The Sun. — London, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

RW/ 1 r.arid hoe .w• ral bi CheW Etitiog o r sit he S t to T U a Coup o go' pet, day a es' ali jov o !Si 121 hi ea • 'pi f t he , eal ri~ cs. trifo ken o gee i ear free e Iv o th , o A° t to e h, T. l • I sobl e) $ IV / • • NDZ,O AT R, A , ONDAY.-11,.'r nlje,ty rode out: in a Pony phaeton this morning, :a c co opanied by the Prin .ess Alice, ana l attend. al by the Dowager Laly Lyttelton and Lord Charks Wellesley. In the afxr noon her Majesty, Prince Albert and the Prince a f Prussia, went out in an open pony carriage, attended by Lord Charles Well( sky (r.(pterry in 1V Ating). on horseback. The Lady in 11 . :( tmg and the Maids of Honour followed in a p (ne carriage, and Count Puckler, Baron Sehlt Litz, 13.ra n de Berg, and Count Xonigstnark, also Ulm% ed. Prince Albert, arconvaaied by the Prince of Prussia left the C a stl e a t a Tut, ter before ten o'c!oek this morning, to shoot in the royal preserves. Their Royal Ilighnes-es were arendeal by Major-General Sir Edward Bowater. The ince returned to tl.e Castle shortly before two o'clock. The Prince of Wales anal the Princess It ;Val were taken their accustomed abi as this morning on Ponies in the pleasure-grourd, adjacent to the Castle. In the afternoon, the Royal Faintly were taken an airing, accompanied by the I) ,wager Lady Lyttelt. n. The Earl and Counts of Jersey and Lady Cie- Thentina Villiers, the Earl and Countess of WeAmore land, an! Vi scount Melbourne, left the Castle to-day. he Earl of Liverpool kn in the forenoon, but returns to the Castle in the evening', to (rimer. Tile Count Nesselrode, Gaunt D. Nesselrode, the Duk e of Wellington, the E rl and Countess D,la warr and Lady Mary We t, and Rubfl-t and Lady Peel, , arrived at the Ca ta-day, on a visit to her -Majesty. Her Majesty anal Prime Albert, rich the Prince of Prussia, inspected to-day the "Doncaster Cup," which Messrs Mortimer and Hunt hail the honour of s ubmitting to the illustrious party. The subject of the cup is Henry the Eighth and Queen Catherine fleeting Robin Hood at Shooter's Ilill, May I, 1515. Sir Henry Wheatley arrivcal in the afternoon. her Royal Highne"s the Daehess of Kent, Lady Charlotte Dundas, the Coun:(ss Wratislaw, and Sir George Couper, wi l join the royal circle at dinner this evening. The band of the Scots Fa-Fier Guards will attend durin g dinner at the Castle. Her Majesty's private banal wbl be in attendance M the after part of the evening. The Duke of Cambridge tyrived in town yesterday 'corn his residence at Kew. Ills itoyal Highness went to the House of Loris in Cie afternoon, and in the evening returned to Kew. A Cabinet Council was behl at two o'elock yester day afternoon at the Foreign-office. The following IN' er e the Ministers present : Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, the Lord ior c a l ia ( n i el ta lo ney, r i Lord W harncliil'e, Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, the Chancellor of t he Exchequer, Earl of fladdington, Lord Granville Somerset, and Sir Edward Knatchbull. Lord Wharncliffe arrived in town Yesterday morn lng to attend the Council from Anglesey Villa, near k;rosport. Th e E ar l o f Ab er d een arr i ve d f ro n t Windsor Castle. Lord Stanley arrived early yesterday morn ing from Latham House, Lhecashire. Str.T. Graham arrived from the Isle of Wight, and Lord G. Somerset fr om Tunbridge- %yells. The Council sat two hours and a half. Directly after the Council, Sir Robert Peel, accom- Partied by Lady Peel, left has residence in Whitehall- Fardens, on a visit to the Que, n at Windsor Castle. rho Earl of Aberdeen also left the Foreign-office The afterwards, on his retly n to Windsor Castle. -the Duke of IVellington left town after the Council Oh a visit to her Majesty. Mr. Dean, Chaicmon of the Cuitoms, had an in tervierda w with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yes y, at his official residence in Downing-street. The Earl of Westmoreland arrived in town yester laY from Windsor C as tl e . Ill s Lo r d s hip transacted b usiness in the afternoon at the Foreign-office. 1 Dispatches were sent off Last cveniDg from the Co ," 1 41 -office for the G avernor of Gibraltar, for the "overno r of Malta, and also "or the Lord High Com /4issinner of the lonian Islands. PUBLIC BATHS. e , TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. S ix, —ln your publietvion of the 20th current you 7Y obligi ng ly i nser t e d m y letter on the suhject of 1 , 11 ,blie Baths. I feel t)o deeply interested in the tJect to allow the matter willingly to drop, and t jrefore I trust yea will endeavour to find space for Cs Comm un i ca ti on . I s h a ll be as brief as possible ; tl if a w or d or t wo a t a t i me can k ee p the matter bef ore the public eye, and should ultiq ately be the ivis P ans of i n d uc i ng tho se a mong the working classes, 1 ° have th e p ower t o se t the affair in a position to Forked out to some good and practical end, mither Jou r labour nor mine can be considered as thrown aw, y. • since I last wrote to you I have read in the news- Olers a brief notice of a great public meeting that just been held at Sord, where no less a sum ' l ' 4o 11,000/. was subscTibe aif d in the room for the pur l"; among other objects, of erecting baths for the Workin g classes of that h•c..lity. Here is an example fo r the citizens of London to imitate. Without any very serious difficulty some twelve or fourteen thousand pounds has been collected in. London, to hand down to posterity, in bronze or marble, the name of an illustrious Duke, not very likely to need such a memento in future generations. A much smaller sum than this would enable us to hand do\sn to our posterity a benefit for which they would have good cause to bless the public spirit and enlightened liberality of those who would assist or encourage the Working men of London to attain for themselves so aceessary and desirable an object as the erection of C heap and judiciously distributed baths. That the working clases of London are not un mindful of the benefits to be derived from, or averse to the use of the bath, is shown by the numbers who have flocked to the Serpentine during the hot weather, am ounting to little short of 300,000. All this too in theirla face of its numerous inconveniences and dangers, for scarcely a week lasses during the bathing season Without some fatal accident ; and the exposure is • suc h as must deter numbers frotn availing themselves of the so- ca ll e d l uxur y. Th e f a ct too of the Lord • ta.S'or having issued a proclamation against bathing t l . l the ri ver , oug h t t o ac t as a s ti mu l us t o ou r exer . 4 1°4 to supply proper means and conveniences that ,‘"li necessary may be within the reach of all. hinted in my former letter that Government t ght th, much to assiA us in the way of granting the Tei for the erection of buildings. And, just to view matter in a practical light, I will take the liberty .o f Pointing out one or two situations that struck me 1 Peculiarly fitted for the purpose. In Orange - S treet, where the well is being sunk for the supply of ater to Trafalgar-square and the public offices, is a i rg vacant space of ground, close by this inexhausti 'uPply of the needful element. The two engines t hat are to be employed to raise the water, could • k, ;Wise be made available for the purposes of hot or tepid bathing. Ag :in, at the east end of the Serpen • l t ine is a vac a nt sp a ce of ground, somewhat below the evel of the river. When I last passed that way, if I enl ember rightly, it was occupied by a stagnant looking„ ditch, which under any circumstances it 40 01 d b e desirableto drain. Were a bath erected 7re It mi g h t b e open at all hours, the dangers and the exnosures of the river being thus completely 11 2::', itl ed• I need not le;:gthen this letter, nor will 1 .4 one word more, than just to say that a few re from your fen, to gi‘e point and effect to my W eak a t tempts, wou ld , I am sure, be duly appreciated I) .Y all who wish sell to their kind, and would confer 4111 °h pleasure up Sir, your: very respectfully, A WORKING MAN. 77 , Harrison -street, lie„;ent-square, Aug. 27. THE LATE PITMEN'S STRIKE.—OUT accounts from th e collieries art! satisfact , trv. The pits are all at work, A ad though, from some quTirters, we hear of an inten r"n to " knock olf " again, we have very little appre- Mon of the renewal of a ft lly that has cost the pitmen a° de ar . At Wi ngate Grange the men turned out for a day. with t h e v i ew o f seout i ng th e em ployment of a m,legate na me d S u t ton ; b at finding, the owners deter tlt 'fled to res i st t h e d eman d, th e y w i se ly relinquished r purpose, and resumed their labour. We observe, fro m the neighbouring prints, that in various places, h‘ t ne strang ers " h ave - been maltreated by the old pit m - " th e n( for the purpose, doubtless, of driving them from a: i r employment, so as to make room for the surplus tots who h ave been thrown nut of enga,gt ments by the I ,"ke• But the prompt a'sertion of the law will con- I nce the authors of these proceedings that, like every tho se device, they wilt bo productive only of injury to 0 .,,5e who resort C.( them.— Durham Chronicle. nf ',_ l4 .l3ELANET.—This individual, who, at the end °f t he second day's trial t n a charge of poisoning his ' i lte e . Was, on the verdict of " Not Guilty" being brought "3 the j ur y, lib era t e I on Thursday, left London Friday mornii:g for the north. He passed through d erl N e wcastle the same even'ng on his way to North Sun tCand• His return home, as well as that of some of 4 e W itnesses who appeared in his favour on the trial, o ee t ? r ding to a lmter dated 28th inst., giving an account f party( arri va l, has been the reverse of welcome. Ono WV( it is said, was stoned from the village : and on bei e n dnes daY an effigy was elevated on a pole, and, after i t g Paraded for some tin e round the neighbourhood, i n W as set fire to in the ; Ft sence, and amidst the shout pilao_fsorne hundreds of the pt.pulation. A letter which in the Time; newspaper of Saturday last, tir e - a e " er• S., strongly et edemnatory of the jury who .4a n " and acquitted Be''oe y, has also been reprinted at tahrecT'(and extensively excitement in unfortunateQeality of North Sunderland, whereßelaney and his and much respected wife were so well known, ver c t Where her friends not reside, is described as being • Y great —Durham Ailretti,cr. . at ING OF MEN FOR THE ROYAL NAVY.— Saturday orders were rt ceived from the Bottrd of forunliralty to commence ( ntering able boditd seamen / le general servit e at the general rendezvous, Queen's T o a w ci ' Tower -hid. The Perseus tender, lying (dr the ceiv Tower 4 , s been ge t t i ng rettly for the last wee to re uttiei ` L ne men wh o ma y p ass th e d o ctor's examination, to onti l l 'ueY are sent O ff to Woo!wieh, Sheerness, Ports that and Plymouth, by ,bunts -rs, to man the ships s• rjn frje ordered to be inonedi3toly put into commis ''u ease of a m i sun d i between nitandingthis country France. • OFFICE oF THE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY oF LONDON. Yesterday a numerous meeting of the friends of Alderman Brown, one of the candidates for the office of Chamberlain of the City, vacant by the death of Sir W. lley gate, took place at the City of London Tavern. There were amongst the large ass,mblage the follow ing gentlemen:-Aldermen Sir Peter Laurie and John Johnson, Rev. J. A. flankey, Mr. Curling, Mr. Boustield, Mr. Baggally, Mr. Johnson, the member for Coleman-street Ward, &c. Sir P. LAURIE, as the senior Alderman present, was called to the chair by acclamation. He stated that lie certainly felt highly honoured by being called in so emphatic a manner to the chair. lie would have felt more gratification if the chair had been occupied by the Lord Mayor, as his Lord,hip had intended. The various duties of the office had, however, been an obstacle to his Lordship's intention ; but the meeting might be assured that the Chief Ma .4istrate had been most laborious and ener getic in his exertions for the success of their re spected friend Alderman Brown.—(Loud cheers.) lie found in the paper of arrangements for the day so many influential names of gentlemen who were to take part in the proceedings, that he should not trespass upon the attention of the meeting, but he would nut be doing justice to his own feelings, and to the high character of the candidate he supported, if lie did not at once declare his conviction that in the metropolis there could not be found any individual so well adapted as their excellent . friend, Alderman Brown, for the important office of Treasurer of the ancient City of London. Alderman Brown's reputa tion was unblemished and unassailable; and he had never uttered a falsehood.—(Cheers.) As to the re sult, there could, he was convinced, be no doubt. In deed, he did not expect to hear of the other candi dates on Thursday, the day of nomination ; for upon finding, upon their canvass, that they stood not the slightest chance of success, they would, it was rea sonable to suppose, retire from the contest previously. (Cheers.) lie would add nothing more than that Alderman Brown had through life shown that his word was his bond, and that he was in debt to no man.—(Cheers.) Alderman JOHN JOHNSON felt the highest gratifi cation in moving the first resolution. lie had had an acquaintance with Alderman Brown of twenty-two years' standing. The resolution stated that Alderman Brown, by his lung and faithful services as a magis trate, by the industry, ability, integrity, and punc tuality, with which he had discharged his magis terial duties, and by his zealous vindication of the rights of the liverymen, when recently assailed in the Court of Common Council, had justly entitled himself to the esteem and regard of his fellow-citizens; and the fact of his being, next to Sir C. S. Hunter, senior Alderman, furnished an addidional claim to the Livery of London.—(Cheers.) Mr. T. A. I.lANitny seconded the resolution, and bore testimony to the high character maintained by Alderman Brown during a public life of some con siderable length. It was not in the power of any man to allege against the worthy Alderman the slightest act of an objectionable nature in his public or private career; and in the whole of the civic com munity no man could be found who was better quali . - fied for the high office. The resolution was adopted amid great cheering. Mr. R. BAGGALLY proposed a resolution, pledging the meeting, collectively and individually, to use every exertion to secure the election of Alderman Brown. . . Mr. R. JOHNSON seconded the resolution, which was unanimously adopted. Mr. D. S. llEwsort proposed the next resolution. It was to the effect of appointing a Committee to conduct the election. Mr. BOUSFIELD seconded the resolution. The list of those who volunteered to serve upon the Committee included the names of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Sir John Pirie Sir Peter Laurie, Sir Geo Carroll, Aldermen Challis, Farncomhe, and Gibbs, Mr. John Masterman, M.P., Mr. 'l'. A. Hankey, and above 200 other names, which it was determined should be published in the newspapers. Alderman BROWN ruse amidst cheers. It was, he said, now forty years since he had been called upon, amidst those with whom he had first drawn breath, and amongst whom he had received his professional education, to become a member of the City of London. At that time he had supposed there existed no merits of his own which could have induced his friends to think so favourably of him. He was then but just entering into life, but he was the son and grandson of those who had maintained an unblemished reputa tion in the immediate neighbourhood in which he had been born and bred.—(Cheers.) On that spontaneous suggestion of his friends he had consented to accede to their wishes. In so consenting he felt that he had the character of two questions to support, and he had also felt that he had to vindicate, by the proper dis charge of his duties, as a member of the Common Council, the judgment of those who, by electing, had placed such unbounded confidence in him. Twenty-seven years afterwards the alderman of the ward resigned his gown, and then the honourable appointment to the magistracy was offered to him. He had at first refused to be a candidate, but upon con sultation with his friends he had felt it to he his duty to accept it. He had accepted the office with the feel ing that the discharge of the duties of the office would he met with an indulgence which, he could say, had been more than realised.—(Cheers.) He declared that he could not lay claim to all which the resolution just passed attributed to him. To the fearless and con scientious discharge of the duties of his office as a ma gistrate he, however, certainly would lay claim, and he believed he had never been insensible to the esti mation of wise and good men.—(Cheers.) On po litical questions he had always maintained that course which, in his conscience, he believed to be right, and at the same time he had given credit to others who dif fered from him from the same conscientious feeling. He had always been convinced that in this land of li berty there must, and there ought to be, differences of opinion, and that it ‘N as by the discussion of these differences of opinion truth was elicited.—(Cheers.) In many of these discussions he had taken part, but he was sure that he had never intentionally uttered a syllable calculated to give offence to any man. Sup ported as he had been he could not entertain a doubt as to the result of the election, but still he instructed his friends not to relax in their exertions, and not to forget that no election was secure until the return was actually made. lie further had a most anxious desire that the contest should be conducted through out as a contest between gentlemen, and that e%ery thing which had the appearance of calumny and mis representation should be abstained from altogether. Mr. KING moved the thanks of the meeting to Sir t'eter Laurie for his conduct in the chair. Mr. CURLING seconded the motion, which was una nimously carried, and the meeting adjourned. EMANUEL HOSPITAL. Some days ago we mentioned, under the head of The Committee of Aldermen," that some essentia' alterations were about to be proposed. The proposi• /ions for enlarging Emanuel Hospital are directed, n•e are given to understand. to educational purposes. "The present establishment consists of about twenty boys, twenty girls, twenty residents in alms-houses, and ten out-pensioners. The Court of Aldermen have recently increased the number of children to forty, and have established on the estates of the hospital a school sufficiently large to give daily education to all the poor children of Bransburton, in Yorkshire, where some of them lie. On the first endowment, by Lady Dacre, the rents of the estate did not exceed 1001. per annum, but, by the falling in of the leases, and judicious management of the estates, the rents now produce between 2,000/. and 3,0001. per annum, which sum, by the express direction of the founder, is to be expended in education and alms at Emanuel Hospital in Westminster, on a site contracted for by Lady Dacre herself, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and purchased for that purpose, pursuant to her directions, by the executors. The Court of Aldermen, therefore, have determined to give the utmost latitude to the founder's intention, and to enable the neighbourhood to enjoy to the fullest extent the advantages of a cheap and good education. Hence it becomes necessary to elevate the position in a ratio with its funds to give it somewhat of a collegiate character ; and there is for this pur pose now under the consideration of the Court, a pro position that the master should be converted into a resident principal, subordinate to whom shall be a number of masters and assistants, in the various de partments of scholastic education, that at least sixty children may be on the foundation enjoying board, lodging, and clothing, as well as learning, and vs ho are to be selected from amongst the children of clergymen, and other professional men and tradesmen, in reduced circumstances. There is also a proposi tion that 400 persons of like classes not in the founda tion, shall receive daily education similar to that given to the upper and junior departments of the King's College, upon paytnent of a small amount, to enable the Court to provide and secure a supply of learned and able tutors and masters. Thus it is contemplated to establish in Westminster another great institution in a dense population, for the e lucation of the growing classes of the community. Hitherto the Emanuel Hospital has been unknown. There is now a prospect of its being made one of equal utility with many of the great institutions of the kingdom. THE NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER THAMES.—A pa ragrpph has appeared in some of the newspapers to the effect that the new regulations, which the Committee of Aldermen have been discussing are now in operation. There is no truth in it. The further consideration of the regulations is postponed. Before any new regulations can be in operation, they must pass the Court of Alder men, and be confirmed by the approval of a judge. It is stated that the Star steamer had 1,250 passengers on board on Tuesday last. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 3 1844. EGYPTIAN AFFAIRS. ALEXANDRIA, AUG. 19.—After the infliction of the fines upon the several members of the Council at Cairo, by which Mehemet Ali increased his finances by upwards of 250,000 dollars, his Highness seems to have thought no more of this matter, and left the capital for Alexandria, where he arrived in the after noon of the 9th inst., amidst the firing of guns from all the ports in and about the town, and all the ships of war in the harbour, Egyptian, French, and Eng lish. Some preparations had been made for the re ception of his Highness, but, on consideration, it was decided that nothing particular should take place, as he might have taken it amiss. The day after his arrival the Viceroy received all the grandees of the place, the Consular and European merchants, with whom he conversed as on ordinary occasions. His Highness was not looking very well, but is now recovering fast; he has resumed his usual habits, and all is again perfectly quiet. It now appears that the only cause of Mehemet Ali's excessive ill-humour, which made him leave Alexandria so suddenly for Cairo at the end of last month, was the conduct of several members of the Council at Cairo, who had taken some measures with regard to the government of the country without his authority, and without informing him of what they had done, and his Highness did not seriously Mean what he said before his departure about resign ing and going to Mecca. Semi Pacha, Mehemet Ali's private secretary and constant attendant, leaves to-morrow by the French steamer Le Caire from Malta and Lucca, where he is to take the mineral baths for the benefit of his health. This old and experienced man enjoys the fullest con fidence of the Viceroy, and his Highness's parting with such an able counsellor tends to show that he does not meditate any change for the present. The Viceroy has during the last few days dis patched the greater part of his ships of war, with ample funds, to the coast of Asia Minor, to pur chase horned cattle and horses for Egypt. Most of the ships have no guns at all on board, and the re mainder very few. On the 13th the French steamer from Syria arrived here with 157 passengers, mostly Turkish pilgrims proceeding to Mecca. Amongst the passen gers from Constantinople was his Excellency Mazloum Bey, Minister of Justice and Charge d'Affaires of the Viceroy of Constantinople, sent here by the Sultan to investigate the state of affairs in Egypt ; but, as he found all quiet, he returns to-morrow to Constantinople in the Nile. The Viceroy has made him several handsome presents, and sends 16 horses to the Sultan. THE STATE TRIALS. WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.—YESTERDAY. OPINIONS OF THE JUDGES. This morning being the time appointed for the Judges to give their opinions on the points submitted to them by the House of Peers in the important case of the Queen v. O'Connell and others, the approaches to the House of Lords were occupied at a very early hour by persons anxious to gain admittance. The doors wet e opened at ten o'clock, but long before that hour a crowd of parsons had assembled outside, and when they were opened there was quite a rush. The space below the bar of the House was crowded with spectators and counsel. The Counsel for the Crown and those who appeared for the traversers occupied the places in front. All those engaged in the cause were present, except the Attorney-General ; the re mainder of the place below the bar being appropri ated to the use of spectators. Several elegantly dressed ladies were present in this part of the House. The galleries were crowded within a few minutes after they were opened. On our admittance to the gallery we found the greater number of the Judges and of the Law Lords present. The Bishop of Lich field read prayers. Among the Judges present we observed Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Justice 'Williams, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Baron Alderson, the Lord Chief Baron, and Mr. B aron P ar k e. A mong t h e L aw L or d s were he Lord Chancellor, Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice ; Lord Brougham, and Lord Campbell. Lord Cottenham arrived shortly after the commence ment of the proceedings. The Duke of Cambridge was in the House before the commencement of the proceedings, as were Lord Beaumont, Lord Redesdale, the Earl of Dalhousie, Lord Strangford, Lord Boston, and Lord Tankerville. GRAY V. THE QUEEN. Mr. Justice WIG HTMAN proceeded to deliver his opinion in this case, in which the question submitted to the Judges was, whether a party charged with treason and felony had a right to the peremptory challenge of a jury after they had been sworn. The Learned Judge gave his reasons at considerable length, and was clearly of opinion that the Court in Ireland ought to have allowed the challenge. Mr. Justice Coltman and Mr. Justice Williams were of the same opinion. Baron GURNEY said he concurred in the opinion of the Learned Judge who had preceded him. He did not think that the distinction of the right of challenge being allowed only infavorem vitce was sound. Mr. Justice PATTESON concurred in the opinions which had been expressed by the other Learned Judges, and thought that the peremptory challenge ought to have been allowed. Mr. Baron PARxE said that he regretted he felt obliged to differ from the Learned Judges on the question put by their Lordships. The question ap peared to him to be, what was the rule of common law in allowing peremptory challenges, whether it extended to all cases of felony or to capital offences only ? It was contended, on the part of the prisoner, that the right of peremptory challenge existed in cases of felony, whether capital or not; the Crown con tended that it extended to capital felonies only. He considered this was a question of common law only ; and, in his opinion, Parliament had not interfered with the subject at least by any express statute. The 9th Geo. IV., cap. 54, enacted that no person arraigned for treason, murder, or any other felony, should be admitted to the right of peremptory challenge beyond the number of twenty. ['his statute was expressed in negative terms. The statute of the 10th and 11th of Charles 1., which was repealed by the statute of the 9th of George IV., was also in negative terms, and did not enlarge the right of peremptory challenge. It left it as it existed before, but it reduced the number from thirty-five to twenty. These statutes left the question as it was before—a question of common law. What they had to deter mine then was, what the common law on the subject was, and to ascertain what that was, they ,hould have recourse to those authorities from which they derived their information in such cases. In the first place, the only decisions of the Courts were those which had taken place in Ireland, and all those decisions had been in favour of the Crown, and had been constantly acted upon. He thought that this was a matter of great weight and consequence. The practice in Ireland showed that the privilege of pereinptory challenge did not belong to all felonies, but was confined to those which were capital. On the other hand, the English practice was to allow the right of peremptory challenge, but it should be borne in mind that no objection was ever taken in this country, the prosecutions in such cases being con tacted by private parties and not by the Crown ; and also that a like practice prevailed in cases of mis demeanour, no impediment existing to prevent the defendant from objecting to as great a number of jurymen as he thought proper. There was consider able force in the remark of Mr. Justice Crampton that this peremptory challenge was a concession and not a right. It had been said that the right of peremptory challenge was not confined to cases affecting life only, inasmuch as it had been allowed in cases of misprison if treason. Now it was doubtful if even the right of peremptory challenge had been allowed in cases of misprison of treason. At all events the statute of G-e0.1V., which'related exclusively.to Ireland, made no mention of misprison of treason. _ He, therefore, was of opinion: that the right of peremptory challenge did not exist in cases of non-capital punish ment. He believed that it had not been the object of the Legislature, when they passed the Act of Geo. IV., to take away from the accused any right which he had before possessed, by depriving him of the benefit of clergy. Such a result had not been contemplated by the Legislature, nevertheless such had been the result. It was not however the duty of the Judges to supply the defendants of the Legislature—it was their duty to administer the law as they found it, and in his opinion the challenge had been properly dis allowed. Lord Chief Baron POLLOCK was of opinion that the Court ought to have allowed the challenge. The sta tute of the 9 Geo. IV. placed the law in Ireland on the same footing as the law in England, and in this country the right of challenge was regulated by the statute of 22 Henry VIII. ; by that statute it was enacted that no person arraigned for any petty treason or felony should be admitted to challenge peremptorily above twenty. That by implication gave him a right of peremptory c h a ll enge under twenty . Th ere was nothing to sh ow t h at the life of the accuse d mus t b e in danger, in order to entitle him to peremptory chal lenge ; on the contrary, the practice was al ways to allow the peremptory challenge. In cases in which the law took away capital punishments he was of opinion that all the privileges of the accused remained, unless they were expressly taken away. For these reasons he was of opinion that the challenge ought to have been allowed. Lord Chief Justice TINDAL was of opinion that the Court below ought to have allowed the challenge on the part of the prisoner. No prisoner could be de prived of an important right by implication. Peremp. tory challenge was always allowed in favorem vitce, and it was also allowable in all cases of felony, for anciently all felonies were capital. Now, it would be dangerous to contend that the right of challenge was taken away, because a statute had abolished capital punishment. The punishment of transportation for life was unknow n to our ancestors—had they known it, a punishment almost as severe as death itself, it was impossible to say with what safeguards they might not have thought it right to invest the accused. The ground on which the argument on the part of the Crown in the present case rested was, that the s tatute Ist of Victoria must h e so construed by impli cation as to deprive the prisoner of the privilege of peremptory challenge. It appea re d t o hi m th a t suc h an implication could not be resor t e d t o i n the case him in eh p practice lii if not in strict right, for tation were unavoidable to Upon give effect to th e statu te. No such necessity appeared these grou n d s h e humbly offered as his to exist. p centuries,l oy e o d f ab privilege beneficial t o t h e pr i soners, and em ployed u opinion, in ans wer to their Lordships' question, that the peremptory ch all enge tendered in thi s ca s e ou g ht to have been all over!. The further consideration of the case was then ad ourned until Wednesday. her Majesty's ship Belvidera left this port at day break on the 9th instant, for Malta, towed out to some distance by her Majesty's steamer Geyser. This frigate made a very short stay here, having arrived only late on the previous evening. The two annual fairs of Tautah and Sheik Ibrahim, which take place at this season in the Delta have been exceedingly well attended this year. It has been computed that at the Tautah fair there were no fewer than 120,000 persons assembled, and a very large amount of business has been transacted there. On the 17th instant the dam that closes the mouth of the canal of Cairo was cut. This ope ration is done when the Nile has risen sufficiently high for the Government to proclaim that it has attained the sixteenth cubit of the Nilometer. In this, however, the people are always deceived, for there is an old law that the land-tax cannot be exacted unless the Nile rises to the height of sixteen cubits of the Nilometer, and the Government thinks it proper to make the people believe as early as possible that it has attained this height. The period when the com pletion or abundance of the Nile is proclaimed is when the river has actually risen about twenty or twenty-one feet in the neighbourhood of the metro polis, which is generally between the 6th and 16th of August; that is, when there yet remain, of the measure of a moderately good rise in the neighbour hood of Cairo, three or four feet. _ The schooner Emmelje arrived here on the 16th inst. from Beyrout, which place she left on the 10th. The Turkish fleet was still in the Bay of Beyrout. The country all about Nablous was in a very dis turbed state, and the Turkish Government appears not to have the power to maintain peace in those districts. A CCIDENT.—A shocking accident happened on Wednesday night last, at the Dereham Theatre, to Mr. Dillon, one of the performers. He had just com pleted his dress for the character he had to repre sent, and was preparing to leave the dressing-room. when he approached too near a lighted candle, and was instantly enveloped in flames. He ran towards the stage and was observed by some of the audience, who rushed forward and endeavoured, by press ing upon him, and covering him with such things as were at hand, to extinguish the flames, in which they did not succeed till he was so seriously burnt that ho now lies in a very precarious state. A gentleman with great pre sence of mind stepped forward and announced that no further danger was apprehended, and happily prevented any sudden rush to the doors.—Norfolk Chronicle. THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION IN YORK.— Tht general subscription fund for the approaching meeting of this scientific association has already reached a sun_ exceeding 900/. It is exclusively appropriated for covering the expenses at York, in which city the an• nual meeting is to take place on the 26th of next month. Earl Fitzwilliam is a contributor of 1001. ; and among the subscribers are the Archbishop of York, 50/.; the Earl of Zetland, Lord Feversham, Lord Wen lock, and Sir John F. B. Johnstone, Bart., M.l'., respec tively 25/.; Viscount Morpeth, 20/.; the Bishop of Ripon, Lord Hotham, M.P., Hon. 'J. Stuart Wortley, M.P. Hun. 0. Duncombe, M.P., Sir Edward Vavasour, Bart, Sir W. B. Cooke, Bart., Sir Thomas D. Legard, Bart. Sir George Cayley, Bart., Sir J. 11. Lowther, Bart.. M.P., Mr. H. R. Yorke, M.P., Mr. H. Warburton, M.P.. Mr. A. Lawson, M.P., and Mr. H. Broadley, M.P., have each transmitted donations of 10/.—Hull Advertiser. EXPLOSION OF Two STEAM-ENGINE BOILERS, NEAR NEWCASTLE.—A most alarming accident oc curred on Wednesday morning at the extensive iron fur naces of T. Firmstone, Esq., at Little Madeley, neat Newcastle-under-Lyme, by which one man lost his life, and property to a considerable amount was destroyed. The cause of the calamity was the bursting of two steam engine boilers. At about seven o'clock, both the boilers, almost simultaneously, burst with a tremendous explo sion, filling the air fur som e di s t ance arou nd with the shattered fragments, and vast quantities of bricks and other materials. The utmost alarm was naturally ex cited on the works, the men running in all directions for safety. Great fears were at first entertained that the loss of life would be considerable, as from twenty to thirty persons were about the spot at the time of the ex plosion. A number of cottages adjoin the works, which are occupied by the workmen, and out of them women were observed running in all directions, anxious to as• certain the fate of their husbands or relatives ; happily, however (and it was considered little less than miracu lous) only one individual received fatal injury, although many had remarkable and hair-breadth escapes. The unfortunate man whose life has been sacrificed, is Charles Mayer. He was observed by the engineer, Thos. Rhodes, in the slack-hole putting coal on the fire, scarcely a mi nute before the explosion. His mangled remains were found amongst the ruins a few yards distant from the place where he was last seen, and when picked up life was quite extinct.—Leeds Times. We are happy to learn that Mr. Whittle Harvey's Committee of the Greenwich Proprietors has succeeded in completing an arrangement with the South-Eastern. We will not anticipate the meetings which are about to take place on this subject, but we may state, for the information of those who are interested in the matter, that the result of the arrangements will be to give to the ordinary shareholders, after discharging all outstanding liabilities for the first ten years, an average dividend of something more than 93. per share; and after that period in perpetuity nearly 12s. Ta king money at 4 per cent., this would ' make the share worth 11/., now increasing to 151. ten years hence ; taken even at 5 per cent. the present value would be 9/, increasing to 121. In any case the value of the shares must be regarded as considerably raised by the new arrangement. The old preference shares still receive, of course, 5 per cent., but the securities for all will henceforth be identical, the whole becoming, as it were, preference shares, guaran teed by the South Eastern, at the rates we have men tioned. The proprietors are, we think, to be congratu lated on the arrangement.--Railway Chronicle. J. 'TRAVERS, ES.l. — The will of the late J. Travers, E'q., has been proved in the Prerogative Court, by Maria Travers, widow, J. L. Travers, Esq., J. I. Travers, Esq , the sons, and S. Amory, Esq., the executors. The property is sworn under 70,0001. The will is dated in 1843, and gives Clapham Park (the residence of Mr. Travers), plate, furniture, carriages, horses, &c., to his wife, Mrs. Travers. He also gives her the use of the habitable part of the house in St. Swithin's-lane, where his business as a wholesale grocer is carried on, and a legacy of 1,0001. His stock in trade, and business he gives to his sons, above-named, and makes a suitable provision for all his children (fifteen in number) except his son Joseph, who is excluded from all benefit under the will, having been already provided for by his father in his lifetime. He directs that his shares in the Assam Company may not be sold till the year 1850. He gives to the Unitarian Chapel, Effra-road, Brixton, 2501. To his executors, and such of his brothers and sisters as shall be living at his death, Si. each for a ring. These are the only legacies of interest, and the remainder of his large property is bequeathed to his wife and children. DOVER, Aun. 30.—The new iron steamer Princess Mary, recently placed on the Ostend station, hence with a mail on Sundays and Thursdays, left Dover harbour yesterday at ten o'clock, with one carriage and 118 pas sengers: this day she returned from Ostend with two carriages and 82 passengers, and after an extraordi nary quick passage thence saved the tide into Dover harbour. This is a feat never yet before accomplished by any steam-packet on this station. THE LATE SUICIDE AT DEPTFORD.—The funeral of the unhappy girl, Eliza Kendall, took place on Friday last. The deceased was followed to the church of St. Paul, Deptford, by nearly fifteen hundred persons, a very great proportion of whom were females. The pall was borne by eight maidens dressed in white, carrying large bouquets of flowers in their hands. At the grave, the surviving sister was so overcome by the :olemn scene that she fainted, and was with difficulty saved from falling in upon the coffin. The three. remaining daugh ters were suitably attired in mourning for the occasion, which had been purchased with sums raised in very small subscriptions amongst the working classes in the parish in which they had resided. STATE TRIALS. O'CONNELL v. THE QUEEN (IN ERROR). Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said, the first question to her M a j es ty' s J u dges na mely pwraospotsheids,by their Lordships :—" Are all, or any, and if any, which of the counts in the indictment bad in law, so that, if such count or counts stood alone in the indict ment, no judgment against the defendants could pro. perly be entered upon them ?" The answer to this question would depend upon the consideration whether all the counts of the indictment were framed with that proper and convenient certainty, with respect to l r fy ta 'c i oi n fn , sa o pn r iyra in oc apt a manner have availed themselves Pwhich the such counts indictment up on a l t aowa h sf wee that hehraeeftair substance atuereeddde. f o ne f,nsodotrha insufficiency lun e o tno c sods h feo a m, u r tub g i hgnt e eehe dte o de murrer, there was nothing to prevent them from hav ing the same advantage from the objection upon a writ of error. To constitute the crime of conspi racy, it was necessary that two, or more than two, should agree to do in effect an illegal thing, that is to effect something in itself un lawful, or to effect something which, though in it self lawful, was sought to be brought about by un lawful means. That it was an offence unknown to , the common law, and not first created by the statute of the 33d Edward I. was manifest. That statute spoke of conspiracy as a term at that time well known to the law, and professed only to be a definition of conspirators. It had accordingly always been held to be the law that the gist and the effect of conspiracy was the bare engagement and association to break the law, whether any act in pursuance thereof were done by the party or not, King v. Edwar.is. No serious objection appeared to have been made at their _ _ Lordships' bar against the efficiency of any of the counts prior to the Gth. Indeed, there could be no question but that the charges contained in the first five counts did amount, in fact, to the legal offence of conspiracy, and were sufficiently de scribed therein. There could be no doubt but that the agreeing of divers persons together to raise dis content and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of the Queen, to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to promote amongst her Majesty's sub jects in Ireland feelings of and hostility to wards her Majesty's subjects in other parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in England, which charges were found in each of the five counts, which first occurred in the indictment, did form a distinct and definite charge in each against the separate de Pendants, of an agreement between them to do an illegal act. It, therefore, became unnecessary to consider the charge of conspiracy to do other acts which were alleged to be within the scope of the agreement. With respect, however, to the sixth and seventh counts, in the form in which they stood upon that record, they all concurred in the opinion that they did not state the illegal purpose and design of the agreement entered into between the defendants with such proper and sufficient certainty as to lead to the necessary conclusion that it was an agreement to do an act in direct violation of the law. Those two counts did in substance state in each of them the agreement of the defendants to have been to cause and procure divers subjects to meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby, caused, arid by means of the exhibition and demon stration of great physical force at such meetings changes in the government, laws, and constitution of the realm. Now, though it might be inferred from thee counts that the object of the defendants was, probably, illegal, yet it did not appear to them to be so alleged with sufficient certainty. The word "intimidation" was not a technical word, it was not vocabula mortis, being a necessary meaning in a bad sense. It was a word in common use, employed, on this occasion, in its popular sense, and, in order to give it any force, it ought at least to appear, from the context, what species of fear was intended, or upon whom such fear was intended to operate. But these counts contained no intimation whatever upon what personsthis intimidation was intended to operate. It was left in complete uncertainty whether the intimidation was directed against the peaceable inhabitants of the surrounding places against the subjects of the Queen dwelling in Ireland, in general against persons in the exercise of public au thority, or against all the subjects of the realm. They were looking to the obtaining of these changes by the exhibition and demonstration of large num bers, without looking to the using, or threatening to use, such numbers against any person or bodies of her Majesty's subjects, seemed to them (the Judges) to be simply an exhibition not intended to be carried fur ther. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh counts the Judges all I concurred in the opinion did sufficiently charge the defendants with agreeing with others for purposes which were in violation of the law of the land. He thought it unnecessary to state authorities for the opinion that the agreement of the defendants with others to weaken the attachment of her Majesty's subjects to the lawful institutions of her kingdom, to bring the laws into disrespect, and to supercede the lawful tribunals established for the administration of justice, was an agreement for purposes contrary to law, and was rightly charged, especially in the 11th count. As to the 6th and 7th counts, the Judges had no doubt that they were bad in law, and that if they stood alone, a verdict for the defendants would pro perly be entered upon them. The next question put to the Judges by their Lordships, "Was there any de fect, and if so, of what nature in the finding of the jury, and the entering of that finding on the record?" On this question the Judges were all agreed, that the finding on the first, second, third, and fourth counts was not supportable in law. In respect to the first and second counts, they held the finding to be bad, on the grouud that the jury found the eight de fendants guilty of a joint conspiracy on each of these counts; but they found certain ones of the eight guilty of other and separate conspiracies under the same counts. The finding was bad as to the third count, because the jury found three of the defendants guilty of all the charges, all the defendants guilty of certain other of the harges ' and all, except Thomas Tierney, guilty of others. On the fourth count they found that all were guilty of all the charges except Thomas Tierney, who was guilty of part only. The reason of the Judges for that opinion was that there was only one unlawful agreement charged in the in dictment, and therefore the jury could only find one unlawful agreement on each separate count, for al though it was competent to the jury to find them guilty of different acts on different counts, it was not competent for them to find all the defendants guilty of one unlawful object, and some of them not guilty of other unlawful purposes, charged in the same count, for this was a finding of several conspiracies on a count which only charged one. In the case of the King v. Russell the de cision was strongly in support of this view, for it was ruled that where only one offence was charged the jury could find the defendant guilty of that one only. The Judges, therefore, were of opinion that the finding in the present case is not authorised by law, and was incorrectly entered on the record. The third question was, " Whether it was the opinion of her Majesty's Judges that there was any sufficient ground for re versing the indictment, by means of any defect in the indictment, or of the finding, or entering of the findings of the jury upon the said indictment?' That question to a certain extent comprised the same points as the 11th question; and as there was a differ ence of opinion amongst the Judges on these points, he begged to inform their Lordships that he was about to express only his own opinion in answer to that question. In order to arrive at a satisfactory answer to the question, it was necessary to consider it as divided into two separate parts—first, whether, in an indictment consisting of several counts, and the finding being good on some and not so on others, was 'that finding altogether bad on account of its insuffi ciency as to some parts? Now he held it to be the law, that where the finding is sood in the criminal case upon one count of the indictment, and the sen tence authorised by law has been secured, such judg ment could not be revised on the ground that the finding on the other counts were bad in law. In civil actions, indeed, if some of the counts were good, and some were bad, and yet the jury found a general verdict on the whole, that judgment would be reversed, and a writ • of venire de novo would be issued, because the damages would be assessed on the bad counts as well as on the good, so that the Court could not say how much damage was awarded on the good counts and how much on the bad, in order to do justice to the parties, and to ascertain how much damage the plain tiff had sustained. The verdict was uncertain in such a case, as the count could not refer the damages, or part of them, to the good counts or to the bad ones separate from the others. That was the rule of law in civil cases, but it had been always considered attended with great inconvenience. In the case of Grant and Assop, Lord Mansfield lamented that it had ever been established; and, in another case, the same eminent person drew a distinction between civil and criminal cases upon this point, and laid it down that the verdict in criminal cases should stand good, even if it were found upon only one good count.—(He referred to Cooper, 175.) That decision of Lord Mansfield was lately confirmed in the Court of Queen's Bench, when it was ruled that if one count was good and others defective, that might be taken to lessen the punishment, but it could not arrest the judgment. In criminal cases the jury have no other question but whether the accused be guilty of the charge in the indictment, and they have nothing to do whatever with awarding a personal punishment or assessing a fine, which was the pro vince of the Judges only, whether the punishment was fixed by statute or discretionary. Thus uncertainty and confusion arose in civil suits because no assessments of damages could occur in criminal cases in which there was only one offence of which the accused could be found guilty, and in which punish ment could be awarded, whether it was fixed or at the discretion of the Judge. Therefore, in the nature of the thing itself, he saw no reason or principle for which the judgment in criminal cases should be reversed by a writ of error, in consequence of some imperfection in some counts. The practice of framing an indictment on several counts was not known to the ancient law in criminal cases, but it was well known that the intro duction of several counts was not for the purpose of charging several crimes, but for the purpose of pro viding for the complexion which the case might as sume in evidence, and to prevent the escape of the criminal on account of a misdescription. In the case of a prosecution for cutting and maiming there were now usually introduced two counts, the second charging the accused with the less aggravated offence, but the corpus delicti was the same. But if upon one good count the defendant was found guilty and sen tenced to imprisonment with twelve months hard la bour, which was a discretionary sentence, that judgment would not be reversed, and the of fender be discharged from all punishment be cause one of the counts was irregular. In that case the prosecutor was not allowed to have his -election, as in a case o f felon y , but the trial might prowed, and evidence might be opposed for the several, offences distinct from each other. But the consequences, as far as they related to the present once had taken place, and, therefore, he felt hound to subject of inquiry, appeared to be the same both as answer that question in the negative. The Bth ques to the charge of felony and the charge of misdemea- tion put by their Lordships to the judges was, " Whe flour. The amount cf discretionary punishment as ther there was any sufficient ground to reverse or vary pronounced by the Judge, whether it were for a single the judgment on account of the sentences, or any, or offence, described differently in various counts of the either of them, passed on th e respective defendants, indictments, or divers and distinct misdemeanours regard been had particularly to the recognizances re charged in different counts, the discretionary punish- : quired, and to the period of imprisonment dependent ment, as awarded by the Judge, stood in the place of i on the entering into such recognizances ?" Now, the fixed punishment in the case of felony. A Court •on this question the Judges saw no ground for vary of Error had no more right to presume that any part I ing or reversing the judgment on account of the of the discretionary punishment in cases of misde- 1 sentences pronounced. The defendants had, under meanour was awarded, in respect of evi- their sentences, the power to enter into their recogrif • dence contained in cases of felony, than they zances, and thereby shorten the term of their sentence, had to presume that the fixed punishment given on a and it was to be presumed that at the time the Court defective count was supported by a valid count. It passed judgment, it took care the defendants should had been argued at their Lordships' bar, that all in- I have time enough to enter into their recognizances. stances which hail been brought forward in support All the Judges concurred in agreeing, therefore, that of the proposition that one good count would sup- , the Bth question must be answered in the negative. port a general judgment on an indictment, The 9th question was, "Whether there was any suf were cases in which a motion for arrest ficient ground to reverse the judgment on account of of judgment had been made, and not cases in the judgments in the assignments of error c oram which a writ of error had. een brought. This I nobis, or any or either of them, or of the matters might be true, for as far as had been ascertained there stated in such assignments of error, or any or either was no single instance in which a writ of error had of them ?" Now upon this question it was to ever beeis brought to reverse a judgment on an in- be observed, that the error assigned in the writs dictment on this ground of objection. But it was a were, with the exception of Steele's, the same. In fair circumstance for refusal by the Court to arrest the case of Steele, however, the error assigned was the judgment where such arrest was brought on the that the indictment was not properly found, because ground of some defective counts appearing on the it had not been stated on the back of the bill by the record, and assigning by the Court as a reason for sheriffs that the witnesses had been sworn. Now, such refusal that one good count on which the judg- with respect to the error of fact alleged by all the ment had been entered up afforded the strongest other traversers, the answer the judges returned to argument that they thought the judgment which had their Lordships was this, that the - statute of Victoria, been entered up was irreversable on a writ of error, in that re-pect, repealled the former one, and that the fer such answer would not otherwise have been course pursued by the Court of Queen's Bench in given. It would have had no other effect than Ireland, with respect to the swearing of witnesses, to mislead the prosecutor if the Court had been was in accordance with the opinion of the judges. sensible at the time the judgment was entered On this point they thought the decision of the Irish up that it would afterwards be reversed on Judges was correct. From the preamble of the A ct, a writ of error. This opinion was supported in refer- it might be expected that the alteration about to be ence to the case, King v. Fuller, Ist Bosanquet enacted would be gener a l, an d w i t h out except i on, an d and Fuller. It had been objected, however, on the the enacting words accordingly were, that in cases of part of the plaintiffs in error, that if the judgment indictment where bills were to be laid before a grand were allowed to stand whilst there remained defective jury in Ireland, the Clerk of the Crown at assizes, and counts on the face of the record, it would expose the the Clerk of the Peace at the sessions, should make defendants to some hardships and inconvenience : an indorsement thereon directly, to give this enactment first, preventing them from availing themselves of the its full force that was to make it applicable to all cases, judgment in the present indictment as a bar to a se• those particulars officers must be taken to be named cond prosecution for the same offence; and secondly, only by way of example or instances, and not that the the possible difficulty of availing themselves of a par- statute was applicable to those courts only, of which don granted for an offence contained in one count of those persons were the proper officers. It would be a the indictment. If he thought that those conse- novel mode of introducing a restriction in the words quences would follow from holding the present judg- of a remedial Act, to confine it to those courts only. ment irreversable, he would pause long before he The Clerk of the Peace at sessions and the Clerk of the adopted the conclusion to which he had at present ar- Cross nat a , sizes held offices and performed duties an d rived. He could not, upon the best consideration which ag sus to each other, and that construction of the Act re he had been able to give to the subject, discover that ceived further confirmation from that part of it which any such difficulty really existed. As to the plea referred to the oath, for the latter part of the statute aulvefois convict, whatever form of judgment was declared that the foreman of the grand jury should entered upon the first indictment, whether general on not have the power of examining witnesses on oath all the counts of the indictment or special on the good whose names were not indorsed on the back of the counts only, it was not a question which would in any indictment by the Clerk of the Crown, not the Clerk way affect the defendants security. The question on Of the assizes. Upon a reasonable construction of the plea autrefois convict would turn on the form of the statute, they thought that this ground of objection the indictment in the two cases. It would be a ques- was answered. And as to the assignment of error in tion of evidence only, whether the corpus delicti was facts assigned by Thomas Steele, it was founded the same in both cases, for undoubtedly the former on a part of the Act which was direc conviction would be a valid conviction until reversed tory and not essential. He did not think by a writ of error. As to the objection of a difficulty after a witness had been fully sworn and examined, being thrown on the defendants with respect to evi- and a true bill returned on his evidence, that it would dence contained in those counts which were con- deprive an Act of its legal operation that the foreman fessedly valid and not extending to evidence on the had neglected to comply with certain of its directions. other counts, it might be answered that no instance The ninth question they all concurred in agreeing could be found of a pardon being granted after judg- that it must be answered in the negative. The tenth ment, which did not recite the indictment and convic- question put was this—" Is thereany sufficient ground tion. Indeed, in cases of felony the pardon would be for reversing the judgment by reason of its not con void without such recital, and if it was possible to sup- taming any entry as to the verdicts of acquittal ?" pose a case to happen after such recital, that the Crown After a careful search made at the Crown-office, no should pardon not the whole of an offence contained instance of such an entry could be found where a party in an indictment, but the offence contained in a valid was found guilty of one part of the indictment count only, there could be no doubt whatever that the on which he received judgment, and this practice Court before whom such parties were brought to take they thought was in conformity with law, for it ap the benefit of the pardon would discharge them alto- peered from Lord Hale that an entry of acquittal gether when nothing appeared excepting from the quod eat sine die might be entered for the defendant pardon the officers described in counts which were even after a writ of error had been brought. They not sustainable in law. He did not therefore see any were all of opinion, therefore, that the 10th question objection to the judgment in the present case being was to be answered in the negative. Upon the 11 th supported on the good counts in the indictment, and and last question upon which he was on the good counts only. Certainly there was no delivering his opinion only, he had in authority against that position, and the inference to answering the third question, anticipated those obser be drawn from the case of "Young and others v. vations which would otherwise apply. He had already King," 2d Term Reports, was strong in support of .stated that the opinion at which they had already ar that doctrine, and if the judgment proceeded on the rived was, that a general judgment upon the whole good counts only, the whole difficulty was ended. record was not to be reversed upon a writ of error by On the third question, it was not necessary for reason of one or more counts being bad. He had al so him to trouble th e i r L or d s hips at any length. stated his opinion that it would make no difference The effect of a bad finding on a good that the punishment was discretionary. The only count was in reality no finding at all. If the finding portions, therefore, to be considered was, whether w e r e no t suc h as might be sufficient to connect the the entry on the record, being " that the defendant s defendants with the offence charged in any particular for the offences aforesaid be fined and imprisoned," count, the effect as to them would be the same as if was in itself a ground for reversing the judgment. such count did not appear in the indictment. The That to which their attention bad been called to was, bad finding on the good count and the good finding that the word should be that the defendant, " for on the bad count appeared to him to stand on the same his offences as aforesaid," be fined and imprisoned. footing with respect to the validity of the judgment The plain interpretation of these words was this— as they did with respect to the whole record. There such offences as were set out in those counts of the was no legal presumption that the judgment could indictment that were free from objection, and of be arrested on one or the other, and for this reason he which the defendants had been found guilty by a pro offered it as his humble opinion, in answer to the third per finding of the jury. That was the offences in the question, that there was no sufficient ground for re- sth, Gth, and all subsequent counts, and he saw no ob versing the judgment by reason o f an y defect in the jection to the word offences in the plural number. indictment or fi n di ng . The fourth question lie did not think that, in poineof ltw, the words, as P by their Lordships was, "Is there any suffi- they appeared in the record, formed a ground of oh cient grounds to reverse the judgment by reason of jection. He, therefore, thought that this question the matters stated in the pleas in abatement, or any of also—but he offered it as his own humblenpinion— them, or in the judgment upon such pleas ?" In was to be answered altogether in the negative. answer to this question he had been requested by Mr. Ju•tice PATTESON, in delivering his judgment, his brethren to say that they all agreed that the judg- said that there was no difference of opinion amongst ment ought not to be reversed for the their Lordships, except with regard to the 3d and 11th reasons stated in the plea of abatement. questions. The 3d question was whether there was any In answer to that question it would sufficient ground for reversing the indictment by means be unnecesaary to say more than that the law required of any defect in the indictment, or of the finding or that a plea of abatement should be pleaded with cer- entering of the findings of the jury upon the said tainty. This was laid down in " Coke upon Little- indictment. This question appeared to him to con , ist ton.' As this was the rule in civil actions, at least of two parts—the first related to the consequence of the same degree of precision and strict exactness was any defect in the indictment itself; the second to any necessary in a plea of abatement in any proceedings defect in the finding of the jury on the trial. With of the Crown. In the present case the plea failed regard to the first he would take the liberty in many particulars. The names of the unsworn of answering it, together with the 11th ques witnesses, on which the plea was founded, tion, which he took to be in effect the same, were not given in the plea. In the aver- for the only defect in the indictment was in the 6th ment of that plea he did not find any and 9th counts, which were bad with regard to the evidence of other witnesses who were sworn besides 2d question. He thought that the consequences of those alleged to have been examined without being any defect in the findings of the jury were cured, so sworn, and there was nothing to show that those far as they related to the 4th count, in consequence witnesses were not allowed by law to give their evi- of entering a nolle prosequi with regard to one of the dence or affirmation instead of an oath. The conse- defendants, the Rev. 111 r. Tierney. Lie did net think quences, therefore, appeared to him to be bad. The there was any ground for reversing the indictment fifth question proposed by their Lordehips was—" Is with regard to the Ist and 2 , 1 counts, by reason of any there any sufficient ground for reversing the judg- defect in the findings with regard to those counts. Ile ment on account of the continuing the trial in the apprehended it was competent to find the parties guilty vacation, or of the order of the Court for that pur- o f a conspiracy to do a part of a thing, and that there pose ?" The facts upon which this question arose was no variance between such a finding and the count were these, that the venire was returnable on the sth laid. This appears to have been the opinion held in ofJanuary to be continued from day to day, that the case of the King v. Hallibany, 4 Barnewell and being in Hilary Term. Before the arrival of that Cresswell. With regard to the other portions of the day, however, the Court made an order that the issue finding on those counts, lie thought it might be re joined should be tried at the bar of the Court, jected as surplusage. He would now proceed to the and it was understood that the trial should 3d count, with which he would connect the 11th take place on the 15th of January, the day for which question, as lie thought they , were nearly identical. the jury were summoned. On the 13th of January That question was whether, "in an indictment consist an order was made by the Court, which was in the ing of counts A, B, C, where the verdict is guilty of following terms :—" That in case the trial, which is all generally, and the counts A, B are good and the fixed for the 15th of January, should not terminate count Cis had, the judgment being that the defend on or before the 31st of January, that being the last ants, for the offeness aforeosid, be fined and imprisoned, day of Hilary Term, then it shall be continued from which judgment would be sufficient in point of law, the Ist of February and so on, day by day, until the i s con fi ne d ex p ress ly to counts A and B, can 15th of April, or as many days thereafter a s may be suc h j u d gment be reversed on a writ of error! necessary for that purp o s e ." The o bjection taken T h i s was a que sti on w hi c h would he likely to arise i was, that this order was conditional only, and not for i n m any cases in the administration of criminal us an appointment, but for the continuation of the trial. rice. I t see med to be argued that they should act The order, however, appeared to the Judges to be i n cr i m i na l cases upon the practice which took place clearly within the scope and meaning of the Ant, i n c i v il cases, in which, if a verdict was given in a and the power which was exercised by the Court was Court which was bad, the Court could not pronounce well exercised. The statute warranted the Court in judgment in consequence of the uncertainty, and appointii g such day or days as they should think fit. e i t h er t h ere was an arrest of judgment, or upon the au- The trial, therefore, had been very properly con- t h et ity o f a l a te case there would be a venire de novo. tinued in the vacation. The order was sufficient for In criminal proceedings the ver . dic s t u s e v i a l smerely guilty that purpose, and by all her Majesty's Judges or not guilty, and there cases rri nothingc this question was answered in the negative. ena nigeus to an a esessmeti w t 'a o a f datna e.. urt The question, sixthly, put totheJudgeswas,"Whether formed . its own opinion . as to r _th . e judgment, gs . le and no Phis reasening, there was any sufficient ground for reversing the uncertainty could arise. 1 But it there judgment on account of the judgment of the Court fore, did not apply in criminal cases. general_ principles the overruling and disallowing the challenge to the array, .was contended that on or any or either of them; or of the matters stated_ judgment must be held to apply to each count, and such challenge ?" The answer to this questionl de- that the sentence must be held to be the aggregate of pended upon•the principle on which the aw vi a .a ll s ow•edseveral separate , ententes, .one to each count. This the as the first instance in which such a notion had been the challenge to the array. The principlethe presen e t case mooted. w It had been the custom in criminal courts indifferency of the Sheriff. Now, in always to ass . p judgment as a whole. It was there was no indifferency on the part of the Sheriff onl y one judgment. He was not aware alleged, but it was said that the jury-book was not o any case in which a writ of error had made up according to the statute,. and that no less f - was said _been brought in any case of felony on the ground than 79 names were omitted in the list. It the list was illegally and f ra udulen d tlit h ra t ad .t e out, made was n the a e that one of the counts in the indictment was bad ; the challenge of Mr. Steele asser s te alleged a 1 .. against and in cases of misdemeanor such a case should to his prejudice, but no fault was a the materials of the seldom arise, because where separate counts laid se- Sheriff. Then it was said that parate offences, the prosecutor was generally put to u j rv-book were improp erl y com p osed, but that was his election. The defendant might, indeed, be con no ' g round for the challenge o f t h e array. If the de ' • victed on separate counts, but the judgment was ciency in the jury - b ook was allowed t o be matter of usuallypassed on such se orate classes of counts se challenge, the bu siness of ever y assize would he 1 paratelyp but that was no p t always the case. If an , stopped. On the whole , a l l the Judges were agreed • offence were stated in various ways in various counts, that there was no ground for the objections taken, and the sentence was general, and it was the universal i their answer, therefore, to the question was i n th e ' 0 •that •such one good count i pinion, . in cases negative. would sustain ageneral sentence. I n the time _ The next question, the 7th, p u t t o t h e J udges, was, iof Lord Mansfield, a motion had been made g "Whether there was sufficient groun d s to reverse the' judgment by reason of any defect in the entry of con-1 that the indictment contained one bad count, inbut the before the court in arrest ofjudgment, on the ground tinuances from the said trial to the 15th day of April, I : • regard being also had to the appearances of the defers- ' cases, the Court must have given its judgment.in it , court had always declined to interfere. Now, those Boots on the said last-named day ?" Now, with re- to this question, what was the case. Why a trial - rest of judgment, it did not decide if the count was ' general form, for as it did not admit the motion in ae. had taken place in vacation that had commenced in ' bad or not. Nothing could be inferredfrom the man term, and it was said that that was not a ner in which judgment was passed at assizes. One valid proceeding. Now the fact was, the statute pro vided for the continuance of a trial at bar, and in the cided that one count in an indictment on which judgment !case had arisen in which the superior Court . had de present case it never could be said the cause had had been passed at the assizes was bad, but the court ' ceased. The s t a t u t e , by it s own operation, continued did not recommend that the prisoner should be par the cause o ver t o th e f o ll ow i ng term—there was, in cloned, which it would ha v e recommended if the fact fact, a Parliamentary continuance of the cause. All of one count being bad was sufficient to vitiate the the Judges concurred in opinion, that no discontinue j indictment. If the sentence was tuch as might be luring chiubr rarePs tl he last, 00 0 wit • h :h ' r ' c Ra.3l:el :St 1 1 fog big t° ahted ,00° to 1 le) di° .0, 0 0 moo) 1 .1,, 4