The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

Preparing for piribli under the sanction of his Family and Execute's, with original documents, THE L IFE of W. BECKFORD, ESQ., FONTIIILL ABBEY, . . AUTHOR OF " YATHEK." • • • *** ' All communications relative to the above work are requested to be made to'Henry G. Bohn, York-street, Covent-garden, who is the only person authorised to receive the same. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor PUZZ I respectfully informs the Nobility, Sohscrilrer 3 to the noera, his Fritnds, and the Puhlic,that HI • RgINI..t- IT will take place TO-MGRROW EVENING, JIILY 11, On which oczasioa will be presented (for the First Time these Three Years), Duni zotti's celebrated Opera, ANNA BOLENA. - Henry VIII., Sig. Lahlache ; Percy, Sig. Moriani ; Srneaton, MJI!e. Favanti ; Anna 11.:1 , na, Madame Grist; Jane Seymour, Signora Giuteppina Ro - etti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her first appearance in London). After the Ope-a, Signor Plizzi will perform a Solo on the Horn. After which, a DIVERTICSEMENT," in which will be intro duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St. Leon, l'aa de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffer and Plunkett, and the admired Spanish Dance La Saragossa," by Mdlle. Fanny Elss!er. To be followed by the Second Act of GUILLAUME TELL. Matilde, Madame Persiani ; Arnold , , Sig.:Mario ; Walter, Sig. ablache ; and Guillaume Tell, Signor Fornesari. To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VIV AN D JERE, introducing the Redowa , or Original Polka of Hungary, by Mdlle. Cerito and M. St. Leon. Applications for Boxes, and Tickets to be m i lc to Signor Punt, 33, Jermyn-street. St. J; mess, and the Box.° lice, Opera Colonnade. Doors open at F even. The Odera will commence at HalEpast Seven o'clock. THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET. MR. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES EE. THIS EVENING, JULY 10, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DIY OF DUPES. With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Farl of Hunscion, Mr. Stuart; Lord Eelaniont, - Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Griison. Mr. Strickland; Heiry, Mr. H. Holl ; Captain Sippett, Mr Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Furen ; Countess of Hunsdoß, Mrs. W. Clifford ; Loily Mary Rivers, Miss Julia Bennett;* Mrs. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; VridgeL t rim, Mrs. Humby. After j ihe Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing " Fayre Rocamonde." After which, will be repeated a New F.a•ce, entitled THE MIL LINER'S HOLIDAY. Sr' Sinym Sparkes, Mr. tuckstone ; Mr. Pennywig, Mr. Steckland ; Fanny Thompson, Miss Julia Bennett; Miss Potts, Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE WHITE HORSE OF THE PEPPERS. Gerald Pepper, Mr. Leonard. orchestra Stalls, bs. ; Boxes, ss. • Pit, Ss. ; Gallery, ts.; Upper O !Very, Is. Flalf price —Boxes, 3a. ; Pit, '2.5.; Gallery. ;c ; Upper Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at Hall-past Six, and the Performances commence at Seven. _ _ rickets and Places to be had of Mr. 1. T. Arcl er, the Box ° from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD.STI:k.LT. I.V.SSEE, Mr. J. M. M ADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY 10 Will he performed the ceicbrat'd Opera, i.'EISIR 1) AMORE. Adin% Misa Austin ; Nemerino, Mr. Allen ; Doctor Dalcamara, Mr, Paul Bedford. After which, a New Petite Comedy, called AGED FORTY. Sir Harry %iilder. Mr. Walter lacy ; Mr Dapper, Mr. Oxterty ; Lady Clifton, Mrs. Sti-iing. To conctild, with a N.,w and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustr.azd Version of Aladdin. sd , anazar, Mr. Pant Bedft id ; Aladdin, Mr. Wright ; Princess Iladroulbadour, Mist E. Staid y. i FRE ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA- - HOUSE. Under the Management cf Mrs. KEELEY. TEITI EVENING, JULY 10, Will be produccd a New Drama entitled MARTIN CHUZZLE WI F. Principal characters by 'Messrs. R. Younge, r. Vining, Emery, F. -Mathews, A. Wigan, ,Meadows, Kinloch, Turner, St town, J. W. Collier, Yarnold, gandurs, and Keeley ; Miss For fescue, Miss Wool7ar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs. Woollidge, Miss r;tove, Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs Keeley. To to followed by a fr.ar,d Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called OP:g111 SESAME; or, a Night with the Forty Thie es. llassarac, Mr. Keeley; Morgiana, Mrs. Keeley. To canalude with:an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLKA MANIA• Characters by Mt E. 1114ttlfews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. Keeley, Miss Wooigar, and Mrs. IS cday. ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF A ars. Pronrietor. and Manager. Mr. B 43 CY. SPLENDID JUVENILE FETES. Great Success of the Chinese Fe .tit of Lanterns, and N.w Military and Waval Spectacle. Ttdlri EVENING. JULY 10, Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or, Tile Conquests of Amoy by B-;tish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments. &c., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Nosy. Feast of 230 Lanterns. After which ' a gra.:eful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY L COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE FI ttS . l'; or, Ihe Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of klorscraanihip by Louie Tourilaire, S e. Cermani, Herr Ties , ,ack, La Petit !setae, Mr. Newsome, &c.; with Ur. R. Smith's Highly trained Steads. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLECHASE; or, Eng. land's Harvest Hume. Die doors will open mel,tly at six o'cloc.t, and the t ..leormances c'eninence at seven. Box-effie,; opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have bee:. iceoistrueted and dccorated wish care and splendour. Acting and stagean anger, Mr. W. D. Preadfoot. I.IA7ILOE'S ROY:. L SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, JULY 10, NV.II be 2erf.oreed an entirely new Aquatic Spectacle, introducing Three Se,nes of Real Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA RACT ; o , The Enchanter's Spell. After h;ch, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled t. Napoleon's Gene to which the Brcckstedt Family—three German Lilliputians, only 2*l. 32, ai:d 36 inches in liQight—will perform. 'fo conclu le with a New Drama, called THE CARPENTER OF ROUEbT, in which Messrs Hudson Kirby, Hicks, Neville, Vale, Heslop, Johns,m, Mrs. Daly, Miss ferrey, and Mrs. R. Honner will perform Plsevis and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box. office, from Eleven Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. Daylight View of LONDON in the OLDEN TIME! Painted by Damson and Telbsn. The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond all former precedent ; the artist, tie amateur, the casual observes are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea tion, and are unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex. bib tion ever witnessed. To view it only ar a vehicle for the terrific display at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of the quiet Evening, with iss Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa. cious Lake, to be fully appreciated. The Evening PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Man 'ays, Tues. days, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in doing justice to the awful representation of THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON. Its fearful characteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic At t, that delight is predominant over terror; and the Thousands who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechr•ist, trts achieved a matchless triumph. The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect state, and combining so msnv and interesting features, are by far the most attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. f• ceding of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at Dusk. Admittance, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY. IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONE SHILLING Admission to THE NAT OLEON MU- SEMI, the most magnificent and extensive Colleetton of Histo rical Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to have been formed by One Person, drirlng Tc-enty-lve years of elaborate research, at s cost of 60,000 guineas, and to completely illustrate, in the most in structive and interesting manner, the most important part of Euro pean history, viz.—CHARLES 1., OLIVER CRCM WELL, and LOUIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR :NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often, (luring the last and present year, by the Royal Family, the Duke of 'Wellington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, an I their Ladies, also, many thousands ci the Nobility and Public ; uni the Pro rietor has recently been able to Increase, by several very fine pictures, Re., his previous almost incredible number and variety of 311814. ' Works of Art, and a multitude of valuable Relic'. and other Curiosities, in this Moat inst.:motive and, as hundreds have said it 'ought to be, a National illuscum. Many thousand have inspected it, and THIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PUBLIC; PRESS have stated that it ought to be seen by every °vie. The price of admis- Von is reduced to ONE SHILLING. The NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the ' Egyptian Ball." Piccadilly, daily from Ten till Dusk. TELE WEATHER—Sun OFFICE, JULY 10. THERMOMETER, Lowest, 55; Highest, 71; Noon, 67. BAROMETER, 30.02.—W1ND, W. NOTE.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometers fair is signally placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. DIGIT WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TIES DAY. Pf.tPing ... 21 miautcs after 9 1 Evening ... 0 minute 3 after 10. ;-, ~ oe, N 4 r I; a s' , 4 ' . j <1 , ,,- , .1 1 . ~,,' 4, 4k r, 4 , 1 ,^ 0 * - 1 -- - • -.1. - . . • 4 ~-.- 1 '' Di ei; A , . , e.r• ..‘ic,-+‘-',,,, -*, SECOND EDITION. ti,birotaff kJ' ix LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1814. No ibrtsiness of the slightest importance took place in the Tlouse, o£' Lordly, if we except the motion for the third.reading ,of the notorious Bill of the Bishop 01' BxuTea. Lord FOLEY moved that it be read a Vaircriinf6 that day six months. The Duke of WEL . • 3lNG•ror..cpncurred in the motion, as her MAJESTY'S GOvorrimunt had informed themselves on the subject, :Ind at a future period bring in a Bill on the tul t jz.et:'' . We 'doubt the statement. The Bill was ivitharawn, and the House adjourned. The4liinsse met again at six o'clock, when argu rion's •svere heard in reference to the Irish State Trials. It is understood that judgment will be given in this monster trial in the course of this day. In tho Commons, after the presentation of peti Eons, Mr. WALLACE gave notice, that when the. louse divided on the Railways Bill, the names of Zlembers interested in railways should not be received. Mr. T. DuNcomnu moved for copies of the cor respondence which had taken plaoe betwan the Home Fecietary and the Governor of Guernsey relative to Vie late disturbances. Sir J. GRAHAM said the sub j-ct would, in a few days, come before the Privy Council, and it would, tberefore, be better to post pone the motion. Mr. BUNCOMBE assented, and post poned his motion for a fortnight. The Irish - Presbyterian Marriage Bill was read a first time. • Mr, CHRISTIE; then brought forward a motion on the 3 )apish Claims. This is no new motion. The question Lis been discussed and decided several times, and, we 1, lieve witibonly one exception, the decision has been favour of the claimant:;. Indeed, so far did the j Loose of Commons admit the justice of the claims, that they drew up an address to her Majesty in fa your of the claimants, and that address was graciously responded to ; the Whig Government, however, re si,ted the decision of the House of Commons, and con trived some new scheme to defeat the petitioners,'who have now for nearly 40 years been denied justice. The Tory Government have unfortunately imitated their example: They mustered all tha forces they eltild last night to defeat Mr. CHRISTIE'S motion. It was a desperate run, . and the Covernrnent carried their point, only by a ma ji-rity of four. Is not this a most disgraceful rttOde or conducting public business? A Commission of Inquiry bad been appointed by the Treasury to inve-sti gate the claims—that Commission reported favourably --the House of Commons sanctioned that Report over and over again, and yet both Whig and Tory Cabinets have resorted to the most contemptible shifts to deprive men of their just claims for no reason that any man can see but to have command of more money. They will, however, be compelled to yield. The speech of the Premier was a jesuitical display of misrepresentation and trickery, and that of Mr. GOULBURN a violent tirade of fallacies. It is really monstrous to hear this latter gentleman laying some stress on the amount required to pay the claimants, although it has actually been found by Government Commissioners to be due to them, when at the same time himself and his relations have sacked more of the public money during his career in mono poly than the whole sum required to indemnify these parties. Another argument used against the claim ants was, that they had solicited Members to support their case—nothing could be more disgraceful than this charge, when the Government whipper-in was in the door-way canvassing every Member who came in and went out. It is therefore surprising what the claimants have been able to accomplish. This proves the justice of their cause, and it says much for the honour and independence of the Tory Members who supported the case. The claimants may be considered as having gained another victory, for the Government majority of four is virtually a defeat, and they have only to persevere, and justice must ultimately triumph over cruelty and oppression. We wish Mr. GOULBURN joy of the majority of four, on a question which had repeatedly been decided by the Commons in favour of the claimants. The House adjourned at Eight o'clock. The Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords yesterday, announced their decision on the in teresting and important claim of Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTE to th 3 title and honours of the Dukedom of Sussex. The Committee was very fully attended, and, upon the answers of the Judges, as delivered by Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, to the case referred to those learned functionaries by the Committee, we lament to find that the latter have determined " that the claim of Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTE has not been made out." It will be in the recollection of our readers, that the gist of the question propounded for the opinion of the Judges, was this :—Evidence having been offered to the Lords of a marriage solemnised at Rome, in :.he year 1793, by an English priest, in holy orders, of the Church of England, according to the ritual of that Church, between A B, a son of his late Ma jesty King GEORGE 111., and C D, a British subject, withoht the previous consent of his said MAJESTY, according to the requirements of the " Royal Mar doge Act" (12th Geo. 111., yassed in 1772), would such evidence, if held to establish the fact of such marriage between the parties in question, indepen dently of the provisions or enactments of 12th Geo. 111., be adequate to establish the validity of that marriage in a suit wherein the eldest son of A B claims, eo Willi Ile, an estate in England by virtue of such mar riage ?—The Judges, admitting the rule of our :ecclesiastical Courts, as illustrated by the luminous judgments of Lord STOWELL, " that a marriage good according to the forms of the country wherein it is celebrated is good all over the world ;" and adverting to the impOrtant fact, that evidence had been given by qualified officers of the papal jurisdiction on ques tions of marriages, to establish the perfect legal vali fay in Rome, and throughout the limits of the Papacy, 4' the de facto marriage between A B and C D, re matk that "the rule of construction with regard to any statute is, that it shall be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which has passed it." Now, inasmuch as the intent of the Parliament of 1772, in passing the Royal Marriage Act, is not any matter of doubt—inasmuch as that Parliament clearly aimed at prohibiting the marriages of any of the legiti mate descendants of GEORGE 111. without the Royal con sent previous!y obtained, and inasmuch as its enactments were, therefore, as binding on A B, as " a Bri ish sub ject," whether in Rome or any other foreign dominion, as if he were withi❑ the realm ; the Judges were unanimously of opinion that under the circumstances this had not been such a marriage as could enable the eldest son of AB to make a good title to lands or estate as heir to his father. It is remarkable that the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM, Lord DENMAN, Lord CAMPBELL, and Lord COTTENIIAM in delivering their judgments seriatim, concurred unanimously in dismissing the claim of Sir AUGUSTUS ; but each of these Learned Lords also concurred in the sentiment that the most cruel wrong had been inflicted on the parties before their bar by the Act in question. Under that statute there could be no doubt the marriage of his late Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX with Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY was invalid. Of the de facto marriage between those eminent persons there could be as little doubt. Lord BROUG HAM, in alluding to the cruel position of the claimant, justly said" the feelings of every one must revolt at the consideration of that wrong. It appeared to him to be of the highest jus tice, of the first claim, of the slowest discharge of public duty, that Parliament, which had such a law as that which had been under the consideration of heir Lordships—a law which ought never to have been made—that that Parliament should give some compensation, should make some reparation, to those innocent parties who had been so injured by its ope ration." Lord CAMPBELL concurredi most fully in the re gret which had been expressed that such a law was in existence. He thought such a law ought not to have been passed, and he concurred in the opinion that it ought to undergo some modification. In these feelings and opinions we cordially participate. When we find the LORD CHANCELLOR reminding the Committee that the marriage, in fact, was proved by evidence, of its having been celebrated by a law fully ordained clergyman of the Church of England, and that there was further evidence of the mar-. doge being valid according to the law of Rome; and that Lord COTTENHAM'S opinion against the claim " was founded solely upon the Royal Marriage Act, for that was the only point which had been concluded before them," we are induced to press upon the attention of the public the urgent merits of a case in which the ap pellant is turned back upon a mere technicality. True, as Lord COTTENHAM observed, the Royal Marriage Act incapacitated the parties from con tracting a marriage except upon certain conditions." But we say that that Act was rizalum per se. It was denounced and protested against, at the time it was forced through the Legislature by the active and indecent canvassing of the Crown—as a cruel and impolitic and disabling statute—by some of the best and wisest men, and highest authorities in the country. It \vas a tyrannous control, devised and enforced beforehand, on the human affections as they might develope themselves in the existing, or the yet unborn, progeny of the Sovereign. The late Duke in invoking the sanction conferred upon his marriage with Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY, by the pre cepts of our religion and the ritual of our Church, not unreasonably assumed that he was pro tected and upheld by authority so solemn and so sacred, that it must override the enact ments of a vicious statute. No man, accordingly, ever took more pains to recognise, by repeated and spontaneous acknowledgements and declarations, the fact of his marriage; his own deep conviction of its legitimate and binding character; and his voluntary call upon his family, his . country, and the whole world, to observe these his so remarkable acts of con firmation. What course remained to a gentleman of high feeling and spirit and intelligence, like Sir AUGUSTUS D'ESTE, but to reclaim the legacy of the honours thus descended to him, and by such reclama tion to vindicate the honour of his mother, and the legitimacy of another connexion not less dear nor less immediate ? The documentary papers . adduced, in his father's hand-writing, were like voices from the tomb, conveying injunctions which he could not, and ought not, to resist. He was bound to assert his position. He has done so, but necessarily at a vast expense in the collection of evidence and papers. In the amount of any such expense it is clear that he ought to be immediately reimbursed. • We trust that so righteous a duty will not be neglected for a moment in the proper quarters. But the whole conduct and deportment of Sir A. D'Esrr, throughout the try ing and spirit-wounding abeyance in which his claim has been permitted to lie, and the protracted period occupied in its formal preparation and trial, have been of a character beyond all praise for their moderation, constancy, and patience. We have no de sire to institute painful comparisons by invidious reminiscences. But we should shrink fr om th e dis charge_of a public duty, if we forbore to eulogise the dignified forbearance with which Sir AUGUSTUS has lived to see the illegitimate issue of his Royal uncle THE ennobled, protected, and rewarded, by titles, and honours, and employmenti, not one of which was suffered to be diverted to his own distinguished person. In a later period of his career he has seen another paternal connexion, with no such previous claims of rank or ascertained position as his Noble Mother, elevated to the highest dignity with which the hand of the Sovereign can invest, in this country, a female brow —a tribute, probably, of affectionate respect for the station and character of his illustrious father. But seeing that, on the one band, a disability purely . technical, under a statute which ought never to have become law,—which was tainted, in its origin, by personal pique and resentment in the Monarch at whose solicitation it was finally carried, — has defeated his claim, in its recent shape ;—and that on the other his own unsullied character, his virtues, his talents, and (we must repeat) the excellent bear ing he has shown through - mt the long, but unobtru sive agitation of his rights, are calculated to impart a lultre to any dignities or honours to which the generous munificence of the Crown might be pleased to call him, in repairing a mere accidental deficiency of the proof necessary to the legal substantiation of his hereditary pretensions ;—we do earnestly hope that the grace and favour of the QUEEN may yet be manifested to Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTE in a manner and to an extent which may fully and royally repair the present failure of his equitable claim. Certain• we are that such an exercise, of the royal prerogative would be hailed with signal gratification and sympathy by the private friends of the late claimant; and with unanimous approbation by the public. Madrid papers of the 2cl inst. have been received. A general belief prevailed that a war with Morocco was inevitable, as the Spanish Consuls had been ordered to withdraw from the Morocco territory, if they did not obtain satisfaction within fifteen days, and it was not likely the EmrEttoß would yield to a power so helpless as Spain. rlt is extremely probable, however, that the affair will be settled by the inter vention of other Powers. The four Ministers who had been summoned to Barcelona on ;important busi ness left that place on the sth for Madrid. General NARVAEZ remained with the QUEEN. On the 2d the Three per Cents. were quoted at 26-k for cash, and 261 at 60 days. The Fives at 20i at 52 days. The French Government on Monday received dis patches from Marshal BUGEAUD, dated Ouchda, June 19, giving details of his proceedings at that place, and his return into the French territory. They add little, however, to the news conveyed by the telegraphic dispatch. It appears he wrote a letter to the Moorish chief, EL GUENNAOM, previous to passing the fron tier. An evasive answer was returned, and after another vain attempt at obtaining some more satisfac tory explanation, he proceeded to Ouchda, which he reached on the 18th of June. Upon this the Moorish chief and ABD-EL-KADER retired with all their forces, the former to tha interior, and the latter to make a razzia in a district to the south-east of Mascara. The Marshal had announced to the authorities of Morocco that he did not mean to keep Ouchda, nor declare war, and promised to treat with them when they had made amends for the unjustifiable attack upon the French troops. We are glad to find from these dis patches that the Marshal did not anticipate a war bttween the two countries. Accounts from Tangiers state that the French steamer Pluton arrived at that place on the 23d of June with dis patches for the French Consul, and on the same day left for Oran, where she was to join the squadron of the Prince DE JOINVILLE. At the moment of her departure from Tangiers the Consul-General of Eng land at that place was preparing to set out for La rache, Mogador, and Morocco. It was generally supposed that the journey of this agent related to the affair between Spain and Morocco, and that, at the same time, he proposed to recommend MILEY . ABDER• faLIMAN to employ all his authority to put an end to the armed incursions of his subjects on the other side of the French frontier. The discussion on the affairs of Morocco, which was to have taken place in the Chamber of Peers on Monday had been postponed till Wednesday. The proceedings in the Chambers on Monday were desti tute of interest. M. CHARLES LAFFITTE had been returned a fifth time for Louviers by a great majo rity, his opponent, M. DE FONTENAY, having only 6 votes, while he had 331. As he had withdrawn his offer for a branch line to Louviers, it was understood that he would be allowed to retain his seat. THE BOURSE—MONDAY, JULY 8. First Highest Lowest Last Price. Price. Price. Price. French Fire perCznts— •••• 122 15 .. 122 20 122 10 122 15 Three per Cents... •• 81 85 .. 81 85 .. 81 70 •• 81 70 Cank of France 3020 ..3025 .•3020 ..3025 Lailltte Bank, I,oooi'. Sharesll2o ..1120 ..1120 .-1120 5,000 f. SharessoBo —5OBO —5OBO ..5080 Belgian Bank •••• •• •• •• •• •• 680 •• 682 50 680 .. 682 50 Belgian Fives,lß3l. 1840 .. •• •• •• 105-! .. 105- 7 .. 1053 1 .. 1051 1842........ 103 f .. 108 .. 104 .. 108 i Spanish Threes, ex div..•• • • 33+ .. 33/ • - 33/ .. 331 Passive .• ..• •••• • •• 5 .. 5,4 • • 5i .. 5+ :New Deferred.• •.• • 13 • • 13 13 • • 13 Old Deferred • ..... 51 51 .. 51 .. Neapolitan 99 .. 99 10 •• 99 .. 99 10 Rowan THE STATE TRIALS. (SIXTH DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Mr. KELLY resumed his reply at about a quarter past ten. The Learned Counsel commencer) by saying he felt that their Lordships' decision, in reference to the point upon which he addressed them last nieht, night be grounded—first, upon authority—secondlly, upon practice—and lastly, if neither authority nor prac tice were decisive of the question, upon legal principles. It seemed right, therefore, in order to prevent all possi- Tility of misapprehension, that he should shortly reel their Lordships to those authorities which alone had an 3 , )earing on.the question ; and he referred to these cases merely to show that in what the judges had stated it was quite impossible that they could have referred to a writ of error in which there 'tad been a conviction upon several offences, but that they must have referred to the well-known practice upon motions in arrest of judgment. The firs! case to which he should refer their Lordships was that of " Peat and Oldham," in Ist Cooper's Reports, p. 270. fn that case Lord Mansfield, after lamenting that a mere dip of counsel, who were not always sufficiently careful as to the count on which judgment should be taken, should be fatal, contrary to the truth and justice of the case, went on to say, "However, in civil cases, the rule most certainly is settled, that where a verdict is taken generally, if any one count is bad it vitiates the whole. It has always struck me that the rule would have been much more proper to have said, 'that if there is any one count to support the verdict it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.' In criminal cases the rule is so." What was the meaning of saying in criminal cases the rule is so ? Why, that where there was a verdict upon an indictment or information with several counts, a general verdict ofguilty would follow, and the court was called:upon to pass sentence, If one count were good it supported the verdict, and entitled the court to give judgment. But what did this mean ? Did it mean that upon motions in arrest of judgment the court were called upon to give judgment on the good count alone, or on all the counts, bad as well as good ? Their Lordships would find that in some other cases to which he had referred, the very reason and principle of the rule was, that where the court had the whole record before them, standing in the position of a jury if they found any one offence well laid in any one count of the Indictment, they would do per fect justice by infliatin4 punishment for that offence. Having power to do so, it was their duty to do so, and the judgment which they gave was given only on the one good count. This was the only meaning which could be given to the expression of Lord Mansfield. The moment they supposed the case of its application to s writ of error, where three counts showing three distinct offences were before the court, although two of those counts were bad, judgment was entered on the bad count as well as the good, the whole reason and foundation of the observation fell to the ground. So far from doing justice they would then be doing injustice, for they would be awarding punishment not only for the offence of which the party had legally been convicted, but for the other offences of which he had not been legally con victed. Throughout the whole of the language of Lord Mansfield there was no reference to a writ of error. In civil cases the rule was, where the judgment was taken generally;' in criminal cases, if there were one good count Judgnient was passed and punishment inflicted for the offence stated in that count. Another case to which he begged to refer was that of ' 4 Grant and Hassell." It was there laid down that if there, were one good count, and the other counts were bad, the judgment should be taken for the fictitious reason that the jury had assessed the damages on the good count. There was another case bearing on this point, the "King v. Ingram," which was decisive of the question. Lord BROUGHAM thought that a Court of Error would " intend" that a fine must have been applied on the count of the indictment that was a good one. Mr. KELLY said the whole great question with which they had now been occupied for a considerable part of the six days the hearing had occupied was this very point—was there any authority for such art intendment, and did the practice exist that would support it ? The moment they assumed that where one of several offences was well laid, and the court decided in a motion for arrest ofjudgment on that one, but nevertheless entered up that judgment not on one but on all, the moment that was the fact, they gave a foundation for an intend ment, which if made without foundation was an intend ment false, in fact, injurious in its consequences, and en tirely without foundation either in principle or practice. He should comprise all be had to . say on this point, as to the practice, in a very few observations, for the point was simple and clear, and beyond all doubt. He should show that what the Noble and Learned Lord had thrown out was not the fact, and if it was assumed to be the fact they might on that build up a superstructure of error, which would be productive of incalculable mischief. Lord BriouonAm—lrou put a case of a motion for arrest of judgment; but put a case in which there was no motion for arrest of j udgment. Lord CAlurnELL—There may have been a motion for arrest of judgment, and the court may have held one count to be good, and have pronounced judgment upon it. Nothing more may appear on the record. Mr. KELLY—Clearly not; if the indictment contained three counts, setting forth separate offences, and the de fendant was convicted for all three, and on a motion for arrest of judgment the court was of opinion that the whole were well laid, and therefore should pronounce a triple sentence—if the court considered each offence finable with 5001., it would impose one fine of 1,5001., so that one judgment and one fine would be imposed. Now, supposing that two of the counts should turn out to be bad, that two of the offences were illegal, then came the question whether there was any rule that would com pel their Lordships to presume contrary to the prin ciples of justice that the court had imposed the fine of 1,500/. for the one count that was good. It was impossible that any court possessed of the smallest particle of understanding could so act and de termine. Then let their Lordships see what the next consequence would be. Their Lordships could only hold the judgment to be put upon the presumption that the whole fine was imposed in respect of the good count, and the defendant would be supposed to have suffered punishment only for the one count. Supposing that he was indicted afterwards on the other two counts and found guilty, he could not plead autrefois convict, but must suffer the punishment and fine over again. Lord BROUGHAM —Suppose there are three counts, one good and two bad, and suppose there is a motion in arrest of judgment, and the court was in favour of the party against whom the judgment had been given, and would let the defendant go free but for the good count, does the record show the arrest of judgment on the bad count and the giving of the judgment on the good? Mr. KELLY—Supposing it was a perfect record, the judgment ought to appear upon it. Lord BROUGHAM---It is pat possible that the court might say there is no necessity for entering up judgment on the bad counts, because there is one good count to hold. Lord CAMPBELL—The arrest of judgment on one count was well known to the law. Mr. KELLY said that there were two instances which bore upon the present point. The "King and Hod son," sth Term Reports. There the court gave judgment on the good counts, and judgment for the defendants on the bad count. Then there was Mr. Feargus O'Connor's case. In that case the judg ment had never been completely entered up, because the Attorney-General had not called for it ; but there was no doubt the judgment would have been given on the good counts, and for the defendant on the bad. In all cases, whether at assizes, or at courts of quarter sessions, or the Queen's Bench, whether in trials tir felonies or mis demeanours, the same course was pursued. If there had been any record made up in any of the courts of West • minster Hall; that would have suited the case of his Learned Friends, the counsel for the Crown, they would have been brought forward in abundance. But the truth was, there was no such record. In the " King v. Collins," the counts were expressly stated upon which the judg ment was to be entered up. Nov supposing that the judgment had been entered up on the whole counts, would it have -been supposed that sentence had been passed upon the whole of them? Lord BuouanAm recollected a case, in which he was counsel ; when he was carping at some of the counts, Mr. Baron Wood said, "There is no use in that; for there is clearly one good count, , and that will support the judg ment." And the court of error would always presume that the court had givetsjudgrnent on the good count. Lord CAMPBELL — It woulelle correct to do so at that stage, because then the court could enter up judgment, upon which count they chose. • Mr. KELLY—That -was precisely the difference. There was a great difference. There was a great and terrible mistake confounding the proceed ings when a party was brought up for judgment with the proceedings in error when judgment had been pronounced. If he had been convicted but of one offence it was at the option of the court to give him judgment in the counts which they supposed good in law. But here was a case of a court doing that which he should satisfy their Lordships a court had no right to do—that was, where it was manifest to the court that but one offence had been well laid on which the court could pro nounce judgment, they entered up judgment not only on that count, but on another count laying a different offence, which count was bad in law. 'Were they right or wrong in doing this? It could not be disputed, but that any man who was about to receive a verdict, much more any man who was about to receive a judgment in a verdict, had a right to insist upon the counsel for the Crown selecting one count and abiding by it. The Crown had no right to obtain a verdict and enter up judgment upon several counts when the jury could not return a verdict upon more than one. Hence arose the practice of defendants in sisting upon having a verdict upon one count only, and calling upon the eounsel for the Crown to elect. fretted taken that course himself frequently, and he was speak. ing before a Learned Judge who, in a case of conspiracy, a few wee'cs ago, when he was counsel for the accused, and had called upon the prosecution to elect, decided he had no right so to call upon them, and the counsel for the Crown acceded and did so elect. The defendant had a right to call upon the jury to give a verdict upon every separate count. They had a right to compel the jury to give a verdict on those counts only on which they could find him guilty. Lord CAMPBELL—In strictness, where there is only one count, and that allege's several offences, some of which era not true, the defendant has a right to insist upon a verdict being entered for him on those parts which are not true. Mr. KELLY—Yes, My Lord. Lord CA3IPEELL-1. doubt if the law recognises the distinction of cc,urts. It is one presentment by the grand jury, but that presentment is severable, and the jury may acquit of a part' Mr. KELLY said there could be no doubt of it ; for in stance, a man might be indicted on one count for murder, and on another for manslaughter ; ho might be ac quitted of the murder and found guilty of the man slaughter. He might be indicted for burglary - and lar ceny, and acquitted of the burglary and found guihy of the larceny. In cases of libel, a man might be found guilty of composing and publishing, but not of printing. In all these cases it was perfectly clear that no judgment could be given except upon the verdict returned. lie would call their Lordships' attention to the case of "Fox v. Austin," to be found in Lawes's Ilepurts, p. 59. It was an information against Austin and others for engrossing a thousand quarters of corn. The plea was not guilty. The jury found one of the defendants guilty for seven tiundred quarters, and not guilty for the residue, and Found the others not guilty for all. Now here was a case of engrossing, it might be of stealing, in which the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to seven hundred, but not guilty as to the residue. In most cases it was ,iot necessary that there should be any such verdict, be :ause the punishment would be the Fame for stealing corn, whether seven hundred, two handrail, or a then :and quarters. But it might be important to the prisoner :o have the verdict so entered, because he might suspected of having stolen another 1,030 quar ters of corn, and therefore he had a right to insist upon having the verdict and the judgment entered up precisely according to the fact. It was there important to the prosecution, because under the old law he was entiled to his writ of restitution. Either party had a right to have the precise matter Found entered upon the record, and to require that judg - neat should be prove for that and that only of which he' had. been found guilty, and that that, and that only for 'Mich he was suffering punishment, should appear upon the record. His Learned Friend the Attorney-General had asserted, with that confidence with which ho always made such assertions when he had no authorities to produce, that it appeared that the practice was universal of entering up judgment upon all such counts. He (Mr. Kelly) said that there was no such practice. There was no authority produced for it, and wherever such practice did exist it was against the law, against the rights of the Crown, against the rights of the•prisoner, tad, he said it with all submission, against the duty of the court. The judgment ought to be entered up on that count which was good, and on that count only, and on the other counts he was entitled to have entered up either a verdict of acquittal or eat sine die. The only case in which there was an opponent were cases in which, in fact, the record was not made up, such as ,:ases in arrest of judgment, and one other case. Lord BROUGHAM—You mean when a point is reserved at the assizes ? Mr. KELLY meant that case. Then, in consequence of their being no court of appeal, the whole matter was reserved, and the point argued before the julges, as if it had just arisen. Lord BROUGHAM—Sentence is never pronounced there until afterwards. Mr. KELLY—The court in that case received the evi dence-and the verdict, and if they found the party duly convicted of any one offence on any one count, they passed judgment for that one offence on that one count In the case of the " King and Fuller," there was this sentence bearing upon the same point, " but in the cir cumstances in which the prisoner now stands, there being a conviction on the first count of the indictment to which no sound objection has been taken, and on which judg ment must be pronouuced against him, it i 5 not necessary that judgment should be given on the last count." The whole matter being before the Court, it was for them to determine whether any one offence was well laid in any part of the indictment, and then to give judgment on that part. Now he had gone through the whole authorities, and there was not one to be found which would apply in reason or by analogy to the proceedings cf a writ in error. Neither of his Learned Friends on the other side, nor his Learned Friends who were on the same side with him, were able to produce any records to show what the practice had been after entering up judgment upon mo tion in arrest of judgment ; and it arose from this, that whether in the Court of Queen's Bench, or in the Cen tral. Criminal Court, or at the assizrs, there were not ten cases out of the ten thousand in which the records were ever actually made up, and in those few cases in which they were made up they were made up for a pur pose which would throw no light on this subject. With regard to cases upon writs of error, they were so very few, that in the whole of the books which they could re fer to, he was not aware of a single instance to be found in those books in which, after motion in arrest of judg ment, the records had been completely made up, where the Court had found one or more of the counts, and one of the counts only, to be good ; and under those cir cumstances, there being no authority actually bearing ort this case, their Lordships must decide it upon prin ciple. His Learned Friends on the other side next chal- lenged them to state the mode in which ajudgment could be entered after motion in arrest of j udgment of the Crown in one count, and for the defendants in the other. He ( Mr. Kelly) did not see any difficulty about it, and their Lordships would find several instances given in Davis's Pleas of the Crown, p. 393. From those it appeared, that all judgments in favour of the defendants must be expressed by those words—eat sine die. Now, after exhausting the point of authority on this subject, and after showing the total absence of all precedents, he had only a few words to add upon the principle. He felt that it was upon the principle involved in the question that their Lordships must decide. There was no autho rity, there was no settled practice, and therefore the question must be determined upon principle. He had urged upon their Lordships, in opening the case on behalf of his clients, that if this doctrine pm. vailed, that one good count would sustain judg ment before a court of error, the defendant would suffer punishment for three offences. He was met by a statement that he had only put hypothetical cases, and that the cases supposed were of an extreme, improbable, or even impossible character. If that were the fact, he was content that their Lordships' judgment should be against him on that point: He would therefore apply himself one moment, not to what was matter of hypo thesis, but matter of actual experience and fact. . In a case in which a great political conspiracy was alleged, he had felt boand to state that this doctrine would be fatal to justice, remembering that in political conspiracies the object might be lawful, and yet each ten men out of one hundred might endeavour to obtain that object by different means ranging from the most venial offence, such as a common public. house drUnken meeting up to a conspiracy to commit high treason and murder. It was impossible to say that he was now putting an improbable or merely hypothetical case, because.conspiracies, differ ing thus in their nature. had actuallvbeen formed in thi s country within the last few years. His Learned Friends wrapping themselves up in the vague generalities befitting such an argument, said that if a judge were to find a pri soner indicted for two or three different offences of a different character, he would put the prosecutor to his election. NoW he believed there was no power of that kind vested in the judge in case of misdemeanour, unless it were the power of recommending' The jury were sworn to try three or more issues, and try those issues they must, unless both parties consented to a release. The LORD CRANCELLOR—Do you mean to say that the judge is bound to take all the issues together ? Mr. KELLY submitted that that was so. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be done if it were necvssary to prevent the party from being entangled in his defence. What power was there in the other case ? Mr. KELLY said it arose from the practice of 200 years. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the objects were to protect the party charged ; it applied equally to the one crime as to the other. Mr. KELLY said the misfortune was, that with all the anxiety of the judges to do justi , :e, the practice was not as his Lordship supposed. He must entreat their Lord ships' attention for a moment to this point, otherwise a very grievous misapprehension, from which those he represented might suffer deeply and irreparably, might prevail in then- minds. He was quite aware that if two totally distinct misdemeanours were charged, such for instoce as a libel against one individual, and a conspiracy to murder another, in one and the same indictment, the judge would recom mend, and probaby his recommendation would be adopted, that either the one or the other should be abandoned ; but they were not then considerinc , a case of that na ture. In a case tried last week before the Lord Chief Justice of England, there were three totally distinct offences charged. There was a conspiracy to deprive the prosecutor of property of immense value by influenc ing a foreign Legislature, which, if entered into at all, must have been entered into in 1828 ; a conspiracy to deprive the same individual of the benefit of a valuable lease, and to place another person in possession of it, which could not have been formed before the beginning of the year 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and then there was a charge of a totally different conspiracy, by circulating reports injurious to the credit of the pro secutor, and bringing his mercantile house in London into discredit, and tending to impoverish himself. The offence laid in the first indictment was completed in 1828. The other came up to the very end of December, 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and the third could hardly be fixed as to time, as the evidence relating to it extended over a period of six or seven years. The LORD CEIANCELLOR-But what took place on the trial? Mr. KELLY—Every charge:was fully gone into. Two days were occupied with the hearing, and he himself (Mr. Kelly) had the painful duty of defending the eminent parties charged. After he had addressed the jury, the Lord Chief Justice told the jury there was no evidence to be left to them in support of the last charge. He then referred to a correspondence of rather a voluminous character, and ultimately expressed his opinion to the jury, that there was no evidence in support of the second charge, and the case went to the jury on the earlier con spiracy. But the counsel in the case had to address the jury on all the charges of the indictment. The LORD CHANCELLOR was sorry the case had not been mentioned when the Lord Chief Justice was pre sent, as ho (the Lord Chancellor) had a distinct im pression that the Lord Chief Justice had told the jury to direct their attention to one of the charges only, and that an election was made. Mr. KELLY said he did not direct the jury to one charge till the summing up. The LORD CRANEELLOR—Did the counsel for the'de fendants at an earlier stage of the trial suggest such an election? Mr. KELLY—NO, my Lord ; how could he do so? The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had a distinct im pression of what the Chief Justice had stated as to this trial. He regretted. therefore, that it had not been Mentioned when the Lord Chief Justice was present. Mr. KELLY said he had mentioned the case on the first day he addressed their Lordships, as a proof that persons might be indicted, tried, and convicted, for three totally different offences, committed at intrrvals of years. Oa that very case, whatever might be his Lordship's impression derived from what had Idlea from the Chief Justice— The LORD CHANCELLOR said the statement had no reference to this case, as this communication was made before it came on for hearing, and he, being engaged on other matters, did not pay so much attention to it as he might have done. Mr. KELLY —I,"' his Lordship's impression was that an election was offered to the parties, and that the whole of these counts were nit left to the jury, he was bound to say that the ithpression was an erroneou one. It was only on summing up, on the close of the second long day of the trial, that the Lord Chief Justice told..the jury that one charge only must be left to thorn, becauie the evidence on the two greater charges hail 'altogether failed. In that very case those individuals, instead of being the high and honourable parties they were, might have been really guilty, and might have been found guilty of all three of these objections. He then quoted the language of Lord Ehlenborough in a case from the 2d of Campbell's Reports, in which his Lordship laid it dawn that a man might be tried for several offences under one indictment, if those offences were all of the same sort. That was the only limitation, Men might be charged, and evidence given against them, for several libels, seve ral assaults, or several frauds. Let them not be told then that judges put defendants to their election as to the charges. They do not put them to such election where the offences are of the are cie,cription. He re ferred to a recent trialbeFore Justice Holroyd, in which there was anindietment for three libels, published at itt tervals of three and four months, against a Dissenting • minister. Lord BROUGHAM—That was one of the first actions in which the question was raised whether the truth might be pleaded in mitigation of damages. Mr. KELLY—He was not now putting hypothe tical, or merely possible cases at all. Where there was no authority to bind or guide that House —where they found the practice silent, and where they knew what the practice ought to be, but where there were neither authority or practice, and when they came to principles, and applied them to practice—he would ask whether it was arguable that where a person was convicted of several offences under one indictment, which rendered it necessary for the court to pass a heavier sentence for the number of offences than it would for one, and where, upon error, the party stated that he was suffering for those offences of which he was not guilty, could their Lordships say that upon principle and upon reason he should continue to suffer that punishment. If such a rule existed, which he contended there did not, it was against reason and justice, and even it it had existed for centuries, it would be the duty of their Lordships.. to over-rule it. On these grounds he submitted that the proposition contended for on the part of the defendants was good; that if one count in the indictment was bad . the judgment was vitiated, and must be reversed, and the effect of that would be, not that the parties who were really guilty should go unpunished, because they must be tried and convicted of any of the offences on the record of the court—all that they prayed was, that their Lordshito would relieve them from the present sentence of any ,offences for which they were suffering punishment, but of which they had not been found legally guilty. He would advert no more to this point, but would proceed to the consideration of the two counts of the indictment to which he had before alluded. He had submitted that the 6th count was bad. That count charged the defendants with conspiring to procure, by assembling large numbers of persons, and by intimida tion and the exhibition of physical force, a change in the laws and constitution of the realm. The real ob jection to thin count had not been met by the other side. The ohiection.was not that the name of the parties was not menti, , ,ned, but the objection was, that the count charged a conspiracy to intimidate, but did not mention the names of the persons to be intimidated. Here their Lordships consulted together for a short time, during which Mr. Kelly did not proceed with his argument. _ _ The LORD CHANCELLOR—Go on with your argument, .Mr. Kelly. We are attending to what you say, although we oemiionally consult among ourselves upon the pints as they arise. Mr. KELLY contended that this sixth count was bad, because it was not stated on what particular class of persons it was intended the intimidation should operate. It was a general charge of intimidation, without stating the party on whom it was intended to operate, and the result was, that if any Species of intimidation could be created by a legal meeting with a legal intention, the count was bad. The case had not been fairly argued by his Learned Friends on the other side. They had said that that was legal fur one which it was illegal for many to do.--(lfere their Lordships again engaged in conver sation, and Mr. Kelly paused.) Lord BaoucHAN---Mr. Kelly, go on, go on. Mr. KELLY—His Learned Friends had referred to cases which he admitted in which names had not been men tioned in indictments. But although names had, been omitted, classes of persons had always been mentioned. No doubt in cases of conspiracies to defraud, it might be impossible to name the parties. For example, if per sons were indicted for a conspiracy to rob on the high way, The.names of the persons to be robbed could not be mentioned. But there could be no doubt that the conspiracy would be illegal. In the first place it was illegal to rob at all ; and in the next place the conspi racy would be laid as a conspiracy to rob all the Queen's subjects who should pass on a certain highway. Again, in case of a conspiracy to defraud, which had been tried before Mr. Justice Williams, although no names were mentioned, the class of persons to be defrauded was dis tinguished as all persons who could be induced to give the defendants credit. That indictment was good, be cause it alleged an illegal agreement to affect an illegal object. It was definite, for it so distinguished the par ties as to enable the defendants to prepare their de fence. But in the present case there was nothing to give the slightest information as to what was the nature of the intimidation, on whom it was to act, or that it was unlawful, and therefore the count was bad for generality. For instance, if a count charged a con spiracy to use threats and menaces, - and there was no thing to show whether they were lawful or unlawful, if in any conceivable case the employment of threats could be lawful, the count would be bad. Here there was nothing to enable the parties to meet the charge. It was not said whether it was intended to intimidate the Sovereign, the Parliament, or the Queers's subjects generally. The case of the King v. Hill and others, 2d Barnewall and Alderson, page 204, had been decided by the Court rf Queen's Bench to have gone to the extreme verge of the law. The defendants had been found guilty of conspiring by false pretences, to obtain from D. B. divers large sums of money of his property, and to cheat and defraud him of the same. There the party came into court, knowing whom he was charged to cheat and defraud. The only complaint was, that the means were not sufficiently set forth. The answerwas, it isprima facie criminal to cheat any person. The subtle means and devices must be within your own knowledge, and might be such as could not be stated in an indictment. The party knew whom he was charged with defrauding, and that was sufficient to en able him to prepare his defence. That case, however, went to the extreme verge of the law. He could not help observing that, in touching upon this part of the ease, the Attorney-General for Ireland could scarcely utter a sentence, without mentioning some class of per sons to be intimdited. Now, if that had been stated in the indictment, the d( fendants would have known the charge against which they had to defend themselves ; but as it was, if it mere possible so imagine a case in which intimidation might he lawful by means of a law ful meeting, the count would be bad for generality. He would net report the case which he had already put on that point, but the Counsel for the Crown had stated, that if it could have been proved at the trial that such had been the nature of the intimidation they would have been entitled to a verdict of acquittal, and if such were the case be would under take to prove to their Lordships that this count was a bad one. The charge was to cause and procure a large assemblage of persons to roeet for the unlawful and sedi tious purpose of obtaining, by means of intimidation, changes in the laws and constitution of the realm. Now, how could any one sentence of that be disproved by evi dence which would show that the assemblage was for the purpose of causing intimidation in aid of the Legislature, that they might not be prevented from passing an Act of Parliament. If that count were good, any meeting was unlawful ; no matter who were to be intimidated, no matter whether they were wrong-doers. If one species of intimidation was lawful, awl another unlawful, they must show that the intimidation was unlawful to make it a criminal charge, and here he begged again to refer to the case of " the Queen v. Peck," the principle of which case was, that the count was bad, because it did not show that the purpose was necessarily criminal. His Learned Friends on the other side had referred to the prosecu tion of Feargus O'Connor. He begged their Lordships to look to the count in his case, which was of so doubt ful a character that the Court of Queen's Bench had not pronounced judgment upon it. The count, in that case, was far superior, in point of legal precision, to the count now under consideration, and yet it was by the court considered so general, that his Learned Friend the At torney-General had not called the party up to receive judgment. The Learned Gentleman then referred to the language of Lord Kenyon, in reference to criminal charges in general, and particularly to the charge of conspiracy in the case of "the King- v. Holland," in sth Term Re ports, page 653. The eighth count of the indictment was that which charged the defendants with conspiring to bring the tribunals established by law in Ireland, iato hatred and contempt, and to withdraw the adjudication of differences from those courts„ and to transfer them to others. He believed their Lordships were of opinion that this was not necessarily illegal, and had nothing approaching to illegality in it. His object might be to bring the judges themselves into hatred ; but here a mitigated character was given to the act by its being stated that the intent was to induce the people to submit their differences to other tribunals. His Learned Friends had observed that they had put extreme cases by referring to the time of the Charleses and the Jameses ; but it was necessary to put such cases when applying a test to ascertain what was lawful and what was unlawful, as a means of correcting an abuse. If the courts of this country were at one period of such a cha racter as to require the most powerful efforts to change the system, it was important to ascertain the legality of the means which might be resorted to for that purpose. With regard to the. cases cited on the other side, he dismissed them all with the single observation, " that they were all cases in which a spe eific violation of the law was charged in the indictment," - Noone would dispute that a libel in court was a misde meanour, but, as in this case, the means were not stated, the object was not necessarily illegal. He submitted, therefore, that this count was bad, and that it would vitiate the judgment. He had next to observe upon what was called the triple finding. That point lay in a very narrow . , compass. His Learned Friends had no t contended that there were not three distinct findings, and it was perfectly clear that here was a conviction for three different conspiracies, and judgment passed thereon. The findings were all equally good in law, and. which would they choose, and which would they reject ? There was no more power in that court to reject one than to reject the whole. The findiug ought to 1 have been of one offence, only, and in the one count. The principle of law was as applicable to misdemeanour s as to feloniee. The argument of the Attorney-Gener al was, that there was something in a charge of conspiracy which distinguished it from any other charge with re. gard to the number of defendants who might be found guilty on such a charge. He was not aware of any dies titiction between conspiracy and other misdemeanour s. The .question here was, not whether in the same indict inept in which there was a sufficient number of counts, they could find A B guilty of one count, and C D guilty of another —that could be done if there were a sufficient number of counts--but the question was whether, under one count, charging one offence, they could carve out 0 multiplicity of offences? For that there was no authority used, and it was opposed to the principles of common sense. In coming to a conclusion on this point he would again advert to the case of Feargus O'Connor. He had read what fell from Mr. Baron Rolfe on that trial, but b e had since been referred by one of his Learned Friends who was present at the trial to the same point which arose. It would be. found in rage 180. of the printed re' part of the trial of the sixty-nine Chartists. Th e Attorney-General suggested that in case of a 'pis demeanour it was nut at all necessary that all the, defendants should be convicted on every count of the same indictment. Mr. Baron Rolfe said no, but you cannot have an indictment against A, B, and C for one offence, and convict A of one offence, Bof another, and C of a third, aed the me was so left t©- the jury at last. In the present case, several issues were left to the jury on one count. He submitted+ therefore, that the objection appeared here in a clear and simple flirtn, One offence was stated in the count ; three offences were found by the verdict. One judgment was passed upon all the of-lhnces aforesaid. It came before their Lordships as one indivisible judgment on two mor e offences than were ever presented by the grand jury. i t was impossible their Lordships could reject one or an other. The jury had divided on all, and, as it was joy possible to distinguish them, he submitted that there was no alternative but to reverse that judgment. He must now make one or two observations, but one 'or two only, on the point of discontinuance . It was quite unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with 0 reference to those authorities which had been gone into by his Learned Friend Mr. Peacock. Others had beent adverted to by the Attorney-General, but the result of the whole of the authorities was this, that a discontinu e ance, after a verdict had been given, and where the parties were waiting for judgment only, could not be caused by appearance. It had been stated, that from the particular form of those phoceedings, there had been no discontinuance at all. But this went to limit the operation of the statute in a very extraordinary manner. The argument was, that the statute 'extended the terns, and made that extension the same for all purposes 0 0 if that extension had taken, place within the term., Well, then, it was said that this was for the purpose IN trial only, and therefore the trial taking place in vacation , that it was the trial only the court had power to hold in vacation, and that they had no power to enter into a on tinuance. Why, must not the power that was given to them be not only for the purpoSe of the trial i'self, bu t for the purpose of subpeenaing the witnesses, and g iving .force and effect to every trial connecte with the trial and all its incidents. If the court was supposed to have no.. other power than t" hold the trial out of vacation ; they would hare no Vs' et' 'to record the verdicts. The Legislature must have pre' sumed, in giving this authority, to have known the prae tice of the courts, and that these proceedings were im tended by it to be adapted to all forms. On those grounds he submitted that whatever authority the coun t had in term, it had out of it, and that what they might hav e done in an ordinary case they might have done in the pre' sent. The discontinuance, therefore, tot appearing in the record, there was manifest error, and the judgment netts' be reversed. The Manner in which the di scon tinuanc e should have been entered 'ln the record clearly aplelie l. in the case of " Hart and White," in the State Trial" and in the case of the " King and Robinson." in = 4 l Burrelth There was another point to which his Learned e Friend had thought it necessary to advert, and which , I: not in the present, in many cases might become a polio of great importance. The point of the judgment of ac . quittal to which many of the defendants were entitled, ss in many matters contained in this record, there had bee n no judgment at and such. being the case, they cou ld not plead autrefois acquit to relieve them from it. In h i d opinion it was utterly impossible to imagine a recor d more utterly defective in most important particulars than the present. Under such circumstances the defendants were entitled to take any objection to the record, however teclant: cal His Learned Friend had stated that it was true that defendants had no power to enter an acquittal, but t hat . that House, sitting in error could do so. He (Mr. apprehended that that House, sitting in error, had th" right to amend a judgment in any criminal case, and on; that ground he would submit also that the judgment that particular point ought to be reversed. There was an ds ther point to which, although both his Learned Frieow had adverted, he felt it his duty, considering its W I ; portance, to make a few observations, and that l i n e with respect to the right of c h a ll eng i ng t h e arra y. T he a t facts of that appeared in the record. They w ere ' the the recorder ought to have delivered to the clerk ° f n e t peace a list of the juries for the year, that from ttn it n e olc a book should have been made, and that from th e nt the panel ought to,have been taken by the sheriti• ne cle it was said, on the one side, that he never made out. to a list—that if he did, lie never delivered it ea the clerk of the peace. It was said that did deliver it to the clerk of the peace, b u t thatthatsome of the names might have been wrongly plac Now be conceived that when the allegation appeared upon the record, in the language of the statute, th e meaning of the allegation was, that the substance of the statute had or had not been complied with. If the Crow n had taken isette upon that, and it had appeared that,! list substantially within the me an i ng o f th e statute, 0 1 s , ' though some of the names might have been misplaced, and one or two omitted, had been riven in, there wou have been a verdict given •for the Crown. But if it bal appeared that the Recorder had never delivered a list, and the panel had been made out on a fabr ics, Lion, that would be an abundant ground of ell i, lenge ; .or suppose the Recorder had stric tl y performed his duty, and had delivered in a list contei.l ing the names of all the jurors, but that there the OW' of regular proceedings had ended, and some third O; known person had, interfered and f urn i s h e d t h e sheri ff with a fraudulent list from which the panel had hl struck. No one could doubt but that would. furrs abundant ground of 'challenge fur trial by P l° would be a mere mockery if jurors could selected from a fabricated list,' The great (1 1 . 1e 4 tion was, if challenge of the array was the rig : remedy. or not, and their Lordships were told, by reason of a multitude of ancient authorities relating t_ e procet dings before-special juries were known, that it sl; only by reason of :Ane charge against the sheriff that challenge to the array could be allowed. He apri t ` i , hended that th a t d octr i ne was f o u n d e d upon an incorrect propositi on —i n p o i n t o f l aw . Th e sh al t lenge o f t h e array ' was g i ven to the subJ,e in order th a t h e m i g h t secure to hi mse lf a fa i r an d id partial trial by jury • and as long as the jury was n e o selected by s t atu t e , but by the sheriff or his officers , s long the subject could be entitled to hisechallenge of n i ; ray only in consequence o f def au l t on t h e par t of the sheriff s . But wh e n the s t a t u t e create d a new s tate ci r things, and intended to provid e f or t h e su bj ec t a grent e , safeguard, by providing due l aws o f a b e tte r c haracte'j and when for that purpose the statute had superadd e to the slisriff other officers t o b e concerne d i n the II: paration of the jury list, without taking away the ch e pt lenge of array, it was c l ear th at t h e subi e w f was entitled to the challeng e of array on account °f the indifferences of those offi cers t o a h om t h e dutY .° . sheriff had been entrusted, as h e wou ld .h ave b ee n unn e " , the common law, on account of the unindifferency of ray sheriff himself. Therefore, i n . this case, they were s e i much entitled to a challenge of the array, on account s' e the default of the Rec or d er , as t h ey wou ld h ave b e en ° " c i account of the default of the sheriff ; and when esb e e what must be the award' if thi s c h a ll enge to t he . erred were allowed, he would answer, that if the Recorder ha duly made out the list, the award should be to the n e e ; corder to deliver that list, that the jury panel might e ll o formed from it. If they were of opinion that t h e, Recorder had not duly made out the n b s er then -the award should be. to the proper em e e - 0 to make out the book, and if, in consequee7. of any 'difficulty at any s t age o f t h e procee dinQ it should appear that no goo d j ury li st cou ld u ' o made out for this year, then the' award should be to tj ' b , sheriffs to produce the jury li s t o f l as t year . He t 'flitted therefore that the challenge to the array, oug, to be allowed, and that on that ground also the PI meat ought to be reversed. He would now briefly pf vert to the point of the. recognisances. The case Hunt and White showed that in cases of misderneatl °l ; ) it was competent for the court to order defendants bo enter into recognisances to keep the peace, but it mu st f for a reasonable time. B u t i n t hi s i nstance i t was useeee"; taro for what time they were boded to keep the Pewi o e' ' No time was specified, except f rom t h e t i me of giving ''.ee recognisances. Thi s was ent i rely: against all pr aet l and precedent, and it was further ordered that tb% l , should be imprisoned until they entered into their o"A recognisances, so that if they were never able to n e t , sureties it was a sen t ence of perpetual impr i s onroL e c e It was different in cases of fine. Magna Charta recln" - e , that no man s h ou ld b e fi ne d b eyond his ability t o P e .'e therefore, when a man was sentenced to b e i mpr ison, e o e until his fine was paid, th e law presumed that he ',li able to pay an d f ree 'hi mself i f he chose. But the Oar ing into recognisances with sureties did not pend on the 'parties themselves. Magna Charts dicliFe, s, compel any man's friends to come forward as smo t = e , He contended that the whole judgment ought te," ° , of versed, because there was uncertainty as' to the. Or e- t ee . giving and taking the recognisances. It was said 00 t f i t other'side, that this would only vitiate the judgm e e n d part; but if it was bad in part, he held that it was " ii er €.4 the whole, because the court of error had no V ry— e d:- altering the sentence which the court below pronounctio& and that the judgment must be reversed on this g rc n eld• also. There was only one other point which he W on s• advert to—that was, the point that the witnes,ee were sworn before the grand jury, and. not innase court, which was in contravention of the Act of Vi el- ear . and, in his opinion, the still mere important point, os e the foreman had not certified to the co o cA - that the witnesses were sworn, and had bill' endorsed the names of the witnesses on the fac*, The authorities cited showed only that no error in oa r was originally assignable in the Court of F43,,„e li ; e clS. Chamber as a court of error. His Learned -c! i b i e ct contended that this error ought to be made the o l e '.l Ito of a plea in abatement ;' bahe had clearlystated tho.' the declined so to make it. The defendants havirh o uld means of discovering the error till after the trial, the not be .bound to plead it in a plea in abaternente n eere - Learnsd..Counsel .then referred to a case t or trieu. Mr. Baron Park e , i n w hi c h t h ere b e i ng some theyg ate. jury, a new sp ec i a l commission was • issued, ar...`:00 parties were tri e d over aga i n . Th ey h a d the 01 31 " wo rre, all the judges th a t if th e w it nesses were not duly s RAILWAY STIAREB. Versailles, L.B..•••• . Rouen ....•• •• •• •• •• •• •• 997 50 .. 997 50 .. (J 97 50 .. 997 50 R mien to Havre•• .• 766 25 .. 766 25 .. 7G5 .. 766 25 Orleans... Strasburg to 8a1e.......... 240 .. 241 25 .. 240 .. 241 25 Ivignon to Marseilles— •••• 766 25 .. 766 25 .. 766 25 . 766 25 RAII , WAY SHARES FOR TIIE ACCOUNT, I5Tu JULY. 380 •• 380 .. 377 50 •• 377 50 L.B• 247 50 .• 247 50 .. 215 .. 246 25 Rouen•.•.... ..... ........ 996 25 .. 996 25 .. 992 50 .• 992 50 ttouen to Havre• • • • Orleans • • • • • •.• • • • 995 •• 765 763 75 .. 763 75 .• 996 25 ( ..;92 50 .• 992 50 it - r - as — b — urg to Bale•••• •••••• 238 75 .. 242 50 .. 238 75 .• 242 50 THIS DAY'S NEWS. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. (THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a full Bench of Magistrates.) THE LATE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF GAMBLERS AT THE WEST END. This day being appointed for hearing appeals, the court was crowded to excess by persons anxious to hear the cases of those individuals who had appealed against the decisions of several of the metropolitan Magistrates, who sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, and inflicted fines, some of which amounted to 501., for being either proprietors and managers of gambling-houses, or being found upon the premises when the police, in a large body, and simulta neously, stormed a great many of those dens of iniquity in the neighbourhood of Leicester. square and St. James's. The names of the appellants were John Barlow, William Cauty (better known as Captain Cauty), William Smith, Joseph Everett, and William Allan. Mr. Clarkson and several of the gentlemen of the bar who were engaged on either side appealed to the Learned Chairman as to the propriety of entering upon this appeal now, as they had to go on circuit to-morrow, and it would be quite impossible to close the sessions in one day. Mr. Sergeant ADAMS concurred in the views of the Learned Gentlemen, and said that the best course to adopt would be to defer the hearing of these appeals to the October sessions. They were then fixed for Oct. 25. The Court then proceeded to hear parochial affairs, in which there appeared no feature of general interest. CLERKENWELL.-(THIS DAY.) Two women named Carton and O'Leary were charged with violently assaulting Elizabeth M'Donald, residing in Ultra grove, Chalk-road, Islington. It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, that between seven and eight o'clock last night, the prisoners went. to Ultra-grove, Chalk road, a row of small houses, and knocked at the gates leading into them. They inquired for a " stout woman," but were answered by the female living there that they knew of no such person. .Their whole inten tion however, seemed to be to get the women out who lived in the cottages, for Mrs. King, one of the housekeepers, had no sooner made her appearance, than the prisoners fell upon her, and gave her an unmerciful beating. Mrs. M'Donald another housekeeper, came to the rescue of her fallen friend, but she shared the fate of her companion, and speedily measured her length on, the ground. All the other landladies came to the combat, but they all proved unequal to contend with these Amazons, who regu larly stripped for the conflict. Bonnets, caps, and gowns, were torn to ribbons, and the precious ringlets of these staid old matrons were scattered over the field of battle. The women screamed, the children cried, the dogs barked, and the whole of the quiet locality of Chalk-road was " thrown into a state of great excitement," when luckily two policemen came up, and by taking the two prisoners into custody put an end to further disturbances. O'Leary was discharged, as the evidence did not reach her, but Curtan was fined 11., which was paid immediately. UNION-HALL.-(THIS DAY.) Michael Miley was charged with robbing a y oung woman, named Malern, of ten sovereigns, under the following cir cumstances— It appeared the complainant had received two sovereigns at a club, of which she was a member, on the preceding night. Soon afterwards she met a young woman, her acquaintance, and took her into a public house to treat her. On paying for the liquor she produced the two sovereigns, which were tied up in her handkerchief, and the circumstance being witnessed by the prisoner, who was standing in front of the bar, he followed the complainant out of the house, and when she arrived at rather an unfrequented spot he rushed upon the affrighted girl, and snatching the handkerchief which con tained the two sovereigns ran down a turning. She, how ever, raised an alarm, which being heard by a policeman, who seeing the prisoner running, stopped him, and found the hand kerchief containing the two sovereigns in his possession. The complainant added that she had since been threatened by some of the prisoner's companions. Mr. CorriNcpA3t dealt summarily with the charge, and committed the prisoner for three months to. the House of Correction. ESSEX SUMMER. AsslzE.—Of twenty-one prisoners in the gaols for trial at this assize, seven are charged with The . SI'EA, C ° l'der:l re P e 'rl trh .t. to 1) ( The Asse, read Three Til ° Ira Pa, a third' ,P6 l kssecTr' INts,„( Th e s „ a rt be ` i i , , • 6 na (I'l fid I ,„Teul l Ur thp; to s_, erai -.r u. u 4 t h 4)41(= k A t eCli tv )4 'l ,e ttia,y3 tte previ o " 12 *th f 4a e Were ne , its SOl dea r , andl,at " lowerreaa " Ph- o "jari: '''' tit 21 t" eat,