The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-08 00:00:00

, THE NEW POOR-LAW BILL: -• ASrightful case has recently occurred at Beeding, near Ilorsham, in Sussex, of accidental poisoning by eating putrescent meat. Some circumstances of that Me, ill connexion with the conduct of the Poor law Guardians of the union in which, Beeding is situated, remind us that we have hitherto omitted to notice the subject-matter ; of the " Second .Report from the Select Committee on Medical Poor Relief, recently issued from the Vote and Paper-office. To speak first,bowever, of the Beeding affair.. It seems that a labouring- man, named CHAPMAN, bought of a farmer, among whose herds and - flocks ,the murrain • had extensively preVailed, the carcass of a cow which had died a few • days before. Cnarmax's object in buying the carcass was—by his own confession—to have fed with it the poultry (!) and the pig !) 'which he- reared around his miserable' hut, in the neighbourhood. The chickens died. The pig, whether it met with 'the same fate, or was slaughtered, was Partly eaten by CITAPMAN and hit family. Alarming Vmptorni having rapidly supervened, , the medical officer of the union was called in, and found that the Wretched family, the poultry, and the pigs all in habited one and the same room, the stench of which was almost fatal to the medical man and those wbo.catne to aid him. The CIIAPMANS were remoied i nto a tent pitched for them at some little distance from the hut;, the meat was burned and buried; and every remedial treatment adopted to save the family from the animal poison which they had too clearly absorbed by_eating. the infected food on which they had for some time subsisted. But these attentions' were vairr. Culrmaic and two of his, children sunk under the effects of their deleterious diet ; and a third child, who laboured Under similar syMptera.s, by the last accounts was_ not likely to survive its brethren and parent. " What renders," says the writer of the statement, " this extraordinary case more astonishing; the.fact that the deceased family have• been buried, and nu.'notice forwarded of their deaths to the' coroner, though we . are informed that the medical officer• has announced it to the Poer-law Guardians of the Horsham Union, in which the parish of- Beeding is included." - four cases'where coroners' juries ittaVe. sat on the bodies, one of which occurred in this very' Kensington Union ; and therefore:it was that I have been dissatisfied, and I 'have a righeso to be, with the manner in which he Poor law Commissioners have thought proper to end this itr quiry ;- and having those dissatisfied feelingi, I thought it a duty I owed to the poor in general to present a pe tition to the House of Commons, praying them to grant what they have granted, a Committee to inquire into my complaint." upoil the whole of this case we are satisfied that it is an organic mistake in the New Poor-law to require complaints of this kind to be carried in the first instance before the POor-law Cominissioners—it is a mere mockery. Their powers should be altogether. administrative ; .. their judicial decisions can never tend to any other result than to bring the Poor-law into odium, and to involve themselves in alisurdities such as those which their Assistant, Mr.. NICHOLLS, perpetrates in his posting reports from Ireland. They have in some cases a positive interest in screen ing the misconduct of their subordinate functionaries —in 'all cases a natural tendency to„palliate it. We cannot understand why the Select Committee should not be prepared to say "that these Commissioners ez ercised an unsound discretion in not making further inquirl" into OSMAN'S case ; still less can we attach the weight of one feather, ,or the value of one strait, to the quasi defence set up for them—that Mr. RYDER was not " authorised" by' the written instructions of 'the Board of Guardians to present his petition, • or to enter, into correspondence with the Poor-law Com missioners. This last • pretension of..imprial up-, _approachability, except after due meremonial. narks of office, is exquisitely !ridiculous. 'We have seen it imitated on a small scale by minor "cOm tnissioners" clothed with a tenure of office ,adroitly expanded by them—for the public good, of course from a two years' duration into one of. four; but We have never seen the Fum-Ho'grandeur of Chinese irresponsibility so amazingly acted as, on certain oc casions, it is at SonierSet.House. ' A VISIT to .the CONSPIRATORS. A letter in the Nation affords a striking picture of Mr. O'Connell and-his companions. The visitor says—. " I met the Great Man in the garden, - walking with his' gifted daughter, Mrs. Fitzsimon, and followed by a bri gade of her sons, as manly. and gallant-looking boys as I ever beheld. I never saw anybody look less like a beaten man, or more like a Conqueror. I was• most anxious to hear of his health and habits ;: for a sedentary life . would inevitably ruin the constitution of a man who has done more work to his own hand,' than any man in Europe. Both go on as they ought. He rises -in .the.morning abOut seven o'clock, and walks an hour in the garden '; hears mass at eight, and breakfasts at nine. From ten till .twelve• he usually devotes to his papers, and - late* and the mid-day of. all the visiting-days is fully Oct:Tied • with his friends.'" He dineS with the other t Conspirators' at five o'clock, and giVes the evening to exercise and reflection, or to reading. While I walked 'about the gardena he was waited imop by a Catholic Bishop frOm a distant colony of England, an-Indepen dent. MiniSter, AM:aMunster, a Stipendiary Magistrate, .a Presbyterian Deputation from Banbridge,:. the Mayer of'Cork, a poor Christian-Brother, who.stole a day from his: enerous- labours.to see • the Liberator,' a Birming ham merchant, and an artist froM Belgium, who came to the country to make an•Jdatorical picture of the int prisonment" , The visitor addressed himself to Ray—" As he is coinptroll6r - of the konSehold, I qaeationed him whether -the extraordinary repOrts flying through town, of .pre, seats arriVing to,the, prisoners .by every coach from the country, .were. true.. ! Take yesterday • for -example,' said ;he. _'.ln the. morning we breakfasted off a table •covered with .damask, from the looms of Mr. Reed, of Banbridge, who had just presented a table-cloth of ex quisite beauty, ornamented with the aims of Ireland, and the insignia of repeal, to each of the conspirators.' We . had • gunpowder tea from Raheny Cottage, sugar from Castiebagget; and barnbracs from Town-councillor Andrews. Af dinner . we had fish 'from the Bishop of Waterford and Lord' Cioneniry,, and fruit for; the dessert, .from the, garden of the .convicted conspirator,' Father , Tierney,..clownin the.hlack.North. This is one day—you may imagine therest, and guess whether we can hegloomy with sympathy- coming .home :hourly to our-door.' As I passsed-the gate,. the Governor, Mr. Purdon (whose' name the• French papers • have, by a happy accident, blitnderedinto Monsieur Pardon , . )r just arrived on a hack car, 'and - I" witnessed the most" characteristic scene ofthe 'day.' 'Here, my boy,' said the Governor, who is a frank, good-humoured looking man of about fifty, here is your fare; and you earned it' honestly—you did not. spare' your whip"-cerd.' The driver put -.it away haitily with his hand,. and indicated that he would' not haVe, it. • What !: cried: the" Governor, do :you re r fuse aoarly double your regular- fare?. -How, much do you want?' Nothing,. sir,' replied thoyoung patriot, but . .the pleasure of serving your honour, who, they tell roe,-ii so kind to the Liberator: " 0f,., course, we can 'reason only on the allegations, before us' as we find them in the, Hampshire Inde- Pendeiit: . Zit, assuming them to be true, as we are • bnUnd-. to, dq, we should say a most flagrant case of neglect of dutyis established against the functionaries in questiOn ; and, we. are sorry to add, an additional. evidence supplied of the miserably deficient machinery of our very costly ' and very clunisy poor-lawadmil. nistration. - It 'must not 'be fOrgotten'that this is by no' means - a 'solitary case of official .neglect, in re ference to the last sad_ scenes .of a,. miserable pauper's •existence: We mean neglect of: those_ guarantees . which, so far' as solemn and, 'public _investigation into the causes of any-individnal death can supply them, the law has scruPulOuslY prov i de d f o T the . pro tection .Of the . pauper as well as of .the aristocrat . This case of Ch irmAx and hiS children has, however, "e redeeming feature in it at least .. The succour of the medical officer of the union was prompt ; his at tentios' sustained; and • his removal of the unhappy .. People to a tent at once humane and considerate. -, Very different_is the_ impression with which we arise from a perusal, of the evidence attached to the Second Report • . of the •Select Committee *before us. ~ .to this' Committee, " A ppointed to• inquire into the ° tie of administering Medical Relief to the Sick °l3l under, the. Provisions of. the Poor-law Amend taent Act," had been "referred the petition of Mk. Jon -U 1-% -1 , RYDER, of Sloane-street; Chelsea."_ The l'e Ikn't itself is sufficiently brief. . ' , t • tea Your . Committee have examined several witnesses ,It:ting the case of Henry Osman, which . waS - b!onght il set e e ,oleir consideration : : the testimony Oven in evi . _ Disi t ,- 18 Very : conflicting. , Your _oeinuttee are of 0 to, ei6'"' that there was irregularity, on the: part of the otivi e 7 officer of the , . Kensington Union House, in L nledi em ttmoved the said Henry Osman : .withoiit a „late w i tb rtifieate in writing, and without having seen i..;0 1412 . - ; !Lo twenty-four hours of his removal ; but your .Qol , zi . !ttei are not prepared to" say that the Poor ! law ale ill ' s sonera exercised - an unsound discretion - in: * not; .„„ I ng further inquiry into the . case -of Henry Qaman.' .I.Nl ow state the c a se - o f H ENRY OSMAN' is very clearly desire 4 of l'Y Mc,' MiI:IRK himself, in answer to !the then;-.: -- Committee that he should desCribe . it to "I felt it my duty in . . . - , complaint before the' the . month of July last, to lay a lua'evinee, I suppose'. Poor-law Coniinissioners, in whose grievances of ' this kini pectiliarly, 2_ 1 , 19 ,.. and whose. duty it is to investigate complain 4 ; -.Lithe complaint is this: that on the 14th of July!lavt Year, a pauper, named Henry . Osman, aged 56 years, ,was removed in the most hopeless and helpless state ‘rula the-Kensington to the Chelsea Workhouse ; in fact, when he arrived at:the Chelsea Workhouse he was iii an AhMlutely dy i ng condition ; and there was no medical certificate granted as to the fitness and safety - for his tenlovid, Which; I submit to the Committee, ought to h ave been the case, and which , I think, the Commis konera theMselveS canna for a moment . deny "e lt r c )- 1 1 1*y of;and; in; ad, the absolute necessity of. s a roof that he was this extreme state - ofsickness--inn this dying state,--be died the following.. morning, very; eiltrly, 2. e. about five ' o'clock, of inflammation, of the : u ngs, which I am sure I need not tell the Committee, is " complaint a b ov e a ll - o thers -requiring 'the nicest' and t enderest care before theytemove a man." :: • . The evidence 'of ' Mr. J. B. GYIAZiARONI, the ' M edical officer of the Kensington ,Union, whose e "ClUct has been impugned; we confess by no means r emoves the :impression unfavourable Which - we, on th . s'st public notice of OSMAN'S case, conceived i of it •;) en " 7Y- his own showing he does not appear to have ev ' u l tdered the man to be in at all so .dangerous or and a 'condition as other witnesses (examined), 4 1: as the officers 'Of the Chelsea Union evidently at the time of the pauper's removal. His ev i d ence 'cliff, ''''' appears to us characterised . by a sort of in ' abso lute l47lce tothe suffering'of a patient, amounting to i ni flipp . ancy ; and there is ' a tone of nonchalance eo of answers. to questions relative to the general Whk of pauper treatment in the:Kensington Union, , f o ii 3 in singular bad taste. He is . too pro no 4c lly,Prefessi o nal to know anything ' on any subject i° : within his awdiMmediate duties ;,.and he thinks I : l B ufficient r e ply to an imputation on the , ,manage !ntnf the one workhouse in allowing a pauper to be lia(r if - di,. •ed thence to another Workhouse in a filthy con-. "° ll , that th e . man h a d had . -- a bath at the former when he first wentin. .. Cl i l t has been stated that when he arrived at the g tat s .., e a"'Workhonse hia rson . was in a very filthy e r-I have no reason to believe that it so. th e 1 great care taken of- their personel - cleanlieess in n, K ensington Workhouse ?--- , -Yeit ; on 'their admission 1 1 - "-Y always have a bath." ' .:•' . .' . tit fro m li . the ,evidence of the RelieVing=officerof the , e ! l sington Union, it is clear that. Mr...GuAxzAxozyi a ‘4 ,._ guilty of a positive neglect of duty, in not 'giving " ir , itten order or certificate for OSMAN'S removal.... . . — - , , • .dr i _When the medical of fi cer gives his' certificate to the 't-iiiii;:itisirtir '!ItTItONAGE. — A rumour is afloat bisvcx that the recipient may be removed with care, after Unit, -in consequence of the difference be tween . Mr. blo u a a r ning the conveyance in which he shOnld .13e .:re- Milea and the Goverement on the Seger Duties Bill, the 11 144 , I do not think it necessary that the.medidal t Hri4ol Tory party have' unexpeptestlylound themselves gl e es 4 hould be immediately present"at the tinie; if he denuiled-of-local paliiinage.. : , This may , he true, or , it 4, 3 - a Written statement to that effect.' . . matnot:_i ..but .. it . mab e stated, in'ilart Confirmation of illit er „ t 't Upon this occasion he did. not give a written the correctness of the" report, that the o ffi ce of weigher rt h -4 nit '?--No, he did,not" at the Oustom-house,Bcistol, has been filled up, on the . ti n , t l e surgeon of theUnien=h9* at , Chelsea (lip- recommAidatioo, of . tk ii *epber• forShrewsbury,by a coßrightonhas deposes having found. OSMAN in. almost_nn h o .._ 3r . to , native of.triat town ; a d that a . na tiv e been appointed to the - office of tide-waiter here, on the st : t r after his. reception into that house pi a; dy ing ;rec6iiirkendation'of . one of the Members „for Brighton. re s--- rapiilly sinking.: ' The "master _ of this house The': appointments ..are.not,..certitinly, of much import irkonstrated with the men Who brought him f r 6 in ariee„ hut. "straws thrown , a p,t ? w,. w jli F ii way the wind ' l en Sin g t ou • : • .. ' •• linii,in , 13lows.''—__VriaraN.O.'6144, ... ., . s tiet , on the .impropriety of .removing _ LIVERPOOL FRIDAY.—Iiii man who committed co ," a State as he was, before he - assisted to help hi •m so' many ,hordble atrocities op (itili . hoard the.-,• Saladin, 407 vl'bnf the c ar t. Th e female nnurse. ,(MARGARET DA- counts of, which .have . been published in all the papers, A - c!ti) deposes to the fact that she and others put ,was well known in Liverpool. His wife lives here at .„ s'sistA. x t ' . , -., present, and 'haibeen a resident of the town ' for some I l i tu co bed immediately, because - they thought , rears. They did not reside together for a long time filth in a dying state ; and she deposes likewise to the -past •; but he allowed her Os. aiv eelc-, which she received 3' c ondition of hi s person and his clothes ; the a , t the parish o ffi ce. Upon • being made acquainted with latte r,ed of which were obliged to be ' j i nn i' o c t . A i t o y d e ... his. tragical deeds on board the Saladin, she, manifested rnY little or no surprise, as she hid ofien been subjected to 4 1 , 2 ...__• The evidence of male • nnise-,,(JAmEi ill-treattient at his hands ; but she expressed much eon (l7win ON) is still more stringent and pireeise" to the Cern' at ,hearin of the fate og. her unhappy son, who, .it con 4yin g condition 'Of .the, , Will, be ; recoll ec ted , wax thrown, :overboard: after the tart. -' .1, . father, q uarai :lr 4YDRR,.'the Cli . a4rman 'of the ',of : • . .'. •' . -• . An accident, which has proved fatal in its results, p oor. , ht At. Chelsea, _brogght this case before .the, ;occurred to a boy named Lund,' at the .' Marylebone %al . law Commissioners, struck by theentry on •the• Theatre; on 'Friday night. • The boy was , engaged in at b 18 ' 4 'U - took of the' WorkhOuse' th 4 the s ilan had. tending to a . water piece, entitled the Water Fiend, in e elt. remove • • .•, ' - • . • • ' which there is a large fall of water, He was carried liattlrall 4 ul a . dying atate.. , : Ile, complains, ' overthe'fall, and in descending received such injuries as rah. : Ye4.9ugh we think, that 'the P oor-law Conn .caused his death on Saturday night. . . . -.es kers - .• • - - , , , . .....• . Ow! Gzu ro RD SusrEragoni -RatiiGE.—Qn Friday, se) , they 0 9r instituting whet , 44 1i ,,,,,,„., . - wooden cradles were placed at each of the pillars in the I, with'great submission, - el_ ....i _ . _ Aght to have centre of the river, for the' men to work in, in fi xing the done, an invest into this c hains acres the river, - for, the Suspension Bridge. The tilted instead of A public • iuquiry„ which was what' I _whole of the iron works are ready, and it is expected to be ( arta T .L . 0f . ,. and which would.' have satisfied all parties completed by theist of August. for tishi n lnlnk there was. nothing . unreasonable in Joy RAILWAY TRAVELLING TO LIVERPOOL.—SeveraI uo t i4 , a public inquiry, and being' satisfied With, -correspondents of the Tinter have been ' complaining, within trek g 48 0* -the'y get from the K e nsingtonll ' . the y •• the arrangements of the Grand Junction Union the last few days, of'.. t„. . . v er y parties thei second - class • - ' 9 g. ha r ----Jaselves,-, whom , -I, Autrger as , Company, which render it impossible for.a pas the,. _ p icated in the removet—a,report with *blob 1 wager tago through from London .to 'Liverpool' without 4- 1 .42". - themselves to. be satis fi ed, 'are and decline :le atopping. . One of them statei that,.start.from Birmingh am , huaton-seu trin ,....‘ !in , / farther inquiry . If this inquiry had been . what time he may, he must remain for hours in Grandunc le tr ; f rit X have every reason to: believe, 'and lam pre- i unlesslie Consents . to pay, first - class fare on the and h ave swear it, that a great deal ofpublic good would ' thin line. The conduct of the Birmingham Company .uis that it ftotn that in ' - .131' - • • 'of the Great Western, who have many second-class , qinry i_pu ic good in this way, • ntr ted with that of the Grand Junction, who kw :would have prevented, I have no doubt, by ; the lg co all o'clock in morning, 4 o'clock in iti k „' • e 't7 : which would have bee :, 0 'two=one at 6 'do ` in stances' f what I n given to it, other the aftensoon. It is A great: pity that this cause of reproac . o r __ . o term gross cruelty. to . the has not long since been removed. • :We are satisfied that , it 4w :f removing them during-their. Au.; " Im mtio Ther•hi, v e fl ea trig i • - • --,-ng az their jack . would tend to the pecuniaryadvantage.of the Grand Junction MON this cas e three or i. Comptuot to make Au alteratiene4eilway Record. -- INTERCOURSE; AMONG) MEN" EN LONDON. On Saturday a meeting of noblemen and gentlemen. connected with Ireland was , held at the Freemasons' Tavern; for the rweroge , of taking into conisderation the best means of promoting social and intelleetnal inter - course - among Irishmen in London. The Marquis of Clanricarde took the chair. Among 'the noble Men and gentlemen present were—Lord Castlereagh, Lord Trim , leston, Sir De n h am Morels, M.P., C o l on el D awson reamer, M.P., Edward34 ,, P Emerson Tennent, Esq., M.P.,. Morgan John O'Connell, Esq" .M.P., Benjamin Chapman, Esq., M.P., „&e. The an nouncement of the names of.several.noblemen and gen tlemen'(among the:former • Lord . Rossmorej, who were unavoidably absent, was made tO the meeting. • They all inthritited their approbation of the objects of the meet.- ing, • and - pledged themSelVes to do all they could to pro mote-111-Use' objects.'" . The Noble Chairman having opened the meeting, Mr.E. TENNENT rose to Move the firstresolition which was to the effect thata society be formed to be called, " The Irish Society," for,the purpose of.pronioting social , and intellectual intercourse among Irishmen, irrespective of religious differences.- The Ben. Gentle Map, in moving this resolution, adverted to' the isolated condition in wbich youpg'lrislimen of. talent found themselves when thef . came to `l,,onden., The evils of this isolation were 'numerous and great. The remedy for those evils would be found .in the , society it was that day in-, tended to form.. Scotland had .a similar society-, so had Wales—and so hadinany of the counties of Eng land; but there was no Irish interest.% -AU that was pro posed that day was :that those friendly to such i s society should enrol their names as members. It - would be for a committee, to be subsequently appointed, to • -frainc the rules and regulations, and ' make the other, necessary preliminary, prepa,-, rations for the constitution .of the society., . It was . intended, in addition to periodical meetings of its mem hers:that there should be One or. two conversasiones during the season, which would be open to all, and-at, which 'there would be exhibitions Or Irish genius, whether 'in science or the arts. - ' There could be no doubt that the effect. of such 'a society ' would' be - to lend 'a helping hand to many . a young man of supe rior talent, .who might otherwise have had no op portuniei of making his merits known to the World. It waa intended that the yearly sum w hich the mem. bers . , will have ; to pay shoutd be two guineas. All "differences in politics or religion were to be buried.in the dust. - They wbuld ,, be wholly:unknown to the . society.. Mr. Emerson Tennent, after some further observatiOns in a similar strain, concluded -by moving the resolution, which,,with several others, 'chiefly of a formal kind, was put and urranimons4e adopted. Ihe treasurer announced that th . 6- had - already' been received in the shape of en trance fees, from' gentlemen who had sent. in their names as members. A. vote of thanks having been given to the Noble. Chairman, the meeting separated. . LONDON, . MONDAY MOR I JULY :6, 1844. !r.t TIE SUNI, MAGAZINES '(CONTINUED). BRITISH MAGAZINE. Y:-~' In this -monthly register of religious and eccleiias tical inforthation, we find, 'among other original con tributions, an interesting account of the •" Labours of the' Early Missionaries in America," together with a series- of just • and - temperate critical notices on some of the most recently published , works of the day. THE STATE TRIALS. (THIRD DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 6. TILE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHER& Their Lordships o'clock this morn ing, to bear the further arguments of Counsel in this case. Counsel having been called in, . The LORD CHANCELLOR (addressing .Sir Thomas Wilde) said he boped he bore in mind that the Judges would have to go on circuit on Wednesday, and if the - case was' not 'concluded so as to enable them to give judpent`before then, the case could not be-determined until next session. Sir TimmAs WILDE said that he fully bore in mind the importance of having the opinion of the Learned Judges, and with that' view he had compressed his ar gument as much as possible. But it would .be impos sible for them to omit anything which they considered material to the interests of their clients. The Lour) CITANCELLOR said he only mentioned it that Counsel might be aware of the circumstances. lb was oily anxious to bring the case to a conclusion, in order that whatever the judgment might be, the parties might have the benefit of it ; but they could• not do that which was imposiible--they could not hear or determine this case in the absence of the Judges, and'if the argu ments were not concluded before Wednesday they must be suspended, in order that the Learned Judges might hvar them.' Sir THOMAS WILDE said they were there to present the defendants' case to their Lordships with all that pro. perly belonged to it, and if they omitted- anything that was:materiel, they would not being doing justice to the parties or to their Lordships, ,for the decision would not be regarded • with confidence: They had as much as - possible 'Shortened their argubents, but they could not omit anything which they considered - material. He 'hopod their Lordships would devise someexpedient. The LORD CHANCELLOR said they could not possibly put off the circuits, because the effect of that would be that a number of prisoners now in gaol would -be set at liberty at the commencement of the circuits. He thought it his duty to state this for his (Sir T. Wilde's) consideration, and having done so he bad stated all that was necessary. _ _ Mr. HILL then resumed his argument, and said, he felt that he laboured under a great disadvantage in ad dressing their Lordships, because he knew how difficult it' was to argue an important case with . an impres -sion ou one's mind -that necessary matter, must be omitted in endeavouring to compress arguments which would perhaps be prejudicial to the interests of his clients. Their Lordships would recollect that when he was interrupted yesterday he cited the case of the King v. Burridge, in 2d Lord Raymond's Reports, p. 1,364, and`also in the Bth vol. of the Modern Reports," p. 245. This. and other cases showed that a party had an undoubted right. of challenging the array. They esta blished the-principle that tbe Courts would not prevent the defendant from exercising his right of challenging the array. He. did net anticipate that. the . right to challenge the array in cases of special juries would be denied. In Ireland thert was a case which was a great authority on that point which had been argued in the Exchequer Chamber before a writ of error, And which admitted clearly the right to challenge the array in cases of special juries. It was the case of Nowland v. King, 1 Hudson and Brooke's Reports. p. 164. In that case the challenge was on account of the unindifferenoy, of -the sheriffs ; but the case of the King v. 'Edmunds • was in that case brought prominently before the Court, and the doctrine laid down in the King v. Edmunds was limited to this point, that there could be no challenge of the array on the ground of tbe unincliffereney of the Master of the Crown-office. The right to challenge the array was the rule. This was the exception. Now he would ask what ground was there here Why the challenge of the array should not have a useful effect when such objection was made to the array itself? In the case of the " Queen v. Fitzpatrick," which had been tried in-one of the Irish • circuits in the year 1838, and which was to be found in 1 Crawford and Dicks, p. there was a challenge of the array, on the ground of vices in making up the sheriff's book. The Chief Jus tice in that ease expressed an opinion against the validity Of the challenge, but reserved the point. As, however, the defendant was acquitted, the point was not raised. In 1839, in the case of the " Queen v. Conradine," 1. Crawford and Dix, p. 56,-there was also a challenge of the array on the same ground. The presiding judge ex pressed an opinion against the validity of the challenge. But' in, both cases the opinion was grounded upon a reason, the force of which he confessed he could not see, viz., that the provisions_ of the Jury Act, 3d and 4th William IV., were directory and not imperative. Before the statute of the 3d and 4th William IY., the sheriff in Ireland was as unshackled •as he had been in England before-the Revolutititr.' There was 'no interposition be tween him and the jury until they eameinto -the box. The sheriff had an unlimited discretion to arrange the panel from any of the inhabitants of the county he. pleased, subject onl,y„to the challenge of the array. After the Act came into operation it became his duty to ar range, the panel from the jury book, and to confine him self to the names found there. He submitted that these ' directions were imperative. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that they- were merely directory— :The .Lone CHANCELLOR—Whatever is directory is: imperative. The question is,.if it is essential. Mr. HALL—Exactly so, Any Lord. I was merely adopting,the language which has been used in discussing this question. The Loan. CHANCELLOR—Whatever is.directed to be done by an Act of rarliamencis imperative. Whether it is essential to the , validity of the act is another' question. • Mi. HILL would adopt his Lordship's term, that the provisions were essential, and use the term in the strictest sense. But he was now arguing the point as if they were not essential. The question was . simply this —had the sheriff, in making the array, acted as a statutable officer, under the Act of Parliament, or according to his common law rights and duties. If he acted as a sta tutable officer; he was bound to obey the provisions of the Act. It could n ot b e sa id t h at t hi s part was merely directory, and not to be obeyed. It was the duty of a public officer, above all others, to attend to every part"of the /let of Parliament ; and when the sheriff arrayed the panel, under the provisions of William IV., the jury book must' be the foundation of that panel. lie there fore Submitted 'that he was limited in the selection of the panel by the statute. If the book ,used was not the book provided by the statute a fortiori—if it was: tainted by fraud—how could it be considered that he had exer cised the powers confided in him by -the common law ? It was charged in the challenge that those names had been omitted by fraud, and the charge was admitted, by the demurrer. Th ey had a rig h t to presume that nine -tenths of the names had been omitted from the book ; and although they might con sider the sheriff was acting as a common-law officer, was it not a crime in the sheriff to take a book from, it. might be, some stranger, in which. the greater portion of the names qualified were -omitted, and to limit his list by the list in the book_a list prepared with the fraudulent intent to injure the parties. He would suppose the case to have occurred hefo re t h e 3 d an d 4ti r o f Willi am IV . Supposing that a party had represented himself as act ing under a statute,:and by colour 'of law, and by that had prevailed.upon the sheriff to act upon a list made up by fraud, the 'sheriff might have acted bona fide, but still he had acted in such a manner as to taint the panel with a vice, and the panel was therefore bad. Now be, sub mitted that the statute was not merely directory, but that its provisions, as regarded' the present matter, were essential, and all must be observed, or the whole was bad. If their Lordships looked to the 11th section of the Act' they would find that it enacted that - the sheriff should not, in answer to a 'Writ of venire facies, return the names of any persons not in the book of jurors for the then current year,. All parties, the sheriff, the coroner, the heritor, and the clerk of the peace, must refer to that book,; in - a subsequent statute, however, it was passed, as it had been found that owing to the provisions not •being understood, in many counties there was not a good jury-book ; and that statute gave power' to act on the jury-book of the 'previous year, and -that if there was no good jury -book then resort might be' had to the state of things as they existed before the - 3d and 4th of William IV. If -it was necessary' for his ease, which it waa not, the presumption would be that theofficers had done their duty, but it was immaterial to consider that view of the case. • - - - . The LORI? CusticEmon--Wh a t was the las t Act to Which you reTerreil, Hill/ • ' Mr. HILL-The 4th and sth of Will. IV., chap. 48, `which was an Act to amend the electing of jurers.in Ire land. Now his argument was this, if it was necessary to prove the provisions of the Act, or if it was essential, he had proved it ; but he might have added the proof h e had already given. This very secti on p tov id e d th a tif the names of persons, whose names were not on . the jury }gook, found their way into the panel, and no objec tion was taken till alter the trial, the trial should not be set aside on that ground. It was ,impossible that the Legislature shouldhave expres se d t h en r will to con fi ne the jury-book ; the sheriff to-11 stronger terms., It was evidently intended, by those who framed this challenge, that where the name was not on the jury -book, the trial should. be considered as bad. _ :The -LoRD CHANCELLOR observed that there could be - no doubt that the names were to be taken out of the jury-book. • Mr. HILL consulered such to be the case, hitt that was . not the opinion of the Judges , in Ireland. As the list was to betaken from the book, it was necessary, to con shier what the, book was. They said that, owing to the circumstances he had stated to the H ouse , th e p r esent was not the, book. Now the jury -book. was the mere copy o f a, list.. given by the clerk of the peace to the sheriff; .and the recorder was to make up the book from, the Collector of . cess•• The Lent CiLtilciii. ol V--Won't it go to this length, Mr; Hill - The willies are to be returned by the clerk of the peace from the collector of cess and then they are hinded to the recorder. Now . suppo s ing that the cess Collector had fraudulently omitted a name, or that one less was liand4l 'over to the recorder, 3 ou must. .go the length of saying.that would vitiate,the book and aupport a challengeto the aday. Mr. WILL apprehended that it would. _He thought that, the great portion of the miscarriage had .ariseir the pmsent, case from. raising the wrong issue. The question here was simply this, —Was th ere a d ocument,. Which was a valid, honest document, furnishing the source from which the I pane_ was drawn ? The LORD CHANCELLOR — there are two questions which yOu ha,ve raised ; you are abandoning.one. You contend that if by accident one name is omitted, that will *Witte the list ; but you allege upon the second that the names were omitted fraudulently, an d w i t h a - v i ew to prejudice your client.. ' Air. `ling, said he ..supposed he was not z fortunate enough to express himself clearly. Yesterday he intended Hmostexpressiy to state that% neither the record; nor he individuallyi,raised that questiOn at all. -1 - . W-was 12-or called upon -to speculate as to how much of disobedience'l to an - Act of Parliament would beendured ; but he con hiriiself to the allegations 'upon the record, which were that - the Party was prejudiced by it, and that the • Hit was tainted' with fraud.; It was here made . a part of ,- the challene,. that it was'l6. the dainage of Mr. Steele. ' It was stated that the'effect was to injure Mr. Steele, and it was stated that,the means were a fraudulent ordis sion of certain names from the panel. The LORD CHANCELLOR—You have a right to pia extreme cases'onhoth sides. . • Mr, HILL 'ay - ailed himself of • that right in inquiring into the nature, extent, and: operation of 4 challenge to an array. Suppose all the names were omitted but one, there would he. something then which called for redress;, and, the remedy;' be apprehended, was the challenge to the array. Even . if the limitation of the panel were honest, it was unsupported by law ; if it were dishonest, he did not see how any question could arise. He would suppose that in this case the challenge would produce the greatest inconvenience. Was that a g,:oodreasori for denying to the 'Stibjeet" this' ancient and most beneficial remedy ? Was it not a far better reason for amending. the Act of Parliament, and preventing it fiorn producing consequences ',Which - were, never contemplated by - the. Legislature:?,.. Let the . Act be amended. As a predeces ,sor of. one ofthe learned,Judges had said, " Parliament was always at hand to rectify mistakes." ' But incon venience' as applied to this particular case, there Was absolutely none. Be made no other imputation upon the Recorder except that' a great default had been coin mitted through his. not carefully stiperintending the list, and the only question before their Lordships Was, what: had been the - effecref that default ? • • The'Lonn CHANCELLOR—You can say - nothing as to 'the eflect or the default, .Ixcense we have not the facts upon the record. Mr. HILL said he.. was in the region of actualities.. The effect.was that there had been a miscarriage; it was the . effect in which be was interested, and not-the cause. He would now. call their Lordships' attention to the judgment delivered by. the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench -in Ireland.on the important point of the challenge to the array, as set forth ip the Appendix, p. 19. The Lord Chief Justice commenced, his judgment by, stating -the. array as it was set forth, and considering the provisions of the Act of. Parliament. .He says that the Recorder is a judicial officer, and that.. some other officers. connected with the subject are mi nisterial. But the. Chief Justice .did not distinguish as to whether the Recorder was acting judicially in the particular point that was under consideration, or whe ther he was not. For he could not consider that some ambiguous expressions which fell from the Chief. Justice, that he would consider the record, after he had adju dicated on each name, and when that portion of his duty had arrived which he is to cause to be done by others, as acting judicially. He could not be acting . .judicially in causing persons to assemble these names together, to put them into a list, put them into a proper form, and have them written out' in a clerkly hand, and deliver them to the Clerk of the Peace. There was nothing very. judicial in this part of his duty, and it was this very part of the duty of, the Recorder. to Which this challenge applied.. The Chief Justice pies on to say, that in the statute no farther proceeding appears in any part of it to limit or control the powers therein mentioned to have been provided, ex cept as specified in the Act, and then desCribes the mode of proceeding. " A party may oppose the claim of a person desiring. to be admitted as a j uror, and it is for the Recorder, exclusively and finally, to make an adjudi. 7 ' cation whether he is to be admitted or rejected." ; Ad mitted or rejected to what ? Not. to the jury -box, hnt to the jury. list. . What Was the course of proceeding in the case of votes for aldermen for the city of London ? Was the wardmote at which the votes were adjudicated .conclusive of the matter. Might not the question have to come before the Queen's Bench ? One . Learned Judge present must recollect a.case in which a long and . expensive litigatioii was carried on for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of certain votes, some of which had been allowed and some had been disallowed by the Recorder, acting as assessor to the Lord Mayor ofLon don at a wardmote in the City. In 999 cases out of a . thousand_ the wardmote might do .all that was requisite, but the thousandth case.. might arise. The Chief Jus tice then .went on to. say: that the Recorder is elected by the Legislature to decide Cases of this description : " It is a high and . important privilege. with which he is so invested,'and with it is in a great measure connected .the flow and fountain of justice, and the purity of the administration of justice." Then the more important the duty, the. more important it became that they should not shut out any means .of examining whether it was correctly. Or incorrectly performed ; and when the par tieschiefly interested in the matter, namely, the parties in the suit, wore not present, how could this 'be done ? After stating that . the Recorder's decision' is final and beyond appeal, the Chief Justice states that " another duty is imposed on him, that is, that he shall make or cause to. be made a new list, arranging the persons according to rapk and property.; and the Act directs, that,in the newlyarranged lists, be shall include all per sons who, on a previous revision, have substantiated their claims before him." ,But he would ask was there anything very judicial in this duty ? The Chief Jus tice then proceeds as follows—" There is no imputation inthis challenge, that the omission which was said to have taken place on the part of the Recorder, was the' consequence of improper conduct malversation, or car ruption—none was nnputed to him. But it was said the Act required he should make out the new lists according to rank and property, classing the persons according to . • Such Order required by the Act, and that he should do so • . with respect to all. whose claims should be allowed., I do not know how far this is to be carried, but if I understand the argument right, they push it to that extent. Here were two dutiei iinp.osed ou the Recorder. First, he is d to revise the lisiselivered to him by the collector, and he-then is to make a new list according to rank and pro perty ; and he was equally bound to have made no omission, but to have included in . the classification of -rank and property, every individual, just as much as he was bound by the Act ,to have allowed or disallowed his claim generally to be received as a juror. Nom; hoW far is that to be carried ? Suppose the Re corder had included every person whose claim bad been alloWed, .suppose be had omitted to class them according. to rank and property, are all subsequent' proceedings to . be' avoided, and to 'be the subject of a challenge to the array, because he has omitted ; 'to follow the directions of the statute in , this one instance? Suppose he did make a classification 'aci.oraing to rank and property, and suppose he admitted , all those-persons entitlettwill it. be contended that he has made a wrong classification, because , _ by the judg ment he has come tp, he has put men worth 2,000/, at the bottom of the list, and.put at the top men not worth so many hundreds. Unquestionably he would have de viated from the directions of the statute, but is that a reason why all those proceedings should be null and void, and why, if a trial took place, it should be in the power of either of the parties to show that part of the Act 'had been deviated from, and that, therefore, the jury panel in that particular case was good . for nothing? If the argument be correct, the consequences must go that length, and I cannot elp thinking that such a decision would be most injurious and dangerous to the community." One of their Lordships had said, that one extreme may certainly be lOoked at ; but they had alSo hid the kind .riess to say, that the other_ extreme may be looked at also: Surely, it was not the mode to arrive at a pat. conclusion—to take* an extreme case on either side ; but' fidence. The Learned Chief Justice remarked that that °fir was not accepted. This fact appears in the , judgment of, the court below, that such an Offer was made, and refused on the part of the -CrOwn. Far be it rom him to presume for one moment that this offer was rejected for any improper purpose ; he merely used it in order to show the bona fides with which the challenge was made. It also appeared from the judgment that this was brought before the Court in a summary manner. The parties did not wait till the proper time arose for making the challenge, which could only be done- when the jury appeared in the box. The Court were of opinion that they had no power of inter fering, that they could not interfere in' that way, whether they could so interfere was not now' the question, but the less power they had of interfering summarily, the more reason there was why they should have allowed the chal lenge. It was said as a reason why the challenge should be overruled, that this was a general list not applicable to this particular case, but to all cases occurring in the current year. Be that so. If it were a list made up with fraud against all the suitors of the case, or a class of the suitors of the Court, whose. suits might come - in during the year, instead, of being a weak reason ; he should have thoueht it a strong reason for allowing the chal lenge to the array,. for, be it recollected, the mode in which the party might avail himself of the defect in the panel must be by challenge. -But it did not at all follow from there being a challenge to the' array in this case, that there., would be a challenge in any other. But, with the greatest possible humility to their Lord ships,be must be permitted to protest against the sup position that their Lordships would entertain such a question. Their Lordships would not entertain such a motive as inconvenience for one moment. • If incon vefiience arose to the course of public justice from their having their challenge allowed, let the Legislature find the remedy, but let it not, on any account, be done at the expense of justice. He (Mr. Bill) did not think himself justified in detaining the Right Hon. Route by com menting on the . judgments of'the two pnispe judges, who agreed in opinion with,the Chief Justice, but lie would call attention to the judgment of the fourth judge. namely that of Mr. - Justice Perrin, , who was of opinion • that this challenge ought to have been allowed. The' judgment of that learned and emi nent person appeared to him (Mr. Hill) to ad vance arguments Which were well worth the serious consideratioa of that Right Hon. House. That Learned Judge seemed to consider that the words which he (Mr. Hill) in a former part or his. argument had cited of the Lord Chief Justice, might either bear a different construction, or the, reporter might be wrong. Mr. Justice Perrin then called the attention of the Court to the nature of the allegation made. He said the Re corder knew no more of the error committed than he himself did, and therefore there was not a shadow of ground to suppose but that he had been imposed upon. Yes; he was unfortunate enough to allow somebody to impose upon him, and what was the result of that? It appeared in the judgment of Mr. Justice Perrin, who appeared to him (Mr. Hill) to 'address himself very closely and ,logically, to the real question. What was the result of the matter? That the general list of the Recorder was, by some means or another, an inaccurate list. The Recorder, then, was a merely ministerial officer on 'that occasion, and was no more answerable for that error than the Learned Judge himself. Then he went on to declare what the nature of the allegation was to which he (Mr. Hill) had already called the attention of their Lordships. An error . had been made in that part of the proceedings, which was of the most important character to the interests of the parties accused. Why should it not be corrected ? What possible reason could exist that the error should not be corrected ? What a monstrous Act of Parliament must that be which de prived an officer of the power of correcting his own Ministerial error? But it was said the challenge was a novel one, and founded on an Act of Parliament of a very recent date. He (Mr. Hill) could not suppose for gne moment that because au ,Act of. Parliament had been in existence onlyten years, it was to be set aside because of some point of form. The real question was, not what was involved or not involved in form, but what was the principle of the Act, and had that principle bedn re spected and complied with? Mr. Justice Perrin had strongly and eloquently laid it down that he could not see any objection to this ministerial error in the jury list being corrected ; and he (Mr. Hill) had every con fidence that that Right Honourable House would take precisely the same view of the .question. But he (Mr. Hill) would not weaken the effect which he was sure Mr. Justice Perrin's judgment must have made upoa the minds of . their Lordships, by adding anything to what had fallen from that, eminent person on the sub ject of challenge, but proceed very briefly . to notice another point which struck himas being most important. Their Lordships had heard much argument upon the effect which would be produced if only one count in au indictment was good, or, rather if there was an indict ment with one good count in it,' containing also counts which were held to be bad. He would not urge that point ; but, would implore that Right Hon. House not to decide as to any supposed practice,. Practice, it should 'be recollected, was at all times a mode of administering the law to be watched with the greatest care and anxiety. 'What, was the memorable answer of Chief Justice Pratt in the great case respecting the use of gelittral warrants? The practice, from the time - of the Revolution down to the period of the action, was vouched to show the right of the Secretary of Slate to the use of general warrants. The submission of all parties who had been made the subject of those general warrants was strongly argued in Court. Their Lordships would recollect what was the answer of Lord Camden. He said, "It is the submis sion of poverty to power." And that observation em phatically applied to the present case. He (Mr. Hill) had made inquiry as to what was the cost to the parties in this cage of the volume which lay upon their Lord ships' table. He spoke of no other expenses ' such as procuring copies of various docu m e n t s , p a yi ng fees, &c.; but he merely alluded to the printing of this volume, and the expense of that alone was 4001. Was that an answer to the observation that 'difficulties arose in the way of writs. of error in criminal cases? Their. Lordships knew that that item, heavy .as it was, sunk into insignificance, compared with the many other items that would be found in the billof costs to be brought against these de fendants. It was a question of poverty, and not a ques tion of the parties being convinced by their law advisers that they had no remedy,. In many cases parties were punished, and the punishment was at an end before it was possible to ascertain whether they had been rightly or wrongly convicted. How frecjuently did cases arise in which points of law were submitted to' the considera tion of the twelve judges, and this proved that there was no real remedy upon writs of error in ,such cases. Lord CAMPBELL—We will suppose that an indictment for murder contains several counts, which is frequently the case. How is the verdict entered ? Is the verdict of guilty entered on all counts ? lam supposing that the judgment, for some purpose or -another, is formally drawn up. I remember on the Oxford Circuit a case of this kind, Miss Blandy's case, but I do not recollect whether on the several counts in the indictment verdicts were entered. Strictly speaking, if there is only one felony upon which evidence is given, a verdict of guilty can only be entered upon one count. Mr. HlLL—That a verdict of guilty should be entered on only one count is our argument. Lord CAMPBELL—The judgments were always extremely shoat, there being no fee to be paid for them according to their length. Mr. Hu.L—He was arguing to their Lordships that . . this, remark must be made, that the state of facts upon where there was a large question of prop er ty involved, Which the Learned Judge hypothetically argued had no the case was a.difficult one. Persons engaged in such relation to the state of facts in the present case. It cases had generally-property - to !carry them on. But, might be an interesting legal speculation, but which how did this apply to criminal cases? He trusted their might as well be made in the next case that carne before Lordships would pause before they gave effect to the him as in the present. The Learned Chief Justice said,- doctrine that indictments might be drawn with a degree that this was a judicial act which could as well be per- of looseness in the use of terms which had been adopted forthed by an inexperienced clerk 'as by the most in the present case. This was a matter Which had been learned Judge. The . Learned .Judge did not brought for the first time under the consideration of 'say what waa to be the consequence, there their Lordships, and he trusted that this system would was no . list, or a mutilated list, or a list receive a final check by the judgment which it awaited at tainted with fraud from beginning to end. The the Lordships' hands. When he looked at the record, Learned Chief Justice went on to say—" I do not mean he found great difficulty in addressing his mind to- the le qUestiOn - Whether the 'special jury panel may not be - subject, owing to the immense quantity of words contained challenged : several cases were cited, in which it was 'Bo in'the various counts of the indictment. The first count decided :—I do not mean to controvert that, the more so occupied 50 pages of a large and closely printed book. 'tis it "aeeing . not to have been pressed on the Other side. He could not liken it to the three grains of wheat in the But I observe that in those eases a proteit was made, up- bushel of chaff, not that the illustration would fail in helding their right, and nothing was done to remove it. consequence of the deficiency of chaff, but of the ab- It is n6t . berause the challenge was to the array of the sence of the three grains of wheat. His Learned Friend special jury. but becausethe Recorder has not followed had addressed their Lordships upon the sixth count. In a out the directions of the Act of Parliament, and that late case which had occurred in the Court of Queen's some person unknown has had the opportunity Bench, the Court had directed that vituperative adverbs Of making• an alteration in the' lists so returned, should be disregaided. And,prohably, the.Learned,Ttidges the sixty persons vi,hose. names had been allowed In that Court would place vituperative adjectives on the by the Recorder 'de . not now 'stand upon the list." same footing. What was there in this count which da- He seemed to allow by that, that there did exist a right signaled an offence ? Looking to the whole of. this; of challenge ; but Mr. Justice Crampton, in his judg- transaction, - Without having the mind disturbed 'by what meet, gave'it as his opinion that no such. right existed. .Bentham called " dislogestic words," the whole count Thus there seemed to. be some eloobt about the matter was deficient. It was merely an assertion, that certain in Ireland ; he trusted there would •be none in their persona assembled large meetings, which they musttup- Lordships' minds. The Chief Justice went on to say pose to be peaceabie, because, bad there been ground for that " the Recorder was not answerable for that no a charge of a breach of the peace against them, the op blame was imputed to hini' in the way of anything cor- portunity of still further extendingthat immense indict rupt or fraudulent," • But were' there no cases of mis • merit would not have 'been lost Sight of. He found Chief arising, except what arose from fraud ? Might it thrbughokrt the'whole of this indictment a Frenchilied not be produced from want of care or caution ? The fertil - of 'expresaion. - It was impossible to read this in eonsequenees 'Of such want of care o r caution might be dictment without being struck with the wonderful ana worse than where there was corruption or fraud, though loky_ between 'the language in these indictments, and .the parties might' 'not be so much to `blame. Then. the th at.use d d ur i ng the time of the French Revolution, in Chief Justice went on to- say, Theft is no averment In the indictments, if they might be so called, of those dap. •the 'challenge that Re did not, make out the lists accord- H e cou ld a l most suppose that t h ose who • had d rawn up ing to. the Act end' he says that "the Recorde r is not this indictment had - placed the Moniteur Of those days an officer of 'the Court.' He had to de a l with this :before them: The defendanta were charged 'with a de point before' by anticipation, when be called monstration'of physical force. • 'Was that English or was their Lordships' attention to the grea t legal fact it French? This reminded him of a person who wita in. that a challenge-to the array was a remedy before those gieied in France before the tribunal'constituted by the Acts were passed ; whether the Recorder was or was not • National COnvetitiOn;for having usetleertallt manceuvres. an Officer of the court, was of no consequence, because 'Another person was charged tor attempting to denatu-• it was not a contest in personam, b u tin rem, a mere en, ralise, by sowing lucerne instead of wheat. In early times quiry • into • a 'document over which the Recorder had there was a disposition to use figurative language An d control for a certain time ; whether the Recorder was an expressions in drawing up oases of indictment, Black officer of the court or not was immaterial, - because the stone stated:that colistruelqe treason illelllded a charge court bralloling the challenge had the power to get-rid , of attempting to accroncli on the govereip power. of the evil done, whether by th e R eco rder or by any aeeroueh on tbe'foTereigo power, translated 111 other person. • The Learned Judge then asked the • w as a usur pa t i o n o f th e ' prerogative of the c roNte. The question," who is to trybis' (the Recorder's) indi fferefleY. tree .0 f treawil, however, was ultimately prun e d t o rea- Ile is not •here or represented by counsel., ' quo tiOttable dimensions. . They were aPetlitto fined to appeal tion arose froin an entire mistake as to the issue. .T4ere, to the custom of their ancestors ; but h e w i s h ed the the challenge to the array . Ntias'for indiffereecy- 7 -wasthe would always appeal to proper occasio ns _ H e 9 , 41 4.' sheriff represented ? who ever heard of counsel for a . b avci w i,b e d t h a t In all eases of past statutes apelljuStice sheriff in a chafienge: to the array? up. • and wisdenv had been shown bild 'been exhi pealed to their Lordships' experience. . The shell/ .bited in :the statute of tve4sea of Henry the was no party to the issue, and a'challenge to the array that Statute .it ' enacted that rose,on - issue, in hiW or in fact,'between the parties. He eu Overt F t; be proved s to : constitute treason. did not 'wonder therefore that the mind of the CWef What had been the consequence whenever in bad ti Justice came to an erroneous conclusion, because theme a a em pts NIA been made to enlar g e the egnitruetion of was no surer meant of arriving at a wrong oonelusjou ;, the statute of tieas.olra Althoghthose attempts might i n then a inistaii4 Of:::tha issae. heLearned Chief Justice th os e times have b een l egalised -by statute , yet as soon then conitnee'ted! on a proposition made by.oounsel.,fer as those bad tunes had passed aw a y those statutes had the defendant, to put.back the names for the purposes of been swept away, ri nd that venerable statute had rei'' that trial to. avoid all question, and that the array should mained the Corpusjuris 01' the law of treason, lit trusted be as it would have been if those names had formed part their Lordships would ly for the law of conspiracy what Of the list; It was imposSible for the defendants to give their aTIVO§ViTa dole. the kw of treason. He a clearer proof that they did not resort this challenge 'trusted Ai m 4044 , Would so construe the law of for the object Of 'delay, but that they were c4irp,4§ pt peaSpieticy that no man should be subjected to suffering - I pirr . iti *bleb the laW*4lif tt€ol) jilit 4 1 1 - penalties itifigtedV the of I / 9AW cons Nyl cut knowing against what it was he was called to defend himself and in what his guilt consisted. In no other construction of the law could there be any safety. He wished to sa ve a ll part i es who mighthereafter beaccused from the dangers arising from the abuse of the law of conspiracy. He would conclude in the eloquent words which had been used by an eminent- person in another place—" I wish the law not to'he a two-edged sword of fraud and oppression, but the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence." - • Mr. KELLY appeared for Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. T. M. Ray, and Dr. John Gray, and as his Learned Friends who had preceded him had ad s dkeased their Lordships more or less en all the pointe which had arisen in the case, he should be beskAtaharging hi s d u t y b y a d vert • ing principally toAkee points which he thought df vast importance, not' seily affecting the interests of those e. hom he retiresented but as electing the right, knit, and satisfacyie - administration of the criminal law of this country. He would, therefore, proceed at once to state bis first objection, which, if his statement should be sus tained in their Lordships' opinion, would at once appear manifestly fatal to the whole judgment, and that was, that all these defendants had been convicted, and were suffering the sentence of the Court, for a greater number of offences than had been found or presented by the grand jury—for a greater number of offences than they had ever pleaded to, or been heard on, and above all for a greater number of offences than the petty jury were sworn or had any authority to try. He ventured to submit to their Lordships this objection, in the first instance, because if it were admitted, it would be fatal to the whole judgment, and he could not believe that their Lordships would assent to the ex traordinary proposition'which was contended for on the part of the Crown—that if there were one goocteount in an indictment for conspiracy it was sufficient to sustain the judgment, although all the other counts might be bad in law. But even if that proposition were admitted, it would be no answer to the objection which he was about to make, which stood out clear, alone, prominent and unconnected with any other. He could satisfy their Lordships, from a comparison of the counts of the in dictment and the finding of the jury, that these several defendants had been indicted for one conspiracy, neces sarily laid at one time and place, and on one occa sion, and that they had been convicted of three con spiracies, each separate, and were now suffer ing the sentence of the Court on three' con spiracies, each in the indictment bring charged with only one conspiracy. To disencumber this part of the subject from all irrelevant matter, he would limit his observations to the first count, which, for this pur pose, and this purpose only, he would suppose a good and valid count in law. He would make no reference to the defendant who was dead, and they would find"that the count charged eight different persons with one con spiracy to do five different acts, and effect five different purposes, each of which he would assume to be unlaw ful. Their Lordships would find, when the count and the finding were referred to, and he would refer to nothing else throughout the whole record, that the count ,charged eight persons with one conspiracy, and under that count several persons were found guilty, and had judgment passed upon them for three conspiracies. He would not go into the first count at any great length, but he would briefly state the effect of it. That count charged eight persons, on a day and place named, with having been guilty of an unlawful conspi racy to do the following five different unlawful acts : First, to create disaffection and discontent against the Queen's Government. Secondly, to create ill-will be tween one class of the people and another. Thirdly, to effect changes in the Constitution by demonstrations of physical force, for the purpose of intimidation. Fourthly, for endeavouring to bring the tribunals into contempt ; and, fifthly, for creating discontent and disaffection in the army. ' Here the count charged eight persons with one conspiracy to effect five unlawful acts. But the finding of the jury was wholly different ; that found that the eight defendants were guilty of conspiring to do two unlawful acts—to create disaffection to the Government and ill-will and jealousy between one class of her Ma jesty's subjects and another. He would class those two findings together, and call it number one. Seven and eight were found guilty of another conspiracy, a conspiracy of altogether a different character, and other and different purposes—namely, a conspiracy to effect changes in the Constitution by physical force and by intimidation, and also to bring the tribunals" of the country into disrepute and contempt. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are the seven found guilty of the conspiracy to do 1,2, 3, and 4 ? Mr. KELLY-0 yes ; three are found guilty of con spiracy to do No. 5 ; that was creating disaffection in the army, and therefore those three were found guilty of all the conspiracies; 1,2, 3,4, and 5. The LORD CHANCELLOR—That iS to do all ? Mr. KELLY— Yes. The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think, Mr. Kelly, the natural way for you to have proceeded would have been to say three were found guilty of'doing all ; seven were found guilty of doing 1,2, 3, and 4 ; and eight were found guilty of doing 1 and 2. Mr. KELLY admitted that that, perhaps, would have been the better course to have adopted. He would treat such matter separately, to avoid confusion. The Learned Gentleman then read the finding of the jury on all the counts, which has already been given several times at length. Now from those findings it would be found to be apparent that eight persons were charged with one conspiracy only at one time and place to effect those five objects. The whole question then at once arose looking to the terms of this finding, was it a finding, was it' a verdict of guilty of three conspiracies, or of one only ? Lord CAMPBELL—Of one conspiracy and part of another ? Mr. KELLY would rather say one conspiracy, be cause it was necessary to bear in mind the dif ference between the conspiracy and the object of it. When one conspiracy was found, when one unlawful agreement, amounting to x conspiracy, was made, it constituted an indictable offence. The question was, whether it was possible, looking at this finding, to put any other Constru , :tion upon it, than that it was a find , ing of three conspiracies, where conspiracy only was charged in the indictment. He had already reminded their Lordships that every conspiracy must be laid with time and place. In the first count they would find that there was a charge of but one conspiracy, at one time and on one occasion. The first finding was that the eight were guilty of one conspiracy to do two unlawful acts. Was that, or was it not, in itself a verdict of one complete offence—a crime upon which, if the record stopped there, those eight prisoners might have judgment' passed upon them ? He began, thei l, with this :—There was, in the count, a charV.:: against t o eight persons of one conspiracy. One conspiracy wad charged, and the defendants were found guilty of one, and there was nothing to prevent the sentence of the Court from being passed upon thioaa for that offence, Now what followed? There was then the verdict of the jury, that seven of those eight persons were guilty of a totally different and distinct conspiracy —a conspiracy as distinct from the first as a conspiracy to murder would be from a conspiracy to rob a garden. The re cord stated a perfect and complete offence, punishable by law, and within the language of the charge contained in the indictment. The Loan CHANCELLOR—Tho real mode of trying this question would by to turn the finding of the. ju r y into a count, and then see what the count would be_ Mr. KELLY would be quite willing to accept that test, subject only to this observation, that the count would be open to this defect, that it would be one count for three different offences. He undertook to satisfy their Lordships that a count so framed, supposing it not to be open to the objection that it contained a charge of three distinct offences, would be a good count for three several conspiracies. What would such a count be ? It would be that Daniel O'Con nell and seven others unlawfully attempted to, create disaffection, and did unlawfully and soforthe on the Ist of January, 1844, at Dublin, and in the. parish of St. Mark's, unlawfully, maliciously, and so on combine, conspire, and confederate, to and with each other, and to and with divers persons unknown, to bring* the Government and constitution of this realm into con: tempt, and to raise jealousies, hatred, and WI-. will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects ; and also that the said Daniel O'Con nell on the same day, and (naming the six others) at Dublin, &e., did unlawfully combine, &c.. to change, by violence and intimidation, the laws and; constitution of this realm, and to bring the tribunals ot:' this country into disrepute and contempt ; and that the. said Daniel O'Connell did, on the same day (or it might. be a year afterwards) conspire, &c., to spread disaffec tion and jealousies in her Majesty's army. That wouldi be a perfect count, or, to speak in the language of cr minal pleadings, that would be three good counts in any indictment for three several and distinct conspiracies by three several persons. It was an inconceivahle 10%. surdity that five persons should be declared to be guilty and not guilty of one and the same conspiracy. imx—You say that the three who ) 11 . 0 Lord Cam -, found guilty of Nos. 1,2, 3,4, and 5, are found gr; i i ty and 2 more than once. Mr. KELLY said that, according to his dew, those. of three cons who had beepiracies. n found guilty in each findi„g were ' guilty Lord CAMPUF,LL--Then it w(:.ald be the answer---and that more favourable to the r Applicants—that those three were three times found guilty of counts 1 and 2. Mr. KELLY-7ThP.A Is not so ; for eight were found guilty of cons'i; i racy to do certain acts—seven of conspi racy to ~ 1 . 0 certai n o th er acts — and three of conspiracy to ( 1 4 one other separate and distinct act. Lord CAMPBELL—Do you say that they are found guilty of three conspiracies to do 1 and 2 ? Mr. KELLY replied that they .were not found guilty. three times on those two counts. They were once found guilty on those two counts, then found guilty on the fol lowing two, and, lastly, found guilty on the fifth count. There were three separate findings of three separate con spiracies. Suppose there were an Act of Parliament that persons guilty of certain conspiracies should t liable to a penalty of 1001., and if; under thdt statute, certain persons were indicted for conspiring to do severe acts—if some of the persons indicted were found guilty of .some of the acts, others of the same acts, and also of cer-. tai other acts charged—and the remainder were furtheie found guilty of the other acts charged. Now, the /40 being liable to 1001. penalty, would nut the second be liable to 200/., and the third to 3001. ? If it were under such a statute the plaintiffs in this appeal were indicted, would eight of them be liable to the penalty of 100/. each,. seven to 2001. each, and three to 3001 each ? The LORD CELANCELLOR—WOUId not this be the r oost simple way of putting it 2 Suppose A, B, and C, b e i ng intlicteil together, ee in this case, were found guilty conspiring with others to do certain of the acts ehar- 6ed, B was found guilty ofeonspiring, with others, tto certain place, and C was found ; 'and in e same ; other of the acts, in the same 01" ggiitY " 4 : conspiring, conspiring, with the others, to do one other 0..044 * indictable acts. Lord CA,mi•DELte—Although the acts might be as dif ferent !ii their nature RI to storm the Tower, and violato the chastity of a wetnan, The Lonn ettANOXLLOR—You maintain that these findings would bo.of three conspiracies. SIMMONDS'S COLONIAL MAGAZINE. The most entertaining article in this Number is a "Narrative of the late Niger Expedition," which is from the pen of a gentleman 'flamed Monett, and is written in a shrewd andllively spirit of observation. The author'gives a lamentable account of the demo ralised condition of many of the native tribes on the banks of the Niger, and says of the African character generally, that the negro will do nothing without being well paid for it. This is a peculiarity by no means confined to, savages, but is common enough even in the most civilised countries. " Our Note- Book" contains several scraps of amusing information respecting ancient temples in Ceylon, the Red River Settlements, &c. DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE. Captain Sibornes -account of the-Campaign of 1815, which we noticed at some length in The Sun a week or two since, forms the subject of u critical notice -in, the:present Number of this periodical. The extracts quoted by the Reviewer ere copious and judiciously che§en, and his own digest of • the leading features of this-brief but memorable campaign is drawn up with care and skill. In the article headed "Continental CountrieS" 'we have a portrait of the Prussian national chatacter, which the author represents 'in no , very amiable light,. observing, ."The -Prussian with his harder and inoro angular physiognomy, and such a bountiful development of the knowing organs, as well as those of self-esteem, combativeness, and acquisi tiveness, as must doubtless exist if there.he any truth , in phrenology, bears the same relation to the less . arctic German, as in Britain does :the shrewd and energetic north-countryman to the less acute, less pushing, but more genial southron." Of the remain ing articles the most entertaining is the - tale of the "Nevilles of Garrelstown." ' T 4 I 7" S MAGAZINE. This Magazine—an unusual thing with Tait—has not reached us till this day, about four days after. date, wllich will account for our delay in noticing it, and also for the brevity of-our notice. We have hastily cast our eye over -the Number, and find it neither !better nor worse than usual; the best, or at any rate the most readable article is the notice of Mr. D'lsraeli's "'Coningsby," to whose elegance and sp4htliness of dialogue, the Reviewer does every j fistice. GREAT ‘WESTERN RAILWAY. TO THE` EDITOR OF THE SUN. Stit e :4 believe it is not generally known to.the Public that the receipts returned weekly in the public news- Tapers of the Great Western Railway, include the re ceipts alsoof the Bristol and Exeter Railway,.which has 'beeit Sonie;weeks open all the way to Eieter ; the length of both is about 200 miles, and the- one a continuation of the other. As pro Bono patitxr: is your motto, you will, Perhaps, set the public right on this matter. My only object in writing is the circulation of truth ,the public will then lie enabled to appreciate the value of the shares - . ""Yotirs,.respectfully,. A CONSTANT READER OF TWENTY YEARS. Bath, July .5, 1844: - • , CONDITION OF THE TURE TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Sin,--Well, 'the Running Rein case has been heard, and a pretty expositiOn'we have. The black-leg tricks, it turns out, are not confined to little folk, but are prac tised amongst the great ones—yes, the Jockey are not free Trom it. After all this, if any one who is not " in the secret" of the noblemen's and gentlemen's thimble-rig, is silly enough to make a bet (little or much), he ought to pay for -his folly. - Leave the great ones to juggle and fleece each other. Since Lord B. deelared, 'some time ago, against a certain great' stable, there has. been nothing' but a war, of villainy, and the robbing of honest turf men has been infamous.—Tours truly, .; • • FAIR _PLAY. P. S. The conspiracy" amongst certain parties, w hieh has long existed, has been very plain to me, and Many others, nodoubt,: for some time. RUN ,UPON THE J3ANk OF ENG ., . LAND. L p• - TO THE , EDITOR OF THE SUN. "Sir Robi.rt -Peel admits that the Bank of England may issue notes to the amount of thirty millions—six-; ten millions on bullion fourteen Millions on Govern ment debts, &c. ,The deposits exceed, hirteen 'millions. I repeat a question I have put in a former letter. If a panic should arise, and the depositors Withdraw thirteen millions of gold, how are the thirty millions of notes to be cashed ?' —Letter signed " Common Sense," in The Sun of June 27, 1844. Siu,—What a very curious fbncy . 'of your corns . pondetat, "Common Sense," to imagine a panic with 29,000,000/. of bullion in the toffer of the Bank of England. If the proposed Bank Charter Bill should-be carried 'into effect, that law must 'be iiifYinged, if there be not 16,000 ; 0001: of bullion in the issue de partment at all times: when there is a circulation of 30,000,0001. of notes ; so that, supposing ,the de positors to have had-thirteen millions , of bullion paid to them from the banking department, there must still - rOrnairy 16,000,0001. of bullion in the coffers of the issue department, if 30,000,0001. of notes be then left in ~c irculation, showing that, if the position of " Common Sense" should hereafter occur, the Bank Must , — , previous to the payment of thirteen millions of bullion to the depositors, and yet having 30,000,000/. of ..notes . 'in . circulation— be in possession 0f,'29,000,060/., of 'bullion immedi ately previous to the payment, of the depositors, 9,000,0001..,, in, ; the banking :. department, and 16,000,000/. in the issue department, as the •Bank, by law ; ' wou ld be Pound__ to have bullion in its cotters for every note issued above 14,000,0001.; so, there being an - issue of 30,000,0001, there ought, and, of course, would be, 16,000,0001. of bUllion, being the amount of issue over and above 14,000,000/. Your correspondent says that Sir Ro bert Peel admits that the Bank of t ngland may issue 30,00000/. of notes—to be sure the Bank may, who can doubt it ?'==there is no limit to the amount of issue of the Bank of England; the only limit is, that the Bank must - at'all times httire a value in bul lion in the coffers of the issue department, equal to Abe - whole issue &ger 14,000,000/. ; so the Bank of England -might have' an issue of 100,000,0001. of notes, provided it held bullion to the value d 86,000,000/. Now, we find that although' the depositors shall have paid thirteen millions from the banking depart ment, there will be sixteen Millions of_ bullion to meet the thirty millions of notes---a very handsome balance-sbeet for a banker to'show his customers. Yet " Comnion Sense " asks, " how are 'the thirty mil lions of notes to be cashed r Let " Common Sense" put himself in the position of a merchant who is indebted to - his - creditors' 30,0001.; he has 14,0001. at his banker's, and in his Warehouses goods valued at 1600/. • He 'calls bis creditors together, shows thern the state of his affairs, and .deploringly asks " HOW am '1 to pay you 30,0001.?" The replYWouldbe,:" Sell your goods, and turn theM into cash.' So will the Bank of England be enabled to sell . its ".securities,' and obtain cash to meet the 14,000,000/. '.of .notes, should such a necessity arise ; this is hOW the thirty Millions of notes can be cashed. " Coininon '<Sense " ought to know that a banker who Was. securities equal to all demands upon him,' although: he:Ns not -at any one instant gold to pay every. debtor, is no more insolvent than a merchant who has not ca4l:4) pay every debt, yet. has merchandise in his :possession which will realise more Money than will 'satisfy every demand upon him. '! - Common Sense" does 'not know the working of the. New Bank Charter Bill ;.• he fancies if the depositors were to'make a detnand of 13 millions on' the. banking department, and the gold was not there, that it could be obtained from the issue department without 13 millions of notes being presented. The clerk from the banking deparfnient would not get five sovereigns from the issue .department, if he did not present a 51. note -for 'them, the' same as one of the public. Whatever amount of billion may be drawn by . the depositors from the''bankrng department, will have no effect whatever on The amount of bullion held by the issue- departmentywithout the :banking department presenting mites to the issue department for,,,the value of every Sovereign that may be required. • I am, Sir,-Yours, &c. • . Ilfracombe, June 29th, 1844. R. W. D. DETERMINED SUICIDE .DT SIfFFOCATION.---OD Fri day Mr, Wakley, f M.P., held an inqueit at the George and Dragon, Buckingham-pkice, Fitzroy-square, do the body of Mr. King, aged, 24, pianoforte-maker., ,Mr. Thomas Dedwick, deceased's brother-in-law, Aepe_sed that he was a pianoforte maker, and that the deCeased lived and worked with him. During the last 'twelve months,' deceased •sliffered greatly from ill health and• depression of spirits. About two months ago - deceased - - was greatly_ affected • ,at seeing a female, to whom he was attached, walking with another man, and from that periodhe was in a very melancholy state of mind. Last Tuesday 'he Was very silent, and supped with witness at ten o'clock at' night, scarcely speaking a word. They retired at twelve o'clock. On the following morning, witness finding the door of the water-closet fas tened, bad it forcod open, when he found deceased crouched up 'iii the water-closet quite dead, with, a panier of charcoal burning on the floor. So, resolved Was he upon self-destrue tion; that he pasted paper over every cranny and crevice 'of the closet, to prevent -the escape of the' poisonous gas of the charcoal. His left arm and' side were burned by the flames of the charcoal fire. Mr. Proctor corroborated this witness's evidence. From other statements it appeared that the de ceased had cut the paper in strips with which he covered the crannies, and made the paste for fixing them on in the work shop. While so engaged, be joined in several songs,. with the workmen, one of whom having said that he would go' to Gravesend, on Sunday next, he said, " I, too, will be at Gravesend on that day." Verdict, ",Deceased destroyed him see, but there is no evidence whether he was insane or not at the time." Marti* a GO ado/ aloyito Lrtlic bacivi ace ti ping, t+ 0ne 134 ; st iller; Clue '')4) ..... 9 quo eeds -and 3 £pd 3 .•••• :0% - 5 ..... and di;' ard s Y, fr o 1:004 41 0 DO Ol i9O/ 3et id d ill the. t t b 9 11‘ 10 3 1 of 1' 5 , 13 O f oil. 1 e I