guilty upon one count. The ATTORNEY - GENERAL said he believed in the ecitninal court the verdict and the sentence were always ecterei generally. In the case of the King v. Fuller, there WAS a verdict upon both counts in the indictment. The Lent) Cit.t NCF,I.I.OIt said Ito rceollectod (Igo of this kind. A policeman waa indicted fur committing a rape upon a young g;rl in his cus tody. He got off upon a misnomer ;f the girl. Ile was indicted a ,Fec. - ;nd time. There was a plea of autrefois acquit, and the answer was " went by ore name as well as the o'her," and he was acquitted a st cond time. The case was tried at the Norfolk Assizes, More Mr. Justice Patteson. The ArronNEY-GRNEnai. challenged his Learned Friends to produce any case in which the record and the verdict warranted a judgment, and that judgment had been set aside. When he said the record, he did not mean every count in the indictment; but what he main tained WM, that whfa one count in the indictment was good, and a verdict of guilty had beck returned upon that count, his Learned Friends could find no ease in which judgment had been reversed. It Was a confusion of legal principles and arguments to confound the amount of the Sentence with the judgment which the lase "Auctioned. The jury had nothing whatev,r to do with the amount of punishment or Mtn. Lord Camenei,n--fittppose it were specific ly steed stated-iet-thelUdgtnents " - for the - offence -ape& ed in the ;iris count; "for the account spreilied in he second counti' foe tle_offassce specified in the third e unt," and so ont*silat-Ilnieisth count, and a certain sentence was given of one year's imprisonment, or 1001. fine, would youshrthat - case say there is no error? ,The , ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could hardly anewer sn hypiehitical question, but he ventured to say that no such judgment had ever been entered up. — (Laughter.) The analogy of the civil cases sought to be established by his Learned Friends entirely failed. In one case the verdict of the jury vrarratited the judgment in the other, which was the eistirt that gave judgment, and passed the,aentenee. .He submitted to their Lord ships that that was the principle of the law, and that all the practice and-the opinion of the profession, from time immemorielssupperted him in that statement. He ven tured to ask hie Learned Friends on the other side to suggest - to their Lordships the form of entering up judgment. His Learned rrierid (Sir T. Wilde) said there was a distinction between a writ of error and a motion in - arrest of judgment. That when the latter came on for decision the Judges said, "It does not, matter; ,if one of the emnits are good, we will pass judgment on that one." Ile doubted whether any Judge had vier said anything . of the kind. He spoke the preeenee of several Judges of the Queen's Bench, and he put it to them whether such Was the practice. Their language rather *as "If one of the counts are good, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the others are good or bad." Thetr 'Lordships would not decide this upon any extreme case, but on the principles of law, and the de cisions of the courts. Should their Lordships pronounce in femur of this objection they would be reversing what was held to be the law of the land for the last 200 year's, and under which 100 persons had suffered, and were suffering at this moment. He had only one other observation to . make upon this point. His Learned Friend had said that the defendants could not plead autrefois convict, and that the, judgment should not be reversed on this ground. But though a person was found guilty on a count which was bad, yet if he suffered judgment under it he could plead autrefois convict. His Learned Friend put another hypothetical case. He supposed that there were four counts in an indictment, containing different offences, one for murder, one for libel, one for an assault, and, the fonrth, for an assault, with intent to commit a breach of the peace He supposed the verdict of the jury was given on all the counts ; that the court of error had decided three out of the four were bad, and that the party was sentenced on the fourth. He next supposed that the Queen had par doned him on the fourth count; and he then asked how he could be allowed out of custody ? He (the Attorney-Gene ral) had the honour of being one of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he very much doubted whether the Crown had this power, supposing that judgment had been entered up. He would now proceed to the next point, which was also of a technical nature, which was as to the finding of the jury,on the first and second counts , of the indictment. Those counts charged the defendants with conspiring with one another, and divers other persons, 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 Gaerninent-and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to - Unlaivful and'seditious opposition to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up "jealousies, hatred, and ill will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in .lieland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Majes ty's subjects in the other parts of the said United King dom, and especially in that part of the said United King dom called Englend.". He would stop there because their. Lordships would finclthat the jury faund them all guilty :of 'conspiring to do all those acts. The counts went onto charge them with conspiring for other objects, as to cause changes in the Government, law, and Consti tution, as by lase established, and to brine into contempt the 'tribunals for the administration of the Jaw in leeland. The jury :found seven of the defendants guilty of conspiring with • each others and divers other persons, and . then they found three of them guilty of the residue—of an 'unlawful conspiracy to raise disaffection in the army. None of the' defendants were found 'guilty of the whole of the charge, because tho jury acquitted them of the charge of procuring art unlawful meeting, the jury having seemed to consider that the parties who met were instruments and dupes, and they therefore omitted the words " seditious". and "unlawful," but they found that these parties had conspired " to cause divers subjects of the Queen to meet and assemble together - for seditious and unlawful purposes." -That was the .finding of the jury, and it might-be considered in two ways, but in either way it did nut affect the' verdict. It was either a part of the issue, or it was not. If it was a part of the issue it could not affect the judgment. Now what the jury meant was clearly this—that certain of the defend ants charged with conspiracy had agreed to do all the acts mentioned in the first part of the declaration, but that certain others of them had agreed to . go further. Well, the way they did it was this—" As to the residue we convict them of a conspiracy to do nothing." He should submit that that was a good find ing. He would suppose the case of four per sons meeting in a room—all of whom agreed to rob a house, and three' out of the four to commit a murder, to which the fourth did not agree. He appre hended it would be a good finding to find three of them guilty to do all of the acts, and one to du one act only. The meaning of the jury was that all were implicated in the conspiracy, but not to the same effect, and he was not aware of any principle which would prevent a jury from coming to such a fading. His Learned Friends had argued -that the defendants were found guilty of more offences than were laid to their charge in the in dictment ; that they were charged with eleven, and'were found' guilty on fifteen ; and that, therefore, as judgment was given upon the whole, judgment was given fur more offences than the parties were charged with. He sub mitted that this did net vitiate the judgment, and-th at though the jury found them guilty of more offences than were charged against them in the indictment, it would be considered a surplusage, and would be rejected by the court below and the court above. The Honour able and Learned Gentleman ciueted, in support of his argument, 2d • Saunders' Reports, p. 208. It was there argued that the verdict was igvalid, because the jury found on matters which were not in issue. The jury found' that the defendants had spoken slanderous words which were not charged ; but the court held that the objection to that part did not require the rejection of the whole finding. He would not trouble their Lord ships with the numerous cases-which he might cite in support of the same principle. It was alleged in the case before their Lordihips that the jury found the de fendants guilty of three -conspiracies where but one was charged., It was quite natural to observe that the judg nient was given for .the , offences aforesaid, and that must meat( tor 'the offences eharged in the indictment, and on which the verdict had been found. But if the finding included something which was 'not in the in dictment, that would • not set aside •the judgment. If anything of that sort had been found, the Court of Queen's Bench would have set it aside as surplusage, and it would not affect the material parts of the verdict. The LORD' CHANCELLOR—It is, quite clear that the finding of something beyond the issees would - be no ground for rejecting the verdict; so far as it was within the issue. • . The ATTORNEY- G ESERAL begged to call their Lordships' attention to the words of the jury. They were these : " That the defendaeti all of them conspired with others to create disatisfaction," and soon. That was the first finding in, the verdict ; and then they , said--4•" And as to the residue, the 'said Daniel O'Coneell," and so . on. Now that word residue itself was sufficient to show that they did not mean to find the defendants guilty of three conspiracies, but of one common conspiracy, in part of the objects of which some only of them had entered. If, as was argued, that finding on the residue was a mistake, yet it would not invalidate that part of the verdict which was within the issue, and - which declared all the eight defendants guilty of the conspiracy charged in the in dictment. In 2d Rowe's Abridgment, p. 714, there was a passage to the effect that " When the jury finds anything beyond the issue, that does not vitiate the verdict on the judgment., as it is only surplurage." The. objection on this point had been argued upon the first and second counts as if they stood alone, and the othen , counts were treated as bad. But he apprehended that. there were other substantiated counts all cotainx under, the head of the one conspiracy. He did not think it worth while to trouble their Lordships by dwelling upon the objection, that' because some were found guilty and others acquitted of certain objects of the conspiracy, the separate findings, were for separete conspiracies. Where a defendant was found.guilty of some of the acts charged in one count, and acquitted .of the others, that way a sufficient verdict of guilty. The next of those technical objections arose from the discontinuance. .Their Lord ships wouldgive them the benefit of whatever they were entitled to on that ground. The objection was this, that the Court of Queen's Bench . having given instruc tions that the trial should proceed on. the 12th of Februery„ it did so, .on._ . ..the 15th of April, the .. first day of . Easter :term, all the defendants appeared to receive judgment, But that judg ment was : again postponed . to the 22d of. May. The objection was this, that there ought t • be a con tinuance from the 12th of February to- the first day of Easter term, and that the defendants had not had a day before receiving judgment. On this point, he was pre• pared to submit that if this had not been a' trial under a partieular Act of Parliament, this would not have been a defect or error. In ordinary cases, it would not be an error. It, was quite impossib!e that there could be a continuance. The particular circumstances under which this trial took place—were such as rendered the form adopted the only proper one. This trial took place under the statutes 1 and' 2- Will. IV. Having read the section, he proceeded to say that the trial did extend beyond' Hilary ten* and was terminated twi the 20th of February without a continuance; the Court could not only not pronounce judgment, but could do no judicial act ,whatever ; but the verdict was sufficient without anything else, as the defeedants appeared in 'court on the first day on which judgment. could be given, and he submitted that ,this was the only. way in which tha record could be made Out; This was no ground -for reversing the judgment. He need hardly state, that no court at this time of day would reverse a judgment in a criminal case on a mere , technical defect of this kind, the act of the officer • who made up the record. He ventured to go further and say, that unless there should be a distinct series of 'un questionable authorities binding the court to reverse its judgment, on such an absurd objection the court could not entertain it. He quoted the authorities which had been cited by Mr. Peacock from Coke and Lyttleton, and the eases of Smith v. Lock, Bradley u. Bunks, and , ttes'ereitse t?. , : - Vittitetu-frQv Igori alepotte— But not one of all these authorities laid down the prin ciple of a reversal of the judgment for riot giving a day after the verdiet% But he would show their Lordships several atitlibrities stating that it Could not be reversed dii that ground, He quoted frem Comyrt i s Digest, title, ticader. LNrd diiiieliELL—That is a common law without statute. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was without the aid of statute. it-was laid down that a discontinuance made prior to the verdict, but not discovered until after the verdict, could not be held to be a discontinuance, and the rule was the same in civil as in criminal cases. Lord CAMPiIELL—It seemed it was not thought ne cesslry to continue the operation of the statute of dis continuance after the verdict was pronounced. The ArroftN . Ult-GENERAL said it was not necessary. lie quoted also, the case of Rogers and Ellin, from Comyn's' Digest. In the case before their Lordships the verdict had been given. What was the objection of the defendants ?--That a day was not given them on whieh to appear and hear judgment pronounced. Why, they did appear to hear judgment ; then where was the injury ? If a party had been outlawed for not appear ing to receive judgment, he emld understand the objec tion, as the party would then plead the discontinuance order to have his outlawry reversed. But he contended that the statute of William IV., under which this trial had taken place, rendered every other form informal. It was a statutory adjournment which every one was bound take notice of. THE SECOND VOLUME OF MEMOIRS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, W, CHARLES TOWNSEND, Esq. DEDICATED TO SIR ROBERT PEEL, Will be ready on Saturday next, July 13. Orders received by all Booksellers. Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. 13, Great Marlborough-street, July. N EW BOOKS OF THE SEASON, PUBLISHED BY MB. COLBURN. 1. Mr. D'lsraeli's Coningeby. 2. Hon. Mr. Smythe's Historic Fancies. 1 Vol. 3. Marchioness of Londonderry's Travels. 1 Vol. 4. Memoirs of the Babylonian Princess. 5. Miss Strickland's Queens of England. Vol. VII. 6. Hyde Marston. A Novel. 7. The Wilthlness of Woman. A Novel. 8. A Winter in Italy, by Mrs. Ashton Yates. (Just ready.) Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough street. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. THIS EVENING JULY 9, Will be performed thissini's Opera Seria, OTELLO. Desdemoma, Madame Grisi ; Emilia, Madame Bellinl ; g. Lableche; lago ' Sig. Fornasari; Rodrigo, Sig. Corelli; II Doge, ig. G. Galli ; and Otello, Sig. Itta-ie. After which, a DIVERTNSEMENT," In which will be intro duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St. Leon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffer and Plunkett, and the admired Spanish ance La Saragossa," by Mdbe. Fanny Elssler.• To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VI V AND lERE, nu, hieing the Redowa or ..nglnal Polk.i of Hungary, by Mdlle. Cerite and M. st. Leon. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be made at the Box Office, Opera Colonnade. S•gnor Cesta's new Opera, Don Carlos," will be repeated forthwith. The Le irned Gentleman then said that, with their Lordships' permission, he would close his argument on that point, and resume it to-morrow at tea o'clock, on the question of the challenge of the array. 'Their Lordships then adjourned until ten o'clock to morrow (this day). HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor P UZZ I respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscriber: to th e O,,era, his Friends, and the Public, that HI , HEN Et IT will take place ON THURSDAY NEXT, JULY 11, On which occasion will be presented (for the Fast Time these Three Years), Doniaetti's celebrated Opera, ANNA BOLENA. Henry VIII., Sig. Lablache ; Percy, Sig. Morisni ; Smeaton, Mdlle. Farantl; k Anna Bona, Mad me Grisi ; Jane Seymour, '-ignore Giweppina Rosetti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her 'first appearance in London). In the course of the Evening, Signor Pure 4 will perform a Solo on tbwHorn. - - After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT, in which Mdlle. Fanny Ellsler, Mdlle. Cerito, M. Perrot, and M. St. Leon will appear. followed AU ME TELL. b y thecond Act of • GUILL Matilde, Madame Persiani ; Arnold"), Sig. :Mario ; Walter, Sig. Lablache ; and Guihaume Tell, Signor Fornasari. To conclude with a Favourite Ballet, in which all the principal Artistes of her Majesty's Theatre will appear. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be m t b. to Signor Puasi, 39 , Jermyn.street, St. James's, and -t the Box.ollce, Opera Colonnade. Doors open at Seven. The Odera will commence at Halt past Seven o'Clock. THEATRE ROYAL, HAY MARKLT Md. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES .E E THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of •UID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES. With A Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Hunsdon, Mr. Stuart; Lord Bellamont, Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Grijson. Mr. Strickland; Hen• y, Mr. -H. Holt; Captain Sippett, Mr Buckstone ; Sir George Mordent, Mr. W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdoa, Mrs. W. Cliffbrd ; Lady Mary Rivers, Mies Julia Bennett; Mss. Origson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget t rim, Mrs. Humby. After the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing" Fayre Rosan2onde.” To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir 'Charles Coldstream , Bart., Mr. Charles 'Mathews ; Sir Adonis Leech, Mr Tilbury; Wurzle, Mr. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia ' Sennett ; Lady Clutterbuck, Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE TRUMPETER'S DAUGHTER; or, Love .and the Polka. Phillipot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste; who will donee the celebrated Polka. orchestra Stalls, ks. ; Boxes, he. 1 • Pit, 36. ; Gallery, N.; Upper '0 diery, is. Half-price —Boxes,_3B. ; Pit, Sts. ; Gallery, Is. • Upper Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at Halt:past Six, and the Perfo rmances commence at Seven. Tickets and Places to be had of Mr. I. T. Archer, et the Boz o -- Hee, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD -ST k LESSEE, Mr. J. M. M ADDOX. ..THIS EVENING, JULY 9. ; Will be performed the celebratrd Opera, L'EISIR D AMORE. lAzlina._Miss Austin • Nem , Mr. erino Allen ; Doctor Duleamara, Mr, Paul BedfOrd. After which, a New Petite Comedy, called M AGED FORTY. Sir Harry Wilder, Mr. Walter Lacy ; Mr Dapper, r. Oxberty ; Lady Clifton, Mrs. Stirling. To conclude with a New. and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated 'Version of Aladdin. A banazar Mr. Paul Bedford; Aladdin, Mr. Wright Princess Badroulballour, Miss E. Stanley. .HEAVIE ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA _ HOUSE Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be produced a New Drama, ent i t l e d MARTIN CHUZZLE. WIT. Principal characters by 'Messrs. R. Younge, r. Vining, Emery, F. Mathews, A. Wigan, Meadows, Kinloch, Turner, Stanton, J. W. Collier, Yarnold, Sanders, and Keeley ; Miss For. toscue, Miss Woolgar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs. Woollidge, Miss (trove, Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs K eeleY• To be followed by a Otaod Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called 'OPEN SESAME; or, a Night with the Forty The , er. klassarac, POLKAA• Mr. Keeley ; Morgiana, Mrs. Keeley. To conalude with:an Apropos Bagatelle , called MANI Characters by Mr. F, Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. I;.eeley, bliss Woolgar, and Mrs. Keeley. the substance of which is, that there never was a period when England could make a greater naval demonstration than at present, and that the Govern ment had taken measures for protec_ing British in terests in the Mediterranean. Mr. C. WOOD was not at all satisfied by the answers of Sir It. PEEL, and after alluding to the attacks made by the Tories on the late Government for neglecting the navy, said the shores of England, the interests of the country, were never left in such a helpless state as they were at the present moment. He then asked if the Government were prepared to put the naval force of the country in a state that would command confidence at home and abroad Sir R. PEEL would give no answer, as the notice applied only to the force in the Mediterranean. He considered that he had not been fairly troated. After some remarks fro:n Lord PALmEasToN and Lord Howleß, on the small naval force now in commission, and the bitter taunts made by the Tories on the same subject in 1838, the conversation dropped. An interesting discussion then took place on the Railways Bill, introduced by Mr. GLADSTONE. Mr. GISBORNE announced, that if the Government did not withdraw the Bill he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. HAWES and Mr. COLQUHOUN said they would support the motion of Mr. GISBORNE ; Mr. WALLACE, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others supported the Govern ment, and trusted the amendment would not be pressed to a division. Sir ROBERT PEEL said in bringing forward the Bill, the Government had, and could have, no other object in view, than to protect the public. They had offended many of their supporters by the measure, but still they could not sacrifice their duties to party purposes. All the Government wished was a full, fair ; and impartial discussion. Mr. GIS BORNE withdrew his amendment. Mr. GLADSTONE then moved the second reading of the Bill. His speech contains statements of the highest importance to the community. An abridg ment would do it injustice, and we, therefore, recom mend it to the careful attention of our readers, for all are interested in this momentous question. The dis cussion occupied the rest of the evening, and the de bate was adjourned till Thursday. Leave was given to bring in the Party Processions (Ireland) Bill, and the House adjourned at Half past One. Those of our readers who may happen to be ac quainted with GOLDSMITH'S works, can scarcely have forgotten his diverting, full-length portrait ( f Croaker, in the comedy of the Good Natured Man. This Croaker, like his prototype Heraclitus of old—who certainly ought to have been an Eng-. lishman—is a born genius for grumbling. He holds the reverse of POPE'S famous axiom, that " whatever is, is right," and stoutly maintains that " whatever is, is wrong." Where other more cordial spirits find the materials for consolation, if not of hope, he finds only the materials of discomfort and despondency; and is never so much in his element as when discovering some fine, fresh grievance, " war ranted genuine"—as our steep placards have it—on which he may descant with all the powers of his gloomy and splenetic eloquence. Just such as was Croaker in private life, is the Morning Post in politics—that is to say, a grievance -hunter of the first water. As the former was always indulging, like a JEREMIAH or a CASSANDRA, in the most dole ful vaticinations, so is the latter never so completely ,at home as when terrifying his numerous readers with all sorts. of dire predictions. We have not the good fortune to be acquainted with the person of our 'triste Contemporary, but whenever we see a gentleman in the streets looking more downcast and khypochondriacal than the:general run of London peripatetics, as if some alarming grievance were fer mentingin his prolific imagination, we always feel tempted to exclaim with a _ sigh of affectionate compassion, " there goes the Morning Post!" We hope that our desponding Contemporary may not be discovered some fine morning self-suspended 'to the lamp-post in front of his office—a vic tim to overpowering affliction brought on by his conviction of the present ruinous state of the agricul tural interest ; but we must confess that such a catas trophe, however it would grieve, would not surprise us, for- nothing can be more lugubrious—nothing more hopelessly dejected than the language: which he holds this morning. That we may not be sus pected of exaggeration, we will just beg leave to cull a few sprigs from his plantation of henbane, hemlock, and nightshade. " When distress shall return," he says, " and distress such as our agriculturists have never yet known, cannot be far distant, let not our Parlia mentary landowners affect to ascribe the ruin of 'tenants and the disaffection of peasantry to some in ' scrutable dispensations of Providence. Recent legis lative measures will account for the utter ruin of the agricultural interest." Again—" In the autumn of 1845, if not earlier, our Parliamentary land ' owners will have an opportunity of witnessing the action of the economical principles which they have embraced since 1841. When farmers shall be sold up by hundreds—when involuntary idleness and disaffec. tion shall have spread to a fearful extent among our artisans and peasantry—when the throat of the land owner shall blacken under the gripe of the mortgagee —then will the agricultural supporters of Sir It. PEEL understand the true nature of that great statesman's enlightened principles." This last vaticination is in our Contemporary's finest spirit of horror, and was evidently penned with a view to depress the spirits of those country gentlemen who may happen to hay . e been too much elated by the late decision on the corn-laws. But, though no very enthusias tic admirers of the Premier, we are far indeed from anticipating that such awful calamities as the Post conjures up, will be the inevitable results of his policy. The agricultural interest need fear no very great or decisive injury at his hands. He stands too much in n eed of their support to work them any serious mis chief—at least for some years to come. The pear is not yet ripe. The hour is not- yet arrived when he may safely throw them overboard, and form an al liance, offensive and defensive, with the free-trade party. Sir R. PEEL'S present policy is to commit himself to no parties, but to establish a sort of claim on all of them, by alternately cajoling and threaten ing -them, and blinding them by such vague pro fessions of good will as may fill them with hopes destined, most probably, never to be realised. One day he throws out a hire to Mr. COBDEN ; the next, to Mr. BANRES, of Arcadian-happiness notoriety. Last year, he advanced a step towards the free-traders ; this year, he makes a retrograde movement, and falls back on the Monopolists. Those who may have seen two school-boys playing at see saw, and watched with what clock-work regularity the one goes up as the other goes down, will be able to form a pretty correct idea of the Premier's system of policy. It is a perfect game of see-saw between the manufactur ing and the agricultural interests. The Minister fur nishes the plank on which the two parties are seated, and as they go up and go down alternately, he boasts of the impartiality with which the game is played, and the cogent reasons that each party has to be satisfied with it. • ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF A it. 113, Preortetor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. SPLENDID JUVENILE FETES. Cittilflticeess of the - Chinese - Feaat - or -Lanterns, and N • Military and Naval Spectacle. • THIS EVENING, JULY 2, Will be repeated an entire new M:litary and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or, The Conquests of Amoy by British Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments , /sc., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and N-,v y . Feart of 250 Lanterns'. After which ' a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY k L COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE FI f ; or, Ihe Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle —Extraordinary Feats of Horsemanship by Monsieur Louis TOUrtialre, 54. °Omani, Herr Ilesback, La Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, irc.i with Mr. R. Smith's highly trained Steeds. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLE-CHASE; or, Eag , land's Harvest Home. The doors will open nightly at six o'clocd, arid the urformance• oommence at seven. Box.ottice opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been rec.otistructed and decorated wit h cars and splendour. Acting and stage-manager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. • tr A v WOE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRR FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. J. HUDSON KIRBY. THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be performed Shakspeare's Tragedy of RICHARD 111. Richard, Duke of Glo'ster, Mr. J. Hudson Kirby. Atter the Tragedy Mr. John Dunn will sing Jim Crow, and Sitch a gittin' up Stairs. After which; a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled Napoleon's Gene rrnity,” in which the Itroeitatedt Family—three OClCalia. on 7 7 •liirel'u a d P e d wt i llr h aM g a h , t 7arled 711 r C ARPENTER OF ROUEN J ohnson, rs in which Messrs. Hudson Kirby, Hicks, Neville, Vale, Hislop, Mrs. Daly, Miss ferrey , and M. B. Helmer will perform. Places and Pnvate Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box. cake, from Eleven to Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. Daylight View of LONDON in the OLDEN TIME! Painted by Dallloll and Telbin. The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond all former precedent; the artist, the amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea tion, and are unanimous in pr onouncing it the moot wonderful ex hibition ever witnessed. To view it only ar a vehicle for the terrific display at Dusk is unjust ; it shou ld be seen in the calm stillness of the quiet Evening, with its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa. cious Lake, to be fully appreciated. The Evening PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Mondays, Tues. days, - Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in Doing justice to the awful representation of THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON. Its fearful characteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the nrotechnic Ait, that delight is predominant over terror; and tNeWhousands whip nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotecheist, has achieved a matchless triumph. The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect state, and combining so many and interesting features, are by far the most attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. }ceding of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at Dusk. Admitt snce, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY . IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONE SWILLING Admission to TUN NAT OLEON MU SEUM, the most magniflcent and extensive Collaa ton of Histo rical Curiosities and Works of Art ever_ known to have been formed by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a cost of 60,000 guineas, and to' completely illustrate, In the most in structive and- interesting manne r, the mo st Important part o f Euro pean history, viz.—CHARLES 1., OLIVER CRCMWF.LL, and LOUIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR N.IPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been vialted often, during the last and present year, by the Royal Famry, the Duke of Wellington, the' Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, an. t their LadleS, also, many thousands of the Nobilit y . and public; awl the Pro rietor has recently been able to increase, by several very fine aictures, Sze., his previous almost incredible number and variety of RSS., Works of Art, and-a multitude of valuable Relic', and other lurissitles, in this most instructive and, as hundreds have said it night vi be. a National Museum. Many thousand have ius e iected it, and TIIIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PUBLIC PRESS • lave stated that it ought to he seen by every one. The price of admin Lion is reduced to ONE SHILLING. . Thc NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to.be seen only at the .• Egyptian 'all." Piccadilly. daily from Ten till Dusk. Madrid journals of the Ist inst. have been received. According to a letter in one of them from Barcelona, the Emperor of MOROCCO had replied to the ulti matum of the Spanish Government in so insolent a style as to leave no alternative but war. The con clusion of the conferences and the commencement of hostilities had been communicated to the diplomatic body. The Madrid Gazette of the Ist contains the following revolting summary of the executions in only one district of Catalonia : " Between the Ist of February and the 15th of June, the faction' in the Maestrazzo have =stained the following losses :—Killed on the field of battle, 54 men ; shot, after being made prisoners,.l2o men; pardoned, for various rea sons, 107. Among the prisoners shot are the chiefs El Ser rador, Viscaro, Lauva, and Taso ; Marsal and his lieutenant, Pilaren, Cotarro and his second, Martinez El Serano, Taran ques, and Galo de Santa Oleon ; and 25 generals or officers, including one colonel, one commandant, three captains, and thirteen lieutenants. Since the 29th of May fourteen spies and nineteen officers, coming from France, and a certain number of douuniers who had joined the bands have been shot. General Don Juan de Villalonga has, by his energetic activity, not a little contributed to this result." The Funds have again receded. The Three per Cents. closed at 26i cash, and 261 for GO days ; the Fives at 19f for the same period. The French Chamber of Peers did not sit on Sa turday, and the business in the other Chamber was confined to a debate on two petitions from the town of Bastia, in Corsica, complaining of the conduct of the Prefect. The Chamber, however, rejected the petitions, and passed to the order of the day. The Oommittee appointed to inquire into the expediency THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 9. 1844. COURT CIRCULAR• - - The Queen will hold a Privy Council to-morrow (Wed-. nesday) afternoon at half-past two o'clock, at Buckingham Palace..' The Right Hon. John Nicholl, Judge-Advocate-General, had an audience of the Queen yesterday, at Buckingham Palace, and submitted to her Majesty the proceedings of some courts-martial. . yv Her Majesty and Prince Albert walked yesterday' fore noon in the royal gardens. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester visited the Queen yesterday. The Royal Family were taken airings yesterday, in the royal gardens of Buckingham Palace. In the afternoon her Majesty, attended by the Viscountess Jocelyn; Lady in Waiting, took an airing in an open carriage and four. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by the Equerries in Waiting, Colonels Buckley and Bouverie, accompanied her Majesty on horseback. The Queen had a dinner party yesterday at Buckingham Palace. The company included his Excellency the Prince Castelcicala, the Marquis and Marchioness of Exeter, the Marquis and Marchioness of Westminster, Lady Lyndhurst, Viscount and Lady Marianne Alford, Lord and Lady Robert Grosvener, the Lord Mayor, le General Avitabile, the Right Hon. George Dawson Darner, and Captain Francis Seymour. The 6and of the Ist Regiment of Life Guards was in at tendance at the Palace during dinner, and performed a va riety of favourite pieces. Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Cambridge and the Hereditary Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, attended by Baroness Ahlefeldt and Baron Knese - beck, honoured the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch with their company at Montague House, Whitehall-gardens, yes terday afternoon, at the public breakfast given by the Noble Duke and Duchess. The Duchess of Cambridge and the Hereditary Grand Duke and DUchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz honoured the performance of the French plays with their presence yes terday evening. The Duchess of Cambridge was attended by Baroness Ahlefeldt. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon at the Foreign-office. It was attended by Sir R. Peel, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Wharncliffe, the Duke of Buccleuch, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Earl of Haddington, Earl of Ripon, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, Lord Granville Somerset, and Sir Edward Knatchbull. The Council sat three hours. The Ecclesiastical Commission for England had a meeting yesterday at the office in Whitehall-place. The Commis sioners -present were the - Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of Lichfietd, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Rochester, and the-Dean of Westminster. Mr. Wickham, Chairman of the Stamps and Taxes had an interview with the Chancellor 'of the Exchequer yeaterr day at his official residence. in Downing-street THE DUCHESS' OF BUUCLEUCH'S GRAND FETE. Yesterday a ft ernoon the Duchess of Buccleuch gave a princely flee champetre at Montagu House, at which above 1,206 personages of rank congregated, including the leading members of the corps diplomatique, and distinguished fo reigners, visiting this capital. Owing to the fineness of the weather,.. the bri ll iant assemblage of fashion were enabled to enjoy to the fullest extent the attractions of the out-door amusements, for the Noble Duke had generously offered a purse of 60 sovereigns to be rowed for by the Thames water men. His Grace, the year before last, gave a similar prize, when the Queen and Prince Albert were present. The garden was tasteftilly ornamented for the accommoda tion of visitor& Turkey carpets and India matting were placed over the lawn, and costly furniture and reclining chairs were provided, so that the regatta might be observed by all who chose to participate in the fat. The terrace was laid out in the same elegant manner as we observed on Thursday last, and the pavilions at each end were supplied with the rarest refreshments and choice fruit, served up in gold and silver plate. The valuable and costly ornamental plate on the tables added to the magnificence which pervaded the entire arrangements. In the garden the full band of the Scots Fusileer Guards performed a variety of music. • The complete range of superb saloons opening on to the terrace were thrown open ; the dining-room, as before, being appropriated for quadrille dancing, a band being engaged for that purpose. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge arrived at ten minutes past four ; and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, attended by Lady Georgians Murray, arrived at twenty minutes to five, and was received at the hall entrance by the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, by whom her Royal Highness was conducted to the terrace. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, accom panied' by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, arrived at five minutes to five ; Baroness Ahlefeldt and Baron Knesebeck being in waiting on the Royal Duchess. Immediately after the whole of the illustrioas visitors had reached the terrace, the signal was given, and the first heat of the Towing match was commenced. [The particulars of the regatta will be found in another part of our journal.] Shortly after the regatta had terminated, the Royal visitors departed. The Grand Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz (Princess , Augusta of Cambridge) was cordially welcomed by most of-the assembled guests of the Duke and Duchess. The Doke of Wellington, who arrived early, honoured the Duke and Duchess with his cempany. The Noble and Gallant Duke appeared in the enjoyment of excellent health and spirits. There is no doubt that the prospect of the Waverley Ball induced the company to retire earlier than would otherwise have been the case, , for at seven o'clock there was conside rable demand for the carriages, but owing . to the vast num ber of the visitors on. this occasion, the majority were obliged to vralk.some distance to their respective carriages. Dancing was kept up with unabated vigour till the • fête coneluded, both oir the lawn' and. in the salle a manger— the military band performing in the garden, quadrilles, waltzes, and the polka. It was, after eight before the company dispersed. We have not room for a list of the company. EXTRAORDINIARY OUTRAGE.—On Tuesday, the 25th ult., while Mr: J. IL Hynes, of New Quay, and the Rev. Mr. Fullams , Protestant clergyman, were out trawl-fishing with a crew of three men, in the Bay of Galway, a fleet consisting of eighty to a. hundred boats, front the Galway Claddagh, bore down on them, and nine or ten of the boats having sur rounded the fishing-boat, fifty or sixty of.the Claddagh fiihermen suddenly boarded her, and. after cutting away the tram, rushed on Mr. Hynes and his party with the most awful imprecations and savage yells, armed with open knives, poles, &e s knocked them down, and beat them most unmer cifully. leaving them apparently lifeless on the deck ; they then cut, down the sails, svhich, along with the anchor, cables, ropes, poles, and oars, they threw overboard. Finally, they tore upthe deck, and, with the stones that formed the bal last, made many fruitless attempts to scuttle the boat, after which they departed, leaving her a complete wreck, to drift along the sea ; fortunately she was rescued from her perilous situation by a New Qaay boat, and towed into harbour. Au investigation was held on Monday, at Currenrue, concerning this most daring outrage, before Messrs. Bell and Keruan, stipendiary magistrates, and Mr. G. Macnamara, justice of the peace, harbour-hill. Although the lives of two of the crew and that of Mr. Hynes - were considered in imminent danger for four or five days, they are now supposed to be con valescent.—Clare Journal. THE WILLS FORGERY CASES.—On Friday week the convicts Barber and Fletcher were conveyed on board the Agincourt, which vessel has for the last week been lying off Woolwich, in the hourly expeetation of receiving orders to sail, Fletcher a few hours after he got on board volun tarily and unsolicited made a written statement, declaring that * Barber had no guilty knowledge of the forgeries which were effected by him (Fletcher) and the ,other prisoners, Sanders andhis wife and Mrs. Dorey. The document, which was published . on Saturday was forwarded to the Home Office, accompanied by a petition from Mr. Peckham, the solicitor of Barber, praying for a revision of the case. On Tnesday last, Fletcher made a further and still more explicit declaration of Barber's innocence. The subsequent declara tion was also forwarded to the Home Secretary, who on re ceipt sent down to Woolwich an order for the detention of the vessel until the case could be thoroughly investigated. 'fife. Moons.-:--There is every prospect of the ensuing season being one of the finest ever seen in the northern counties. The young birds are already very strong, and with powers of wing equal to what they often are in the beginning of' August. 'They are so far advanced as to be beyond harm from the weather. Sportsmen may confidently anticipate that there will be no halting on the moors, from . their dogs leisurely looking at broods unable to take flight: Among, the places recently taken are the fol lowing :—Arisaig, by the Duke of Marlborough ; Achna carry, Lord Malmesbury ; Arndilly, W. Peel, Lsq.; Knoc kie, Hugh Munro, Esq. ; Mamore, Mr. Peacock ; Castle Leod, R. Reid, Esq. ; Carr Bridge, Colonel Forbes. An aged but enthusiastic sportsman; Mr. Lockhart, from Essex, was in Skye last year for several months, shooting and fishing, and arrived here last week to join a party in Sutherland. This gentleman is in his 82d year, but hale and vigorous, and delighted with the Highlands.—lnverness Courier. THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—Yesterday the two ' pictures purchased on Saturday by Mr. Eastlake, at the sale at Messrs. Christie and. Manson's, for the National Gallery, were placed in that institution, and were greatly admired by the nunlerous visitors. They are numbered 193 and 194, and are placed in different rooms, the "Judgment of Paris" being in the second large room, and immediately facing Rubens's " Rape of the Sabines." This pieture, it was stated at the sale on Saturday, by, Mr. Manson, was painted by Rubens for Cardinal Richelieu; it was • subsequently in the Orleans Gallery, from which it was brought and sold to Lord Kin naird, who gave 3,000 g - uineas for it. It afterwards clime into the possession of Mr. John Penrice, at : whose see - of pic tures, on Saturday, it was bought for 4,oooguineas, as stated in this journal yesterday. The, other picture, by Guido, of " Lot and his Daughters," is placed in the large room at the extreme end, in the north-east corner. This picture - was formerly in the Lancilotto Palace, at Rome.' It was brought from Rame by the second' Marquis of Lansdowne. In addi tion to the above, the National Gallery has recently been enriched by three new pictures, purchased at the sale of =the late Mr. Harman's collection. They ire numbered 190, 191, and 192, and consist' of the Portrait of a Jew, by Rem brandt ; the " Infant Christ and St. John embracing," by G;ido • l and aii!fpiAtgittleportrait of Gerard Dor, painted is . & aso — •As . . .J-41 THE WEATIIER.-►SBN' OFFICE, JULY 9. I'PERMUMETRIt, Lowest, 58; Highest, 70 ; Noim, 68. BAnccKETEB., 29.97.—WLND, N.W. Nom.—The number 3 2 on the Thermometer denotes t he, freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barom.Lers fair is , usually placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. f;:l.4t; WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TICS DAY. Morning minutes after 8 I Evening... as minutes after , 11,r,41 -0,101;401,-;"ffjpIT'"<F4,101i4 ,•• . . • • • M x• • , • 0 • • , . ESECOND EDITION. ' l 4t Unlit( 111 LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1844. In the Lords, several petitions were presented by Lord ELDON, the Duke of RICHMOND, and Lord ASHBURTON, praying for agricultural protection. It was arranged that the discussion on the Bank Charter Bill should take place on Friday. Lord WODEHOUSE complained of the calumnies which had been published in some journals against the gentry and yeomanry of Suffolk in reference to the working of the New Poor-law Bill. These calumnies bad been made for party purposes, and the fact could be easily ascertained that paupers were now in more comfortable circumstances than they were under the old poor-law system. Lord NORMANDY moved for returns relative to the late incendiary fires in Suffolk, which were ordered. The House adjourned at a Quarter to Six. At a Quarter-past Six o'clock, their Lordships, that is to say, the Law Lords, wet to hear the argu ments of Counsel on the Irish State trials. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case for the Crown, and spoke till ten o'clock, when the further hearing was postponed till this day. A division took place in the Commons, on the motion for the further consideration on the report of the Middle Level Drainage Bill, an amendment having been moved by Lord GEORGE BENTINCE that the Bill be re-committed. There was a majority of 90 for the motion, and the report was ordered to brought up and engrossed. Mr. SHELL and Sir CHARLES NAPIER put three questions each to Sir ROBERT PEEL, relative to the affairs of Morocco, and the present state of the English navy. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in his usual warmer, anawePed- all the queltiolurelgerricallY; of abolishing the duty on newspapers made their re port, in which they state that they cannot reccom mend the abolition of the duty, though they disap prove of the present system, and Consider that a uni form duty of four centimes (four-fifths of a half penny) should be levied on all journals, whether large or small. They are opposed also to a tax on advertisements. The Constitutionel contains a strong attack on the Government relative to the partial and dishonest manner in which Government contracts are made. According to law all contracts exceeding 50,000 francs are to be submitted to public compe tition, but in many instances the law has been evaded. Several large contracts for rails and Go vernment supplies, it asserts, have been made by pri vate bargain with favoured parties to the injury of competitors, and sometimes at ten per cent. higher than the market price. A dreadful fire broke out at Algiers on the night of the 26th ult., which destroyed property to the amount of 1,300,000 f. (52,0001.) The Akbar gives the following details : " The fire has destroyed all the barracks situated between the streets Bab Azoum and the Dejeninah. This building has been greatly injured, and would no doubt have been en tirely destroyed but for the prompt and energetic means em ployed to save it. The whole of the citizens, directed by the authorities, and aided by the military, navy, and militia, vied with one another in zeal and devotion to the common cause. The Sardinian frigate Beroldoe sent a strong de • tachment ashore, beaded by their brave commander le Che valier Milece, whose vigorous and intelligent co-operation tended mainly to the preservation of a large range of build ings in the street Porte Neuve. Towards midnight the pro gress of the flames was such that it was determined to isolate the Dejeninah from the Manutention, which was done ac cordmgly. The Bishop's palace, which was especially threatened, was 'immediately denuded of all furniture and the Right Rev. Prelate,hi mse lf i n th e s t ree t, surroun d e d by his books and furniture, was desirous of lending a hand to the work of extinguishment, and was only prevented on the assurance that the numbers employed were already greater than the nature of the work required. At midnight the fire was completely got under. Some rather alarming reports were spread in town as to the number of killed and injured. We are, however, enabled, on the best authority, to state that no one has perished, and the number of injured does not ex ceed thirty. It has been clearly ascertained that the origin of the fire was purely accidental." THIS DAYS NEWS. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. THE SUSSEX PEERAGE.—JUDGMENT. The Lord Chancellor entered the House a few minutes after ten o'clock, when Counsel were ordered in. The Judges were also in attendance. The Earl of SHAVTESBITRY having taken his seat as Chair: man of the Committee, Lord Chief Justice TINDAL proceeded to read the opinion of the Judges, as to the construction which ought to be put upon the Act of Parliament regulating the marriages of mem bers of the Royal Family of England. After a very long dissertation upon the technical legal bearing of certain of the provisions of the Act, the opinion proceeded to state, that in that portion of the law which more particularly affected the 'case under discussion, the words of the statute were precise and unambiguous. It expressly stated that no one of the persons therein described shall be capable of contracting mar riage without the previous consent of his Majesty in Council, such consent to be recorded at length in the license of mar riage, in the certificate of marriage, and in the register of marriage. It was not reasonable to suppose that any person should be competent to set aside the law by contracting a marriage abroad. It was never in the contempla tion of the Legislature, when they passed this Act of Parliament, that it should be evaded, or at tempted to be evaded. An Act of Parliament passed in this country will bind its subjects both within and without the realm. If such had not been the intention of the Legis lature, then was it most futile andunnecessary to have passed this marriage law at all. But the Act itself was comprehen sive enough—the words themselves were clear, direct, and unambiguous enough to regulate these royal marriages as well without as within the realm. But even if precise words were not found in the Act bearing upon the question, still the construction of the Act would clearly define the course to be pursued. The Act would be a mere dead letter, if from the moment of its passing any one of the Royal Family could feel himself empowered to go abroad and contract a marriage with out the authority and consent of the Sovereign. Again the policy and expediency of the Act were clear upon the face of it. No marriage which the head of the realm might hold to be detrimental to the interests of the State, could be con tracted lawfully either at home or abroad. The Sovereign of the realm, was by this statute specially entrusted with the care of these matters, but this power and authority—held for the good of the State—would be at once put aside, if marriages thus contracted and solemnised were now to be held as good and valid. They (the Judges) thought, there fore, that the eldest son of A B, under the instructions of their Lordships, could not make a good title as heir to A B to the lands sought by him to be recovered. After a pause— . The LORD CHANCELLOR (as we understood him) said— Perhaps further postp6nement would not' be required after the very able and. lucid opinion of the judges of the land just read to them by his Learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Perhaps it would be stated what. course it was wished to 1* pursued. - Lord BROUGHAM said he could see ao good that could by possibility accrue to any . party by' any further postponement of the judgment of their Lordships. Such postponement would only cause heavy expense and be of no utility what ever ' to the claimant. He was q uit e p repare d to give his own opinion of the case at that moment. He had never had a doubt upon the matter. The LonD CiralicaLLou said he also was prepared to give his opinion at once. Ile had never entertained the slightest doubt of the scope and object of the Act. The language of the Act could not be mistaken. It clearly incapacitated any . person tnentioned it from going abroad and contracting a marriage. Such marriage was not valid and could not be recognized Py c the English law. • Lord BitouGßAm said it was with the deepest sorrow that he was. ‘cOMpelled-l-reluctantly compelled to decide against this clainlfor no person who had' heard the evi dence • 'addliced before their Lordships could for one moment ' doubt.: but .that a wrong, a most grievous wrong had been committed upon the mother of those children whose case - they had been hearing.—(Loud cries of ` l lfear, hear.") It appeared to him that the highest'justice required 'that the Parliament which had made such a low— a law which ought never to have been made— (Hear, hear) —that that Parliament should give some reparation to those deeply injured persons who had been asking for justice at their Lordships' bar.—(Loud cheers.) The LORD CHANCELLOR most earnestly concurred in the feeling which dictated the latter portion of the remarks of his Noble and Learned Friend. Lords DENMAN and CAMPBELL having concurred, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY put the motion, and the "non contents " being dochired by him unanimously to " have it," the claim of Sir Augustus d'Este to the Sussex Peerage is of course disallowed. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE: - — (RECEIVED THIS DAY.) At a General Meeting of the Jockey Club, held on Saturday last, July 6, It was resolved— " That it being now proved that Running Rein was three yrs old when he ran for the Two yrs old Plate at Newmarket, Crenoline must be considered the winner of that race, and that the Duke of Rutland is entitled to the Plate. "That the thanks of the Jockey Club are eminently due, and are hereby offered to Lord George Bentinck, for the energy, perseverance, and skill which ne has displayed in detecting, exposing, and defeating the atrocious frauds which have been brought to light during the recent trial respecting the Derby Stakes. " That it is the opinion of this , meeting that no publication of the proceedings of the Jockey Club should be made without the consent of the stewards." The annual general meeting of the club will take plaee at the New Rooms, Newmarket, on Wednesday next, July 10, after the races. INTELLIGENCE EXTRA. NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844. MONDAY.—Duke of Bedf'rd's Minotaur, Bst 81b, agst Mr. Ptsalis, 7st 7 . 1 h; T.y.C._ 150, h ft. , FIRST SPRING MEETING; 1847. FRIDAY.—Three yrs old Sweepstakes of 50 suvs. each, for fillies out of mares that never bred a winner of 501., &c. RAili-L-Duke of Bedford's by The S a ddl er , out of Monceda, and Fistiana—General Grosvenor's by Daedalus ' out of his Brocard mare—Mr. Batson's by Th e D oc t or , ou t of Revelry —Lord Exeter's ch by Hetman Platoff, out of Macremma— Sir W. W. Wynn's by Gladiator, dam by Buzzard, out of Emma, by Orville. NEWMARKET JULY MEETING. NEWMARKET, MONDAY NIGHT.—The Handicap did nbt fill. The July Stakes.—The following have paid :—Tunick. Jet, sister to Canadian, Hersey, sister to Cameleon, and Glee, The match between Glen liahig and Patrowna completes the day's sport, which commences late. MARRIAGE IN HIGH LIFE.—Tlie nuptials of Lord Charles Wellesley, second son of the Duke of Wel lington and Miss Pierrepont, daughter of th e Ri g ht Hon. Henry Manvers Pierrepont, was solemnised this morning, in the presence of a most brilliant circle of the relatives and friends of both noble and distin guished families. Loss or Tun THOMAS, or GLASGIOW.—A letter has been received at Lloyd's this morning, from the Ad miralty, containing the official documents relating to the loss of the above vessel, on the coast of Guada loupe, the particulars of which were received about three or four weeks since. THE Witir OF ERRoE.—We received by the Victory steamer, Captain Parker, on Saturday morning, the London papers of Thursday evening, containing an ample and most interesting report of the first day's proceeding be fore the House of Lords in the hearing of the writ of error. We may take the opportunity of expressing our acknow ledgment, in common with our fellow journalists of the Irish press, to the conductors of The Sun newspaper, for the highly creditable exertion - and enterprise by which they produce such ample and accurate reportaiof public proceedings in Parliament and the law courts in their afternoon editions each day, thus anticipating completely, and to the great accom modation of the provincial press through the country, the reports in the London morning papers. We have in its number of Thursday a report embracing all the proceedings before the House of Lords down to its adjournment, from which we shall compile our report. —Cork Southern Reporter. BLENHEIM PALACE.—The infant Earl of Sunder land, the first born of the Marquis and Marchioness of Bland ford, was baptized at the palace chapel, Blenheim, last week. The Marchioness of Londonderry presented the child at the font, who was named George Charles, the names of his paternal and maternal grandfathers. Besides the sponsors, thei e were also present the Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Louisa Spencer Churchill, Lady Caroline Stewart, Lord A. Churchill, and Lord Seaham. The font, richly embossed silver gilt, was presented by the Marquis of Londonderry to the infant Earl, his first grandson. ►SUICIDE.—A great deal of excitement was caused yesterday at the Custom-house, in consequence of intelligence being received soon after the usual hour of attendance, that a young man named John Cooper, a clerk in the Long-room establishment, had committed suicide at his residence. He was a young man of very gentlemanly manners, attentive to his duties, and much respected ; and no one can give any, reason fur the commission of therash act. THE STATE TRIALS. (FIFTH DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.--(THIS DAY) THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. The House presented an unusual appearance. The woolsacks were deserted, and the clerks' table was re moved from the upper part of the House down to the bar. The Lord Chancellor's chair was placed at the head of the table, around which the Judges were seated, instead of their usual seats upon the lower woolsacks. All the Peers in the House took their seats close to the bar. This arrangement was made to relieve the Attor ney-General from the necessity of so much exertion as he had yesterday to make. The Right Hon. Gentleman was accommodated with a seat, and spoke in a feeble tune, and leaning over the bar. Pra) era having been read, this case was called on, when The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his arguments on behalf of the Crown. He last night called the attention of their Lordships to the objections taken to the record ; he would now proceed to the other part of the objections , and first, with regard to the challenge ; their Lordships were aware that the technical points argued before them were points of form with respect to the making-up of the record in that House, and not involving anything that took place in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ifeland but the points he was stow going to argue were argue d in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and judgment given on them in favour of the Crown. Now he would first call their Lordsbips' attention to the challenge Of the array, but perhaps it would be better before doing se to advert to the challenge itself, because be was satisfied when it was read all their Lordships would come to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Crown to tak e any issue upon it, and that the only course left open to them was to demur to the judgment. Their Lordships were aware that, according to the challenge, it was an array of special jurors, and the forms and terms in which the special jury was to be struck was pro vided by the statute, the panel must be struck by the Sheriffs. Upon this challenge Their Lordships would find, in the first place, no allega tion that any person was returned that was not dull qualified to serve as a juror—there was no allegation that the panel returned by the sheriff was not a fait one—and there was no allegation that any of the jail did not stand indifferent between the parties—and there was no charge that the parties making the challenge were prejudiced by the array, and certainly there was no averment that any act of impropriety had been done by the sheriff, or that the Crown had interfered with the return to the indictment. In Coke upon Lyttleton, 156 B, the doctrine of challenge to the array was laid down; and it was there stated, that the challenge might be either for a principal cause of challenge of the array, or a challenge by favour. The principal cause of challenge respected partiality in the officer returning the array , and if it were established, the array was quashed as a matter of course. In a challenge by favour, the array was not quashed as a matter of course, but the matter was tried. The grounds of the principal challeng e were, that the sheriff or other officer returning the array were of kindred or affinity to the plaintiff or de fendant. Secondly, one of the jurymen were returned at the nomination of the plaintiff or defendant ; or if he returned any one more favourable to the one than to the, other, or if the plaintiff or defendant had an action 0' battery or debt against the sheriff, or the sheriff had a° action against them ; or if the sheriff were under distress at the suit of either party, or for cause of an indigo ency ; or, lastly, if he did not return hundreders when hundreders ought to be returned. In a challenge by r favour, the challenge must show all the circumstances o the ease. If the plaintiff or defendant's daughter wet°, of affinity to the sheriff's son, that would be a g oo t ground of challenge for favour. The consequence of quashing an array would be that a new process woofd . issue to another officer, different to the one whose f ain ' had caused the array to be quashed, who would return ° fresh panel. Their Lordships would find that the do s trine of challenges to the array laid down in chitty:: " Criminal Law," page 526 ; Viner's " Abridgment: article " Trials ;" and Bacon's "Abridgment," titl e ' "Juries." The Learned Genth man then proceeded to quote a case in which a sheriff had delivered in an array for the grand jury, and had sent it by a messenger. Th__ s plaintiff got hold of the messenger, and had induced biFl_ to alter the panel, by inserting certain names. At thi time the old sheriff was removed, and a new one er; pointed. The array was challenged, and the fornut sheriff came into Court and disavowed the panel. Thr. bench decided that it might be a good ground of ell e lenge of the persons whose names were inserted, but Iva; not agood ground of challenge in the array. •He would ne 9 read the challenge in this instance, but their LordshT, would perceive that there was no statement of any r fault, partiality, or misconduct on the part of the Sh er i who returned the array. Although the allegation s , W the challenge were not made out, yet he understood ill, it proceeded upon this principle—that if, in making ere the juror's book, under the statute:of 1 William it 'should happen to be any omission of any new e l : of mattered not whether the omis s i on wa s one name, the twenty, but if there happened to be the omission ° t hat name of any person entitled to serve on jurie s ' fie would be a good ground of Challenge to the err* t he contended that there was no ground of challenge t: ° _ , a array in the case of this j ur y only ; but it go to any other jury. In fact, the allegation towen s a h e o th ag t h t e d a t n w o i t h jury e a ffi ee could ;r but be inreftauertneitd wentlhad to this, that no trial, civil or criminal, could take place in the year during which the mistake took plac e ' It was said if there were no jurors' book they could take the book of the year before. But surely they would not ft).` contend that there was not a regular jurors' book 1844, because some of the names were omitted. I Vhii the same was most likely the case with the bo ok 1843. It was exceedingly improbable that all the Tunn e l were in that book. The fact was that the challenge the array was not the proper remedy for the iriiV o which the defendants alleged they had suffered. P , c h Learned Friend Mr. Hill alluded to a proposition had been made on the part of the defendants to show ti l l: bona fides of the challenge, but his Learned Friend t, , Attorney-General for Ireland, would be guilty of a n: lect of his duty if he consented to anythi ng o f the 101 ,,,, for if he . had done so, it would p reven t th e jury o ' 9- 0 being a good jury. (The Hon. and L earne d Gentlenl e t then referred to the provisions of the Act of P a rliatae ° under which the general li s t o f j urors was ma de 'ton t The challenge began by stating that the collectors r grand jury cess delivered t wenty li sts to t h e Recor de d; and it went, on to state that the Recorder had duly 10 % 0 out a list, but had no t cause d to b e ma d e out from ' o f several lists one general list containing the names r-. all the person s w h ose qua lifi cat i ons h a d b een so ranged accordi ng t o ran k an d proper t y , nor b a , the Recorder caused such to be fairly copied in the sa l° ,, t order. N o b o dy h a d sa id t h a t t h e R ecor d er bad made out a general list—that it was not delivered to t 4 " .i clerks of` the peace, and to the sheriff by the clerks ut the peace. N or was it d en i e d t h a t th e s h e riff had ' 3 r e d made out the jury-list f r om it. But what was den i e , was, that a list was made out with all the nar ° o4 arranged according to rank and property. There t. no denial that the Recorder had made out a general liSe; though not a general list cont :fining all the ne ° 2 o arranged according to rank and prop e rty. This " 0 what he would call a negative pregnant. The c hallet t went on: " And the said Daniel O'Connell ssys ° t o said paper writing, purporting t o b e suc h general list _0 aforesaid, did not contain the names of all the persit whOse qualifications had been- allowed upon the' cor re T i„ ing.. allowing, and signing of said list as aforesai d the Recorder, but omitted the names of divers, to wi ia fifty-nine persons, whose qualifications to be on the , lists respectively had bee n s o , allowed as dolt said by the said Rec or d er , w hi c h s aid sev erfl 's persons whose names were so omitted are as folio That was the challenge of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, but begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the fled, that the challenges of all the other defendants were " t - be ferent, for it was added, " f or th e purpose, and with wile intent of prejudicing th e sa id so an d so ." Wh a t wasja meaning of the allegati on th at " a certa i n pa p e r wt' t ' ?" was made out by some person, or persons unknow°o What was the effect of it ? What was its bearing 0 ° i re case ? There was no allegation i n th e c h a ll e nge that ,a 4 Recorder had not mad e ou t a genera l li s t—th a t it `` ‘ , o t not delive:ed to the clerks o f th e peace—that it wa s h " a t delivered to the sheriff. There was no allegation 'd i e in that list so made up, and so returned, there wa s two omission of a single name. B u t there was an allegs' e t that there was an omissi o n o f names f rom a ce rtain pls. writing, Made up by some person, or persons, unk° ° oo s It was easy to see why the challenge was made up i°, 00 t way. _ They had not referred t o th e genera l li s t inao c ihe i by the Recorder and the oth er officers, because i ,„%, - 01 found it would be hard t o d o so w i t h out alleging ",: t of ' against some one of th e o ffi cers . I n a su b sequen t P¢ D o t the challenge, it was said that the challenger w'a's the aware of or privy to the omission of the names fromwo paper writing ; but there was no allegation that /te tr a; not aware of or privy t o th e om i ss i on o f t h e nam es '' o y ! the general list. Th e challenge then went on t° " The said D. O'Connell further says, that th e - the several persons whose names were so omitted from e• said fraudulent paper writing, purporting to be thee' neral list as aforesaid, were , a t th e ti me o f the se,.' tee turn of the collector's lists and a t the time of ea t said special sessions, and still are, severally re st pod within the county of the said city of Dubli°' were at the said several times and now are duly g ate d fled to be, and should and ought to have been. P', 4 - Jleci upon the said general list." On this allegation he e t op' their Lordships' attention to this fact, that it pear that the names so omitted from the were qualified to be placed on the special Ju r°rs i lis t ' They were qualified to be placed on the gen e ii od 111 , but there was no allegation that they were qua' so" be on the special jurors' list. The challenge then says' on to say, " and the said Daniel O'Connell furthe r r og that from the said fraudulent paper writing, P urP° boo l ‘'i to be such general list as aforesaid, a certain ty l i s purporting to be the jurors' book of the said ce ttn r , 0 gener a , di d ri°l tt: the city of Dublin for the current calendar Yti o rtl,,' wit, for the year on e th ousan d e i g h t h un d re d and di as'; four, was made u p an d f rame d." H e "sv° ° ' Di ed „' by whom was it mad e u p, b y w h om was it fi ll de UP There was no averment that the book was not 03 %,h011 i by the challenger himself ; it was not stated bY• was it was made up, or under what circumstances ; 'ivy to not averred that the c h a ll enger hi mse lf wa s not Viso Yee and a consenting party t o t h e f ram i ng it. He a ma d minded them that the jurors' book could not b e o fth ° up by the Recorder, as it was made up by the & t he ire peace. The challenger then went on to say, "fro said book so purporting to be the jurors' boOlc; yea, said county of the city for the said curt e Pore°,l was made up the special Jurors' list for the sail l e o dre ? year, to wit, for the year one thousand eight w hoa" ? and forty-four." Again, he would ask bY lleg et he Was that done w ith th e consen t o f the c A nd t - There was not a word to say that it was not. --~•.,. said Da