The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-11 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS. (SIXTH DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10. THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Mr. KELLY resumed his reply at about it quarter past ten. The Learned Counsel commenced by saying he felt that their Lordships' decision, in reference to the point upon which he addressed them last night, might be grounded—first, upon authority—seccincllly, 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 bility of misapprehension, that he should shortly refer their Lordships to those authorities which alone had any bearing 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 had been a conviction upon several offences, but that they must have referred to the well-known practice upon motions in arrest of judgment. The first case to which be should refer their Lordships was that of " Peat and Oldham," in Ist Cooper's Reports, p. 270. In that case Lord Mansfield, after lamenting that a mere slip 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.' lii 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 meat! ? 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 inflicting 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 a 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 judgment was passed and punishment inflicted for the offence stated in that count. Another case to which he begged to refer was that of "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 occupie I was this very point—was there any authority for such an intendment, ens did the practice exist that would support it ? The moment they assumed that where one of several offences was well laid, and the court decide 1 in a motion for arrest of judgment on that one, but nevertheless entered up that judgment. not on one but on all, the moment that was the fact, they gave aloundation for an intend ment which if Made withotit 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 he had to say on this point, as to the practice, in a very few observations. for the point was simple and clear, and bevuni all doubt. lle 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 Brtoncuan—You put a case of a motion for arrest of judgment; but put a case in which there was no motion for arrest of judgment. Lord CAMPBELL—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•olfences, and the de fendant was convicted for all three, and on a motion for amst 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 1,500/., 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 or 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 1,5001. 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 tvrmine. 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 just possible that the court might say there is no r,ecessity for entering up judgment on the bad counts, because there - is one good count! to hold. Lord CAMPBELL—The arrest of judgment on Qne count was well known to the law: Mr. Knutv said that there were two instances which bore upon the present point: The "King and .110c1- son," sth Term Reports. There the court gave j udgment on the good counts, and judgment for the defendants on the bad count. Then there was Mr. Fearems O'Connor's case. In that case the judg inent 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 fur 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 for felonies or mis demeanours, the same course was pursued. If there had been any record made up in any of the courts of Wisst. minster Halli-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 " Kin ii .e• v. Collins," the counts were expressly stated' upon which the judg ment was to be entered up. Now supposing that! the judgment had been entered. up on the whole courts, would it have been supposed that sentence had been passed upon the whole of them?' Lord BROUGHAM recollected a case, in which he was counsel ; when he was carping at some of the counts, Mr. Baron Wood said, "There no use in that ; for there is clearly one good count; arid that will support the Wig . ment." And the court of er.sor would always presume • that the court had given judgment on the good count. Lord CAMPBELL—It would he 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 in confounding the proceed ings when a party was brought up for judgment with the proceedings in error sihen 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 suppoied 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 bnt ono, 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, bat • 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 nut return a verdict upon more than one. Hence arose the practice of defendants in sisting upon having a verctict upon one count only, and calling upon the eouusel for the Crown to elect. He had taken that course him:elf frequently, and he was speak• • inn before a Learned Judge who, in a case of conspiracy, a few weeks ago, when he was counsel for the accused, and had called upon the prosecution to elect, decided he had no right so to calf upon. them, and the counsel for the Crown acceied 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 c.junt, and that alleges several offences, some of which are not true, the defendant has a right to insist • upon a verdict being entered for him on those parts are not true. • r:1 tj.l lidik'--3-411es, My Lord. -Iscd7;C , A7r7Mo'.l.—l doubt if the Jaw recognises the < Onrts. It is one presentment by the Aran) ,fury, hut 'Vass presentment is se'verable, and the . jury way acquit oria part. . . (r-,\'' 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 ; he 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 guilty 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. He would call their Lordships' attention to the case of "Fox v. Austin," to be found in Lawes's Reports, '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 on: of the defendants guilty for seven hundred 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 not necessary that there should be any such verdict, be cause the punishment would bo the same for stealing corn, whether seven hundred, two hundred, or a thou sand quarters. But it might be important to the prisoner to have the verdict so entered, because he might be suspected of having stolen another 1,000 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 entitled 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 meeit should be prove for that and that only of which he h a d . L 'leen found guilty, and that that, and that only for which _he was suffering punishment,.should appear upon the reco.^d. His Learned Friend the Attorney-General had assere'ed, with that confidence with which he 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, and, he said it with a'. l l submisSion, against the duty of the court. The judgme.it 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 o' 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 cases in arrest of judgment, and one ocher case. Lord BROUGHAM—Yon mean when a point is reserved at the assizes ? Mr. KELLY meant that case. Then, is consequence of their being no court of appeal, the whale matter was reserved, and the point argued before the judg - es , as if it had just arisen. Lord BROUGHAM—Sentence is never pronourrAli there until afterwards. Mr. KELLY—The court in that case received the evi dence and the verdict, and if they found the party it.'lY convicted of any one offence on any one count, the,v 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 pronounced against him, it is 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 of 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 whet 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 assizes, there were not ten cases out of the ten thousand in which the records were ever actually made up, and in those few eases 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 go 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 on 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 a judgment could be entered after motion in arrest ofjudgment of the Crown in one count, and for the defendants in the other. Tie (Mr. Kelly) did not see any difficulty about it, and their Lordships would find several instances given in Davis's Pleas of the Crown, 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 Lordihips 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 pre 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 bound 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 actuallybeen formed in this country within the last few years. His Learned Friends wrapping themsel vea 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 be believed there was no power of that kind vested in 'the judge in case of misdemeanour, unless it were the power of recommendinee The jury were sworn to try three or more issues, and try those issues they must, unless both parties consented to a release. Vv The LORD CHANCELLOR—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 necessary 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 Loan CnaNcst.t.on 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 justice, 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 their minds. .He was quite aware that if two totally distinct misdemeanours were charged, such for instance as a libel against one individual, anti a conspiracy to murder another, in one and the same indictment, the judge would recom mend, and probaby his-recorninendation would be adopted, that either the one or the other should be _abandoned ; but they were not then considering a case of that na ture. In a case tried last week before the Lard 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 indiridual of the benefit of a valuable lease, and to place another person in possbssion of it, which could not have been formed before the beginning of the year 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and t•ben 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 Landon 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 Decemner, 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and the third could hardly be fixefas to time, as the evidence relating to it extended over a period of six or seven years. , The LORD CSANcELLoit---But what took place on the trial? Mr. KELLY --Ever ychargdwasfully gone into. Two days were occupied with the hearing, and he himself (Mr. Kell7) had the painful duty of defending the eminent parties charged., After he had addressed the jury, the Lord Chief Just - ice - told the jury there was no evidence to be left to them insupport a the last charge. He then referred to a correspondence of rather a voluminous character, and, ultimately expressed his opinion to the jury, tki.tthere 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 Soap CHANCELLOR was sorry the case had not been mentioned when the Lord Chief Justice was pre sent, as he (the Lord Chancellor) had a distinct im pression that the Lord - Chief Justice had told the jury to direct their:, attention ta,on . e .- of the charges only, and that an electiohl was male." Mr. KELLY said he did -not direct the jury to one charge till the summing up. The LORD enaiwELLonL--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 Lora Chief Justice was present. Mr. KELLY said he hid 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 intervals of years. On that very case, whatever might be his Lordship's impression derived from what had fallen from the Chief Justice— • _ _ The LORD CHANCELLOR said the statement had no prance 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—If his Lordship's impression was that an election was offered to the parties, and that the whole of these counts were not left to the jury, he was bound to say that the impression was an erroneous 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 them, because the evidence on the two greater charges had 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. Ile then ,quoted the language of Lord Ellenborough in a case from the 2d of Campbell's Reports, in which his Lordship laid it down 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 same description. He re ferred to a recent trial before Justice Holroyd, in which there was an indictment for three libels, published at in 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 rerson 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 if 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 Lordship 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. Ile 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 e,harged 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 th e laws and constitution of the realm. The real ob jection to this count had not been met by the other side. The ohlection was not that the name of the parties was not neet.tioned, but the objection was, that the count charge d conspiracy to intimidate, but did not mention the naLuet Of the persons to be intimidated. Here their Lordships consulted together for a short time, dining which' Mr. Kelly did not proceed with his argument. The LORD, CHAIicELLOR—Go on with your argument, Mr. Kelly. 'We are attending to what you say, although we occasiona '.l) - consult among ourselves upon the points as they arise. • Mr. KELLY tlo ntended that this sixth count was bad, because it was ~not stated on what particular class Of persons it was itets'nded the , intimidation should operate. It - Was a 'general ctearge of intimidation, without stating the party on whom , t was intended to operate, and the result was, th a t if wil. st species of intimidation ci,uld be created by a legal wet ling with a legal intention, the count was bad. The oiu.'e had not been fairly argued by his Learned Friends ou the other side. They had said that that was legal for one which it was illegal for many to do.—(Elere their Lords hi es again engaged in conver sation, and Mr. Kelly pausoit Lord BROUGHAM—Mr. K,seiy, go on, go on. Mr. KELLY—His Learned 74ends had referred to cases which he admitted in which e'a mes had not been men tioned in indictments. But ait. t tough names had been omitted, classes of persons had aft 'ays been mentioned. No doubt in cases of conspiracies tt.` defraud, it might be impossible to name the parties. .F.or example, if per sons were indicted for a conspiracy tee rob on the high way, the names of the 'persons to be Irobbed could not be mentioned. But there could be no .4oubt that the conspiracy would be illegal. In the fir.at place it was illegal to rob at all ; and in the next plseco the conspi racy would be laid as a conspiracy to rob a 1.4. the Queen's subjects who should pass on a certain highw a,y. Again, in case of a conspiracy to defraud, which hen been tried before Mr. Justice Williams, although no in .a,n es were mentioned, the class of persons to be defrauded as dis tinguished as all persons who could be induced ts.' give the defendants credit. That indictment was good, be cause it alleged an illegal agreement to affect an ill ,'al object. It was definite, for it so distinguished the pat - 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 net, 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 Sovereig n, the Parliament, or the Queen's subjects generally. The case of the King v. Hill' and others, 2d Barnewall and Alderson, page 204, had been decided by the Court if 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 answer was, 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 intimidated. Now, if that had been stated in the indictment, the defendants would have known the charge against which they had to defend themselves ; but as it was, if it were possible to imagine a case in which intimidation might be lawful by means of a law ful meeting, the count would be bad for generality. He would not 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 he 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 meet for the unlawful and sedi tious purpose of obtaining, by means of intimidation, charges 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, and 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 le Peck," the principle of whieh 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 g eneral, that his Learned Friend the At torney-Genera 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 ihe 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, into 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 Jatneses ; 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 fur 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 cific. violation of the law was charged in the indictment." No one 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 not 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 finding ought to have been of one offence, only, and in the one count. The principle of law was as applicable to misdemeanours as to felonies. The argument of the Attorney-General 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 dis tiection between conspiracy and other misdemeanours. The question here was, not whether in the same indict ment 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 a 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 he 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 page 180 of the printed re port of the trial of the sixty-nine Chartists. The Attorney-General suggested that in case of a mis demeanour it was not 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, B of another, and C of a third, aed the case was so left to the jury at last. In the present case, several issues were left to the jury on one count. Ile submitted. therefore, that the objection appeared here in a clear and simple form. One offence was stated in the count ; three offences were found by the verdict. One judgment' was passed upon all the offences aforesaid. It came before their Lordships as one indivisible judgment on two more offences than were ever presented by the grand jury. It was impossible their Lordships could reject one or an other. The jury had divided on all, and, as it was im 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 a reference to those authorities which had been gone into by his Learned Friend Mr. Peacock. Others had been adverted to by the Attorney-General, but the result of the whole of the authorities was this,'that a discontinu 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 proceedings, 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 term, and made that extension the same for all purposes as if that extension had taken place within the term. Well, then, it was said that this was for the purpose of 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 con tinuance. Why, must not the power that was given to them be not only for the purpose of the trial itself, but for the purpose of subpoenaing the witnesses, and giving force and effect to every trial connected with the trial and all its incidents. If the court was sepposed to have no other power than to hold-the trial out of vacation, they would have no power to record the verdicts. The Legislature must have pre sumed, in giving this authority, to have known the prac tice of the courts, and that these proceedings were in tended by it to be adapted to all forms. On those grounds he submitted that whatever authority the court had in term, it had out of it, and that what they might have done in an ordinary case they might have done in the pre sent. The discontinuance, therefore, not appearing in the record, there was manifest error, and the judgment must be reversed. The manner in which the discontinuance should have been entered in the record clearly applied in the case of h - Hart and White," in the State Trials, and in the case of the " King and Robinson," in 2d 13tirre11 4 . There was another point to which his Learned Friend had thought it necessary to advert, and which, if not is the present, in many cases might become a point of great importance. The point of the judgment of ac quittal to which many of the defendants were entitled, as in many matters contained in this record, there had been no judgment at all, and such being the case, they could not ph ad autrefois acquit to relieve them from it. In his opinion it was utterly impossible to imagine a record 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 techni cal. His Learned Friend had stated that it was true that defendants had, no power to enter an acquittal, but that that House, sitting in error could do so. He (Mr. K.) apprehended that that House, sitting in error, had no right to amend a judgment in any criminal case, and on that ground he would submit also that the judgment on that particular point ought to be reversed. There was ano ther point to which ; although both his Learned Friends had adverted, he felt it his duty, .considering its im portance, to make a few observations, and that was with respect to the right of challenging the array. The facts of that appeared in the record. They were that the recorder ought to have delivered to the clerk of the peace a list of the juries for the year, that from that list a book should have been made, and that from that book the panel ought to have been taken by the sheriff. Now it was said, on the one side, that he never made out such a list—that if he did, he never delivered it to the clerk of the peace. It was said that he did deliver it to the clerk of the peace, but that some of the names might have been wrongly placed. Now be conceived that when the allegation appeared upon• the record, in the language of the statute, the meaning of the allegation was, that the substance of the statute had or had not been complied with. if the Crown i sa 3 taken issue upon that, and it had appeared that a li s t substantially within the meaning of the statute, al tho'soh some of the names might have been misplaced, and tai,'e or two omitted, had been given in, there would have bet 'n a verdict given for the Crown. But if it had appeare d that the Recorder had never delivered a list, and the l etnel had been made out on a fabrica that w ould be an abundant ground of chal lengeor suppose the Recorder had strictly t in performedo , ; (1 his . I tY, and had delivered in a list contain ing the mines of all the jurors, but that there the chain t irlgs had ended, and some third un known from which th e p ane l had b een of regular proceea person .had interfered and f u r n i s h e d th e s h er iff struck.wtha fraudulent odunleentconkl doubt but th at wou ld f urn i s h abundant ground of challenge for trial by jury would be a mere mOckery if jurors could be selected from a fabricased list. The great ques tion- was, if challenge of the array was the right remedy or not, and their 'Lordships were told, by reason of a multitude of ancii, t authorities relating to proceedings before special juries ee l / 4 . re known, that it was only by reason of some'charge against the sheriff that a challenge to the array could be allowed.. He appre hendedb that that doctrine was founded upon an incorrect proposition — in point of law. The chal lenge of the , array was given to the subject in order that 'he might secure to hiinself a fel, - and im • partial trial by jury ; and as long as the jury, was not selected by statute, but by the sheriff or his officers, so long the subject could be entitled to his challenge or ar ray only in consequence of default on the part of the sheriffs. But when the statute created a new state of things, and intended to provide for the subject a greater safeguard, by providing due laws of a better character, and when for that purpose the statute had superadded to the shrriff other officers to be concerned in the pre paration of the jury list, without taking away the chal lenge of array, it was clear t hat the subject was - entitled' to the challenge of array on account of the indifferency of those officers to whom the duty of sheriff had been entrusted, as he would have been under the common Jaw, on account of the unindifferency of the sheriff himself. Therefore, in this case, they were as much entitled to a challenge of the array, on account of the default of the Recorder, as they would have been on account of the default of the sheriff; and when asked what must be the award if this challenge to the array were allowed, he would answer, that if the Recorder had duly made out the list, the award should be to the Re corder to deliver that list, that the jury panel might be farmed from it, If they were of opinion that the Recorder had not duly made out the list, then the award should be to the proper officer - to make out the book, and if, in consequence of any difficulty at any stage of the proceedings, it should appear that no good jury list could be made out for this year, then the award should be to the sheriffs to produce the jury list of last year. He sub mitted therefore that the challenge to the array ought to be allowed, and that on that ground also the judg ment ought to be reversed. He would now briefly ad vert to the point of the recognisances. The case of Hunt and White showed that in cases of misdemeanour it was competent for the court to order defendants to enter into recognisances to keep the peace, but it must be for a reasonable time. But in this instance it was uncer tain for what tithe, they were bound to keep the peace. No time was specified, except.from the time of giving the recognisances. This was entirely against all practice and precedent, and it was further ordered that they should be imprisoned until they entered into their own recognisances, so that if they were never able to find sureties it was a sentence of perpetual imprisonment. It was different in cases of fine. Magna Charta required that no man should be fined beyond his ability to pay, therefore, when a man was sentenced to be imprisoned until his fine was paid, the law presumed that he was able to pay and free himself if he chose. But the enter ing into recognisances with sureties did not de pend on the parties themselves. Magna Charta did not ' compel any man's friends to come forward as sureties. He contended that the whole judgment ought to be re versed, because there was uncertainty as to the time of giving and taking the recognisances. It was said on the other side, that this would only vitiateahe judgment in part; but if it was bad in part, he held that it was bad in the whole, because the court of error had no power of altering the sentence which the court below pronounced. and that the judgment must be reversed on this ground also. There was only one other point which he would shortly advert to—that was, the point that the witnesses were sworn before the grand jury, and not in open court, which was in contravention of the Act of Victoria, and, in his opinion, the still more important point, that the foreman had not certified to the court that the witnesses were sworn, and had not endorsed the names of the witnesses on the bill. The authorities cited showed only that no error in fact was originally assignable in the Court of Exchequer Chamber as a court of error. His Learned Friends contended that this error ought to be made the subject of a plea in abatement; buthe had clearly stated that he declined so to make it. The defendants having no means of discovering the • error till after the trial, could not be bound to plead it in a plea in abatement. The Learned Counsel then referred to a case tried before Mr. Baron Parke, in which there being some irregula rity in the swearing of the witnesses before the grand jury, a new special commission was issued, and the parties were tried over again. They had the opinion of all the judges that if the witnesses were not duly sworn, a conviction upon their evidence would be an illegal one. A decision of Baron Alderson in the North of England was to the same effect. He should venture to assume then, that if it was possible to assign any fact in error, it was the fact of a party put on his trial on a bill found by the grand jury, which bill was void by reason that it was not founded on the testimony of witnesses on oath, which the statutes—at least in Ireland—imperatively required. The -forms of law were the safeguards of society. But here they were not deal ing with mere forms ; it was a vital provision, which gave security to the court, that the bills on which it put people on their trial perhaps for their lives, were supported by evidence on oath before the proper officers of the law. He had heard no contradiction to this general position— he had not heard it disputed that the object of the Act of Parliament was the important one he had stated. He did then venture to ask on what imaginable grounds the House was called on to hold that this objection had been defeated? Suppose this case bad been one of a capital offence, of which, if the parties had been found guilty, they would have bee n liable to sentence of death; here was a bill brought down which the law made null, unless it should have been founded on the evidence of witnesses sworn in court; but here the court had no means of ascertaining whether the witnesses had been sworn or not. And if this provision was not essential, why was it introduced into the statute? The Learned Counsel then proceeded to argue that the Act of Parliament did not include the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and concluded by stating that those whom he represented had entire and unbounded confidence in the decision their Lordships might pronounce on this momentous question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would not insist upon his right of reply, but hoped that this case would not be drawn into a precedent on that point. Lords CAMPBELL and BROUGHAM considered that the Crown had no right to reply ; but the right of the Crown would remain as it was before this case. The LORD CHANCELLOR then stated that their Lord ships had prepared certain questions to be submitted to the judges, and handed a paper containing the ques tions, to Lord Chief Justice Tindal. Lord Chief Justice Timms, prayed th©: judges mi ht be allowed time to consider. The LORD CHANCELLOR—CertainIy ; and in the name of the House I thank the judges for their attend ance, which , has been given at great personal incon venience.—(Hear, hear, from Lord Brougham.) Their Lordships then adjourned. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. A solicitor made an application to Alderman Thomas Wood upon the part of certain creditors, who had been most extensively plundered by a fraudulent debtor, to be enabled to carry into effect the Acts made in the Convention between this country and France, by which persons in either country may be apprehended and brought to justice in the country in which the frauds have been committed. The case was one in which a sum between 14,000/ and 15,000 i. was stated to have been pocketed by the debtor. and— Alderman THOMAS WOOD, upon hearing the particu lars, decided upon granting the authentication of the City seal, which, although it might not be within the requisites of the statute, still might afford facilities in the proceedings in a foreign court for the recovery of the money. He stated that he considered it to be the duty of the magistrate toy do everything in his power to give efficacy to the excellent object of the new law, which was calculated to interfere most vigorously with the prac tices of fraudulent debtors. The City seal was accordingly affixed. A young man named Charles Holloway was charged by Joseph Hodges (policeman No. 31), with having ob structed him in the execution of his duty. Policeman No. 651 stated that on Tuesday night a Spaniard, who happened to be a most dangerous lunatic, was given into his custody, for having cut open the eye of a person in Billingsgate. The unfortunate lunatic was handcuffed upon manifesting a disposition to do more mischief, but he dashed the handcuffs with such violence against a post as to render them complet e ly useless, and it was with extreme difficulty six or seven men so far overcame his strength as to succeed in lodg ing him in the station-house, where he continued to rare all night. Policeman No. 31 assisted in the morn ing in bringing the madman to the Mansion House, but a crowd of idle fellows began to cry out " shame," and the mob took up the word, greatly to the impediment an annoyance of the constables. Amongst the most con spicuous was the defendant The defendant said he did not think it could do the police any harm to cry out " shame," but he had learned since that he had done wrong, and he should take care not to interfere in such a manner again. Alderman T. WooD—We punish the police with great severity when we find that they act improperly, and we are bound to protect them when they are as sailed or abused, or interrupted in the execution of their very disagreeable duties. It was your duty, in such a case as this, to have assisted the policeman, but you have endeavoured to excite the mob against him. I fine you forty shillings for, this very serious offence. Defendant—l can't pay the money. All I did was to cry out " shame." Alderman T. Woon—l know how ready people like you are to interfere in that way. You must pay the money, or go to prison for one month. The defendant was then committed for a month. WORSHIP-STREET. Thomas Barnes, a carman in the service of Messrs. Sutton and Co., carriers, in Whitecross street, was charged before Mr. Combe, the sitting magistrate, with having driven over and caused the death of a child named Mary Ann Viers, three years of age. Thomas Miller stated that between five and six o'clock on the preceding evening he saw the defendant driving a horse and cart, which was proceeding at a very slow pace along Ironmonger-row, St. Luke's. Hear ing a loud scream immediately after it passed him, he turned round and observed a female child lying under the horse's feet, and, before he had time to raise an alarm, the wheel of the cart passed over its head and killed it on the spot. He felt satisfied that not the slightest blame attached to the defendant, who instantly stopped the horse, and rendered every assistance it was in his power to afford. Sergeant Brannan said, that from inquiries he had made on the spot, there could be no doubt that the un fortunate occurrence was purely accidental, and that the defendant had used his best efforts to arrest the calamity. The defendant's master also spoke in high terms as to his general conduct as a steady and cautious driver, and having offered himself as bail for the defendant's ap pearance at the termination of the inquest, The Magistrate acceded to the application, and the defendant was discharged out of custody. MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS The following are the results of "A Table of Mortality in the Metropolis, showing the Number of Deaths from all Causes registered in the Week ending Saturday, the Gth of July, 1844." The Table is issued from the Office of the Reg►strar-General:— CAUSES OF DEATH. Total. AWvereaegkel3ol Five years. Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases 191 178 Diseases of variable or uncertain seat 9B 111 Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses 157 157 Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of Respiration 238 286 Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels 27 21 Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs of Digestion 7B 69 Diseases of the Kidneys, &c 2 5 Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &c. 7 10 Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles 3 6 Diseases of the Skin, &e. ....... .. Old Age, or Natural Decay 46 71 By Violence, Privation, or Intemperance Causes specified B7O 942 Deaths from all Causes B7l 946 DEATHS FROM THE PRINCIPAL DISEASES INCLUDED UNDER N S THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 11, 1844. THE ABOVE HEADS. Total. Consumption 137 Scarlatina Pneumonia Dropsy Hopping Cough Typhus ' 24 Small Pox Disease of the Heart 29 Measles 2l Apoplexy Diseases of the Brain l2 Diarrhoea.. Sudden Deaths ... DISTITICTS. Weekly Average - of Five Years. 147 34 43 79 West 156 138 North 165 ' 171 Central East . 166 207 South 224 242 Total •••• 0000000 •••••• ...•• 871 Lin WEATHER IN SIIROPSLIIRE.—At length we have some hope that the corn and hay crops, especially the latter, may turn out not to be one-half so bad as the long dry season led people to suppose. On Thursday we had a steady rain during the day and night, and yesterday there were some refreshing showers. The holders of large stocks of hay will find themselves disappointed in obtaining the monstrous prices anticipated, and the corn harvest will be of average quality and quantity, with the exception of straw being short.—Shropshire Conservative.. SWIMMING MATCH.—A grand swimming match, for the champion gold medal, was appointed to take place at the National Baths, High Holborn, on Tuesday. Several su perb heats did, in fact, take place, and more beautiful swim ming, and a more animated scene than the baths presented throughout, it would be difficult to conceive. Unfortunately, in the course of the grand and decisive heat, there occurred, on the part of one of the most expert of the swimmers, what was considered by many to be " fouling," and a divided opi nion amongst the spectators, as - to which of the competitors ought to be proclaimed the real victor, was the result. It was finally decided that the proceedings of the evening should be considered as void, and that the race should be renewed at a future and an early period. It is, therefore, unnecessary to give any particulars, or to say more than great interest seemed to be excited, that the baths were crowded, and that the greatest order and regularity prevailed. ESCAPE OF A LUNATlC.—Yesterday information was conveyedto the metropolitan police of the escape of a lunatic patient from the Asylum of High Beach, Essex, of whom some curious particulars are given. His name is Francis John Smith, twenty-eight years of age, and he is very respectably connected. He is about five feet six inches in height, of a slender form, stoops a little, dark hair and eyes, and of a pale and sallow complexion. He contrived to elude the vigilance of his keeper on Saturday morning, at which time he was attired in a dress black coat, vest of the same colour, and brown or grey trousers, and blue cloak. His hat was an old one, brown and broken. The lunatic is la bouring under a poetical delusion. He fancies himself a great poet, and s up to the time he left Dr. Allen's asylum he was engaged in the composition of a monody on the d ea th o f the poet Campbell. He also talks of being destined to deliver the Polish nation from " Russian tyranny." PRICES OF SHARES IN CANALS, RAILWAYS, BANKS7ASSURANCE AND OTHER COMPANIES' STOCK. LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 9. Dividend per Annum. ei per cent. 41. Names of Com panics. Canals. Ashton and Uidham... Ashby-de-la-Zouch-ay Basingstoke ........ Br eck n sick & Abergay. Birmingham,l.lfithsh. Do. and Liverp. Chclmer & Blackwator Coventry ...... Cromford ...... Dudley Derby, ..... Danube and * Mayne.... Ellesmere and Chester Erewash Forth and C1yde.. ,, ,.,. Grand Juncti0n......... Grand Union Grand Surrey Grand Western.....__ Glamorgansh., ay. cost Gloucester & Berkeley Grantham Huddersfieid ..... .....av Kennet s.,d Avon ...av Lancaster AV Leeds and Liverpool... Leicester Leicester & Northamp. Loughborough .........v Monmouthshire Montgomeryshire Melton Mowbray Mersey and Irwell Macclesfield Neath. ............. Ox ford Peak Forest .2V Regent's (ot London).. Rochdale 3V Shropshire ......... Somerset Coal Da. Lock Fund Stock Stafford and Worcester Shrewsbury.... ....... Stourbridge Str at ford .on- Avon.. .av Swansea Severn & Wye & Rail Trent & Mersey, sh Thames & Medway..av Warwick and Birming. Warwick and Napton Worcester & Birming Wilts and forks .av Wisbeach .............. Wey and Arun....... Docks. Commercial ..... . ... East and West fr:dia London Ditto Bonds Bristol... Do. Bnds, var. amosts av St. Katharine Ditto 80nd5......_ Ditto Bends Southampton Bridges Hammersmith ....... Southwark, new Subs. Ditto New of 7% pr c Waterloo Ditto Old Ann. of 81, Ditto New ditto 0171 Ditto Bonds Vauxha11.................av Assurances. Albien..... ............. Alfred Life Alliance Brit. and For Ditto Marine Atlas Birmingham Fire British Fire British Commercial Cler. Med. & Gun. Life County Eagle Economic Life ..... European Life Ditto New !Freemasons Globe iGuardian Hope Life Ditto Fire _ _ .... .. . Imperial Fire Ditto Life Indemnity Marine 'Law Life :Legal and General Life London Fire Ditto Ship National Loan Fun 4 Palladium Life Protector Life Provident Life Rock Life R yal Exchange Sun Fire Ditto Life........ University Life Universal Life Union Fire and Life Joint Stk Banks Atistralasi , Ditto New Brit. North American Commercial of London Colonial London & Westminstr Ditto New........ ... Ltindon Joint Stock Metropolitan Provincial of Ireland Ditto New National of Ireland Nat. Provincial Engind Ditto New Gloucestershire Union of Australia Union of London Gaslight & Coke Bath British Ditto Provincial..; Birmingham Birming. & Staffordsh Bristol Brighton Ditto General City. of London Ditto New Continental Consolid Ditto New Equitable Imperial Isle of 'Monet Independent Phcenix RatclifF South Metropolitan..... United General.. ... Westmins. Chartered.. Ditto New ................. Water Works Birmingham East London... •••••.•••••• Grand Junction.. ..... av Kent Nw Riv Lon. Bridg Manchester andSalford Vauxhall, late S. Lond. West Middlesex av Yrk I,3uldg Co.Les.Prop Iron Railways. Birmingham & Derby Birming. & Gloucester Bristol and Exeter Caledonian Chester and Holyhead Eastern Counties Edinburgh & Glasgow Grand Junction.... Great North of Eng lnd Great Western ..... Ditto Half Shares Ditto Fifths ....... Harwich (Braithwaite) Hull and Selby ..... Lancaster and Carlisle Leech and Selby Liverpool & Manchestr Ditto Half-Shares London and Brighton Ditto Loan Notes London and BLckwall London and Greenwich London and Birmingh. Ditto Quarter-Shares Ditto Thirds London and S. Western London and Croydon Manchester and Leeds Ditto New Shares Manchstr and Birming Midland Counties North Midland Do. %..Sh., iss. 10 dis. Northern and Eastern Ditto Scrip, iss. 51. dis Paris and Orleans Paris and Rouen Rouen and Havre Stockton & Darlington South East. and Dover Yarmouth and Norwich ork and N. Midland Ditto New Shares Mines. Albion Copper Alien Anglo Mex., iss.sl. p.m Ditto Subscription Boianos Ditto Scrip Brazil. Imp. iss. 51. p.m Do. Mocaub. & Coc. U. Do. St. John Del Rey British Iron Candonga. Ditto Registered Cobre Copper Copiapo Columbian, iss. 51. p.m General Mining Hibernian Imperial Slate Compy Mexican Mining Co. of Real del Monte, Un reg Ditto Loan Notes Rhymney Iron Santiago de Cuba United Mex., iss.2l. pm Ditto Scrip Ditto New Scrip Literary. Londn,with Sin. Ticket London University Russell King's College Miscellaneous Anglo Mexican Mint Australian Agricultur Brit. American Land, Canada ...... Upper Canada Bonds Gen. Steam Navigation Iberian Mercantile Co. Ditto . Property Met. Wood Pay., iss. 11. Mex. and S. American New Brunswick (Land) New Zealand Penins. & Orien. Steam Royal Mail Steam Reversionary Int. Soc. South Australian Thames Tunnel Van Diemen's Land L4s. 15s. (per cent. 5 per cent. .1.185. and ts.6d. bs. 6per cent. 7per cent. per cent tiper cent LIST of SCOTTISH COM) JUNE 1, 1 Batik of Scotland Royal Bank British Linen Compny Commercial Bank Glasgow Union Bank Western Bank Central Bk. of Scotland Caledonian Insurance Hercules Insurance North Brit. Insurance Insurance Co. of Scotl. Edinburgh Life Insur. Scottish Union Insur Standard Life Insur Dalkeith Railway Edin. and Glas. Railwy Glasg. and Green. Rail. ZDundeeand A rhr Rail. 6 per cent. 6 per cent. 8 per cent. 6 per cent 7 per cent. 6 per cent. 6 per cent. 6 per cent. 7 per cent, per cent. bper cent. 6per cent. per cent. 5 per cent. 5 f,er cent. R per cent . 936 per cen t 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 12 10 0 1 0 0 2 10 0 50 0 6 50 0 0 25 0 0 2 5 0 0 INCENDTARTSM NEAR lIULL.—We have just learnt, on going to press, that two corn stacks, the pro perty of Mr. Fussey (we believe) of Sproatley, were burnt on Wednesday night, and that a second fire broke out in the same village last night. Two men, we are in formed, are in custody, charged with setting fire to the stacks.—Hull Advertiser. Amount Share. Paid. (Price. Z & ti. I ,100 0 0 4113 4 I - 100 0 0 I - 1 100 0 0 cr rent. 4/. 401. 5/. 153. 11. ss. 3/ 12s. 811. 1 10s. $4l. 104 171. 36/. 314 176. 81. 41. 81. 10/. 6 percent. 28 151. 20.7. I/. 10s. 151. mCios. 101. 84 10s. 41. 11. 4s. 3 per cent. per cent. 4 per cent. 4 per cent. 31. 10s. 5 per cent. 5 per cent. per cent. 4 per cent. a per cent. IN percent. I/. W. Bd. 18s. Id. per cent. It. 7s. 3► 10s. I percent. 6 per cent. 6 per cent. 138.6 d. pr sh 51. 5 .5 . 4 per cent. T. per share 5 per cent. 31. 6s. 5 per cent. ' 30s. bds. 5 , 4 per cent. SU, per cent. 5 per cent. 6 per cent. 5 per cent, 4s. 2s. 6d. per cent. s'l2 & bds. 11.55. per cent. per cent. 5 per cent. 11. ss. 4s. 5 per cent. s)j per cent. IL 4s. 5 per cent. lON per cent 51. 8 per cent. 6 per cent. 5 per cent. 5 per cent. tiger cent. —. . per cent. per cent. 8 per cent. 6 per cent. 21s per share per share 10 per cent. per cent. Ms. 11. ss. 1/. 7s. 5/. and bs. 061. and bs. per cent. scent. 10/. 101. 8t per sh per ad 21. 6 per cent. 5 per cent. 6 per cant. 5 per cent 6 per cent. I% per cent. 31. 12i. 21. 10s. 2/. 10s. 21. 103. 5 per cent. 41. 16s. 11. 145. 10e. per eh 11. 4s. per cent. 11. per eh. 21. ss. per a h 10 per cent 354 per cent. X ss. per sh 2541. per sh. 12g per sh. 4 per cent. 10 per cent. 10 per cent. 1)4/. per eh iOl. p -- 2r oh. 11. 14s. Mper share Ss 4d per sh 41.175. pr 113 s per sl 14 11.10 s. U. ss. 15s. IL 117. 10d. 15 per cent. per cent. 10 per cent. 10 per cent. IL 11. Si. 173. ad. I. 10s. JO per cent. 10s. per eh. 11. lOL perch. 19 5 8 100 0 0 100 0 0 78 8 0 67 10 8 105 0 0 110 0 0 100 0 0 Stock Stock 147 9 0 Stock 50 0 0 5000 83 2 8 50 0 0 100 0 0 • - 70 10 3 100 0 0 100 0 0 20u 0 0 40 0 0 50 9 1 101 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 10 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 2e 0 0 58 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 40 0 20 0 0 77 10 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 75 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 30 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 41 13 4 100 0 0 soon 100 0 0 03 12 9 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 10 0 0 16 13 4 12 15 4 100 0 0 3200 41 6 10 13 15 9 100 0 0 50 0 0 70 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 20 t 0 20 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 5 0 0 15 0 0 100 0 0 156 0 0 35 0 0 25 0 0 20 0 0 100 0 0 20 0 0 tO 0 0 55 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0 10 0 0 60 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 40 0 0 75 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 15 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 1; 50 7 0 100 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 PANIE 844. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of yesterday;) d There is not much change in the market as compere with last week ; but, upon the whole, prices are firmer' and the appearance of business is somewhat more fasu tir f ; able. Yarns suitable for. Germany and _Russia are !„ good demand, an d some d escr ip t i ons , p ar ticularly 11 . : water-twist, are exceedingly scarce, and advancing P. price. Goods, with the exception of 40-inch shirting* are also in fair demand, and prices are very firm. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, JULY 8. The demand for flannels, especially of the lower sor ts .' has been good. On the whole, it ha s been quite an average day for business. The wool market has b e % rather flat; the prices being to o hi g h t o re munerate to, manufacturer. MARKET NE WS.—(YESTERDA Y;) COR-EG. We had only a moder a te sup X pIy CHAN of Engl E ish Wheat, yet tba demand for that article was in a cry sluggish state, O t. previous rates were barely supported. I n F o reign Wb ea o both free and in bond, so little was doing that the quotatiole were next to nominal. The best . malting Barley Was ( , I : f i a l it as dear, but other kinds had a downward tendency. 05 , sold at a reduction of quite is per quarter. Oats, B eata and Peas met a very dull sale, and were considered the ttirti lower. Wheat. English .... ...... . 2,0:0 qrs. Irish... - Foreign. ..... .... 6,88) ARRIVALS. B 2a.21 2 roar 0 qrs. 13,,603f100q r,. Oats. 50 . 3 ,11. 3,:40 2,960 _ Malt: 1,320 qis, T d ECHAP W h k 111. The supply of eacin of meat EL was but limited Y!. t f r o! de:nand was inactive, on the following terms :—B"„ 5,, 2s 2d to 3s 4d ; Mutton, 2s 4d to 3s 8d ; Lamb, 4 5 Veal, 33 4d to 4s 4d ; and Pork 2s 4d to 4s per 81bs. • SUICIDE BY A FRENCHMAY: the Yesterday morni ng , a F renc h man , w h o , from all accounts which have been' learned of him, was n 3l/ . 1 0 1 Felix Em, committed su i c id e in one o f t h e sta t e -rood s the barque China, in which vessel he had taken his P. e lf sage from Liverpool for Quebec, by shooting 111ui : e d through the head with a loaded pistol. The dece seems to have been a man of highly respectable sPc ce , ante in dress and manner. H e h a d, a s h or t time 81 ; be arrived in Liverpool from Genoa ; an d a t the time was found weltering in his blood y e ste r day, two 11 " V containing doubloons and other coin of the va lu e at 1,0001. were discovered upon his person. An incilvis" n ce was held upon the body shortly aft e r th e occurre,ol look place; and from the examination of the se' witnesses, full particulars will be gleaned. te l ! Wm. Worthington was the first examined. Stfl or that he was a pilot, and that he lived at 37, 8ur1iug,...",41 street. On Monday afternoon he went on duty on 1 11 the barque China, which is outward-bound to Q ue rith and at present lying in the river. The deceased, pop whose name he was unacquainted, was a passenge,r ht board, and had a state-room to himself for whiell, had paid 151. On the morning of that day ( fuesagrilhe little before nine o'clock, witness was in the cabin• o k deceased, who was a Frenchman, and unable to sr iio e, English, was walking about at the ti me . On g w ir down to the cabin in four or five minutes after/ 1 0 ness heard the report of fire- arms, accompanied w i el d strong smell of powder. He immediately got ul t t he went to see what was the matter, and on p a ssing yip ; state-room of the deceased, he perceived smoke is s e t he from the crevices in the door. He then tried 11 1 ,0 door was fast, and found that it was not ; but he AO O only able to open it a little. He saw marks of ble ° "o , the floor. lie called to the mate to send some Willett and a seaman came ; and on f orc i ng th e door, l'i4 they did with difficulty, as the deceased was 444 against it, they found him o n hi s ba c k, a n d blood u ° llo from a wound on his ri g ht t em pl e , th roug h vvhield brains were protruding. As he was still alive, was sent for a surgeon ; but in a few minutes aft e ., r ool latter arrived; the decea s ed b rea th e d hi s l as t. „,A - J 0 tir (here produced) was lying on hi s l e ft s id e . l' s .oo l ceased never left the vessel from th e ti me she wen t of the dock, and from that time up to the period e e e suicide he saw him frequently, and, so f a r as he i ,id judge, he appeared to be perfe c tly co lle c t e d. He observe anything strange or peculiar about him• ness does not understand the French language. r , c 4; Mr. Samuel Allerton stat e d th a t h e wa s a su'"„io and that he was called to see the dece ase d that o °l o ,o on board the China. He found him in a dyiug,:;oo and in about a quarter of an hour after, he breetH e 'bid' last. He had a large wound on the right temple , f 6 l og el penetrated his skull, so that a 'man could pass hi s to the full length into the brains. Te Is fl? bi Captain Wagstaffe deposed that he lived in ni g court, and that he had known the deceased fora fe rt ",.o or more. Their acquaintance commenced on Satl.lnter, fortnight, when witness was sent for to act as 11151 0 0 0 preter. Witness continued with him from that tie d , Friday.. He told witness that he was a native of r" s : 0 011 He was unable to speak English. He purchaseli;via articles which he said were for his sist e r i n Queb e° 'firo; he shipped on board the Chi na f or that "e„ - eil eo tion. Witness was not aware of w h a t had haPr E eo until an hour after it occur re d ; but he had sinceget and recognised the body lyi ng in the dead liotise",sed, thought there was somethi ng wrong a b ou t the d ec h e e o' os and his reason for thinki ng so , was , that. wil e " ed an d first sent for to him, he said he was indise g o out' suffering from fever, and that he would Iw t be see v ' He appeared to be very,timid and afraid t o sa id and he had a brace of pistols by him, which he kept loaded for his own protection while tcil,v,e; ling. Witness took them to have the charge A D' and reloaded. The pistol now produced, „ c o which was found in his state - room , is one of '"Ajo The letter found in deceased's pocket, was inclo se an envelope, containing a lock of black hair, and 0 3 written in the French language. The envelope addressed in French, to " Mr. Felix, traveller, psc office, until called fur, Genoa, It a ly." The lette r geared to be signed by the sister of the deceased% At this stage of the proceedings, the inquest het adjourned to nine o'clock this morning, for evidence.—Liverpool Courier of Wednesday. , ANIMAL MAGNETISM IN CHINA.—This is stood in the Celestial Empire, and turned t o account, being practised by the barbers of Cantorlietoi observed," says M. Borget, " that the greater P a ill the patients slept while they were being shaved , ';. 0 10 could not account for this singularity. But one I ' 3° oo I observed a man seat himself on a stool a littl e n ty t from the rest; I began my task of sketching, w h t,istej barber, instead of commencing his operations , 1 bill' himself before his customer, and, first of all, too k r the of his hands, then passed his own several times e y h e o rt l shoulders, and bef o r e th e f ace o f the sitter, who s:tur'i fell into a state of q u i e t d rows i ness, i f he d id Iw t 3 „ head y " go to sleep. lie th en move d hi s customer ' s in every dire c ti on h e p l ease d , to facilitate the cirder, of shaving. Wh en h e h a d fi n i s h ed he shook i' 3e ; gently and awoke him. I frequently saw tl- , ,,T : 111 ;:e 0"" practised aft erwar d s. "—C apta i n Piddinf's , and Tea Tall, No. 11. 0 OXFORD, JULY B.—This aft.,rnoon an la r> fsro:; fire was given, an d O n i nqu i ry i t was found to be at 4 0 , P A ' in the occupation o f M r . G re aves, at Eisfield, a vhi s t°:o l l o miles from Oxford ; it fortunately confined 0 ,4 1 0 and some out-houses, where it broke out. Two i!; $0 04 1 0 horses were burned, and some beaus and oats. The u, s ta is estimated at about 400/. The whole of the pr o f `;, il O insured in the County Fire Office. We are glad to t s trf, the fire was accidental, and not incendiary, as t' t • ported. It arose from the carelessness of some boys' ' 4 oo' ing some straw with lucifer-matches, for the purpose i n g a wasps' nest. Yesterday morning, abo u t h a lf-p a st 0. 0: pig, Mitchell, the pierman at Waterloo-bridge steany b itigt was in conversation 'with a g en tl eman connec t e d wit h L it li e College, a woman with her hair hanging loose au ° , bol e ‘ e i shoulders ran down the s t age f rom t h e steps to the fill" trig and although so well secured to prevent accidents, 0 11 (fib• to throw herself off into the water. The gentlernalel !! 1 ; does not wish his nam e t o appear ) i mme di a t e ly P u ' i ep' , coat and hat off, jump e d a f ter h er, an d succeeded Iti- ~5 her above water until Mitchell rowed a boat to l u l l t t l ;:o was carried up the st e p s i n t o th e t o ll-h ouse, an d broq and afterwards taken to th e s t a ti on -h ouse 13 ovv - s treel' would not tell her n ame . / _ to A v SIX POUNDS of TEA; and upwards, sent, carriage er ce ,. re , " part of the Kingdom, at the Wh o lesal e Pric e , on re ceipt 0 1 tance, or Post-office order. Black, 2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d., 3s. Sd., 45., 4s. 40., 4s. &d.' 6°. Green, 3s. 40., 3s. 80., 45., 4s. 40., 55., ss. 40. 65., 7 '; VP pp Coffee, 90„ Is. ls. 2d., Is. 40., Is., 60., 18.8 d., G. T. MANSELL and CO., Wholesale Tea Dealers, 2 'oect' LERSBURY, CIIEAPSIDE. 4gcncies will be given to t' parties- .10'7 31 65 460 103 25 38% 640 141 All Paid 3t35 502% 40 70 :38% I!2ii lON 6000 40 0 0 50 0 0 5 0 0 11 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 55 0 0 50 0 0 5 0 0 2 10 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 250 0 0 All paid 2 0 0 3 0 0 36 10 0 2 10 0 2 10 ( 50 0 0 10 0 0 5 13 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 12 10 0 12 10 0 2 10 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 6 5 0 20 0 • 40 0 0 40 0 0 50 0 0 900 0 e 25 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 • 7 10 0 25 0 0 10 0 0 17 10 0 35 0 0 10 0 0 10 @ 6 25 0 0 10 0 0 16 0 0 IS e o 19 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 100 0 75 e 31 5 0 28 0 0 50 e 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 30 0 0 39 0 0 80 0 0 2,5 0 8 48 0 0 10 0 0 25 0 0 ;100 0 0 1100 0 0 70 0 0 5 o 0 5 0 0 23 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 9 100 0 0 15 0 0 150 0 0 12 0 I 2 0 0 1 50 0 0 5 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 1 10 0 0 100 0 0 2 0 0 32 0 0 70 0 0 30 0 0 40 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 40 0 0 45 0 0 15 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 0 18 0 0 50 0 0 25 0 0 31 0 13 10 0 100 0 t) 25 0 ( 150 0 0 21 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0 75 0 0 7 10 0 7 10 0 40 0 0 13 0 0 55 0 0 20 0 0 10 10 0 3 0 0 50 0 0 7 0 0 150 0 0 50 0 0 10 0 0 40 0 0 2 10 0 - 100 0 0 I - 100 0 0 10 0 0 3000 35 10 0 32 10 0 14 0 0 1 10 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 75 0 0 25 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0 20 0 0 P'PIII 723 18% 17 !11.11 - 3L '142% 51 I°4 ' :190 15% 514 15% 15N 2% 40s. 225. 4% 178 205 12% lb° 43 1 4 4•25 4 42 196 44g 934 25 26% 1:4 57% 24%, 39 39% 0 265 35? i 25% 104 4% 118 308 pm I I 4% 4% 17 28 10534 5% 4 !ES. 174 16814 226 166 2-144 12% 22 _28% R. Dot y 8, At Seven, ] Fare --For ._star Ofti, ----__ Y( AT CO otting thc business, It w, " 1 1 3 IY guff c arry out tlenleut be ' fl aY Yet bl Y t u ce to ork), 1 the 31 st of Eihares b e York, Ji MO] Carlsruhe. b 5,00 3, 10' 4 . 1 •111 sh mc A few behed (o tankersa "nee orde nice v mte holt NA.I Me bl ed Ste ena a second Ito Policy ell) • ,E ‘ O. lOOO The di, 'emb er This i n ta ge3 wit T he asse l 1 0 ese or , (see tahl Of his lab for terms E , tiu say, theCECIL I: be fo Price; nor ,- -- - -..--,--- . BIRTHS. „ , 4. 3f e° On the sth inst., at Great Westwood, 'Herts, la - Gearey, of a son. d Ellen On the sth inst., at Dalston, the lady of Edmund di .E sq., of a on. 10' th e 0 1 ' ()n the sth inst., at Braughing Vicarage, Hertss . 1 1bov of Captain Say, of the Bengal Army, of a daug hter , stly of On the 6th inst., at Thorpe-place, Su rre y, the 1 0 1,01 , Rev: Edward Leigh Bennett, of L ong S u tt on , Line ° , o f of a daughter, still, at Camberwell, born. Ajog 9 On the 6th inst. Mrs. Stephen SP" r a daughter. $ Pie On the 6th inst., at Kingsbury Episcopi Vicarag e le a set, the lady of the Rev. J. K. Fowler, of a daughter . C hap On the 7th inst., at Camden-road Villas, Mr s ' , Teakle, of a son. h fell On the 7th inst., at Blandford-square, Mrs. Jes e l__L ,. / wick, of a daughter. i ... MARRIED. joi'' the OJ‘ On the 9th inst., at St: Stephen's, Bristol, by ( 50°, ~ Charles Buck, Edward B. Gardner, Esq., surgeon, o`,o ll° water, to Ann, relict of George Symons, Esq., late v j b , combo, Somerset. 1 of be On the 4th inst., at St. James's Chu rc h, Arab i ); of shire, William Nelson Cla r ke, Esq., t o Mary, sister il • ' Rev. A. Lendrum. i‘fr.,. it On the 6th inst., at St. M ar ti n ' s -i n -th e -Fields, ol cent Yardley, to Ba r b ara B ra i n , y ounges t daughter rg, William Cawthorn, jun. ac ° ,lle On the 4th inst., a t Ch r i s t Ch urc h, Middlese 9 t o f ' Gordon, Esq., late of M a d ras , t o Lilly Morley, rejic jr"late John Morley, Es q . fe , I°Pp l j On the 4th inst., at St. G eorge ' s , Hanover-sclu e— of 'llO 9 son of the late Lieute nan t-C o l one l B. B unc e, 1, 9 11 la te j o mouth, to Elizabeth Anne, eldest daughter of tl/ Uttermare, Esq., of Curry M a ll e tt, S o m ers etshire. o f DIED. rel ict On the sth inst., at Kendal, Westmoreland, Mall' , f, the late John Barrow, Esq., aged 72. gro' On the 30th ult., in Russell-street, North Bristort 0 .h ) " Roades, widow, aged 75. • air i At Southampton-street, Covent-garden, Cap t 0 1ef M'Dermott, late of the 11th Regiment of Foot. as fl o On the 4th inst., at Clive, Somersetshire, Ow l ' , s i go Esq., late of the East India House. l'i* On the 4th inst., Elizabeth, wife of the Ee l ' o fil Hamilton Attwood, of Beddmgfield, Suffolk. O r On the sth inst., Mary Frances, eldest daughte r ° 1 Phillips, Esq., of Angel-terrace, Pentonville. tee Ft.l4 On the sth inst., Captain William Willi am s Foo 9 , the Royal Hospital Greenwich. 3 ren '''. On the sth inst., at Denmark-hill, Surrey, C.-9 h 3r le f Esq.; aged 74. 6 :0 ---., - ------ 11 )1* Do Ir° l 4 of London : Printed and Published by MUR , 0 ' 4 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun O d e . Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in t he Bliddlegez, Thursday, July 11, 1844. A TI7R +To m Per p -1501uu - . tot, h .t.t&