The Sun. — London, England, 1844-09-05 00:00:00

ng 0 Lure of the rocatioll id the eqn am pflvil sit of r `ch t° ol P ic attlYs Qtl eeliS 10 ter— m' s f , :t o i n utes. lard torn 7takivg,";i wally its 5 furlole y funs °e'. left t) c or N¢7 e mess' inten tu 1/1 3sSia ne% l ' , e Y, at S i l t ci her P' 4 5 10 / I Mi n g 01 4 re the C()URT CIRCULAR. WINDSOR, WEDNESDAY—The Queen and Prince Albert walked this morning in the grounds adjoining th h e Castle. Th e gar d en c h a i r was t a k en i n rea di ness wen required, in which her Majesty occasionally rode. Her Majesty and the Prince drove out in a Poly phaeton, attended by Lord Charles Wellesley. The Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice, were taken a' walk this forenoon. The Royal Family were taken a carriage airing in the afternoon. His Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Ex cellency the Chevalier Bunsen,:Prussian Minister, and his Royal Highness's Suite, including Count Koenigs- Mark, Count Puckler, Baron Schleinitz, and Captain 3deynell (Groom in Waiting to her Majesty), took their departure from the Castle this morning. Count Nesselrode, Count D. Nesselrode, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Li verpool, the Earl and Countess Delawarr and Lady Mary 'West, and Sir Robert and Lady Peel, left the Castle this morning. -er Majesty the Queen Dowager, attended by the Dowager Lady Clinton and the Earl of Denbigh, arrived at her residence, Marlborough House, in a carriage and four, from Bushy House, Bushy Park, a a thalf-past eleven o'clock yesterday morning. Her •ntajesty left town shortly before five o'clock, on her return to Bushy Park. A Cabinet Council was held at three o'clock yes terday afternoon, at the Foreign-office. The Ministers present were—Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharncliffe, the Duke of Buccleuch, Earl of Aber deen, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, Earl of Haddington, Lord Granvill e S omerse t, an d Si r Ed war d Knatchbull. The Council sat two hours and a half. The Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Aberdeen returned to town yesterday, from a visit to the Queen at Windsor Castle. A deputation from the London and York Railway ,/orripany, including Mr. Beckett Denison, M.P., Mr. -trancis Mowatt, the two Vice-Chairmen, and other Directors, with Mr. Locke, the engineer, the solicitor, and the secretary, had an interview with the Earl of Dalhousie yesterday, at the office of the Board of Trade. Sir Robert and Lady Peel arrived at their residence 'n Whitehall gardens yesterday morning, from a visit to her Majesty at Windsor Castle. Dean, Chairman of the Customs, and the Hon. Edgard Stewart, Deputy-Chairman, had interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, at his official residence in Downing-street. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SlR,—Observing your remarks in The Sun of last ev ening, upon the judicial distinction observed at Gra vesend between the rich and the poor, I cannot W ithhold my expressions of thankfulness that the London press has at length condescended to notice the vagaries of the petty Midases of this place—it is, this town, true that the poor are most unfairly treated in town, and" as you have so ably exposed the donkey driver mode of justice with that of the nice "young gentleman," I trust you will allow me a short space rYour valuable paper to show h ow much th e defence less Poor of thi s pl ace are i n d uce d t o res p ec t even handed justice. There are commissioners of the town for prevent alhg nuisances, and for licensing coaches, flys, vans, . o rses, donkeys, &c. The majority of the commis sloners are Dissenters, and consequently are horror struck at at the idea of Sunday travelling; accordingly ey notified that no licenses should be given to per se'ns 'who would not abstain from working on the : Su nday. Now there is an immense demand for this s pecies of travelling on a Sunday, and especially at G r avesend, and consequently the whole host of stable 'eePers and fly-men reared up at this extreme ab ility,u. and resolved they would not stand it, but ,' 1 " 1 purse and time would resist it. The conse :ll4 e nee was, the mayor and his associates succumbed, hackney -men, horse-drivers, and van-men, and t e Whole of the horse and carriage tribe were licensed 2, work on the Sunday, and do, indeed, on that day rour most hard and fast, as every citizen who ti n s been at Gravesend can attest—but the poor I n keY-drivers w e r e a di s tinct class ; they could not tiprd to give his worship a junketting on Saint 7onday for nothing—they were not members of the neVectable unit e d fly, van, and buss club ; they had money to defend themselves against the public pur se of the commissioners, and so the magnanimous a Yor and his conscientious coadjutors refused to e t erlse these p oor crea t ures , excep t f or th e s i x wee k t,,Y 8 2 and hav e fi ne d or i m p r i sone d th ose w h o h ave s ee n tempted t o t rave l on a S un d ay , i n i m it a ti on of r, c omparatively wealthy van-men !Is not this, one law for the rich and another for the poor ? th at thou g h thi s is bad enough, will it be believed : a t the grea t er nu mber of these commissioners deal an d trad e most ex t ens ively on a Sunday, as carriers Per stea m - pac k e ts, or as butchers, &c., and that his W orship the mayor has men actually stationed during t he whole Sabbath (not even excepting the hours of Divine service) service) on the pier, for c o llecting tolls to pay himself or o thersinterest, large interest, on moneys advanced on the sp ecu l ation that the citizens of London will travel to Gravesend on Sundays, as well as on other days, for health and recreation. AN INHABITANT OF GRAVESEND. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. --—-- - - - WARWICK RACES—WEDNESDAY. The Yearling Stakes of 10 sovs. each, with 25 added; for colts, Bst 91b; and fillies, Bst 41b. Once round and a M‘. ( listance. ( 6 S u b s.) Robbins's Confab, by Chit Chat, 31bs (H. Darling) 1 turd Warwick's the Mule, 31bs ••••• 2 41 r. Collins's f by Voltaire, out of Enimeh, 31bs flii 6 to 4on the Mule. Won by a length; the Voltaire a good third. TA O Yrs old Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, with 50 added; e q , °l ,t , , Bst 61b ; filli e s, Sat 31b ; winners, 41b extra. Si r (12 Subs.) k 0 . Gerard's Pluto, by Sheet Anchor (Nat) 1 Walters's My Mary 2 1 1 1 4 Qe following also ran :—Lord Warwick's Gwalior— Megara—Mr. F. Herbert's Silver Spur— tr. bavies's Princess Royal. t° 4 asst My Mary, 5 to 2 agst Silver Spur, and 4 to 1 -.gstPlueo. Won by a length, easy. br A Match, 50 sovs. Two miles. k r r : ustin's Heigh Over, 6 yrs, llst (King) 1 `lowper's Independence, 4 yrs, 10A 31b 2 Won by two lengths. thr ee iv arwick Cup, by subscription of 10 sovs. each ; yrs old, 6st 51b ; four, Bst 31b ; five, Bst 131 b ; A ;LI and aged, 9st 31b ; mares allowed 41b, and geld ugs 71b. Winners of any Derby, Oaks, or Leger, 15 r any Goodwood, Ascot, or Doncaster Cup, 71b I ) , (t ra ; maiden three rs old allowed 71b ; four, 101 b. t o _°or mile co use. (2 2 Subs.) itGlenlyon's Ben-y-Ghlo, 4 yrs t eici f• Collett (C a tt on it e ) an d M r . I saac D a y (M az eppa ~,trig) each re ce ived 50 sovs. out of the stakes. y r ' s 'ne Town Plate of 501.—Mr. Collett's Coranna, 5 lszi c :Ovon the first heat in a canter, beating Nonsuit and lie, athedn was expected to walk over for the second Alt train left. WARWICK, FOUR O'CLOCK, WEDNESDAY. ST. LEGER BETTING. 4 t° I ' o 1 agst Ith ure l—t. 8 to 1 agst Bay Momus I 1 agst The Cure—t. 8 to 1 agst The Princess 7 freely I 33 to 1 agst Light —t. to 1 agst Red Deer 140 to 1 agst Lightning. The ECCLES RACES.—TUESDAY. e, Gentlem en ' s P urse o f 25 sovs ., a dd e d t o a H an di ca p „ 3 sovs. each; the second saves his stake. Heats, , k tw ice round. (7 Subs.) r:holnpson's Hudibras, 6 yrs, Bst 71b (Stagg) 1 1 )4 almer's Betsy Bird, 4 yrs, 7st 121 b r •Powler' s Mavourneen, 5 yrs, 7st 101 b 2 3 Won easy. he Garri son St a kes of 3 sovs. each, with a w hip a dd e d ; fo r 3 yrs old, ist ; 4 yrs, Bst 31b ; s,yrs, Bst 101 b; G Yrs and aged, 9st 31b; mares and geldings allowed 3 , 1 b; half -b re d h orses , 71b ; w i nners once , 51b ; t w i ce , AUlb extra. Heats, twice round and a distance. 11, (4 Subs.) J. Charter nd Hudibras, 6 yrs (Stagg) 1 1 k r. rYme's ro in Louise, 6 yrs 2 dr J ones's Miniature, 4 yrs Th e Won in a canter. H unters' Stakes of 2 sovs. each, and 13 added; the s °llll saves his stake; 3 yrs, 9st 51b; 4 yrs, lOst 71b; 711 11 , list 51b; 6 yrs and aged, 12st; thorough bred, ti e extra ; winners once, 51b extra; twice, 81b extra. Subs.) twice round and a distance. Gentlemen riders. rJ oubs.) k r. ~Ixon's Foxhunter, aged (Owner) 3 1 1 'hottipson's br g by Shrigley, out of Fe -114"1' 5 • 3rs 0 2 2 kr. , r etterton's Marengo, aged 0 dr W 4111(11 8 Betsy Bedlam, aged 0 dr T y „ 4 ,e first was a dead heat ; the others were won easy, - - Own Plate of 501; fir three rs old, 7st 41b ; four 9 81b ; five yrs, 9st 21b 3 six yrs and aged, 4i a `°. Winners this year, 31bs ; twice, 51bs extra. g. —e s and geldings allowed 4lbs. Heats, two miles. s it Corranna, 5 yrs, 9st 71b sh c nekerell's Niobe, 3 yrs, 7st 31b Nonsuit, 5 yrs, 9st 11b eaa t j olds on Corranna, nho won both heats in a --- m i c ts e have e l sew h ere a d verte d t o t h e s i gna l t r i um ph terd e " Mr. O'Conn e ll and the other State prisoners yes -4,14 achieved over their Ministerial prosecutors. We Lea° beg to refer to the speeches of the three Noble and tue -- , r , ne „ (l -Lords, who voted for a reversal of the judg terlif,",,e' the court below. The speeches of Lords Cot but V I I and Campbell are severally worthy of perusal; . Lord - e b w ould invite especial attention to the speech . of ° f th —en nian. It is a bold, clear, luminous exposition tr y h e great principles of constitutional law. The coun- Pe tid reason to be proud of such a judge. A more t inde kce P ta "t I rian, taking th e t erm i n it s mo s t comprehensive ion, h as not adorned the j u di c i a l b enc h s i nce t h e " 444 Lord M ans fi e ld . I n t h e h an d s o f suc h a j u d ge , Nr lberti es of the subject are always safe.—Advertiser. i to ; A, ,or P RINCE W ILLIAM OF P RUSSIA TO TILE 400 LOGICAL GARDENS.—IIis Royal Highness visi t 4William of Prussia, attended by a numerous suite, tier, f these Ga r d ens last evenin g to see the conflagra the ° Londo n . Hi s Royal High n ess was attended by Likil e re Prieter, to whom he was pleased to express the t adwirati9n 9f this spl9ndici spectacle. NAVAL INTELLIGENCE. WOOLWICH, SEPT. 4.—The Eclair steam-frigate, Com mander Walter G. B. Estcourt, commissioned at Wool wich last week, and having a crew of 145 men, has been ordered to be made ready for sea with the greatest dis patch, and at the early hour of five o'clock this morning her First Lieutenant, P. A. Alket, went on board, and a great number of hands were immediately set to work to complete this fine vessel for service. The activity dis played in the Dockyard to have the Eclair ready by Friday, the day named in the order, is equal to the dis patch used on a former occasion in fitting out the Cyclops steamer for Ireland, when Captain T. Austin, C. 8., com missioned, rigged, and made her ready to proceed to sea in the short space of thirty-six hours. All hands not in the secret are anxiously asking, this morning, " Are we to have war ?" Our reply has been, "It is not likely ;" the Eclair is only wanted to form one of the royal squad ron to accompany her Majesty to Scotland, on a mission of peace to her loyal subjects in that romantic and favoured country, now about to be honoured with the presence of her Majesty and Prince Albert a second time. The Volcano steam-vessel, at present in the river un dergoing repairs, is ordered to be ready by the 9th inst., and, if completed in time, is expected to form one of the vessels of the royal squadron. The Thedalus, late 42 gun frigate, is now nearly ready for sea, and is to be commissioned. The whole of her guns, forming a very powerful armament, are on board, consisting of six 8-inch or 68-pounder guns, weighing about 52 cwt. each 4 one 56-poundergun, Monk's pattern, on traversing carriage ; twelve long 32-pounder guns, weighing from 49 to 50 cwt. each ; one 12-pounder brass howitzer, and three 12-pounder carronades. Four of the long 32-pounder guns occupy the captain's cabin, and the six 6S-pounder guns are placed three on each side midships, and must give tremendous broadsides, while Monk's 56-pounder on traversing carriage throws its de structive missiles at all points of the compass, without altering the course of the vessel. The shot and shells are also on board, and there appears to be ample room to work these large guns on board this fine frigate. PORTSMOUTH, SEPT. 4.—ln a recent number we took occasion to mention the very insecure and unprotected state of our ports and home interests. We resume the subject for the purpose of pointing out how both may be protected. It has been said, and very often during . the last month, " that the best way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war." We agree with the axiom, but are we prepared for war, and so possessed of the essen tial for preserving peace ? Alas, no I It is true we have a large number of ships in our harbours and basins, but what are they without men ? And how proceeds the scheme of entering men for " general service" to man our ships at a moment's notice? Why, at this port, 54 (I) have been entered in the space of a fortnight, about the same number at Devonport, and, we believe, not nearly so many at Sheerness. Thus clearly the scheme is a failure. On the announcement of the project we hailed it with considerable satisfaction, imagining it would relieve the distresses of many, and keep others from entering other service ; but the result has proved that a true and good seaman will not enter until he knows his craft. He gives his own country the refusal of his services before he enters for any other employ. Why not, then, have commissioned the new brig squadron when they were ready, instead of letting them lie idle in our basins occupying valuable space ? This would have preserved hundreds of the finest seamen England could boast. Had larger ships at length been found of more utility to commission, their crews could easily have been turned over to the larger craft ; but as it is, neither brigs nor line-of-battle ships have received commissions, and our seamen have left, and are still leaving, our ports for the merchant and other service. We daily are informed of this 120 being masted, that 84 advanced, and the other 72 brought forwent], but none are commissioned, nor any pains or efficient mea sures taken to provide hands for them in the event of their hoisting the pendant. It will be seen by our naval news below that the Scourge steam sloop, now on the stocks in this dock, is being expedited by extra hands being put upon her, and all to work extra time to get her afloat this month. For what ? For commission, or to relieve the solitary loneliness of that splendid frigate Firebrand, which has been ready for the pendant for months ? We suppose the latter. Our ports and harbours are truly in a most defenceless state. Why is not the Firebrand commissioned ? Why are not her six guns shipped and the pendant hoisted ? Ports mouth would then have one effective sail, which would prove of more service in an emergency than a fleet of " Collingwoods" at Spithead. We are more open to annoyances from an enemy than any other port, and with less to protect us. The 'Victoria and Albert, we are informed, is ordered round to Woolwich to be in readiness for the embarka tion of her Majesty. There is one feature connected with this fine yacht which has hitherto escaped mention. When in the Channel on her late trial cruise, and going fourteen knots an hour, a bottle was dropped overboard, when her engines were reversed, and she backed astern, and picked up the bottle all in the space of four minutes. This appears almost incredible ; but we are assured of the authenticity of the statement. We are informed the experiment was tried to see how quick a man could be picked up who had fallen overboard. The Black Eagle Admiralty yacht, Master Commander S. B. Cook, left the harbour last evening for Woolwich, to be in readiness to convey the Lords of the Admiralty on their visits of inspection to the other ports. The Victory, 110, Captain Henderson, and all hands on board ships in ordinary, were paid six months' wages on Monday. The hands employed on the Scourge steam-sloop, now on the stocks, are ordered to work earlier and later to expedite her launching. The 100 seamen ordered to be entered for " general service," or employed as " riggers," are far from com plete as to number, not more than 54 having as yet been entered, notwithstanding the order has been out a fortnight. The Goodwood lighter arrived last evening with stores from Chatham. The Powerful, 84, is in the basin for masting. GRAVESEND. The following is a return of passengers landed and embarked at the Terrace and Town Piers, Gravesend, in the month of August, 1844 : Terrace Town Pier. Pier. Star Company with 5 boats... 95,764 Blackwall Co. Diamond Co 6 — 78,737 Sons of Thames Co 2 — 31,399 Eagle Co. Commercial Co 1 188,682 122,160 Terrace Pier, with 9 boats, Town Pier, with 10 boats, Balance in favour of the Terrace Pier during the month of August, 66,522 Gross number of passengers Of which to and from Blackwall, To and from Hungerford Market, Waterloo bridge, Old Swan, London-bridge, and other places through the Pool, 310 ; 842 THE TOUTING NUISANCE AT GRAVESEND.—On Monday morning Inspector Oxley, Sergeant Penman, and three of the borough police at Gravesend, were brought before the bench of county magistrates sitting at Rochester on bench warrants, and entered into regog nisances to attend at the next sessions and assizes for the county to answer bills of indictment preferred against them by Samuel Rowe, a touter for the Star Steam packet Company, for assaults in consequence of the officers having apprehended Rowe for touting. Rowe has been convicted of touting before the Gravesend ma gistrates some forty times, and the nuisance continuesto as great extent as ever, almost every Monday Rowe being apprehended and taken before the magistrates on five or six informations, charging him with pursuing his call ing on the Sabbath. The presiding magistrates at Gravesend are almost all connected with the Diamond Steam-boat Company, and the numerous convictions Rowe has sustained are attributed by the opposite party to their being interested pecuniarily in the matter. Some extraordinary scenes occur on these occasions, those magistrates belonging to the Star Company charging those who belong to the Diamond Company with par tiality, and protesting against their adjudicating in the matter, saying that it ought to be taken before the county bench at Rochester; but this the other party object to, saying that two of the county justices are directors of the Star Company, and therefore interested; parties. In the meantime, the touting goes on—conviction is piled upon conviction, against every one of which it is understood to be the intention of the Star Company to appeal, and there does not seem to be any likely termination to the affair except by an arrangement among the rival cone panies.—Morning Post. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.-011 the 6th of last month an Act was passed to simplify the transfer of property ; it comes into operation on the Ist January next. This Act will be useful in several respects, but it ought not only to have simplified the transfer, but re quired the long yarn spun by lawyers in making deeds to be considerably shortened. Lord Campbell had a Bill for this purpose, but he was met with interested op position. The intelligence of the decision which was yester day come to by the House of Lords in the case of O'Connell and others v. the Queen (in error), will reach Dublin by the ordinary channels of communication this evening, but in all probability at too late an hour for general publication through the evening journals. In order, however, that so favourable an opportunity might not be lost of producing an immediate effect upon the Repealers of the city, and a corresponding amount of excitement, a number of flags and placards were dis patched by last night's mail for immediate public distri bution on the arrival thereof, in and about the metro polis, announcing, in very conspicume type, that the " House of Lords had reversed the judgment of the Court below ;" that " justice had triumphed over law ;" and that "O'Connell was free." The several agents for the traversers also left London last night to congratulate their clients upon a decision which was, even to them, in a great degree unexpected, but which, fortunately for the peace and good order of the City of Dublin, must be some time lcnewn before it can be carried into effect, as a communication stating the remission of the judgment must first be made by the Clerk of the Parliament to the Queen's Bench in Ireland, giving rise to subsequent proceedings in that Court next term, unless the pri soners in the mean time cause themselves to be brought before the Lord Chancellor by habeas corpus, and show cause why they should be no longer detained in custody. —Times. Mr. ilawes, M.P., accompanied by Mr. Wire, and Messrs. Walter, Okey, Ireland, and Hobble, a depu tation from the Licensed Victuallers of London and the country, had an interview with Sir James Gra • ham yesterday, at the Home-office. THE LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 5. 1844. THE WRIT OF ERROR. (From the Times.) The House of Lords has given its decision in the case of Mr. O'Connell, and that decision is a reversal of the judgment of the court below, in opposition to the opinions of the majority of the judges, delivered on Monday. The majority in the House of Lords consisted of Lords Denman, Campbell, and Cotten ham, against the Chancellor. and Lord Brougham. With respect to the legal points at issue, the law is in such a state that it was, of course, a toss up which way judgment would be given. It is unusual to go against the opinion of the judges, and therefore it was naturally expected that the Douse would agree with that opinion. As it is, they have disagreed with it. The matter appears to stand thus :—On the great merits and substance of the case there was no doubt and no difference of opinion amongst our judges. It is quite clear that under one count or another in the indictment, a true legal offence was described, and that on the proof of that offence judgment was given against Mr. O'Connell. This is the common sense view. On the other hand comes in the legal diffi culty. The indictment contained bad and unsound , matter, as well as good and sound. The judgment was given upon the indictment; the judgment was given, therefore, upon bad counts as well as upon good ones. Here is the point. The bad invalidate the good, say Mr. Baron Parke and the minority of the bench ; the good turn the bad out of the field, say Chief Justice Tindal and the majority. Judgment is given upon a mixture, says one side; judgment supposes only the sound ingredients of the mixture, says an other. This is one of the main questions; the other relates to the appointment of the jury, and the vicious list out of which they were selected. There is legal remedy in this case, says one side of the judicial bench ; there is not, says the other. Who shall de cide when doctors disagree ? A majority of judges on one side, and a minority on another, was still a division of opinion ; and the Lords had a right to de cide between the two. So thought Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell. They conceived also that they had a perfect right to entertain a coincidence of opinion on the matter with Mr. Baron Parke, and un doubtedly they have. Mr. Baron Parke, as we have acknowledged already, is a luminary of the law. No one can dispute the right of the Whig law Lords to entertain his view; and they have, as we see, not failed to entertain it. A curious mixture and per plexity of justice ensues upon this decision. Going upon the substantial merits of the case, Mr. O'Con nell has confessedly been condemned justly : going upon the legal question, the majority of the law Lords say he has been condemned unjustly; and he has al ready actually suffered part of his sentence. He can proclaim the injustice of a now so decided illegal sentence of imprisonment. On the other hand, an opponent may tell him that what was prospectively illegal was not prevented by that circumstance from being actually at the time legal. The law put Mr. O'Connell in prison, and the law has taken him out. The law is his enemy and his friend ; but it is law in either case. A legal interpretation acts subse quently to its promulgation, but cannot antedate itself. What was done before was done then, and not now ; and Mr. O'Connell's imprisonment is present illegality but retrospective law. However, Mr. O'Connell is now out, and at large, or will be in the course of a few hours. It remains with him to select the character that he will play on so important and triumphant an occasion as the present. Will he be serene and majestic or indignant and thr ea t en i ng ? Will he pity, or will he storm? Will he smile, or shake his fist ? Will he astound all Ireland with quiet magnanimity, or immediately commence retali ation ? We have no doubt he will duly revolve and debate the part he will play. It is a critical moment; much may be made of it by good management; much may be lost, and much gained; he must take some line that will be striking and impressive. What a crowd of political moves in posse will cross and jostle one another in his brain as soon as the triumph ant intelligence is communicated. And the choice must be made immediately; the prison doors are opening, and the excited mob are waiting outside. Mr. O'Connell should really have time for deliberation, and be allowed, as a favour, to stay one week longer in gaol. Meantime, without undertaking to prophesy what the immediate effects of the decision of the House of Lords will be, and fully aware, as we are, of the un favourable turn which such successes generally have taken in Ireland, we must yet suggest one aspect in which the present one ought to be viewed, and which should tell anything but unfavourably upon Irish feelings to England. The Irish cannot at any rate now complain of the injustice of England : we do not decide ourselves whether this judgment of the Lords is a good or a bad one, just or unjust: but the Irish certainly cannot complain of it. English law cannot be impugned and accused of Irish antipathies at any rate in this instance. English law has set , Mr. O'Connell free. Ungrateful it would be to an excess in them to go to any other source than the unpolluted purity of English law for the favour able sentence, or even to whisper the remotest con jecture of an obligation to the political partialities of Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell, for the issue of this appeal. The Noble and Learned Lords would disown it with indignation ; and there fore, they must acknowledge that it is law, and law only—English law and justice—which has done this. Or even supposing a shade of party—a mere touch of the politician coming in, in the business—we men tion it as the barest hypothesis—still the learned Lords are not the House of Lords. The House is Conservative, and this is the decision of the House. And though it may be said that custom prevents any but law Lords voting, and that therefore this is prac tically only the decision of certain law Lords, this only removes the conclusion one step further. The fact still remains that the House has committed itself to this decision, and that the supreme tribunal of England has given a most gratifying judgment for Ireland. Whether that judgment is right or wrong, we do not say ; it must at any rate be a pleasing one to the Irish ; and they are not, therefore, the persons now to complain of Engli s h i n j us ti ce an d partiality. (From the Morning Herald.) " The glorious uncertainty of the law" has had a new triumph. The judgment of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of O'C on nell and others, though approved of by seven out of the nine judges free to offer an opinion upon the subject, and by the Chancellor and Lord Brougham, has been reversed by the votes of only three Noble and Learned Lords —two of them ex-Chancellors of Whig promotion, and the third a nobleman whom we dislike to find in such company—though fourteen years ago he was a Whig—Lord Denman. Let us marshal the autho rities on each side : FOR THE JUDGMENT. AGAINST IT. IN IRELAND. Chief Justice Pennefather. Mr. Justice Burton. Mr. Justice Crampton. Mr. Justice Perrin. IN ENGLAND. The Chancellor. Lord Cottenham. Lord Brougham. Lord Denman. Chief Justice Tindal. Lord Campbell. Mr. Justice Patteson. Mr. Baron Parke. Mr. Justice Williams. Mr. Justice Coltman. Mr. Justice Coleridge. Mr. Justice Maule. Mr. Baron Gurney. Mr. Baron Alderson. Such is the state of the law that fine judges, neither higher in judicial rank nor otherwise, have the power of overturning the judgment of thirteen; an arrangement, in appearance at least, not very honourable to the administration of justice in this country. The question naturally occurs to every one —why, if the votes of Lords Cottenham, Denman and Campbell must be paramount in anv case, were the circuits delayed—the prorogation of 'Parliament post poned—and the traversers detained improperly six weeks in prison ? Why , were the judges consulted at all if it was predetermined, as manifestly it must have been, that the opinion of the majority of them should go for nothing ? Is this the way to make the administration of justice respectable in the eyes of the people ? A question, in some measure, connected with the last, respects tke attendance of the lay Lords. ' If these Lords were to give efficient votes, their at tendance is intelligible enough, and the exercise of their privilege of voting would go some length in explaining why the opinions of the judges were called for, even though the law Lords m i g ht h ave reso l ve d to disregard these opinions ; because, instructed by the opinions and the learned arguments of the judges, most educated laymen would be as competent to form a sound decision as an equity pleader no more con versant with Crown law than the ex-Chancellor Cot tenham, or than the noble and unsuccessful prosecutor of Frost, Lord Cardigan, Mr. Feargus O'Connor, and so many others; but the lay Lords were not permitted to vote, and one can hardly imagine a slight passed upon any men more humiliating than the detaining their Lordships from their country seats, their relaxations, and the society of their families, merely to look on, like the guards at an execution, while Lords Cottenhum, Denman, and Campbell should snub eleven out of thirteen Irish and English Judges. As to the consequences of the decision, the only ill-consequences that we ap prehend, in addition to those which must attend every perversion of law and justice, is the new force that this decision will give to the too prevalent conviction that " there is one law for the rich and another for the poor." The judges, law Lords, and all who have had the matter before them, unanimously admit the moral justice of the punishment of the Repealers, though some on one technical crotchet, some on another, have concurred in withdrawing the offenders from that merited punishment. This acknowledgment of the real substantial guilt of Mr. O'Connell and his aec om • plices is on one side good, because it reduces the tri umph of the liberated convicts to the triumph of suc cessful wickedness and fraud, but it 13 on the other • side fraught with immense evil. There is not one of the miserable creatures, for example, now suffering under sentences imposed at the late special commis sions in South Wales and elsewhere, who, seeing the escape of Mr. O'Connell and the rest by dint of petti ' fogging and of party influence, must not feel that if he had the means of paying for the necessary amount of pettifogging, he might as confidently bid defiance to law and justice. We deeply regret to find Lord Denman mixed up in this discreditable decision, and regret it scarcely the less because we believe that his Lordship has been acting upon a misconception unworthy of him. The noble Chief Justice of England founded his decision to reverse the judgment of his Irish brethren chiefly upon the alleged fraud in the construction of the jury list—in this taking a view different from all the English judges without exception, and from three of the four Irish judges. Now, that there was fraud in the matter we firmly believe, but by whom was that fraud committed ? Not by the officers of the Crown, for not one of them ever had access to the jury lists; not by the officers of the court, for they had little interest in the affair, and have, besides, completely purged themselves by affidavits ; but there were some who had access to the lists who have never purged themselves by any affidavit; and who had a a deep interest in stealing the lists, because the stolen lists contained a majority of Protestants ; and thus, in the first place, improved the chances of the traversers, and because, secondly, an exposure of the fact that lists were stolen might upset the judgment if the traversers did not get a jury to their mind, as in fact it has done—for these—the only persons who had access to the lists, and an interest in stealing the lists, and who purged themselves by no affidavits— were the servants of the traversers' attorneys. (From the Morning Post.) The country will learn with astonishment the re sult of the proceedings, yesterday, in the House of Lords. The judgment of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench has been reversed, and Mr. O'Connell is, once again, virtually a free man. By its course of action, yesterday, the House of Lords has, voluntarily, re nounced some of its most important functions; while the amiable Lord Wharncliffe and his colleagues have betrayed the interests of the Queen's loyal subjects in England as well as in Ireland. Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham, it will be perceived, concurred in opinion with the judges of England, as well as with the Irish Court of Queen's Bench ; while Lords Den man, Campbell, and Cottenham argued in favour of a reversal of the sentence which has been passed on O'Connell and his fellow conspirators. The opinions of these three Learned Whigs would, however, have availed little with the House, had not Lord Wharn cliffe entreated the lay Peers not to vote on a ques tion which Lords learned in the law ought to decide. The doctrine of Lord Wharncliffe in this matter is not the doctrine of the constitution. Even Lord Campbell disclaimed, for his order, any such ex clusive privileges as Lord Wharncliffe thrust upon it. The ex-Chancellor of Ireland denied, in short, that in the House of Lords, sitting as a court of appeal, the constitution recognises any dis tinction between the law Lords and those who have not received their education in Inns of Court. The "conciliatory" doctrine of Lord Wharncliffe was, in fact, treated with infinite contempt by a Noble and Learned Member of that political party which the doctrine in question was designed to serve. For once in his life, Lord Campbell has given utterance to a great truth. The constitution recognises no distinc tion between lay Peers and law Lords when the Upper House sits as a court of appeal. Lord Wharn cliffe has, in fact, lietrayed•his brother Peers into an abandonment of some of their most important con stitutional functions. If his Lordship's doctrines be sound, the country no longer possesses a court of ap peal in the House of Lords. No ; our highest court of appeal is composed, exclusively, of the lawyers in the House. Let this fact be known to the country ; and let the name of the House of Lords be no longer mixed up with the movements of the lawyers who belong to that assembly. The House of Lords has agreed, we repeat, to throw away some of its most important constitu tional privileges; while, almost con t emporaneous l y , the House of Commons has tried to usurp the func tions which the constitution has denied to it. The House of Lords, assembled as a court of appeal, does not presume to controvert the opinions of the three Whig law Lords. The House of Commons, with out possessing any right to reverse the proceedings of any court of law, has attempted, on the other hand, within these few years, to exercise as large a mea sure of control over the judges of the land, as it might over the door-keepers of St. Stephen's. The lay members of the House of Lords were, as we have stated, assured by Lord Wharncliffe that they ought to leave the matter at issue to be determined by those of their number who were learned in the law. The law Lords of the House were never, let it be ob served, designed to be other than advisers of the House, in its character as a court of appeal; and it may not be forgotten that the House has, in this case of O'Connell, sought advice at the hands, not merely of the lawyers whom it contains, but of all the judges of England. Nearly all these judges are, it so happens, op posed to the opinion expressed by Lords Denman, Campbell, and Cottenham. It is, indeed, a remark able coincidence that all the noble lawyers who voted for the emancipation of O'Connell happen to belong to O'Connell's political party. When, therefore, Lord Wharncliffe counselled the House to leave the matter to the decision of those learned in the law, he ought to have qualified his advice, and urged the lay Peers to leave the matter to the decision—not of all the judges, nor of those judges who, by position, must be comparatively free from political bias, but of the few judges who are involved in all the heats of party strife. The effect on the country of this renuncia tion of their privileges by the lay Peers of England will be most disastrous. The power of O'Connell will be incalculably strengthened. Last year he openly defied the law and Government. This year her Majesty's " Conservative" Ministers have enabled him to trample on the administrators of justice in Ireland. Lord Wharncliffe and his colleagues have, in melancholy truth, offered the highest con ceivable premium on d i saffect i on o f th e m ost de e p and dangerous kind. By disregarding the opinion of the great majority of the judges of England—by re three law Lord s , W h ose ferring, in fact, th e decision of th i s grea t ques ti on t o political sentiments do not differ widely f rom O ' Connell ' s —Lor d Wh arnc liff e has contrived t o p l ay O ' Connell ' s game better than he and his coll eagues could have done b y th e ma chinery of a Royal visit to Ireland. To pardon O'Connell would have been, to a certain extent, to degrade O'Connell. Now O'Connell has no need of pardon. Compensation is, in fact, due to him. We trust, therefore, that Lord Wharncliffe will move in Parliament that compensation shall be tendered to the loyal gentlemen who have for some months past been s compelled to sh are i n the gaieties which have Richmonddistin guishedtlvinementthe n ot effective Penitentiary.Lord an y I man Vh arn oiffe,smohas yet attempted in the direction of repeal. 'Whatever increase of force the repeal agitation may hereafter require, must assuredly be placed to the credit of her Majesty's Ministers. It is impossible to forget with what reluctance Ministers proceeded last year to enforce the law against O'Connell. " Monster meeting" after " monster meeting" was allowed to be held with im punity. For months Ministers resolutely refused to take any step to vindicate the law, or to protect the Queen's loyal Irish subjects from the effects of a sys tem of intimidation more frightful than any attempted since the days of the French revolution. That sys tem of intimidation Ministers, we repeat, approved themselves unwilling to check. That system of inti midation Ministers have now virtually re-established. It is time that those who d • esire to prevent the dis memberment of the empire should think seriously of the present aspect of affairs, The Repeal agitation will speedily be renewed with tenfold fervour. How long will that agitation be opposed by Sir Robert Peel ? To how many of his professed principles has that Right Honourable Gentleman adhered in defiance of long continued clamour ? In early life he was the champion of Protestantism. In 1829 he betrayed the Protestant cause. He was, in a sense, the founder of Orange lodges. I n 1833, he lent himself to their sup pression without attempting to defend them. In 1839, he was the champion of British agriculture. In • 1842 he openly adopted the principles of the Anti- Corn-law League. Will he always oppose the clamour for a repeal of the union ? (From the Morning Advertiser.) We congratulate the State prisoners —we congra tulate the people of Ireland —we congratulate the lovers of justice throughout the world on the event which yesterday took place in the House of Lords. Contrary to all expectation, after what had occurred in the same place on Monday, the judgment of the Irish court has been reversed, and this evening O'Con nell and his fellow - prisoners will be walking the streets of Dublin as free as any of her Majesty's sub jects. The re l v ersal of the sentence . Which doomed the Irish patriots to twelve months' incarceration, has excited an extraordinary sensation in London. What will be the excitement it will cause in Ireland, we leave to be guessed by those who know the state of public feeling in that country. In the ex cess of the people's joy, in their boundless exul tation, we trust that nothing will occur to afford a handle to the enemies of their country. The question will now suggest itself to every mind, what reparation will be made to O'Connell and his fellow-prisoners for the three months' in carceration they have suffered ? Another question will occur—what adequate reparation can be made them ? None. The injury which has been inflicted on them is too deep, the injustice done them too great to admit of a measure of reparation which could meet the merits of the case. That, however, is no reason why some atonement should not be made. In cases of false imprisonment — even for a few hours—at the instance of private individuals, the party suffering the injury can obtain ready redress. It will be very extrAordiNtry if the constitution, whose excellences we are in the habit of lauding to the skies, does not provide the means of reparation for individuals who have suffered three months' false imprisonment at the hands of a vindictive Government. The prosecu tion of Mr. O'Connell has been a most unfortunate step from the first. As it began, so it has con tinued, and so it has ended. Blunder succeeded blunder on the part of the Attorney-General, and even on the seat of justice, until all law and justice have been made ridiculous. It is impossible for any man, after what he has witnessed in our courts of law, and on the bench of justice for the last six months, to entertain in future any respect either for the proceedings of lawyers, or the dicta of judges. We wish that our observations were applicable only to the Bench and the Bar on the other side of the Channel. Unhappily they also apply nearer home. What a melancholy exhibition was made on Mon day, in the House of Lords. Ask any hundred men you meet in the public streets of any town in Great Britain, what they conceived to be the crowning offence which Mr. O'Connell com mitted in the eye of the law, and for which he and his fellow-patriots were incarcerated in Richmond Bridewell ? Ask them this question, and ninety-nine out of the hundred, if not the entire hundred, will answer that the gravamen of the charge against the prisoners was the circumstance of their holding the monster meetings, by which they intimidated her Majesty's subjects, and endangered the public peace. How will such persons be sur prised when they are informed, that though the counts which the English judges found to have been ille gally framed, or on which the jury returned defective findings, are those very counts which charged Mr. O'Connell with intimidating her Majesty's subjects, and endangering the public peace, yet that a large majority of these judges came to the decision that the sentence passed on the prisoners ought not to be re versed ? Judicial minds may be able to reconcile such extraordinary anomalies, but we suspect very few else will. To the public the decision of the Eng lish judges, and the affirmation of the sentence of the Irish court, will for ever appear at irreconcileable vari ance. An outrage, as we have already said, has been offered to the sacredness of justice, from the initiatory step taken in these prosecutions, down to the closing act of the judicial drama. The law, too, as far as unprofessional persons like ourselves can compre hend it, has suffered violence in various stages of the State trials; but we are sure we only speak the una nimous conviction of men of all parties, when we say that this last exhibition of judicial inconsistency, legal absurdity, and injustice, will do more to bring the English bench of justice into disrepute than any thing which has occurred for many years past. For tunately, the more enlightened, more rational, more constitutional view of the question taken by Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell, has interposed between Mr. O'Connell and the effects of the extra ordinary law laid down on Monday by the seven judges, who affirmed the sentence of the court below. But see how accidental this was. Had one of the three law Lords whose names we have men- tioned only happened to take the same view of the case as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham, or had not the Lords, " not learned in the law," ab stained from voting, the law of the seven judicial Solons alluded to would have continued Mr. O'Con nell in prison for nine months longer, and subjected him to the intolerable annoyance of being on, what in legal phraseology is called, his " good behaviour" for seven years more. We hope that the progress and conclusion of these trials will prove a salutary lesson to Sir Robert Peel. We are much mistaken if he has not by this time had enough of them. Out of evil cometh good. Mr. O'Connell and his fellow prisoner's have been sufferers, but the public and the great principles of constitutional liberty will be incal culable gainers by the Irish trials. The result is not of a nature to inspire future Governments, any more than the present Administration, with any undue pas=' sion for State prosecutions. (Prom the Morning Chronicle). The great case of the Queen against O'Connell, which has interested and agitated the British empire for several months back, and which has excited so many hopes, fears, and conjectures, has been brought to a final termination at last. The House of Lords, after a discussion of surpassing interest, have decided that the judgment which had been given against Mr. O'Connell should be reversed, annulled, and holden for nought, and that the said Daniel O'Connell should be restored to all things which he had lost by the said judgment. The debate—if such it may be called —was commenced by Lord Lyndhurst, whose speech was clever, but general ; not entering minutely into either the facts or authorities, entering not at all into the principles of a larger kind which ought to regulate such a decision, but contenting himself with appealing to a general usage, and with criticising the judgment of Baron Parke. Warmly insisting upon the propriety of acting upon the opinions of the majority of the judges, who thought that the judgment ought to be affirmed, he moved that it be affirmed accordingly. Lord Brougham, of course, followed on the same side, and in very much the same strain. Lord Cottenham, Lord Campbell, and Lord Denman, voted for the reversal of the judgment. The first of these Noble Lords con fined himself entirely to the subject upon which the difference of opinion existed between the judges, but went most elaborately over the limited space which he occupied. Lord Campbell addressed the House at greater length, and expressed his opinions upon every part of the case. With regard to Lord Denman, we want language to express the feelings of admiration with which he was listened to by ourselves, as well as the whole of the assembled audience. The large and elevated expansion of his views beyond the technical boundaries of his mere profession, the heart-warm sincerity with which he vindicated the right of every subject of the realm to a fair and impartial trial, the noble indignation with which he denounced the fraudulent and illegal prac tices which, if sanctioned by authority, would convert trial by jury into a "delusion, a mockery, and a snare"—the general purity and elevation of his senti ments, expressed with an eloquence which was heightened by the graceful dignity of his presence and demeanour, and receiving utterance in a voice of extraordinary beauty—all this presented in our judg ment one of the noblest exhibitions that ever adorned a legislature or a tribunal. And thus the monster sentence of the monster trial is reversed. The league long indictment, the more interminable pleadings, the insinuation of treason under a mere accusation of misdemeanour, the plainest objections and claims of right over-ruled, the straining of law and the perversion of justice—all have come to nought. What use will he make of the new and tremendous power which this unhappy prosecution has bestowed upon Mr. O'Connell ? This question, which now flies from mouth to mouth, is the best comment upon the policy recently pursued. After all our vigorous government of Ireland, are we to hang on Mr. O'Connell's lips to learn the fate of that country? Is this the triumph of a Government too firm to truckle to agitation ? We must confess we see little reason to hope that the reparation, necessarily tardy and imperfect, which the law now makes to Mr. O'Connell for the wrong done to him, will check the activity of the repeal movement. On the contrary, the agitation is likely to go on with increased force under the stimulus of events, which will add to the pungency of every popular exhortation. The difficul ties in tl►e way of governing Ireland, will be found as formindable as ever, and to remove them some new scheme must be tried. In the pre sent state of Ireland, Ministers cannot stand still. Conciliation or coercion they must try, on some new and great scale. They have paltered too long with the integrity of the empire. The evil was felt vividly ten days ago, and no one can say how soon or how long it may be before the cloud now disappearing darkens the horizon again. A heavy responsibility lies upon that Minister who ex poses the country to a concurrence so menacing as that of foreign war with intestine dissension. Every consideration of prudence, as well as of justice, now urges us to consolidate the union with Ireland. Is the session really to close without contributing any thing to this end ? That it will so close is but too probable. The commission to prorogue has been ap pointed for one o'clock this day, almost the very hour at which the House of Commons is to meet, as if for the purpose of preventing even the slightest expres sion of opinion on the seriousness of the present exi gency. Ministers, we fear, know not what to do, and will do nothing more than let events take their course. They have neither the courage nor the com prehension requisite to grapple with the difficulties of Irish government, and they are equal to nothing better than looking idly on while the connexion be tween the two countries is exposed to the shock of a new agitation. SHOCKING MURDER.—A man named Pont, who had been Deputy-Mayor of Epinay-sour-Senart (in the Seine-et-Oise), was tried on Saturday at Versailles on a charge of having poisoned his wife, and afterwards murdered a young woman named Louise Montcneau. It appeared from the evidence that the wife of the prisoner was much older than himself, but he was induced to marry her because she was much richer, and that in order to come into the sole enjoyment of her property, he, in January, 1843, administered arsenic to her, and deprived her of her life. A short time after her death he took a fancy to Louise Monteneau, then only twenty years old, and purchased her of her mother as his mis tress, by settling an annuity upon her. She became pregnant, and, to relieve himself of the embarrassment , the child might cause him, he induced her to take means for procuring an abortion. These failing he determined to get rid of his mistress and child at one blow. To effect this purpose, he, in April last, led her into the forest of Senart, and there first shot her witk a pistol, and then set her clothes on fire, in the hope of destroy ing all traces of his crime. Her body was found half calcined. The evidence against him was circumstantial, but convincing. Pont, however, who is a small, mean looking man, appeared throughout to be confident of escape. The jury declared him guilty, and the presi dent pronounced upon bun N , entenee of death, THE STATE TRIALS. WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF O'CONNELL AND OTHER'3. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday. Lord DENMAN then proceeded to deliver his opi nion. He would first advert to the judgment given in the court below allowing the demurrer to the challenge of the array. If such practices as had taken place in the present instance in Ireland should continue, the trial by jury would become a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. To the traversers' challenge of the array, on account of sixty jurors being omitted, the Attorney-General for Ireland had de murred, and by so doing had admitted that such a fact had taken place. One of the learned judges was of opinion that the challenge should have been allowed, and with that opinion he entirely concurred. He felt bound to disagree, therefore, with the opinion given by the Learned Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He thought the principles he had laid down in his judg ment were erroneous. The question was whether the party had had a lawful jury to try him, and on that point he regretted, but at the same time he felt bound to differ from his learned brethren. He had no doubt that their Lordships were aware that when the judges were consulted, it was competent for any judge, who was a member of that House, to attend that consultation, but he had been so struck with the proceedings that had taken place in Dublin that he had written to Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had been prevented from illness from attending their Lordships, or even leaving his room. Now there were many circumstances in the present case, to which it was necessary to advert. He would, how ever, first call their Lordships' atten tion to the letter he had received from Mr. Justice Coleridge. He said, speaking of the question of the challenge of the array, I answer this question with muck doubt, being unable to look to the authorities on the subject. All questions touching the formation of j cries, must be examined by the judges with cri eal care. It must be admitted that the Recorder sent 10 general list to the sheriff, but that some spuri cus list had been made out by some person. Trutt this has been done fraudulently, and with in ten: to prejudice him on his trial ; that from that spu 'ions list the jurors' book and special jury list ha been made, and the present array selected, and that the traverser himself was wholly unparticipant in this fraud, and protested against the array being constituted from the list so framed?' Here, he said, is a confessed and serious wrong, and the only ques tion is, whether a challenge to the array be the proper remedy. It is said, first, that the sheriff is not in default, and secondly, that if the challenge be allowed, there is no book from which any other jury can be selected. With great deference, I submit that neither of these is an answer. He then put a particular case, in which the sheriff might have made an imperfect array, and there might be no default, and yet the challenge must prevail. He then said, in answer to the second objection, that the only consequence was that the trial might remain untaken, and he ex pressed in strong language his own opinion that it were far better that no trial should be taken under those circumstances, than that it should be taken subject to the heavy suspicion which these facts must bring upon it. Now, on Monday, when the Lord Chief Justice stated to the House the entire agreement of all the judges upon this point, he did not feel himself justified in alluding to that letter, because he had concluded that the Lord Chief Justice had had some subsequent communication with his brother Coleridge, in consequence of which he might pos sibly have seen ground for altering his opinion. But when he left their Lordships' House, he found on his table another letter from his brother Cole ridge, written the day before. He had before said, that he thought the argument in favour of the over ruling of the demurrer was too technical for the decision of a great constitutional question ; and stating, upon the view which he took of the balance of inconveniences, in his note of Monday, he was much struck by what he (Lord Denman) had written on the question of challenge, and at present, like himself, awaited the better arguments that were to be adduced on the other side. He did not, therefore, stand alone in thinking that the jury should not be selected out of any list, and that there should be a remedy for any injury which might be done. He would briefly state what opinion appeared to prevail in the court below on this subject. There was originally, perhaps, some notion that that the challenge to the array was taken away altogether; but that was clearly not the case, because there was a particular provision which preserved the right. It was also questioned whether a challenge laid to the array where a special jury had been struck out. That difficulty having been got over in the Queen's Bench in England, he did not think that there could be any diffi culty in settling it in the same manner. His Noble and Learned Friend said that the prin ciple of challenge to the array rested solely on unindifferency in this conduct on the part of the sheriff. The judgment which he had formed on that point was like that of his brother Coleridge, who, in the letter which he had written to him, stated what he considered to be the state of the law at present. The substantial duties of the sheriff in former times were to collect the names of those who were fit to be on the jury, and enter them in a panel, and these duties belonged to the sheriff alone; but, by the late Act of Parliament, those duties were divided between the tax collectors in the first place, the Recorder of Dublin in the second place, and the sheriff in the third place. The tax collectors performed a duty merely ministe rial; the Recorder, in the first instance, performed a duty which was judicial—decided upon claims and objections. It was then his duty to sign and settle the list which was to be the jury list for the year. The complaint in this case was, that after the Re corder had exercised his functions • after he had determined what should be the list for the ensuing year, somebody else said " It shall not be the list." The handing over of a perfect list to the Recorder by the sheriff was a ministerial act, and that act had been incorrectly performed. The chal lengers said, " the judicial act has been improperly performed, but you have deprived your own judicial act of the weight and authority to which it is entitled." He could not help believing that, if that view of the case, which his brother Coleridge had stated much more clearly than he had done, had been presented to the learned judges at their consultation, they would have thought it worthy at least of con sideration. His Noble and Learned Friend had truly stated that that objection was to the con duct of the returning officer. Who was the re turning officer? Why the Recorder was the return ing officer for the purpose of this trial, and in his opinion the Recorder—though without the slightest imputation on his motives, which was disclaimed by all—had been guilty of a default, when he had handed over to the sheriff, as a list of the jurors, that book which was not the list which the law required, and which the Recorder himself had declared should not be the list. lie had written a great deal more than he he was desirous of troubling their Lordships by reading. Not only did he differ from his Learned Brother the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, as to the principle on which the challenge to the array was to be allowed, but also as to the consequences which were likely to ensue. The Lord Chief Justice said no object or advantage could here be gained if the challenge had been allowed, for if the challenge had been allowed the jury process would have been directed to some other officer. Now, there he ventured to think, there was a mistake. The default was not that of the sheriff, but of the Recorder, or clerk of the peace, who made out an incorrect list. The Act of Parliament expressly provided for the want of the jurors' book being returned. his Noble and Learned Friend said " Here is a book returned." But what book ? The Act required that that book should be returned which was correctly made up from the list ; but this book was incorrectly made up. It . was asked whether a single defect would vitiate the whole list. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas said that, according to the argument used, if the cess c ollectors omitted a single name, the list would be altogether vitiated. He begged to differ on that point from the Learned Judge. All that had been done previous to the decision of the Court of Sessions would not be affected. This reductio a d absurd am was met at the bar by an opposite case of much greater extent. It was asked what would be the effect of omitting 60 or 600 names ? He thought the inconvenience would be ve ry great if the party were not tried out of the book ; but it should he remembered, that the decision in the case of the " Queen v. O'Connell" was not a decision in any other case. The Lord Chief Justice said there must be some mode of relief from the inconvenience occasioned by such an omission. So said all the learned judges—so said his Learned Friend on the Woolsack, and also his Learned Friend who had just addressed their Lordships. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had raised his expectation indeed in one part of his argument. His Noble and Learned Friend said, " is the party without remedy ? No, he is not." He (Lord Denman) had waited to hear what that remedy was. Where was that redress? What was th ere to prevent any one o f the Queen's subjects accused from being tried by such a jury as the law never approved of? "Oh," said his Noble and Learned Friend, "excuse me ; I will tell you what the remedy is on a future occasion." Now, if the Learned Lord Chief Justice of England and the' judges of Ireland could not point out any remedy, what secu rity was there to the Queen's subjects ? He would go a step further, and he would say that he would never believe but that there was a remedy, unless the wen t known constitutional principle of challenging the .rte- -z --v ~--- ~-- V 1 • ' - -; • ." - -(7t, 1 1,:=:=-• 4 " , ~ : , ••4 , ,- •• , ..,...--...,-....., • ; ~,,,!• ;4 4.r . array—unless that ancient practice were repealts4 l 7 ---- -;•,--:* ' by a direct Act of Parliament, he Nonld- sisV---'-=-- --; '4 i believe that there did not still exist a reinalyin;:luchs:Alm cases as these. The objection h av i ng b een well taken, —w it ought to have been allowed ; and not having been allowed, the trial had erroneously proceeded. In the 20th of Edward 111., it was argued that a case was vitiated by the party being de prived of his right of challenge, on account of the omission of individuals from the list, and it was replied that there were good names enough re turned by the sheriff ; but it was held by the court that the document was one and indivisible, and the consequence of that would be that one error would vitiate the whole, and the whole was accordingly set aside. What made this case the more remarkable was, that a charge of indifferency was brought against the sheriff, and he was tried and acquitted on that charge, but it was held that he was to blame for the difficulty that had arisen. He (Lord Denman) could not leave this subject with out adverting again to the want of remedy. It had been thrown out by some learned persons that application to the court should have been made. Were the Queen's subjects to apply to the discretion of the court in order to have a lawful jury to try them for their lives, for their liberties, or for their most important interests ? Was it a thing for a motion on affidavits and written depositions, when the party accused was always the party swearing last, and after all the matter was referred to the discretion of the court? But on this case such a motion was made and was refused, but on what ground it was refused he did not know. He knew nothingfurther of the pro ceedings than what he had seen in the papers. He under stood that the whole jury list of Dublin consisted of 717 names.. Now the special jury list, of course, would be a very inconsiderable portion of this num ber. Sixty names out of this proportion was enough to affect, of course, the panel. It was not improbable that if those sixty names had been on the panel, that the jury might have been drawn from that number. He would now proceed to the other points of the case. He did not entirely agree with the learned judges, in thinking that there were only two objectionable counts. Ile was by no means clear that there was anything illegal involved in the expression of opinion against courts of law for the purpose of having other counts submitted that would be more satisfactory; but however it was quite enough for his argument espe cially as all the learned judges had given an unani mous opinion that they were bad counts—that two counts in the indictment were bad. The question was, whether the judgment that had been pronounced, and the sentence which had been passed, could be good under the circumstances ? The question was A and B are good counts, C was a bad count, and the court pronounced sentence upon the defendants in respect to A, B, and C. Here were three counts, on all of which evidence had been taken, and a verdict was taken upon each of these three counts. A conviction was obtained, and the court proceeded to pass sentence, and the punishment was awarded according to the discretion of the judge. Now it-was possible that the court had taken into account the bad counts as well as the good ones. They had been told that they must assume that judg ment had been pronounced on the good counts only. Now in the first place, he had a serious objection to that. The presumption was in direct contradiction to a notorious fact. If they were to assume this, future students at law in Dublin would, on a referenee to the reports of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, find that the fact was contrary to that which their Lordships had assumed. The learned judges had stated that two of the counts were bad, while the Court of Queen's Bench had declared that they were perfectly good and un exceptionable. This put the question entirely out of court. He had felt with his Learned Brethren great surprise when he heard the ingenious argument which had been addressed to the court on this subject, and he confessed that he never felt any doubt on the sub ject until that argument was submitted to his mind. Now, the question was, whether in point of fact there was legal ground for doubt to be entertained. It was not the first time that a court of justice had taken that view. He remembered at the time that his Noble and Learned Friend, now on the Woolsack, presided over the Court of Exchequer, a case was brought before that court, in which it was proposed to overrule not the mere dicta of judges, not merely an opinion which had been received with favour in Westminster-hall, but a series of decided cases run ning through a period of fifty years. His Noble and Learned Friend, now on the Woolsack, had examined those cases, and in giving judgment had stated that, inasmuch as the decisions in those cases were clearly founded in error , they were not binding. That was the case of Hutton v. Vann, which had afterwards come before their Lordships' House, and their Lordships were of opinion that they were bound by the authorities, but that had not pre vented his Noble and Learned Friend who presided over the Exchequer from entering into the con sideration of those cases, and of deciding that they were not good in law, as they all originated in a mistake which had crept in in the time of Lord Mansfield. He had heard his Noble and Learned Friend, with that admiration with which he had al ways heard him, lay down the rule on this subject. But their Lordships were not to be satisfied merely with the opinions of the judges, they had a duty of their own to perform. They must satisfy their own consciences. The opinions of the judges were merely the materials for snaking up their minds, and they must be satisfied before their minds were made up. What had happened in that House not twelve months ago ? There was an universal opinion of the bar founded on three distinct judgments of different judges of former times, as to the law of marriage. Lord Mansfield, Lord Kenyon, and Lord Ellen borough had all taken the same view as to the nature of the marriage contract, and Lord Stowell, who had had half a century of experience, and who had de voted the greater part of his time to the considera tion of this subject, agreed with them in opinion. Their Lordships had entered on the consideration of the case, and had requested the attendance and opinion of the judges. The judges had given their opinion, which was contrary to the opinion of their predecessors ; but their Lordships, convinced by the arguments which had bee n l a id before them, differed, toto ccelo, from the opinion of the judges, and felt bound to say, according to their own convictions, that the judges had not taken a correct view. On that question their Lordships were equally divided, and the consequence was that the judgment of the court below was affirmed contrary to the opinion given by the learned judges. He admitted that when he had first heard the argument on that point at the bar, he had heard it with surprise, but his surprise had afterwards changed its object, and he was surprised, not so much that the objection should have been taken, as that such a rule should ever have been considered law. He was convinced that it never had been law, and the slightest attention would show that such was the case. It had arisen from a dictum of Lord Mansfield's, not in a case relating to the criminal law, but in a case relating to the civil law, when he was not called upon to inquire into the state of the criminal law on the subject, and when he went out of his way to make a grievance against the law, as he thought, he found it by making an antithesis between the civil and criminal law. He said that in a civil action in which there were several counts in the declaration, and in which a jury gave general damages, such a verdict would be laid aside if one of ce of such he commented upon the inconven e the counts of the declaration w i e n re bad, and a rule. He regretted that it had not occurred to Lord Mansfield that there was a plain remedy for this inconvenience, and that he had nothing to do, while sitting at Nisi Prius, but to tell the jury to assess the damages upon each count, and then the verdict could be set mile upon those counts which were bad, while it would stand upon thoie which were good. Why it should be necessary to say that the rule was different in criminal cases he (Lord Denman) was at a loss to know. No doubt since that time the opinion had been universal in 'Westmin ster Hall. The bar had all expressed the same opi nion, and why? Because they had taken the law for granted. And here he would say that they looked at the law in columns, as it were, to consider on what it rested. They would find that a certain portion of it rested upon Acts of Parliament, a certain other portion upon decisions, a certain other portion upon dicta, and a considerable portion of it would be found to be taken for granted. There was a great deal which was taken for granted as law which, when examined, turned out to be no law at all, being founded on no reason, and resting on no deci sion—and such, he thought, was the case in the pre sent instance. Ile thought that his Learned Brethren, on Monday, must have forgetten certain facts con nected with the administration of the criminal law. They had stated that in an indictment for felony, consisting of several counts, it was usual to take a general verdict, and if there was one good count that was sufficient. He denied that that was the universal practice. Whenever lie tried criminal cases in which there were several "Do you think there is any counts, he always put it to the jury in t c l u ds eh m a an p n e e in r— t ? if not, you will acquit f attempt to murder, stance, in case of an indictment or him On h . in diat on point." For in. hetosome grievous e ettemp attempt bodilymurder,harm, maim, w oul a s n a3 d ,,witb disable, rega to d d o It is clear that he never will strike that out at once. will . , "If you consider he did r not intend to murder, you no evidence to support intended to disable, therefore you . acquit him on that point. There is with regard to the intention to mann ; and . consider it Now, in that case a jury would the count alleginq , some grievous bodily harm, will • you most probably bring in a verdict of not guilty on the three first counts, and convict on the last alone. That was the proper course for a ju dge to pursue, and one which would remove all difficulty. It was said that• the adoption of such a course would 'give rise to the in. convenience of the judges being called on to form as