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

MOROCCO. Just published, WYLD'S MOROC C O and ALGIERS, with Coast of France and Spain. One Sh - st, 3s. ; in Caie, O. 6d. WYLD'S LIEGE FOLIO ATLAS, 111. I Is. James Wyld, Geographer to the Queen, Charing-cross East, four doors from Trafalgar-square. Now ready at all the Libraries, in 3 vole.,post 8 vo., StCOND EDITION of " CON IN GSBY ; OR, THE NEW GENERATION." By B. D'ISRAELI, Esq., M.P. Itenty Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough. street. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE TO-MORROW EVENING, JULY 9, Will be perfumed gossnil's Opera Seria, OTELLO. Desdernona, Madame Grisi ; Emilia, Madame Bellini; Sig. Lablache; lago Sig. Fornasari ; Rodrigo, Sig. Corelli; II Doge, Sig. G. Galli ; and Otello, Sig. Maio. After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT," In which will be intro duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St. Leon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffer and Plunkett, and the admired Spanish ance La Sartgossa," by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler. To c nclude with the entirely new Ballet, by M. Perrot, the music by Sig. Pugni, entitled Z ELIA ou, La Nymplie de Diane. Zells, Mdlle. Cerito •' L'Amour, Mdl:e. Plunkett; Diane, Madame Copere; Amyntas, M. St. Leon; Pan, M. Perrot. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be made at the Box Office, Opera Colonnade. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor FUZZ I respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscribers to the o,,era, his Friends, and the Public, that HI , BENEFIT will take place ON THURSDAY NEXT, JULY 11, On which occasion will be pr esented (for the First Time this Season), Donizetti's celebrated Opera, ANNA BOLENA. Henry VIII.. Sig. Lab!ache; Percy, Sig. Morhni ; Smeaton, Sig nora Favanti ; Anna Bolena, 1441..tne Grisi ; Jane Seymour, Signora Giuseppina Rosetti (from thenalian Opera at Vienna, her Arst appearance in London). In the course of the Evening, Signor Ptissi will perform a Solo on the Horn. After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT, in which Mdlle. Fanny kalsler. Mdlle. Cerito, M. Perrot, and M. St. Leon will appear. To be followed by the Second Act of (41.1 ILLA U ME TELL Matilde, Madame Fersiani ,• Arnol 0, ig., ario ; Walter, Sig. Lablache; and Guillaume Tell, Signor Fornasari. To conclude with a Favourite Ballet, in which all the principal Artistes of her Majesty's Theatre will appear. Applications for noires, Stalls, and Tickets to be ma la to Signor Puszi, 31, Jermymstreet, St. James's, and the Box.olice, Opera tkpinnnade. Doors open at Seven. The Odera will commence at Ilialtrist Seven o'Clock. THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKLT MK. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES EB THIS EVENING, JULY 8, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy •f QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES: ith a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Hunsdon, Mr. Stuart; Lord Bellamont, Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Grigson, Mr. Strickland; Miry, Mr. H. Roll; Captain Sippett, Mr Buckstone ; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdois, Mrs. W. Clifford ; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss Julia Bennett; hiss. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bndget I rim, Mrs. After the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing" Fayre Rosamonde." To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir Mules Coldstream, Bart., Mr. Charles Mathews; Sir Adonis Leeds, Mr. Tilbury; Wurzle, Mr. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia Bennett; Lady Clutterbuck, Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE TRUMPETER'S DAUGHTER; or, Love and the Polka. Philli pot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste; who will dance the celebrated Polka. Orchestra Stalls, Ss. ; Boxes, :is. ' • Pit, 3s. ; Gallery, .s.; Upper illery, Is. Half.price— Boxes ,_3B. ; Pit, 25.; Gallery. ; Upper H Gallery, fld. Doors opened at alf-past ilia., and the Performances commence at Seven. rickets and Places to be had of Mr. I. T. Archer, at the Box o .ce, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STUF ET. LESSEE, Mr. .1. M. hIADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY a. Will be performed GWY NNETH VAUGHAN. Owen Wil lams, Mr. Fitzjames ; Hugh Morgan, Mr. Wright; Gwynneth Vaughan, Mrs. Strling. After which, a New Drama, called BLANCHE DE VALMY Colonel Chatillon Mr. Granby ; Franval, Mr. Walton ; : t. Hilare, Mr. W. Lacy; Blanche de Valmy, Madame Eugenie Prosper. 'do conclude with a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of Aladdin. Abanazar, Mr. Paul Bedford; Aladdin, Mr. Wright; Princess Badroulbedour, Mis. E. Stanky. 'I HEAERB ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA. HOUSE. Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 8, Will bi produced a New Drama, entitled MARTIN CHUZZLE. WIT. Principal characters by Messrs. R. Younge, P. Vining, Emery, F. Mathews, A. Wigan, Meadows, Kinloch, Turner, &inters, J. W. Collier, Yarnold, Sanders, and Keeley; Miss For. tescue, Miss Woolyar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs.' Woollidge, Miss Grove, Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs. Feeley. - To be followed by an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLKA M ANIA• Characters by Mc F. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. Keeley, Miss Woolgar, and Mrs. Keeley. To eonalude with a Grand Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called OPEN SESAME; or, a sight with the Forty Thie , es. klassarac, :41(r. Keeley; Mormana, Mrs. Keeley. ASTLEY'S ROY AL AMPHITHEATRE OF ARTS. " Proprietor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. Great Success of the Chinese Feast of Lanterns, and N - .w Military and Naval Spectacle. THIS EVENING. JULY 8, Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or. The Conquests of Amoy by B -itish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments. kc., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Nat y. Few t of 250 Lanterns. _ After which ' a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY AL COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE Fl ttS F ; or, Ihe Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of Horseman:hip by Nlnnsicur Louis Tournairc, S g. Germani, Herr Tieshack, Ls Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, &c., with Mr. R. Smith's highly trained Steeds. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLE-CHASE; or, Eng land's Harvest Home. _ _ The doors will open nightly at six o'clocc, and the t vriormances commence at seven. Box-othce opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been remustructed and decorated wii h care and splendour. Acting and stageansnager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. - - DAV 'DOE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, JULY 8, Will be performed an entirely new Aquatic Spectacle, introducing Three Scenes of Real Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA RACT ; or, The Enchanter's Spell. After which, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled " Napoleon's Gene rosity," in which the Brockstedt Family—three German Lilliputians, only 28 32, and 31i inches in height—will mrform. To conclude with a New Drama, called THE CARPENTER OF ROUEN In which Messrs. Hudson Kirby, Hicks, Neville, Vale, Heslop,Johnson, Mrs. Daly, Miss ferrey, and Mrs. R. Honner will perform. Films and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box office, from Eleven to Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS► Daylight View of LONDON in the OLDEN TIME! Painted by Danson and Telbin. The sensation caused by this - unrivalled production is beyond all former precedent; the artist, the amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea tion, and are unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex hibition ever witnessed. To vies 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 its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa cious Lake, to be fully appreciated. The Evening PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Mon 'ays, Tues stays, 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 cis iracteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully_ blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic A►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 Pyrotechnist, h:.11 achieved a matchless tr itmsph. • The Gardens and Zoological Collection are In the most perfect state, and combining so many and interesting features, are by far the most attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. Feeding of the Animals at Five—Concert at six—Conflagration at Duck. Admittance, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCALILLI . IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONE SHILLING Admission to THE NAP OLEON MU SEUM, the most magnificent and extensive CollacCrn of Histo cleat Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to his e bees formed by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a cost of 60,000 guineas, and to completely Illustrate, in the most in jiructivo and interesting manner, the most importaht part of Euro pean history, viz.—CHARLES 1., OLIVER CRONI WELL, and LJUIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often, .during the last and present year, by the Royal FainEy, the Duke of Wellington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, an 1 their Ladles, also, many thousands of the Nobility and Public; rut "1 the Pro-. motor has recently been able to increase, by several very fine detures, &c., his previous almost incredible number ant variety of MSS., Works of Art, and a multitude of valuable Relic-. and other ztulositles, in this most instructive and, as hundreds have said it mght to be, a National Museum. Many thousand have inspected it, and THIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PUBLIC! PRESS bare stated that it ought to be seen by every one. The price of admis- Hon is reduced to ONE SHILLING. The N.I”,)LEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the Egyptian Hell." Piccadilly, tinily from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATIIER.—Sus OFFICE, JULY 8. THERMOMETER, Lowest, 53; Highest, 69; Noon, 6G. BAROMETER, 30.—Wmn, N.W. Noma.--Tho number 3.9 on the Thermometer denotes the freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometcis fair is ssnally placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. 81011 WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TUTS DAT. 'Morning ... 29 minutes after 7 1 &ening ... 53 minutes titer 7. " At . " 4 dr' et • Vt • - Afr, 4k e;', ( • •-I id. - - ,Wl‘77 , IK** Anti r • m W . + Rot SECOND EDITION. es. , rtir ffiewmg LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 8, 1844. „ We are utterly at a loss to understand why these Hong speeches are made in the House of Lords on the Irish State Trials. It was known to Sir THOMAS ILDEr and Mr. KELLY, and the other counsel for Mr. O'CoNNELL and his friends, that the Judges mast leave on a certain day, we believe:Wednesday, Ito open the assizes at their 'respective circuits,,aud that the house of Lords, represented by the Law .Lords, amounting to half-a-dozen, or thereabouts, 'would not pronounce judgment but in presence of the Judges, yet three days have already been spent in -winded arguments, which might have been corn /pressed into half the compass. Every argument of im lportance, all the facts, all the points of law, all the references to authorities, might have been adduced at the:close of the sitting on Friday; the ATTORNST 'GEEER) T. could have replied on Saturday, the Judges could have given their opinion on Monday, and the _Law Peers might have delivered their final judgment .on Tuesday. Mr. O'CoNNELL would thtis have - known his fate ; but, as it is, possibly he may not ,know it till the month of March, 1845, when -all his colleagues shall have been set at liberty, and he shall have only a month, or %two months at most, to complete the period 60f-expiation for the great crime of making an attempt tfefree his country from slavery. We make no allu rstion to the repeal gnestion. We have ever been hos tile to' it, because it is impossible without a civil war, And that all along Mr. O:CONN ELL has repudiated in ifshe strongest language that he could use, and his uni form policy hitherto • has proved that his deeds are, in Peifect accordance with his words. There never was ?such a preposterous mode of conducting a great (pies frP' any . y in the administration of justic ; :oca,st*e-SZt ) ,2-7rials have exhibited from the keg i hurnig:_ t0.t14-o...6e4ttime, for the end is not yet - by punish, if the law ilba.ws an appeal *Well stay end in a complete ac qukk.al? Why send Mr.' 0 1 0)NN ELL and his friends to gaol while: the court of Appeal may pronounce them innocent, and at the same time declare that they have been illegally imprisoned ? But, above all, why do his counsel waste time in long speeches while the very object which they pro fess to have in view nay be defeated by the multitude of words ? The counsel for the traversers, taking this day into the account, have now had four days; they were warned that the time was limited. If the ATTORNEY-GENERAL chooses to occupy two days more they cannot complain; and thus the great object for which they receive fees— large fees, too —will be defeated, and the whole scene will exhibit only a flourish of words. Does Sir T. 'Mum or Mr. KELLY not know that the Law Peers and the Judges have watched with intense interest the whole procedings in the Queen's Bench in Dublin, that they were masters of the case before it came before them, and that if the counsel were to speak for ten years, they could not make a stronger impression than they could in ten hours ? Many parts of these• harangues, and one entire speech, in particular, were not listened to at all—they were regarded as mere verba irrita ; and thus the most valuable time—the time, if pro perly employed, which might have saved Mr. O'CONNELL—has been wasted in pure legal display. The whole affair is involved in mystery, and should it end by an adjournment, it will appear to English men, and to foreigners too, as the most perfect bur lesque of justice, and afford to Mr. O'CONNELL a better argument than any he has yet found for a total reform in the institutions of his country. An extraordinary case was heard on Saturday at the Bow-street police-office, on which it may be worth while to make a few comments. The facts of the case are these :—On the day just mentioned, a young man, afterwards ascertained to be the brother cf Lord AUDLET, entered the shop of Mr. SMITH, gun maker, of High Holborn, who keeps a shooting-gal lery there, and inquired whether he could have a shot or two with pistols. The reply being in the affirma tive, the prisoner took the loaded pistols which were handed to him, and fired them at the target, observing, nis he did so, that the trigger of the second pulled rather hard. Upon this Mr. SMITH handed him a third pis tol, and while he was preparing to load another, the young man turned the muzzle of the one which he held in his hand towards that gentleman, and fired, wounding him severely, if not fatally, in the back. Having perpetrated the deed, he evinced not the slightest anxiety to make his escape, " but stood still and smiled"—says the report ; and when taken to Bow-street, and asked by the magistrate why he had committed such an atrocity, he replied with infinite sang froid, " I have no explanation to give, except that I had no ill-feeling towards the man, but I did it on purpose, as I wish to be hanged." Throughout the examination he conducted himself, it appears, in the most cool and quiet manner possible, ansls er ing every question put to him just as if he were perfectly contented with the predicament in which he was placed. From an account in the Post of this morning, it seems that the prisoner had for some weeks resided with . his brother, Lord Aurmr, in Weymouth-street; but that nothing had occurred to lead his Lordship to believe that his mind was affected until within the last few days, when his manner, which was invariably reserved, became more so, to such an extent indeed, that it was exceedingly difficult to obtain an answer to any question put to him. "On Saturday morning," adds our Contemporary's report, " the prisoner received a letter, which added to the gloom under which he previously appeared to labour, and for a considerable period he became quite abstracted. At eleven o'clock he left home to take a walk, having then rallied a little," and was permitted to pursue his walk alone ; and it was during this stroll that he perpetrated the act for which he is now committed to Clerkenwell gaol. "It is said," ob- serves the Post, " that letters written by the young _ _ _ man evince decided proofs of aberration of mind, but the members of his family had hoped it was but a temporary affliction, which had long since passed away." Under these circumstances, we cannot but think that the prisoner's family, and more especially Lord A ULILEY, have acted with exceeding indiscretion —to use the most lenient term—in keeping so negli gent a watch on his proceedings, and allowing him such unrestrained liberty of action, when it must have been evident to them that he was by no means in a fil state to be trusted out alone. Entertaining as they appear to have done, strong doubts of hi: sanity, it was their duty to have taken the requisite precautionary steps without an instant's loss of time, and nit have left him entirely at large, in the hope that some amendment might shortly take place in the state of his mind. They owed this duty not less tc themselves and to the prisoner, than to the public and their neglect of this evident duty has led to an act which may possibly result in the death of an inno cent individual, in no way whatsoever connected witl any of the parties. The catastrophe that has befallen Mr. SMITH might have befallen any other gentleman ; it might have occurred at the West-end or the East end; the victim might, or might not, have been a mai of rank and celebrity ; for who shall say when, or where, or against whom a lunatic's blow may be struck, when he is permitted to walk the street: without the slightest watch being kept on his move ments ? Whenever any individual exhibits symptom: of mental hallucination such as Mr. TUCUET seem ; to have exhibited for some time previously to hi: deadly attack on Mr. SMITH, it becomes the obviou' bounden duty of the members of his family, or hi: guardians, instantly to keep a wary eye on his ever) motion, and, above all, to take care that he is no; allowed to roam the streets, except under their own personal charge, or the charge of some one whom they may commission to look after him. A sense of public duty, to say nothing of other considerations, demand: that this should be the case. From the neglect of such timely precautions, her MAJESTI'S life was twice attempted in public, and Mr. DRUMMOND fell a sacrifice to a maniac's blow aimed at Sii ROBERT PEEL. By the bye, the LORD CHANCELLOR mentioned some time ago that he intended to bring in a Bill on the subject of Monomania or Insanity . What has become of this Bill ? We hope it is not to be postponed, like many other Ministerial Bills, ad Grams Calendas, for incidents are of frequent oc currence which show how much it is wanted. The vacancy created in the Parliamentary repre sentation of Birmingham by the death of the late Mr. SCHOLEFIBLD, has already called three competitors for this important seat into the field. We have so recently offered our tribute of respect for the unsul lied private character of the deceased Member, and of high regard for the consistent integrity of his public life and political opinions, that we are not called upon on this occasion to preface the few re marks we have to offer on the choice of can didates by any eulogy, however well deserved, on the merits of the gentleman whose honourable po sition in the House of Commons it is their common desire to occupy. By the Birmingham Journal of Saturday last, we perceive that Mr. JOSEPH STURGE President of the Complete Suffrage Association, Mr. H. SPOOIISR, a connection of the eminent banking house of Armor. and Co., and Mr. W. SCHOLE FIELD, son of the late Member, are each of them pre sented to the constituency of Birmingham by his respective friends, as peculiarly, if not exclusively, qualified to solicit the honour of their support. It is well observed by the Morning Chronicle that " the Liberals can defeat the Conservatives in no election contest unless united." To run the pre tensions, then, of one Liberal candidate against those of another, would be a manifest element and indication of disunion in the ranks of that party with which the town of Birmingham has so signally and so successfully identified itself. We should be inclined to hold that even the vindication of some great abstract principle in the political creed of that party would be dearly purchased just now, by a practical demonstration of divided counsels and conflicting pre tensions among its members. This demonstration would be assuredly exhibited by such an internecine election eering contest as Birmingham must become the theatre of, if there is to be war, not only on the part of the Liberals against the attempts of Mr. SPOONER, a Tory candidate, but also by one of their own men against the other. Whether in such an unseemly contest, the event of which can return but one competitor, Mr. JOSEPH STURGE should triumph over Mr. IVILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD 7 or Mr. WILLIAM ►SCHOLEFIELD over Mr. JOSEPH STURGE ; the result would be a Pyrrhus like victory, the repetition of which would be tantamount to a fatal defeat of the great cause, which both antagonists are solemnly pledged to uphold. But since the probabilities are much greater, that for that cause to enter two com petitors of its own party in a race against one com petitor representing its opponent, would be to make the latter the favourite and the winner, the policy of the Liberals withdrawing one of their nominees seems ,to us clear and indisputable. This brings us home to the preliminary question of pretensions. It is an in vidious, but an indispensable duty, to look these fully and fairly in the face. Mr. WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD (whose address to the electors of Birmingham we have perused with great pleasure, from the manly and succinct sim plicity of its expositions) has been called on by a large and influential body of his townsmen to become a candidate for the responsible trust so ably and honourably discharged by his respected father. He is stated to possess great capacity, extensive commer cial experience, and to have highly improved his oppor tunities of acquiring an accurate knowledge of those enlightened principles, on which the system of our general trade should be established ; and of all matters immediately connected with the local and municipal interests of his native town. He has responded to the call made upon him in a manner fully to justify the favourable views predicated of his qualifications for a post to which he brings the hereditary prestige of his late father's tried services and known convic tions. 'We cannot imagine a better title to the confi dence of the constituency, or more reasonable grounds for their extending it to him, than have been submitted on the part of Mr. WILLIAM SCIIOLEFIELD. Mr. JOSEPIt STURGE has been the consistent advocate, undoubtedly, of very important principles, in relation to a re-organization of the scheme on which the elective suffrage is at present limited to certain classes of the community, the vast majority of which possess it in right of their contributing'indi vidually, in some proportion, to the expenses of the State, as inferred from their paying, at least, a given amount of annual rent, or a rental to any excess above that amount. This may be called an organic electoral or franchise question, on which serious differences of opinion prevail, both within the town of Birmingham and in most other parts of the empire. Mr. STURGE'S claims, if not rested upon, would be mainly referred to, his advocacy of the " complete suffrage" plan : and this being a vexata questio, even among the town con stituency themselves—and still more between the constituency and those townsmen who are not on the register at all, it is evident there would he a most serious division of opinion in the Liberal camp as to which of the two banners the voters would range themselves under, The com mon standard of Liberal opinions, the advance of which alone it is at this time all-essential to secure, would be either deserted or left in jeopardy by the in terest attaching to the conflicting colours of two com petitors, at a time when union only can enable the Liberal cause to make successful head against the Conservative forces. Mr. STURGE we are persuaded, is too disinterested and consistent an advocate of the liberal views he has always espoused to consent to put to hazard, in this struggle, in detail as it were, the general fortunes of a campaign to the ultimate success of which the aspect of affairs is becoming, though slowly, yet visibly, more favourable. On the Conservative side Mr. RICHARD SPOONER is a formidable opponent. It is of no use for the Li berals of Birmingham to shut their eyes to this fact. His private character and commercial reputation stand justly high among people of all parties; and for our own parts, did we not feel the paramount necessity of securing a clear triumph to the Liberal party on this momentous occasion—a triumph to which no means are so calculated to contribute as an united rally of their forces round Mr. WlLLiartt SCHOLEELELD ; we might have desired to see Mr. SPOONER returned, from our respect for his clear and masterly de tection of the fallacies, the wickedness, and the fatal tendencies of Sir ROBERT REEL'S currency mea sures, and monetary blunders, as supplied in the evidence this gentleman has publicly given on those subjects. But our conviction is, that it is requisite for the character and influence of Birmingham, and the successful march of that great cause of improved, liberal, and enlightened institutions with which she is so r.obly identified to all posterity, that she should, of the present candidates for her reputation, return with honour the son of her deceased, upright, and faithful servant. Intelligence from Lisbon, to the 2d inst., has been received. It is of the same gloomy character. Thr estimates for the year had been published, showing a deficit of 232 contos ; and, from a financial exposition which accompanies them, it appears the Government are compelled to resort to a loan of 4,000 contos to provide for pressing payments. This loan is to be redeemed within twenty-three years, and the interest is to be 5 per cent. A general disposition prevailed against the payment of taxes, as they could not be legally collected without a decree of the Cortes. The Madrid journals, especially those under the in fluence of Government, still abound with rumours of conspiracies, which are said to be in active pre paration at Sarragossa, Barcelona, and the capital. ft is suspected, however, that reports are raised for political purposes, with a view of terrifying the timid, and strengthening the supporters of the Go vernment in case of a general election, or some fresh inroad upon the Constitution. It was generally believed at Barcelona that the Ministers had resolved to dissolve the Cortes forth with. The Madrid Gazette of the 30th ult. con tains a royal decree, dated Barcelona, June 26, an nouncing that the claims aaising from contracts for advancing money to the Government shall be con verted into tithes of the consolidated public debts in Three per Cents., at the rate of 35 per cent., or at 1,000 reals of nominal value for every 350 reals that the Treasury shall have received on the said claim. The interest granted upon some of the said claims shall be reckoned to the present month of June, and that interest shall be added to their respective capitals. With the exception of the speech made by M. GUIZOT, in the Chamber of Deputies on Friday, re lative to the disputes between France and Morocco, the intelligence in the Paris papers possesses very tittle interest. Previous to the arrival of the Minister ror Foreign Affairs, M. MAUGUIN put some questions to Marshal SOULT, relative to the late occurrences on the Morocco frontier, the line of policy which the Government intended to pursue, and at the same time warned them against trusting to the mediation of England, which supported the pretensions both of ABD-BL-KADER and the Emperor of Morocco. M. SOULT replied in very general terms, announcing that France did not require the mediation of England. On M. GUIZOT taking his seat, the Marquis DE LA ROCIIEJACQUELIN referred 4 to the statements of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord Jona RUSSELL relative to Morocco, and asked for some explanations on a sub ject so intimately connected with the honour and in terests of France. The answers of M. Guizor were very satisfactory; and as they explain the intentions of the French Government, both towards the Empe ror of Moaocco and ADD..EL-KADER, we subjoin here the main points of his speech :-- "There was nothing in the conduct or intentions of the Government that he was not quite ready to explain. No national cause of war existed between France and Morocco. A stranger—Abd-el-Bader—had come and thrown himself between the two countries, and, when driven from the ter ritory of Algeria, bad established himself on the frontiers of Morocco, where he recruited his adherents from the popula tion of that country, persuading them by his influence to take part with him. As soon as this fact was apparent, France had demanded the expulsion of Abd-el-Kader ; but the Emperor had been resisted in his endeavours by national and religious fanaticism, and be found himself unable to give France satisfaction. A new circumstance presented itself— Abd- el-Kader raised a question of territory, and it was as serted that the French territory ought to extend only to the Tafna. This was evidently an error; for, from time imme morial, the territory between the Tafna and the frontier of Morocco had formed pare of Algeria. This was so true, that all the maps placed there the ,position of the camps of the Turks, when they came to levy their tribute. In consequence, the Government had maintained the right ofFrance. Another fact then took place—under the influence of Abd-el-Kader, an invasion of his partisans and of the Morocco people took place into the French territory. This temerity was energetically repressed by the French Generals, and this repression afforded them an opportunity to give evident proofs of prudence and moderation. The lesson was as severe as merited, but Ge neral Lamoriciere and General Bedeau not wishing, without the intervention of the Government, to engage France in a war with Morocco, stopped on the limits of that country. The invasion having been repeated, Marshal Bugeaud had thought it adviseable to enter the Morocco territory, and had dispersed Abd-el-Kader's partisans, and seized on Ouchda. In this conjuncture, he gave the same proof of wisdom as the other generals had exhibited antecedently, and had with drawn after two days' occupation. The King's Government had no design on Morocco—it had not any intention of en larging their territory in Africa, being well convinced that the territory of Algeria was sufficient. The Chamber might remember that he was one of those who regarded the con quest and occupation of Algeria its an immense circumstance THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 8, 1844. for the future welfare of France, but still he thought it would be madness to nourish ideas of conquest and territorial aggrandisement, when they still had Algeria to organise and occupy them. All that } ranee wanted from the Emperor of Morocco was to keep peace with her; but, for that, it was indispensable that Abd-el-Kader should not remain on tho frontier, always ready to light up war. What the Govern ment had a right to demand, and was now demanding, from the Emperor, was the disbanding of the corps formed on the frontier of .Morocco ; the recal and punishment of the officers who acted contrary to his orders. What they asked, besides, was that Abd-el-Kader, if Morocco was still willing to give him an asylum, should be sent to the coasts of the Atlantic—that he should,in fact, be treated by the Government of Morocco as the French Government always acted towards foreign refugees. Such was the policy of the Government relative to Morocco, and such were the objects which measures had been taken to ob tain satisfaction for. Morocco would be given clearly to un derstand that the present state of her relations with France cannot continue. All the necessary measures had been taken by sea and by land to arrive at that result ; reinforcements had been or should be sent to Marshal Bugead ; naval forces had been placed under the command of one of the Princes ; and he did not hesitate to declare, to the honour of that Prince, that the Cabinet had recommended that choice to his Majesty, having full confidence that i n thi s circumstance the Prince would display as much prudence as valour. Without this double conviction the Cabinet would not have given that recommendation to the King. They .well knew the respon sibility of confiding to a Prince a command in the army or navy, they knew that they had to assume the responsibility of the persons so employed. But in this circumstance they felt that their political instructions would be as exactly ob served as those relative to the fleet, and on that account they had confided to the Noble Prince the mission in question. The instructions given were in conformity with what he had just stated to the. Chamber. There was nothing secret in them—nothing that could not be avowed to their allies and to the Chamber. Without any doubt, England had a right to watch that none of her interests were compromised in this affajr. The French Government had informed her of their general intentions, telling the whole truth, and proving that they had no other object than. to obtain justice. Such were the precise facts, as they related to the political intentions of the Government, to the instructions given to the Prince de Joinville, and to their intercourse with England respecting the affairs of Morocco." These sentiments were loudly cheered, and the Chamber immediately proceeded to the order of the day—the budget of the war department—which was adopted without a division. The sum of 20,000,000 francs was voted for the fortifications of Paris. In the Chamber of Peers the absurd clause introduced into the Orleans and Bordeaux Railway Bill, for bidding Menibers of Parliament to be administrators or contractors, was unanimously rejected. The Journal des Debats gives the following story, communicated by a correspondent at Akaroa, New Zealand, dated January 28 : " Probably before my letter arrives in France you will have learnt that the Mahouris, a tribe of Zealanders, have killed thirty English of this colony; but you perhaps will not know that the bodies of these unfortunate men were eaten. This is but too true. We had been out on a hunt ing party for a week, when one evening we arrived among the friendly tribe of .the Terauparaa, or Mahouris, and found them regaling themselves with human flesh. We all conceived that they were eating some captives or slaves of their own nation. As I understand the language, I could not resist expressing my indignation, and threatening them with chastisement from the crew of the corvette. The savages were alarmed, and endeavoured to appease me, by saying, ' They are not men of Mahouri that we are eating, but some Yes, yes,' for it is thus they call the English. They then showed us the heads of their victims, and among them I re cognised that of Captain Wakefield, one of the distinguished inhabitants of Port 'Nicholas, who had entertained us at his own house, when we went to the town to procure provisions. I was seized with horror at this sight. My companions blamed me for having risked irritating the cannibals, as we were only five against two hundred. But they gave us con. fidence by saying, 'Oh, the Oui, oui (for so they distinguish us) are good people, but the Yes, yes are very wicked.' rhey then related that they had killed the English because they wished to establish themselves in a bay which they had not purchased, and which the Mahouris are unwilling to give up. We then retired with our hearts full of horror and disgust." THE BOURSE-SATURDAY, JULY 6. First• highest Lowest Last p r i m , Price. Price. Price. French Fiveperenits...... 122 20 .. 122 20 .. 122 15 .. 122 15 Four-and-a-Half.... 113 25 113 25 .• 113 25 113 25 Four per Cents. :• :• • 108 .. 108 • • 108 • • 108 Three per Cents.• ••• 81 83 • • 81 90 • • 81 85 .. 81 - 90 Bank of France,.......• .• .3015 —3017 50 .•3015 ..3017 50 Lanittetiwk, -I,ooof. Sharesll2o ..1120 • • 1120 .• 1120 14,000 f. SharessoBo —5OBO • • 5080 ..'5OBO Belgian Bank ..•• • • • • • • • • • • 675 .. 680 • • 675 .. 680 Belgian Fives, 1831. 1840 .• ••• • •• 1054 .. 105 i •• 1054 .. 105} 1842 • • •••• •• 1081 • 1081 •• 1084 .. 1084 Spanish Threes, ex div...... 3 3 334 •• 334 .. 331 Neapolitan 9B 9d .. 99 05 98 90 .. 99 Roman . •.. RAILWAY SHARES. Versailles, R.B•••• •• •• •• •• 380 .. 382 50 •• no • 382 80 7 50 Rouen •• ..... • • • •• •• 50 • •• •100 4 0 50 . . : .1 24 000 5 Rouen to 767 50 767 50 .. 767 50 767 50 Orleans .• ••-• • •• • ••• •••• 997 50 -•• 997 •• 99 5 •• 995 Strasburg to 8a1e.......... 240 .. 240 .. 240 .. 240 Avignon to •• •• 766 25 .. 766 25 .. 766 25 . 766 25 RAILWAY SHARES FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15Tu JULY. Versailles, R.B. L. 8.•• •• •• •• •• 250 .. 250 • • 248 75 .. 250 Rouen .. , 1600 ••• 1000 • • 997 50 .. 997 50 Rouen to Havre.... ...... •• 767 50 • • 768 75 .. 763 75 .. 763 75 Orleans .......... •• 997 50 .• 997 60 • • 992 50 .. 993 75 Strasburg to Bale.• • • Avignon to Marsellles•• •• .• 768 75 • • 768 75 768 75 .. 768 75 THIS DAY'S NEWS. A Cabinet Council was held this afternoon at the Foreign-office, Downing-street, the summonses for which were issued on Saturday. All the Ministers were expected to be present. THE LATE ATTEMPTED MURDER.—The unfor tunate Mr. Smith, who was on Saturday so severely wounded by a pistol ball fired by the lion. William Tuchet, has gone on, up to one o'clock this day, rather favourably, certainly without the manifestation of any unfavourable syMptoms yet. The ball has not been at! present extracted, in con sequence of its being lodged too near the spine ; he cannot be pronounced out of danger. MARKET NEWS -(THIS DAY.) CORN-EXCHAN G E-MONDAY. Fresh up to-day, we received rather a scanty supply of Wheat of home produce. The finest parcels of both• red and white mostly found buyers, at about previous rates of cur rency, but those of all other descriptions declined quite 13. per quarter. In Foreign Wheat the quotations are is per quarter easier for bonded Wheat ; figures were almost nominal. Chevalier descriptions of Barley were held at previous cur rencies, but grinding and distilling sorts were la per quarter ' lower. Malt at an abatement of Is per quarter. For Oats, the rates declined from 6d to quite is per quarter. Beans, at a reduction of from Is to 2s per quarter. Maple Peas is cheaper. Other kinds at late rates. Best town-made Flour 50s per 280 lbs. CURRENCY PER IMPERIAL MEASURE. Wass2r—Essex & Kent, , o I „MALT—Chevalier . 636 to re d 44, to 5 4 s Ars—Yorkshire.....igi Ditto, a bite Norfolk and Lin 1 Potatoe : .... .... 251 to coin, red 4 os to 438 Youghall ** *** ******** Ditto white...... Irish, red 47s to 50 . • Cork, white .. .... 19. to 20. Ditto, white 21s to 23s RTic—Old New 36s to 38s , pi geon . lissum—Grinding 23s to 275 Pus— Grey 3os to 341 Malting ..».»........ 335 is 368 Mapi, .....« 27s to 325 Cheva1ier........„.„.. 32s to 351 White ..... .. ...... 34s to 30 s SlALT—Suffolk and Nor. -ned lers---.... 3`2s to 38s folk 66s to 62s Ft made ... 48s to 53. Brown 50s to Sts Sudo k ...... ........... 34s to 38 1 Kingston and Vlare 56s to 62. Stockt on &Norfolk 34s to 30e FOREIGN GRAIN AND FLOUR IN BOND. 23 3 WarA T —Dantsid ..» 48s to 62s BRANS ........ "*"...." ..... 20s to 26s Hamburg h 361 to 405 Peas to 27. BARLEY 3Oll to 33s FLOUR— American Orrs—New Feed l4s to I6s SMITHFIELD. The attendance of buyers being small, the demand for all kinds of Beef was in a very sluggish state, and prices ruled, in some instances, a shade easier than those on this day se'nnight. Although a few of the very primest Scots may have produced 45., we consider the highest general figure fur Beef not to have exceeded 3s 10d per 81bs. Notwithstand ing the number of Sheep were extensive, we have to report a steady demand for that description of stock, and last week's prices were fully supported, the best old Downs readily pro ducing 4s. per 81bs. Lambs, at prices barely equal to those quoted in cur last report. Calves at full currencies. Pigs at late rate& Per Me. to sink the offal. d. to 4. d.l - s. d. to s. d. Inferior Beasts 2 6 210 Second qualitydltte... 3 2 3 4 Second gusility'ditto 3 0 3 4 Coarse-woolled ditto.. 3 6 3 11 Prime large Oxen 3 4 3 6 Southdown Wethers $lO 4 0 Prime Scots, &c. 3 8 310 Ditto out of the wool -- Large coarse Calves 3 4 310 Large Hogs ....... .... 3 0 3 6 Prime small ditto 4 0 4 4 Small Porkers.... ... .3• 4 0 Suckling Calves, each 1870 211 0 Quarter old Pigs,eachlti 0 20 0 Inferior Sheep SUPPLY AT MARKET. Beasts. ( Sheep. 1 Calves. I Pigs. 2,940 .___ 31,9..10 , rze 315 241 " 4 " 1/4 " . S 1 Ali* , LE13.31332111/ 1 . 24 . Prime qualities of most kinds of Meat have been nearly cleared off at full prices; but those of most other descriptions have had a downward tendency. At per stone, by the Carew. s. d. to e. d. + . 41. to s. d. Beef, inferior 2 0 2 2 Mutton, inferior ......1 4 2 6 middling ..... -- middling.... 2 8 3 4 ,--- prime large, 2 g 210 ---. prime ..... ... 3 6 3 8 ...-- prime small Veal •••••••.•••••••••••••••• 3 4 4 4 --ema1L..........- 4amb, 4s Od to 5s Od. ARRIVALS DURING THE PAST WEEK. Beasts. Sheep. Calves. Pigs. Scotland — 70 50 Yorkshire Norfolk Suffolk — 20 4 Cambridgeshire Essex 7 90 69 50 Surrey l2 100 40 96 Devonbhire ..... ..•"... ....... ••••••• .... 20 20 40 Wiltshire ......... .................. Other parts o 4 o 3$ 570 163 376 Previous week's 3.50 110 330 • Difference since curtest. .......... . 9 190 53 43 BOROUGH HOP PICARICST. The accounts from most parts of the Weald of Kent, as well as ifrom Sussex and Worcester, state that a further in crease of blight has taken place. In many plantations in East Kent the vermin is represented as more numerous than ever; the Hops in Mid Kent and Farnham are, however, ldbking rather promising. The crop being considered in .a very critical state, more inclination is manifested to purchase, and prices, in consequence, are firmly supported. WOOL WARIEST. The demand by private contract is steady, at full prices. BOROUGH AND SPITALPIELDS. The season for old Potatoes being now nearly closed, the demand for those kinds is heavy, and prices have a down ward tendency—they ruling from 60s to 855 per ton. New Potatoes, though in good supply, command a steady sale, at from 8s to 15s per cwt. The price of Y. C. Tall ow i s ve ry TALLOW MARKET. firm, and a good demand exists for the time of year. There are buyers for the autumn at 42s 6d to 42s 9d. By letters received from St. Peters burgh this morning, the Russians were less willing to sell, and prices were a trifle higher. Dispatches were sent off on Saturday evening from the Colonial-office for the Governor of Heligoland. THE STATE TRIALS. (FOURTH DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Their Lordships met this morning at ten o'clock, when Mr. KELLY resumed his arguments for the plaintiffs. The Learned Counsel said—ln resuming his argument he had now to submit to their Lordships upon this writ of error, that upon an indictment for several diffe rent and distinct misdemeanours, if one count in the indictment were bad the judgment must be reversed, and that the opposite proposition which must be con tended for by the Crown, that on a writ of error for several misdemeanours, with one judgment and one sentence, if one count were good the judgment must be affirmed, was unsound in law, unreasonable, and unjust ; because it must in such cases, at least in many cases of such a charac:er, be a presumption contrary to the known truth, opposed to all legal principles, and wholly unsupported by authority. It was a doctrine of which some loose and vague notions might have entered into and prevailed in the minds of even the most learned judges, by reason of the doctrine being sound and right as applied to motions in arrest of judgment in criminal cases ; but when the rule came to be applied to the case of writs of error, it was found in reason and justice al together inapplicable, and it would lead, in a variety of cases, which might bo imagined, to the most frightful degree of injustice. It would be found to amount to this, that if, in a civil case, coming before the Court of Error, where there was one judgment upon several counts of a general cha racter, the court were reasonably satisfied that with respect to one of the bad counts the jury could not add one shilling to the damages, yet, as it was not their pro vince to assess the damages, if one count were bad the whole judgment must be' reversed and the venire de novo ordered. In a case precisely the same in principle, where there was one judgment for several different and distinct misdemeanors, where the court must feel satisfied, in point of fact, that one general sentence might have been pronounced in respect of those several misde meanors, they having no power by law to apportion or divide or modify the !sentence, nevertheless that which in a civil case they would be bound to do with reference to danitiges they could not do in a criminal case, though satisfied that the parties before them are suffering punish ment for several offences, of all but one of which they had been illegally convicted. This was a proposition so strikingly unjust and unreasonable in itself, that he felt satisfied that when he should have called their Lord ships' attention to the consequences which in a great many cases must result if this were declared by their Lordships' House to be law, and when he should have shown that there was no authority whatsoever to be found in support of such a proposition, he felt confident that their Lordships would not in that case for the first time establish a doctrine which, though perfectly sound and reasonable and just when applied to motions in arrest of judgment in criminal cases, would be unreasonable, unjust, and contrary to every principle of their law, if applied to cases of conviction for several misdemeanours. It was only necessary to look prac tically at what actually happened, and what might happen again upon an indictment for several different misdemeanours all included in the several counts of one indictment to see the impossibility of applying this principle,, which arose in motions in arrest of judgment to cases of writs of error, after con viction, without at once reversing and overturning every principle of law, and what was perhaps of far more importance every principle of natural justice, he would submit one or two cases that ..might be applied as tests to the soundness of this proposition. First, how ever, let it be considered what was the actual practice ; whether it was in fact the practice to indict several persons under one indictment for several misde meanours, and if these persons were convicted not of one, but really of several misdemeanours, committed in succession, whether it must not be the practice in all criminal courts to impose a much severer punishment on those convicted of several offences, than if they had been convicted only of one? And this was especially necet nary in cases of political conspiracy. If the case were of some one misdemeanour which was undoubtedly felo nious—although, if strictly examined, the legal principle of the proposition could not be maintained even in a case of felony—still, they found that it was the practice to indict the same persons in a prosecution for several mis demeanours, and if a person were convicted of one mis demeanour only punishment would be light and venial. If two or mere successive and different misdemeanours were proved, then the punishment would be proportion ately aggravated. Where persons were guilty of three misdemeanours of different characters and degrees, and there was one offence of a very insignificant character, but the sentence in respect of the whole of the offences was very heavy and severe, yet if the court of error found the party illegally convicted of the graver of fences, but lawfully convicted of the ligtiter one, it would commit a perversion and misapplication of a sound legal principle, if it did not reverse that judgment. Would their Lordships affirm that under the law of this country a heavy punishment and a heavy sentence might be imposed upon persons illegally convicted of those offences in which a heavy punishment was awarded ? In troubling their Lordships with some illustrations of this principle, he would refer to two or three cases by no means imaginary, or beyond the bounds of possibility, by which they would not only see enough to prove that the doctrine would be produc tive of most grievous injustice, but would give rise to a system of absurdity and falsehood in the very judges, the high ministers of justice themselves, if they hap pened to sit as judges in a court of error in a prosecution of this kind. Take the simple case of a number of per sons indicted for two conspiracies. Two men, needy and hungry, may agree to go into the next baker's shop and steal a loaf to satisfy the cravings of their appetites. That is a conspiracy to commit a felony, and they might be indicted for it. But the same persons next day may have conspired to break open a house by night, and rob and murder the inhabitants. They would be indicted under one indictment on two counts for these two several conspiracies. They may be convicted, and a motion may be made in the court where they were tried in arrest of judgment. It might be argued that both the counts were bad, and the court might be of opinion that they were both geod,and proceed to pass sentence upon them. Were they to suppose that any court in this country would pass exactly the same sentence on the two poor and hungry men who took a loaf from the baker's shop, as the) would on those convicted of a conspiracy to break open a house and rob and murder? It would be an insult to any in dividual of ordinary judgment to entertain such a pro position. In one case there would be the most lenient sentence which the lawpermitted, while the very heaviest that could be passed would be inflicted on the other. If judgment were passed for the severest sentence, and a writ of error was brought before this House, and this House should hold that the count charging the conspi racy to rob and murder was bad in law, and could not be maintained, but that the count for the conspiracy to take the loaf was a good one, upon the doctrine contended for by the Crown this High Court of Error must affirm that judgment, by sending the parties back to the prison from whence they came, and must inflict upon them the severest sentence which the law allowed, though every member of the court should feel that the parties were illegally convicted of the only crime in respect to which such a sentence could be passed, while the days' or weeks' imprisonment they might have suffered under their sentence might be an ample punishment for the offence of which they had been legally convicted ; yet they were to be told by the law officers of the Crown, that in such as that the subject was without remedy. , Lord CAMPBELL said, looking to what was merely possible, there might be two counts in the indictment,; and the Court below might think the bad count a good one, and the good count a bad one, and might give sentence on the bad count; if it then came to a court of error would that judgment be supported ? Mr. KELLY said he was about to put that case, and under circumstances which would startle every one if it could be applied for a moment. He was not suggesting im possible or even improbable cases ,• let them look back but for a few years to the history of their own times, and see if cases had not actually occurred in which parties had been indicted for a great many misdemeanours of such varied character that a conviction on one might be followed by a fine of a shilling, and a conviction on all by the heaviest sentence the Court could pronounce. They were here on a case of political conspiracy charged against a number of persons having one ultimate object, which was in itself perfectly lawful, it being to effect a change in a particular Act of Parliament. The question was the character of the means they agreed on to effect that object. He would not illustrate the case by anything that had oc curred in this very cause, because he would rather re frain from going out of the record. But let their Lordships look back to what had occurred two or three years since when a contest raged throughout this country for the purpose of obtaining what was denomi nated—the People's Charter, when it was desired to obtain what was called the five points of the Charter. How different he would ask were the means resorted to to obtain that object? The prosecution of Mr. Fergus O'Connor, who was tried before Mr. Baron Rolfe, dis closed as many different degrees of guilt as it was pos sible to conceive. The collecting of persons in public houses, up to the proceedings of Frost and his associates to commit murder and treason. Now if that proceeding had taken place in the !North of England instead of Wales, according to the principles laid down on the other side, they must have been tried altogether. There must then have—been a conviction upon several counts for several misdemeanours. Was he driven to ask the question whether upon an indictment like that where a trivial offence was charged in the first count, and the other counts increasing the offence in a mostmaterial de gree—increasing till it came to murder—was it to be said that they were all to be found guilty on the last count, whereas some of them would only have been guilty of the offence charged in the first count? Supposing that the Court of Queen's Bench, on the case coming before them, had held that the ten counts were good in law, could any one doubt that the Court would pass a severer sentence for the offences contained in the ten counts, than if the Court had held that the nine counts were bad, and the first only good? He would suppose that nine counts were bad. Had the subject his writ of error, or was he altogether without remedy ? Here were men suffering the severest sentence of the law—they are ad vised that they were illegally convicted, yet the law affords them no redresS—they bring a writ of error in that House, and upon that writ of error the Lord Chief Justice of England, who should have heard the argu ments, and come to the conclusion that the counts were good, and had participated in the judgment on the par ties, on the ground that they bad been guilty of ten crimes instead of one—yet that Noble Lord could sit in that House on a writ of error from his own judgment. Then, upon the writ of error in that House, the vali- , dity of the whole ten counts is argued, and upon re-con • sideration the Lord Chief Justice, and the other mem- hers of the Queen's Bench, may be of opinion that their former judgment was incorrect. Their Lordships might be also of opinion that nine of the counts were bad, and that consequently the parties before the House had been illegally convicted of nine grave charges, while in fact they had only been guilty of one very minor offence. In what situation, he would ask, were their Lordships, if the law was what was contended for on the other side P Was he to be told that the parties might apply for a free pardon ? Why was a Court of Error allowed in that House, but for the purpose of correcting the errors of other tribunals ? In political conspiracies, where hundreds of men joined together to effect a certain object—the repeal of an Act of Parliament, or so on— some might attempt to effect that object by lawful means, others might attempt to effect it by unlawful means, and others by the mo,t criminal means. They would then be led to this conclusion, that in prosecutions of this nature, where parties suffering the sentence of the court bad been illegally convicted of a greater offence, but had been legally convicted of a minor offence, the Court of Error must lay aside every principle of justice, and affirm the sentence, because it must assume that that sentence had been passed for that for which, in fact, it had never been passed. The injustice and the absurdity of such a course of pro ceeding must be manifest. But he would suppose ano ther case, not a case of political conspiracy. Suppose a man indicted at the court of quarter session for two libels, the first altogether a libel in law, yet one of s o trivial a nature, that if it had stood alone no one would hare thought of prosecuting it ; the other an accusation of some horrible offence, such as incest. Suppose him to be tried, convicted, and sentenced. He moves an arrest of judgment on the ground that the count charging the graver libel is bad in law. The Court holds that both are good, and as they would only have passed a lenient sentence on the first count they do their duty and pass a heavy sentence, because he has been convicted upon both. The case is brought by writ of error before the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's bench held that the first count is bad and the second good, then this doctrine of presumption would prevail and the Court would refuse to reverse the judgment, be cause they would say that it was to be presumed that the Court below had passed sentence for the offence which was well laid, and for no other. The Court, therefore, would affirm the judgment in accordance with this doc trine of presumption. A writ of error would then be brought before that House, and both counts are again argued. Their Lordships, including the Lord Chief Justice, who had heard the case, argued before, and also the other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, who had joined in that decision, are of opinion upon graver deliberation, that the Queen's Bench was wrong, that the second count was bad, and the first good, it would be the duty of the court of error to reverse the judg ment. But if this doctrine of presumption were to pre vail they must affirm it, and they would have this ab surdity—the Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the judgment, because they presumed that the court had passed judgment only on the second count which they considered good, and the House of Lords affirmed it, because they considered that sentence had been passed not on the second count which they considered bad, but on the first, and the unhappy defendant who was thus passed from court to court, having expressly heard the judge say, " You have this sentence passed upon you because you have been convicted of two offences," would be told by the first court of error "You are punished for one offence only," and when he came to that House he would also be told that he was pu nished only for one offence, but that offence a different one from that which he had been told heves punished for by the Court of Queen's Bench. What a spectacle would. thus be presented before the enlightened people of this country, who are so justly proud of their laws and institutions, and who looked up with such respect to their Lordships' House, as the purest, most just, and most independent tribunal in the world. This defendant might see seated in that House the chairman of the' quarter sessions who had sentenced him, the Lord Chief Justice, before whom the writ of error had been first brought ; and when he had proved to the satis faction of their Lordships, that he was suffering a grievous sentence for two offences, with respect to one of which he had been illegally convicted, he could not appeal to the Noble Lord who had sentenced him, and who told him that he had been sentenced upon two counts—he could not appeal to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, who told him that he was suffering the punishment for the graver offence ; but that House, act ing upon this doctrine of presumption, told him that he was suffering, and must suffer this heavy punishment for that other offence, of which, if he had been alone con victed in the first place, he would not have suffered one half of the imprisonment which he tad - suffered before coming to that House. And if, after_ that decision, those who for the future framed indictments for conspiracy were not more careful, these cases would be of constant occurrence. Was it possible that their Lordships, sitting as a Court of Error, when they found that a person had been convicted illegally of nine out of ten offences, and had been sentenced to an imprisonment for_ years, and a fine amounting to half his fortune, not_for the offence of which he had been legally convicted, but of that of which he had been illegally convicted—were their Lordships bound by this principle of presumptive act, so contrary to truth and justice, as to say "You must suffer this punishment, and you must pay this fine, although if you had been brought up for judgment :for "the offence of which you had been legally convicted, you would have had no such punishment • inflicted upon you." If they felt themselves compelled to affirm this doctrine— if there was an Act of Parliament which gave them no discretion— if there was a solemn decision of that House on the point on a writ of error, undoubtedly their Lord ships must be bound by that decision, and the defend ants must submit. But he trusted if such- were the case, that even the short remainder of the session would not be allowed to pass away without the introduction of a Bill to alter the law. But there was no authority—no Act of Parliament—no decision of' that house, or of a court of law, laying down that a writ of error brought up on several misdemeanors, if there were one good count that would be sufficient ► and the sentence would be affirmed. If there were such, it had eluded the search of himself and friends. In eases in which motions were made in arrestof judgment in civil actions, where general damages had been given,- the court was compelled to arrest the judgment if one count was bad. As in a civil case it was impossible for the court to say how much the damages the jury awarded-upon the count which was bad, and how much upon that which was good, the court would reverse the judgment altogether, and send back the case to another jury, that they might apportion the damages; and their Lordships - would find that this principle of law, which was perfectly sound when applied to civil cases was equally applicable to criminal cases for several offences with one sen tence upon a writ of error. In civil cases the court could not determine how much of the sum the jury awarded upon a count that was bad, where there was a conviction for two misdemeanors with one sentence for two years' imprisonment, and a fine of 2,000/., the Court of Error had no power to determine how much of the two years' imprisonment the Court below awarded upon the count that was bad, and how much upon the count that was good, nor how much of the fine was awarded on the bad count, nor how much on the good count. The punishment was discretionary, and it might be that upon the count which was good a pu nishment of a month's imprisonment, and a fine of 1001. might be awarded, whilst upon the other count that was bad, a punishment of twenty-three months' imprisonment and a fine of 1,900/. might have been awarded, and the Court not only had no power to determine in what pro portions the punishment was awarded, but they had no power to apportion it themselves, because they did not sit there for that purpose, and, therefore, upon a writ of error for several misdemeanors, where one discretionary sentence was imposed, the Court of Error was precisely in the same situation as either the Court below, or the Court of Error above, in the case of a verdict by a jury on several counts giving one sum as damages, and therefore the Court had no power except to reverse the judgment altogether. In the cases to which he had referred, the cases for example of " Peaker v. Oldham," and " Grant v. Aschatn," the judges reversed the judg ment in toto, because they declared themselves unable to apportion the damages, and therefore the cases were sent back for another trial. But the judges were found to have made some such observations as those—" but it was otherwise in criminal cases, because," and he prayed their Lordships to attend to the reason given, because it would determine the principle on w hi c h they acted— " because," they said, " the court there could apportion judgment—the court there could pronounce what it thought fit, if there was one good count in the indict ment." Lord Mansfield said, "We must reverse the judgment altogether, because we cannot apportion the damages, which would be to assume the functions of a jury; but it is otherwise in a criminal case, if we find even one good count; and why, because we aro the jury there, and we impose the punishment. Provided there be one good count in the indictment we need.not reverse the judgment, because we have it in our power to award punishment, and we Will award it according: to what is Just and right, on one count, provided it be good." They found the judges using such expressions -where the general principle of the law was adverted to, and no doubt it was perfectly sound doctrine upon motion on arrest of judgment, for there the court had it in its power to apportion the punishment according as the counts were good or bad; but upon a writ of error the Court of Error was in a different situation. If their Lordships, in all cases where there had been a prosecution for misdemeanour, though there might be a hundred counts, were in a situation to say that although there was a general count the party had been convicted of but one offence, then the doctrine applied as well, in point of reason and justice, to writs of error as to motions in arrest. The court of error might say, " Although we know this, all these are charged as „several offences, yet, by universal and invariable practice, a party cannot be convicted of more than one offence ; therefore, we will not, upon the substantial justice of the case, and, although the offences are laid as several in point of form, yet, as we know there can be but one offence in point of sub stance and truth, we will not refuse judgment if we find one count good and valid in law." But the fact or truth of the case was otherwise, and rendered the doctrine altogether inapplieble to writs of error. It was custo mary in all kinds of criminal proceedings for misdemea nour ; but in cases of conspiracy it was usual to include two, three, or more, of the distinct and several offences in one indictment. One of their Lordships, Lord Chief Justice Tindal, would remember a very im portant case which had been tried before them within the past week. In that case, though there was a great multiplicity of counts, three perfectly distinct conspira cies were charged under one indictment. One was a conspiracy to defraud a man of property by procuring a foreign legislature to pass an Act to annul a con tract ; another was to turn a man out property of which he was lessee, and which, if ever it existed, could not have been formed till two years after the first was com plete ; the third was to destroy a man's credit as a mer chant Now, if it had happened that, instead of the charges being groundless they had been well proved, there would have been a conviction on the whole indictment. Now, if upon such un indict ment as that—it was quite immaterial of how man, counts it consisted—the defendants had been convicted of three totally different and distinct offences, and had then gone before the Court of Queen's Bench to receive ' judgment, and had made a motion in arrest of judgment,'" their Lordships wo u ld th en fi n d a p rec i se app li ca tion co this principle to the one case of an arrest of judgmen t ' and to no other. If h e h a d succee d e d i n sat i s f y i n g 10 7 court that the count of conspiracy to injure a man! credit as a merchant was ill-laid and bad in law, and and that the count for turning the man out of his PO • perty was ill-laid and bad in law, but that the count re* lating to the foreign legislature was good and valid itt law, what would have been the conduct of the Queen , ' Bench ? Why, they would have passed sentence upce the one good count, and have said nothing as to the, others ; whereas they would have passed a sentence et three years' imprisonment if the three offences had beep proved, they would have passed a sentence of one year s imprisonment for the offence o f w hi c h th e p ar ty h"'" been duly convicted. Justice would then have beep done, and the motion to arrest judgment would not have prevailed, because one of the counts had been held to be bad. But now he would suppose the same case in!' a writ of error. In a case which he would.' put in which two sets of counts were ba i t' , and in which the court passed sentence up on the gee" one, it would be the duty of those who made up the re' cord to enter judgment upon the good count, and to elite no judgment at all upon the bad counts. But if, ineteal f l of that, judgment were entered upon th e record as sentence had been passed for the three distinct offence 6 how would the doctrine then apply ? .If their Lord: ships looked at the authorities, th e y wou ld fi n d n otbiet whatever to warrant the statement that although °I! good count would support an indictment on a motion . . arrest jndgment, the same doctrine h a d ever preesio' : , upon argument in a court of error. It was in its aPPli catien that the error existed, and not in th e di c t u m itself , which was just and right when properly applied. The dictum in the King v. Ingram was perf ec tly correct"' applied to an arrest of judgment ; but altbgether incer; rect as applied to a writ of error. The ease of the 1 0 °E; v. Fuller was a case of reference to the judges OP.: point reserved at the Old Bailey ; and the o bject not to reverse a judgment, but to :submit to the cot l P c whether the parties should be pardoned, o r th e judgsnee stand as it did. The last case, that of the King v.Vintit' established the principle for which he (Mr. Kelly) 00'1. tended Lord Mansfield there said .th a t the jUdgint should not be arrested by reason of one o r more of t_.,°" counts being bad. But he gave this express reason tel it, that the court might lessen the punishment if the count were had. Why, he besought their Lordships to consider the effect of that doctrine falling from...loPrt Mansfield. In that case th e C our t w ill no t ar rest th e judgment, but will lessen the punishment. These Wel l all the cases that had been confirmed, and the questie ll was, whether anything in these cases, or any others' ruled that the principle so soundly appli ca ble to snoti°; in arrest of judgment applied also to writs of error. had pointed Out hypothetically the strange and increT A . ble results that would be caused, if this doctrine shell° prevail ; it would cause the most frightful injusti°°' Parties might suffer an imprisonment of ye w and sustain perhaps the loss of a fortune und e r the false contents of an indictment for one ver!!A offence. When these consequences were submit to their Lordships, he contended they must pause bete"; they produced them, unless there was some grand °O tt ruling authority or decision which s hould be binding °s that House. But he entreated their Lordships to re; member that the House, sitting as a superior court error, was called on, for the first time, to lay down th eb doctrine, the effect of which w ou ld b e t o inflict 5 , 0 cruel injustice. Before he passed from this point ilea gether, he .must observe that it was not to be wonder at that the authorities should be so few _on 0 0 1 1 . point. From the mode in which the law in this country was administered, it must ea% occur to the minds of their Lordships that wr i a of error on charges of misdemeanour must he : le very rare occurrence. With regard to cases of mil d • meanour at the assizes, in ninety-nine cases out of le hundred the persons indicted were of a station in G 1 that deprived them of the means of bringing a "alt o ( error ; and with respect to the whole of this Osseo persons, if a point was reserved, it was generally sett ! and determined by the judges. Lord BR Ce e° BROUGHAM reminded Mr, Kelly that this As decided on points of law laid down by the practice of n et courts of law and equity at 'Westminster, without •e‘ coming to the House of Lords. la 10 Mr. KELLY—Certainly. But in this case it should if made out what had been the practice in writs of el c , It was vain to expect that there should be many Ol i o rities on this point. In trials for misdemeanor, 15 "„ o's were removed by certiorari into the Court of (Pe' h . Bench, . the public were gener a lly! sa ti s fi e d with t- , t he decisions of that Court, a n d - on l oo ki ng throng"' rot books he scarcely found so 'many as four writs of e l ; o f or misdemeanour during the last century, nor in e r 'i te as them was, there anything like a decision in which it ec o-. distinctly held in argument that where there was ° t eed viction for several different misdemeanours one o lght . count was enough to support the indictment. .irnt the be argued that when the judgment was given '-isteatt' several offences aforesaid," this might be taken to .i.rere the several offences that were well laid. • But if i t f the doubtful that the judgment was passed in respect°, the several offences well laid, still he apprehended t alsitaet judgment must be bad f or am bi gu ity. I n or derW° 3 w ho; the sentence it must appear distinctly on the' recorti, ho p the offence or offences were for whi c h sen t en ce hao r passed. If, therefore, the record left-it doulitfuT whe is was for the offences, well or ill laid, that was sufficl! b P o to vitiate the judgment. But he contended that t oe words " offences aforesaid" must r e f e r t o their last af e ti cedent. And in pages 78 and 79 the finding 'gaol ed ., the counts against the several defendants, and then inir e it diately afterwards found Daniel O'Connell guilty ° O Ol the several offences, including all the counts, both goo and bad. Now he would suppose, in order to seee i f ; meaning of these terms " several offences"—suPP° 6 00 e an indictment there were two counts—one alleglng o offence, and the other another ; supposing there verdict of guilty on each, and then judgment•wac e ti flounced against the party, that he should-be insPri- 6° o twelve months for the several offences; supposing uP ° l si. writ of error it was found that one count was bad ill f r o e and the other good, so that there remain e d b u t one ene o f well laid in point of law, what •would he the meanieg t he judgment for the several off ences ? I t mus t mean i o s several offences whether well or ill c h arge d in the he dictment. In the p resent ease one meaning oluseb"ere given to several offence's, whereas in cases where o st are only two cou n t s ot h er and different meanings ° lot be given to th ose wor d s. W here t h ey found seT"s offences charged i n an i n di ctment, an d t h ey m ust 5 ( :,0 pose them to be legally charged, the only meaning f l i „ 5 0 0 to the term " severa l of f ences " must b e one o ff enc e. these grounds he would submit that if there wa s o ot count bad the j u d gmen t mus t b e reverse d. The pre dos conviction was for several misdemeanours, and th, e , ye ti fondants had appealed to their Lordships to be relieved, from offences of w hich they had been illegally cool . ; re If their Lordships did n o t a ffirm this doctrine an u e st verse this judgment, the consequence would be that, th Lordships would be maintaining and perpetuat tn _tios punishment, not in respect of offences of which p i e at had been legally convicted, but continuing punishl?, c os for offences of which the parties were not legally ar victed, and that too upon the' presumption that tneT i ,,,,, ties had been convicted upon the good counts. court of error could not assume the jurtdiction of e ;. O propropriating the offences upon which the parties t o suffering punishment ? The only course left °re a d their Lordships was either to affirm or reverse tbei t u h ee ment below. If the court reve rse d th e j u d g ment t he the case must be sent to another tribunal, where , e re case must be tried over again, and if the parties ° t he found guilty they must be puni s hed acco rding t°., to crimes they had committed. H e wou ld now subrap eo t their Lordships that there was at least one bad eti „ o rt, in the indictment. He contended, for his own rep% that every count in the indictment w as bad ; but hands' been preceded by several of his Learned Fri e nd and particularly by Sir T. Wilde, who had ca u l their Lordships' attention to all the counts, he '4l°, be only trouble the House with t wo o f t h e coun ts whie , " b ol contended were bad in the face of th em , b ecau se theA lc se not charged any offence with legal certainty. ' c i%th two counts were the sixth and the ei g hth. The .; related to the exhibition of physical force, anu t her eighth to the transfering of other legal matters to ° to o tribunals. With respect to. the sixth. count it Ny" s co e' general. It'showed no legal offence. In order to . e es stitute the legal offence of conspiracy, it must h e w s , pressly alleged that the conspiring. w a s for seine °l ot be ful object ; and if for arc unlawful object, it I°, eet shown to be such, and not merely ca ll e d so . It "a - ir ed sufficient to allege that persons had unlawfully ce° 3 P ro ost by unlawful means to do an unlawful act. But it srilf be shown that the means were such as were nece ° : o 4l,9 unlawful, or that the end and object must be neeet o ely" unlawful. This 6th count, when considered well, "„ t en; be found to amount to this : that eight persons — i l ea tioned, unlawfully, maliciously, and so forth, consrod and confederated to cause and procure, and aided f tl l9 , assisted in causin g an d procur i ng , di vers su bjects ° I pea Queen to assemble in large numbers for the utitvi ° 4o o seditious purpose of c h ang i ng th e l aws an d constn .iice tl of the realm. Th e first part charges that they c° l : l , 9 , r vor to procure a large a ssem bly o f p ersons f or a certai n - " e sss pose. Now to procure a large assembly of persot not illegal ; it must be shown that the a,sseinhu s ere illegal, or that the purposes for which they tha t met was so. Then the count went on to sob' they caused them to assemble for an unlawful and c t he tious purpose. Now, if the count stood there li - ° " ta tedf count was clearly bad. Here the purpose wee ti ° oo fit and therefore upon that count the only clue s a to b e their Lordships was, whether the purpose stat e "Aearif unlawful and seditious was upon that statement _c al to shown to be either one or the other? A consP l _ r ot procure changes in the Constitution was clearly i, 03 0" Wt. gal. Could it be' said that the parties who w in' Relen t ' the sures to procure the union of Scotland and i v England, which would affect a great alteratiolid law, were guilty of an illegal conspiracy? or c°,." - _` said that the conspiring to procure the Catholic ~s ue c. 7 effected great changes, had committed au , _ w 0 Bill, or the Reform Bill, both of whit:h ill : 3 o e r 0 ; 0 e The endeavour to procure a change in the ' a s laid be legal object. Let them consider if what was t° the count was necessarily unlawful, or if it were rea ps brought about by necessarily unlawful means. ' l °'_ O f t; were intimidation, caused by assembling meeti_niegeottoi people. Who was to be intimidated? Wss it merit or the Sovereign? That might or might not ° er feetY, Or was it any other person whom it might h 4 , de_ legal te intimidate? So with regard to the wo;_ te d ea_ monstration of physical force,' it was not ~, : a fro oa whom that was to operate. The count we i ! " c harg e _ uncertainty. It ought to have been distinctly IY„ .010 tb whom it was that was to be intimidated -0 demonstration of physical force was to opera_Tioefes less they could establish the proposition tca," o „i y , or legal to assemble a meeting to intimidat e anyoe ariyhoos operate by a demonstration of physical force u a l Wo u this ov e th e ill e ' ans ?Pi , It