The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-17 00:00:00

IRELAND. THE STATE TRIALS. (PI10:41 OUR OWN REPORTERS.) DUBLIN, MONDAY, JAN. 15. It was evident, at an early hour this morning, that something of importance was to be enacted in Dublin. Few persons awoke whose first thought was not " the State Trials commence to-day." Long before the hour appointed for their commencement, namely, 10 o'clock, groups of persons were to be seen standing along the line from Mr. O'Con nell s house in Merrion-square, to the Four Courts, those places being the two centres of attraction. It was reported that Mr. O'Con nell would proceed " in state," to the Four Courts, in the Corporation carriage ; but if such an idea was ever entertained, it was, we think, wisely abandoned. The Hon. Gentleman was, however, ac companied by the Lord Mayor (Mr. O'Brien), dressed in his official robes, and by several other members of the Corporation. Mr. O'Connell rode in the Lord Mayor's private earriage. The moment the Hon. Gentleman made his appearance outside his own door, there was a general and hearty outburst of popular feeling manifested in his favour by the multitudes assembled, which was kept up, with out any intermission, till he arrived in the Four Courts. The enthusiasm of the people was most ardent and warm, and good wishes and prayers for his triumph were expressed from many a devoted heart. When the Hon. Gentleman arrived at the place of trial the cheering was very great in deed. He seemed in excellent health and spirits, and passed with a lighter and more hurried step than WU through the hall of the Court. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. MONDAY, JAN. 15. T 731 QUEEN v. D. O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Had this Court been of ten times the size it is, it would have been filled to overflowing. When its very limited dimensions are considered, and the important trial which was about to commence in it, the anxiety to obtain a place to witness the opening of the case against the traversers may be imagined. The number of barristers in attendance was extra. ordinary ; they alone occupied the body of the Court. The gallery fronting the Bench was filled with spectators admitted by tickets. There were some, but not many, ladies among them. The entrance of the jury some time before the Judges took their seats, excited some attention, and the mem bers of it appeared to be regarded with considerable curiosity, in Which possibly some speculations as to the probable duration of their labour largely mingled. Their box was to the right of the Bench. The box immediately opposite, that of the County Grand Jury, was appropriated to the reporters of the London and Dublin journals; the large number of these gentle men requiring accommodation in the very limited space available, might have caused consi derable difficulty and embarrassment, but for the admirable arrangements made by the High Sheriff, Latouche, Esq., to whom the whole of the press are deeply indebted. The Judges took their seat at 10 o'clock, and the crier was ordered to call the traversers. On the name of the Rev. Mr. Tyrell being called, Mr. CANTWELL, his solicitor, rose, and with a ♦oice of considerable emotion, said,—" My Lords, the; reverend defendant has been summoned before another judgment seat, and his soul and body are now alike beyond the power of this Court." The Counsel for the Crown took their seats first; they were the Attorney-General, the Solicitor- General, Mr. Brewster, Q. C., Mr. Martley, Q. C., Mr. Freeman, Q. C., Sir Thomas Staples, Q. C., Mr. Bennett, Q. C., Sergeant Warren, Mr. Tombe, Q. C., Mr. Holmes, Mr. Smyley, and Mr. Napier. The briefs of these gentlemen were printed ones, and of immense bulk. The Counsel for the traversers were Mr. Moore, Q.C., Mr. Fitzgibbon, Q.C., Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., Mr. Monaghan, Q.C., Mr. Macdonough, Q.C., Mr. Hatchell, Q.C., Mr. Henn, Q.C., Mr. Sheil, M.P. and QC., Mr. Pigott, Q.C., Mr. Close, Sir Colman O'Loughlin, Mr. Perrin, and Mr. O'Hea. In the interval before calling the jury, some little laughter was excited by Mr. Ford, the solicitor for the traversers, causing the chair for the witnesses, which had been fixed on the table on a revolving pedestal, to be removed. He said the counsel for the defendants must see the faces of the witnesses, and the further off they stood the louder they would speak. Tho CHIEF JUSTICE asked if the chair had not been placed as a kind of fixture ?—(Laughter.) His Lordship was assured by the officer of the Court that it could be easily removed. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Oh, no motion need be made about it yet.—(Laughter.) One of the jurors, Mr. Ben. Eaton, then applied to the Court to be excused from attendance, on the ground of ill-health ; he said he had not strength to sustain him through the abtendance, should the trial be a long one, in consequence of an injury he had re ceived from a fall from a scaffolding in front of his own house. The CIIIEF JUSTICE told him he had better wait till the traversers came into Court. An interval of time passed, during which there was no business, the traversers not having appeared. The CHIEF JUSTICE at last reminded Mr. Ford that the public time was being consumed. The traversers were again called, and Mr. Steele, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Duffy, answered to their names. PROCLAMATION OF THE JURY. Proclamation of the Jury was then made, which proved the commencement of a series of appli cations for exemption. A Mr. James Pap worth, stated that he was misdescribed, his name not being James. A Mr. James Hamilton made the same plea, his name being Joseph, not James.—(Laughter.) For several names sick certi cates were put in from their medical attendants. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to have Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Papworth called to answer to their names, under a penalty of 501., if such persons existed of course if there were any misdirection that could be dealt with hereafter. They were called, and answered, but still stated that their names were wrongly given. Mr. Pap worth said that his name was Collins Papworth, not James. Affidavits and certificates, put in on behalf of those totally unable to attend, were put in and read, and the several exemptions granted. The traversers were called a third time, and all answered. They sat at the side bar immediately beneath the Reporters' box, with the exception of Mr. O'Connell, who wore his wig and gown, and sat with his counsel in the Queen's counsel seat. The clerk of the Crown then informed the tra versers that the jury were about to be sworn on the ' .. issue, and directed the book to be handed to Mr. J. Hamilton. i !Mr. Mown, rose, and on behalf of the traversers applied to have proof of the service of the summonses on those whose names had been called, but who had not appeared. Tile LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—Mr. Attorney- General, you hear the application of Mr. Moore ? The ATTORNEY.GENERAL—I have no objection, my Lord. - David Ireland was then called and sworn. He . served the summonses on the gentlemen on the list of :' the jury. He served the summons on Mr. Papworth .7., on the sth of January, at an office, 106, Marlborough street. . . .. .1 l' , Mr. Moottz—Did you know his person ? Witness ''-' —I did not. . . By the direction of the Court the witness looked at the gentlemen in the jury -box, and identified Mr. Papworth, as the gentleman standing " with his back -• . to the door."—(Laughter.) He also stated that he only knew his residence from the summons itself. When he signed it the gentleman told him he was not Mr. James Papworth. That was the only ser vice he made. He also proved serving a summons on Mr. Hamilton, at 15, Chamber-street; he did not know his person. In both cases he served the sum mons at the residence of the parties. 'IV 1.4,-* No • • estions were put to the witness by the Coun -46149pci, rown. -'- k .,,.. 0 t? -- *:37 ll rs ALLENGE OF THE ARRAY. ''' -W. Kof the Crown then called Mr. J. Hamil °; '...'ir*vt; c ' ~ r , but before the book could ......-A-.... i , ~.,!,: • le , . . Is a juror ; D - • ~,-----)_—:. • • .. b•-• 44 - - - - ;-, - ' ‘ ("-it-, ' NT f s Sir COLMAN O'LOUGHLIN rose, and on the part of Mr. D iniel O'Connell put in a challenge of the array of the whole panel. He did not make any address, but at once proceeded to read the challenge, which was of considerable length, and in the usual legal form. It set forth that the defendant, Mr. Daniel O'Con nell, pat in this challenge of the array of the jury, on his own behalf, because that a list of the persons qualified to serve as jurors was prepared and presented to the Recorder at the special sessions for the county and city of Dublin, and duly signed by him ; but that the Recorder did not, according to the enactment in that case made and provided, deliver in a rgeneral list of such jurors, in the order the statute directs, but that on the contrary, he omitted so to do ; and that the said Daniel O'Connell asserts that the paper puporting to contain the names of such jurors was illegally and fraudulently made by some person or persons unknown ; and that the said paper did not contain the names of ALL the persons quali fied to serve on the jury, and whose qualification had been allowed by the Recorder, but from it had been omitted the names of fifty-nine persons whose qualifications had been so allowed. (The names were given : twenty-seven of them are understood to be Catholics.) The challenge also stated, that at the time the fraudulent writing was returned the persons so omitted were, and still are, resident in the city of Dublin, and duly qualified to be placed on the list ; it also asserted that from the said writing, purporting to be a list of the jurors, a book was prepared, and from the said book was made up the list of the special jury for the year 1844, and that the persons so omitted in the writing were also passed over in the jury book. The challenge then stated Mr. O'Connell's protest against and chal lenge of the legality of the jury panel, for these rea sons—it being falsified by the omissions above stated. Sir COLMAN O'LOUGHLIN said that similar chal lenges were being prepared for each of the other tra versers, but that they were not yet ready. The document was handed to the Attorney-Gene ral, who for some time appeared to scrutinise it very earnestly. Sir C. O'Louoturs said the other challenges would be identically the same in form, and stated that they might all be considered then, pro forma, though they were not yet completely drawn up. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said that he had not seen the challenge till then—he had not heard of it, and was not aware that it was about to be made. He therefore asked the Court to allow the Counsel for the Crown a short time to consider it. He should expect, if all the challenges were to be considered to gether, that they should also all be disposed of at the same time. The CHIEF JUSTICE—Have you a copy of the Act of Parliament, Sir Colman ? Sir Col.:sta.'s O'LOUGHLIN replied in the affirma tive. The Crown lawyers then quitted the Court for the purpose of consulting together, and the proceedings of the Court were for a considerable time suspended. The Counsel for the Crown and traversers having returned to the Court, after an absence of two hours, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—l wish the other challenges to be handed in. Mr. MOORE, on the part of the traversers, put it to the Court whether the other traversers were bound to put in their challenges at the present moment. The traversers were there perfectly separate and distinct, appearing by separate and distinct solicitors, separate and distinct counsel. The counsel for one of the traversers, Sir C. O'Loughlin, had put in a challenge to the array on the part of his client, and he (Mr. Moore) submitted that the Attorney-General had no right to ask that other challenges should be put in before that already put in was disposed of by the Court. CHIEF JUSTICE—That would be shifting your ground considerably, Mr. Moore. It was mentioned for the other traversers that they only wanted time to prepare similar challenges. Mr. MOORE—If that was done I do not think that I ought to proceed any further in the matter. CHIEF JUSTICE—That was done in open Court. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It may be proper to enter a suggestion on the record respecting the death of the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell. His name having been included in the indictment, the proper course would be to enter a suggestion on the record, to say that he is dead. CHIEF JUSTICE—That has been stated by the gentleman who was his solicitor. _ A pause of considerable length having here taken place in the proceedings, in consequence of several challenges not being yet ready. The CHIEF JUSTICE observed that there was much time consumed in the preparation of them. Sir C. 01OUGHLIN—They are all engrossed, my Lord, and will be ready in a few minutes. They are now being compared. CHIEF JUSTICE—You ought to have come into Court prepared with them all. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL---I cannot understand the course adopted. In all those cases there might as well have been joint challenges as separate ones. Mr. PIERCE MAIIONY, one of the traversers' 'solici tors, observed, they would be ready and in Court in less than five minutes.—(Laughter.) The different challenges on the part of the other traversers were then handed in after some time. Mr. O'Connell—They are signed by counsel, I suppose. Mr. Ford, solicitor for the traversers—They are. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I wish to see them. The challenges were then handed to the Learned Gentleman. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to support the demurrer which had been put in on behalf of the Crown. The argument adopted by the Learned Gentleman was that the challenges put in contained no averment. There was no averment that the Recorder had not made out a list from the general list accord, ing to the respective qualifications of the parties, and there was no allegation that the Recorder, or any persons connected with him, had been guilty of fraud with regard to the omission of the names from the list. There was no averment that he did not hand over the list so made out to the Clerk of the Peace• There was no averment that the Clerk of the Peace did not make out a proper list from the general list. There was no averment that the High Sheriff did not receive the jury list, and that he did not make out the special jury list from the 717 names. There was no averment that the jury was net properly struck and balloted for from the special jury list. There was no allegation of fraud, contrivance, or design on the part of the Crown, or the Sheriff, or the Recorder, or the Clerk of the Peace, or with regard to any person con- nected with them. Under those circumstances, he trusted the Court would not allow the challenges put in on the part of the traversers. It was to be presumed prima facie that the public officers had performed their duty, and as there was no dis- tinct averment in them, the Court, he hoped, would not allow them to retard this cause, which was now ripe for trial. It was absurd to suppose that the entire proceedings should be rendered null because a name might be omitted from the list by some person who was not known. The Crown was as anxious as the :raversers possibly could be to make out the guilty person. He contended on the authority of a ease in 4th Barnewall and Alderson, that a challenge to the array would not lie in such a case. Under these circumstances he trusted the Court would be of opinion that the demurrer th e y t oo k t o th e . __ several challenges ought to be allowed, and that the trial ought be permitted to proceed. Sir C. OlotraHuN replied on the part of the traversers, and quoted Hayes and Dickenson's Text- book, Bacon's Abridgment, the case of the King v. Johnson, and the case of the King and Nolan in Hudson and Brooke, 164, to show that a challenge to the array would lie in a special jury case. With regard to what the Learned Attorney-General prin cipally relied on, namely, that there was no aver ment, the fact was, that there was as distinct an averment, as it was possible to make. They dis tinctly attributed fraud with regard to the jury list, and the omission of certain names from it to some person, but who was the precise person on whom to fix that fraud, it was impossible for them to say. This fraud must have been committed before the list came into the hands of the Sheriff. The Attorney-General did not dare to deny that the special list was illegally and fraudulently made ou They distinctly avowed that no general list was made out - that no general list was handed to the clerk ofth; peace, and that the Recorder neglected to do so. The Learned Gentleman then went on to read from the chal lenge to show that the averments had been made as dis tinctly as possible, and in fact in the very words of the statute. He did not think the Crown ought to press the trial under such circumstances. It was no objection to say that the guilty person could be punished for omitting the names ; for what satis faction was that to a person found guilty, it may be, of a capital offence ? Mr. FITZGIBBON argued on the same side with Sir Colman O'Loughlin. He said, the real question in the case was, whether the list .was a good one, and he would undertake to show it was not. The Legis lature was most precise in the language .it used with regard to there being a proper list. But for this list what had been substituted ? The traversers had not shrunk from placing on their challenge an averment that they were no parties to the fraud which had occasioned the omission. The whole argument of the At torney-General amounted to this—that some in dividual had been dexterous enough to filch from the desk of the Recorder the list of the jurors, and to decimate the whole of them, for the omission of 59 names amounted to about a tithe of the number ; and that if any person had done this he ought to be punished, and that he (the Attorney-General) would assist in doing so. He would assume that it was the Recor der's footman who had done this; but did that make the Recorder's conduct more legal or proper ? The law said that the Recorder should make out, or caus to be made out, a list comprehending al/the names qual fied to be placed upon it. Had he caused this to be done ? The answer was plain and evident that he had not. The traversers, therefore, objected to be tried by a jury so fraudulently constructed. If he could suppose—what, perhaps, it was difficult to sup pose—a Crown prosecutor desirous of doing justice, and justice only, he would have been careful that not one of his steps towards hunting a fellow subject into a prison should be tainted by illegality and fraud ? Would he not gladly have embraced the opportunity now offered of correcting this error ? It was not too late ; it might be easily accomplished. They had only to have adjourned the Court till to-morrow, and in the mean time to have made inquiries of the Recorder if the 59 persons were duly qualified; and if they were shown to be so, they might have said let the 59 names be put into the box again, and the jury drawn with them. The omission would thus have been supplied. He knew that every public officer must be presumed to have done his duty till the contrary was proved. Was the contrary proved in this instance ? He contended that the grossest negligence had been proved against him,' and yet they were asked to presume that he had done his duty ? It was one of the first prin ciples of lavi, that fraud vitiated everything. It would vitiate a judgment of their Lordships—it would vitiate a judgment of the House of Lords. But in nothing ought fraud to be more guarded against than in the preparation of the list of those who were to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of a fellow-man. They had heard a great deal of the mischief of delaying justice. He agreed as to the mischief of delaying justice but there was a very great advantage in delaying injustice. He denied what had been asserted, that the list of jurors for 1844 was to be taken from the previous list. The Attorney-General had not pointed out one defect or failure in the averments of the challenge. He asserted that there was no aver ment that the Recorder did not hand in a list; cer tainly there was not; but there was an averment that he handed in an illegal list. Had the chal lenge denied that a list was banded in at all, they would have immediately been met by a question of fact, and full proof would have been given that a list was furnished. He contended also that the Legislature gave full powers to rectify the list if any errors had been committed in drawing it up. And were they to have no remedy ? Why, then, were they given the power to challenge the array at all ? He did not cast one single imputation on the integrity of any one of the twenty-four gentlemen who had been selected. He was against the whole principle on which the panel had been constructed, and the legality of it as constructed. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose. In com mencing his address, he regretted that his Learned young Friend had, from inadvertence, used the ex pression of a " packed jury." Such expressions went abroad, and produced an imputation most injurious, although they were groundless and unwarrantable. He then 'proceeded to the question of the challenge, the legality of which he supported, on the ground that there was a difference between the challenge of a jury on the ground of a want of impartiality on the part of the Sheriff, and the challenge of a jury where no such partiality was alleged against him. He quoted several cases and reports, to prove the inconveniences of allowing the challenge in such cases. He also strongly condemned the harsh terms which had been applied to the conduct of the Recorder, who was not before the Court, was unrepresented by counsel, and could not reply to the aspersions. lie then proceeded to notice the legal consequences of that alleged misconduct, and restated the argument of the Attorney-General, that certain averments which ought to have been made in the challenge, in order to support it, were not inserted. He argued also that, even allowing that the Recorder had been guilty of negligence, the consequences of that negligence amounted only to this, that the list was not so perfect as it might have been. But it was not denied that some list was made. With regard to the observations made by his Learned Friend, Mr. Fitzgibbon, that the fifty-nine persons whose names were left out ought to be inserted, he begged to remark that it would not be competent for them to do so. They could not make any alteration in the jury list after it had been once struck, but persons seemed to imagine that things could be done in this case which could not be done in any other. The Learned Gentleman proceeded at great length to controvert the arguments of the counsel for the traversers, and concluded a very able argument by calling on the Court to allow tie demurrer of the Crown. Mr. MOORE said, on the part of Mr. O'Connell, and after the able statement of the Solicitor-General, that he would propose the matter should now be re ferred back to the Recorder, and that a new list should be struck. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected altogether to such a proposition, and he was astonished that such a one cotild have been made by Mr. Moore, who, as a lawyer, must know it would be perfectly illegal; and he, holding the office of Attorney-General, would be unworthy to hold that situation for a single moment if he assented to such a proposition. Mr. MOORE said the Attorney-General had grossly misconceived the nature of his proposition. He (Mr. Moore) made it only with respect to this single case. The Attorney-General seemed to attribute to him an improper motive, and monstrous ignorance in making it. He would not reply to the observations of the At torney-General. The proposition he made in good faith, and in consequence of instructions he had re ceived from his clients. He did not think he could be charged with having exhibited any improper feel ing, or could be charged with monstrous ignorance as to his duties as a lawyer in making it.—(Applause throughout the Court.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if such feel ings were manifested in Court, he should be obliged to take measures to have no persons admitted to the gallery. He thought that his Learned Friend had - meant his proposition generally, and he must have known, if he did so, it could not be legally done. The Learned Judges having consulted for a short time, The CIIIEF JUSTICE said the majority of the Court were of opinion in this case that the demurrer should be allowed, and, consequently, that the challenge should be overruled. The subject-matter was not now under the consideration of the Court, inasmuch as the arguments used on both sides had embraced, in substance, the greater part of what the Court had been occupied with on Friday last. The Court had then given judgment, and up - on every consideration he had been able to give the subject since, he found no reason to alter the decision the Court ' had then pronounced, through him. On the contrary, during the progress of the argument, and applying his best judgment to the matter, the opinion he entertained then was confirmed. The application then under the consideration of the Court was, that, for certain rea sons alleged, the panel should be quashed, and he con fessed he could not see the principles upon which he could now be called upon to give a different judgment from that which he had given on a former occasion, and in which all his brethren concurred. The present application came before the Court in the shape of a challenge to the array. The objection was that a number of names which should have been upon the jury list were not there, and that the Recorder of Dublin had neglected, or omitted, to make a proper list. In considering this subject, it would be neces sary to look to the Jury Law to see what its object was. The Leaxned Judge then proceeded to point out at considerable length how the provisions of the Act applied to the present case, and how no violation of them had been committed so as to invalidate the proceedings of the Recorder or the Clerk of the Peace in the matter. The Clerk of the Peace, with a view to his preparing the jury list for the ensuing year, was directed by the Act to issue his precepts to the several collectors of taxes, whence might be dated the origin of the persons who were to be called on to be placed on the jury lists or not. The Act defined who were the persons that were to be admitted upon the jury list, and precautions were taken by those officers that none were admitted but those qualified to dis charge the duties of a juror. Those lists having been returned to the Clerk of the Peace, were to be subse quently laid by him before the Recorder of the City of Dublin for his revision and adjudication. The Recorder was the last who had any control on the subject, and there must have been very good reasons why his decision was made final a n d no t o p en t o col lateral investigation. In the present case, the provi sions of the Act had been complied with—the precepts made—the lists returned from the parish officer— the investigation and the Recorder's decision made, which decision none but the Recorder himself could review for the purpose of disputing it. All that was required by the Act had been complied with, and if the course contended for by Counsel for the traversers had been pursued, it would be unsettling rather than settling the duties of the officers—a thing that cer tainly could never have been intended by the Act. Where fraud had not been proved it was out of the power of the Queen's Bench to investigate the deci sion of the Recorder, even if he had come to a wrong conclusion. The Learned Judge detailed at consider able length various reasons in support of his view of the case, and concluded by saying that he was of opinion the demurrer must be allowed. Mr. Justice BURTON next stated his reasons for concurring with the Lord Chief Justice in the opinion that the demurrer should be allowed. If the demurrer were not allowed, it would form a precedent which, in future cases, would cause delay, that mi g ht, per haps, ruin parties engaged in law proceedings ; and it would, besides, render the present proceedings a nullity. It was his opinion the demurrer must be allowed. He had considerable doubt whether any challenge at all existed to the panel of a special jury. Supposing it did apply here, no imputation whatever rests upon the Sheriff; again, there was no imputa tion on the Clerk of the Crown. The Sheriff's duty was indeed a mere formal matter; as to making any judicial decision on the list, it was quite out of his function, which was merely to strike a panel. What was the challenge here founded on ? On the supposed want of impartiality of some unknown person who had access to the Recorder's-office, before the list was arranged. That was an unheard of challenge. It was not founded on the want of impartiality on the part of any public officer ; it gave a new range en tirely to the right of challenge, and impugned the whole list because there was some fraud or mis management on the part of some unknown person, during the process of preparing the list. Admitting that the Recorder had not been as diligent and atten tive as he might have been under the circumstances, still there was no fraud alleged against him. The Learned Judge then read extracts from the statute defining the duties of the Recorder, which he con tended were judicial, and against his decision there was no appeal to any Court. The other officers h a d merely a plai n , defined duty to perform. As to the omission of the sixty names from the list, w hat was the duty of the Sheriff with regard to them ? The list must be taken from the jurors' book, and could be taken from no other source; if the jurors' book for 1844 were a nullity, then they were directly driven to the jury book of 1843. The admission of the challenge would cause many difficulties. Suppos ing that a knave or an idiot obtained access to the papers while in course of preparation, and were to purloin part of the papers ; or even if a rat were to eat them, the whole community was to be deprived of a special jury list. Even the omission of one name might on this principle be considered sufficient. It was always necessary that a private injury must give way to a general inconvenience. No par ticular injury had been stated here ; but was there ever a case in which a more monstrous general inconvenience had been pointed out ? They could not go behind the jurors' book, and there was no imputation upon that ; the imputa tion was on the general list. They could not enter here into any considerations as to the mode of preparing the jurors' book, through the medium of a challenge. If they had been right in refusing the motion mad e 1 on this subject, they should be right, ex superabun dante, in refusing the challenge. He was, therefore, of opinion, that it must be refused. Mr. Justice PERRIN, in giving his opinion, said he had given careful consideration to the Act of Parlia ment, and applying its provisions to the matters as they appeared on the challenge, he was under the dis advantage of not coming to the same conclusion as that to which the Chief Justice and his brethren had arrived. He thought, subject to considerable doubt, that the challenge ought to be allowed. By the Act of Parliament, the collectors of taxes were to make out two lists of all qualified persons to act on the jury within their districts, and to give them to the Clerk of the Peace. These lists were afterwards re vised by the Recorder, and, with respect to that officer, he fully concurred in the distinction which had been drawn between his ministerial and judicial functions. With the revision of the list he considered that the Recorder's judicial duty ended. This ap peared to be the case, from the mode in which the jury lists were prepared in the counties. There they were revised by the Justices, and delivered to the Sheriff. In the present case, the Recorder should not have written out a general list with his own hand ; he ought to have caused a general li s t t o b e made out from the list he had revised ; but it did not appear that the least degree of fraud had been imputed to the Recorder ; he had never heard it imputed, nor could it be believed. imposed upon by the o make out the list. But N ow pe rson it seemed every ehroym thatdohnee hadh muste hadm been t employede pemploy yclerks, and If con trivances of that kind, on the part o f persons so em ployed, were not inquired into, and were no t t o vitiate the acts which purported to be the acts of their superior officers, he was really a t a l oss to understand what was the security of the public for the purity of the jurors' book. In such a case one li st might be muti lated, and another list substituted. He had heard some difficulties stated, as to wh e th er th e R ecor d er could amend his list, having di scovere d any mut il at i on or omission, afterso ha vi ng arnenid d n e g li i v t e . red lt i b t a t d o b th ee e n Sh st e a r t i e ff d . But it seemed to him that he could d o so , an d wou ld a d l o so h t i li s at dutyin there was li▪ kely to be some in - convenience experienced should the challenge be allowed. It ap peared to him that t he inconvenie nce had been appre hended to be much more extensive than it would really be found to be. It appeared to him that there was a power of at once correcti ng the e r rors w hi c h might exist in the list of jurors. He could not see any objection to ame n ding the b oo k accor di ng to t h e true and real general li▪ st, vouched and supported by comparison with the authentic . paro c hi a l li s t s . O n these grounds he ha d felt him self compelled t o come t o that conclusion. Ile certainly did entertain an im pression that the challenge ought to b e all owe d, though certainly not . without co ns id era bl e d ou bt as to the correctness of his opinion. The Court was then adjourned till ten o'clock the following mornin g. REPEAL ASSOCIATION. The Association held its usual weekly meeting in the Conciliation Hall this day. Th© chair was taken at two o'clock by Martin Ronan, Esq., of Limerick. The hall was thronged in every part, and the gal leries were filled with fashionably dressed females. In the course of the transaction of the ordinary routine business, Mr. O'Connell entered the hall, and was greeted by the most enthusiastic and prolonged cheers. Several subscriptions having been handed in, the thanks of the meeting, on the motion of Mr. O'Con nell, were voted to the inhabitants of Placentia, New foundland, for a subscription of 161. transmitted by them to the Association. While several subscriptions were being handed in, Mr. O ' CONNELL observed that the expenses of the trials would be enormous. Ile would say no more for Ireland. He would be ashamed to say more. The llon. Gentleman then handed in .54/. 2s. Cd. from the grocer's assistants of Dublin ; an address from whom to the Liberator was also read. The following sums from America were handed in by Mr. O'Connell :—St. John's, Newfoundland, 51. 10s. Bd. ; Pittsfield, 101; Richmond County, 10/. ; Norfolk, 601. ; Baltimore, 1201. These sums were announced amidst the most rap turous applause. Mr. O'CoNNELL observed that as the hour at which the Association had met that day was rather late, he would reserve the reading of the correspondence that accompanied those remittances, for Monday next, when he would ask leave of the Attorney-General to come down from the Courts.—(Laughter.) On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the thanks of the Association were passed to the parties whose names were connected with those subscriptions. In the course of one of the various short addresses which Mr. O'Connell made to the assembly, he ob served that he did not care one pinch of snuff for the result of the trials. He inculcated the neces sity of peaceable conduct on the present occasion throughout Ireland, and in Dublin particularly, where he trusted the people who assembled in the streets to witness his progress to the Court, would not hoot or groan at any individuals. He also guarded them against the spread of ribbonism. Among the subscriptions handed in was 11. sent from the Queen's Bench by Dr. Gray, the proprietor of the Freeman's Journal and one of the traversers. The whole amount for the week was 9041. 19s. sd. The announcement of that sum was received with loud and enthusiastic applause. The following letter was read by Mr. Crean : " Merrion-square, Febtivaloi the Holy Name, 1844, sue Holy iNarne, "Dear Sir,—As I shall be of course confined by my attend ance at the trial to-morrow, and thereby unable to be person ally present at the Association ; I inclose you 11., and beg of you to get proposed as a member of the Association my twenty sixth grandchild, Miss Eliza O'Connell, who had hardly a right to use the name as yet. " I hope and believe that in the necessary absence of many of the leading members of the Association not one word of an irritating nature will he uttered, but that, on the contrary, the people throughout the country, and the repeal wardens in par ticular, will once again have it authentically declared unto them that the success of the repeal agitation depends altogether upon the most perfect peace, order, and tranquillity being pre served throughout. If they wish to gratify me and their other friends they will preserve the most perfect peace, order, and tranquillity. I repeat this advice so frequently that every man throughout Ireland might understand the deep conviction I entertain, that whoever disturbs the public peace in the slightest degree is a traitor to the sacred cause of repeal. "The next point to which I wish to call the attention of all the members of the Association is the great Catholic move ment which is now being made in order to endeavour to obtain for the Catholics of Ireland some legal guarantee for the enjoy ment of the rights intended to be secured to them by the Emancipation Bill—it being perfectly clear that the conduct of the Attorney-General is, on the other hand, a practical repeal of the most valuable right intended to be secured by that Bill. I do not at all deny that the Attorney-General had legal autho rity to make the use he has done of the royal prerogative, by the exclusion of Catholics from that jury. The moral pro priety of so using that prerogative is quite another question ; but this is perfectly certain, that it is absolutely necessary for the Catholics of Ireland, for the preservation of their lives, liberties, and properties, to continue the Catholic agita tion until a legal guarantee shall be obtained against a ;similar exercise of the Royal prerogative in future. The Catholics have two things to complain of—first, of the striking off of every single Catholic, eleven in number, from the bal loted panel. This is sought to be accounted for by an idle ex cuse that these eleven were all Repealers. The allegation, however, is unfounded, the fact Being distinctly otherwise; but even if they were all Repealers the exeuse would be a bad one, and would serve as a precedent for any other idle excuse that may be given by a future Attorney-General. I would particularly press the folly of yielding to excuses of that kind to mitigate a prominent and undoubted fact, namely the exclu sion of all the Catholics from the balloted panel. " Another cause of complaint which the Catholics have is, that there have disappeared from the jury panel—nobody can tell us exactly how—but by some manoauvre or misfortune, about sixty-three individuals, thirty-five of whom were Catho lics of respectability, several of whom took no part whatsoever in the Repeal agitation, and about twenty-eight Protestants, most of them, it is said, of Liberal politics. This is what Judge Perrin is reported to have called a matter of deep suspi cion. That seems a very moderate way of expressing it; but however it be expressed, and especially if it be true that the jury panel was transmitted, as has been alleged, by some of the clerks in the office, to England, it is perfectly clear that the Catholics should apply to the Legislature for some mode of legal remedy against the occurrence in future of a similar fatality. As the thing stands at present, the Catholics of Ireland are clearly deprived of any legal guarantee for the most valuable of the r i g ht s we th oug ht we h a d acquired, namely, a fair and unsectarian trial by jury. " I scorn to complain that this practical repeal of the Eman cipation Act has occurred in my case. I was one of the most prominent in obtaining what we considered Emancipation, and it is 'quite fit that the discovery should be made in my person, that such Emancipation may be practically repealed. It im poses a sacred duty to continue Catholic agitation again—it renders itself doubly incumbent upon me to exert myself once again, as a Catholic, to make the Emancipation Act, in reality, what it was in spirit intended to be. " My object in submitting these reflections to the Associa tion is simply this :—To convince the members of the Asso ciation that they ought not to interfere, as Repealers, with this distinct and Catholic agitation. It should be a distinct and separate agitation—totally unconnected with the question of repeal. Ihe repeal should not, if possible, even be mentioned at any of the meetings held for the purpose of petitioning to have the Emancipation Act rendered perfect. There are many Catholics non-Repealers or anti-Repealers, who feel with us the absolute necessity of a betfer protection for their lives, liberties, and properties. Let us, then, cheerfully follow, assist, and support those persons ; and I trust that every person in Ireland will, as speedily as may be convenient, send petitions to Parliament, and an address to the Queen, praying for relief and protection. " It is quite true that those addresses to the Queen must go through the hands of Sir James Graham, who was distinctly understood in the last session to have more than insinuated a charge of perjury against the Catholics ; he was, however, in duced to retract or disavow any such charge, but it is to be apprehended that his retractation was merely verbal, whilst his real opinion may by recent events be practically illustrated. " Upon the whole, therefore, I have to implore of the Re peaters-- " First, to observe perfect peace and tranquillity all over Ireland. " Secondly, not to mix up the Repeal agitation with the Catholic agitation for the better security of trial by jury. " Thirdly, to continue, in every other respect, their peace ful, legal, loyal, and constitutional exertions for the restoration of our domestic legislature, in the person of our respected and loved Sovereign the Queen, in the Irish House of Lords and Irish Hoase of Commons. " I am, dear Sir, your faithful servant, " To Martin Crean, Esq., "DANIEL O'CONNELL. MURDER AND ROBBERY. In addition to the excitement caused in Dublin by the State trials,- a general feeling of horror was created by , the report that a barbarous murder had been com mitted during the prievous evening, in the priest's house attached to the Catholic chapel at Rathmines. The Rev. Mr. Roche, the curate, and other clergymen, reside in the house. At seven o'clock last evening (Sunday) the house was broken open, and money stolen to the amount of 401., and the maid-servant barbarously mur dered. She was found with her throat cut. It is not known whether there is any clue to the discovery of the perpetrators of this horrid outrage. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—When the fact became known that every Roman Catholic name had been expunged from the Dublin jury-list by the Crown agents, and the practical injustice of such an extreme application of the prerogative was pointed out, the objection was met by the Government organs with an admission, that had the Roman Catholics so struck out been excluded as Catholics, there would have been grounds for impugning the act as invidious and un just. But it so happened, we are told, that the whole of the eleven Catholics struck out of the list by the Crown agent were Repealers. They were rejected, not as Catholics, but as Repealers. As on the trial of Chartist leaders for sedition or conspiracy, or any other offence, alleged to have been committed by them in such relation, the Crown would object to Chartists as unfit to exercise, with the requisite impartiality, the functions of jury men in such a cause; so, it was urged, Repealers were properly excluded from the panel from which a jury for the trial of the parties accused of conspiracy and sedition, as Repeal leaders, was to be selected. There was a show of reason in this mode of stating the question. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to overturn the argument, supposing the assumption on which it was based to have been valid. The whole case rested on the simple matter of fact— were all the Roman Catholics who were drawn on this jury, Repealers ? Every Catholic was struck off. If any were rejected who were not Repealers, then it followed that their rejection was in consequence of their religious creed, and not of their political predilections. The fact is now ascertained to have been—not as the unscrupulous organs of the Government stated, but that four of the Roman Catholics struck from the list by the Crown agent were not Repealers, and never had any connexion whatever with the repeal movement ! Driven from this refuge of lies by the force of in contestable facts, the fiction they had invented—as a temporary relief from the overwhelming odium which the bigotry and injustice of the act had provoked—being demolished, the ground is shifted. The exclusion of the Catholics, as such, is now boldly vindicated. Pro testant ascendancy in the jury-box is insolently vin dicated as essential to the attainment of a verdict of which truth should be the element. The organs of the party—which, in the country where the trial is to be had, constitute so decided a minority—take heart, and now impute to the Roman Catholics a destitution of all regard to moral obligation. Not merely the peasantry —the labourers—the lowest of the Catholic population, but the higher class of tradesmen, the first-class shop keepers, the merchants and gentry of the county of the city of Dublin, are charged with the deep deprava tion of moral principle, and disregard of social ties, which the crime of perjury involves ! Such i s th e f ou l charge which the Herald—the now back-bone advocate of all the Government says and does—imputes to the Roman Catholics, as a body. The senseless calumnies, creations of bigotry in its dotage, and of ascendancy tot tering to its fall—which the Eldons, Rodeos, and the Wetherells, with the smaller but not less virulent shoals of clamourers against Catholic Emancipation, urged as reasons for excluding the Catholics from the common rights of citizens—are again revived. A Roman Ca tholic will regard perjury as a meritorious act, if the interests of his religion are to be observed by its commission. "If a single Catholic had been al lowed to remain on the reduced jury list in the trial now pending between the Crown and O'Connell, that indi vidual "—so the Herald assures the country—" would have received a significant hint from his spiritual rulers, that his soul's everlasting welfare depended on his loyalty to the Church in this important crisis !" The inference is irresistible. The ingenuity of man—the reckless impudence of the venal Heralds of a Government which aspires to the bad eminence of the Castlereaghs and Sidmouths of days we had fondly hoped had passed away for ever—cannot evade the ignominy, nor silence the indignation, which the rejection of honourable citizens as unfit to serve on a jury, be cause of their religious opinions, has produced. The Government has branded the Roman Catholics with the crime of perjury by their acts ; the Government organs have admitted the acts, their motives, and their object, by the justification they have put forth in its behalf. The foul insult to a nation in its most sensitive part, the creed which it professes, and to the clergy who minister at its altars, will recoil upon the Government which has dared to inflict the wrong. Public opinion, against which no Government can long prevail, will speak out its reprobation of a proceeding so fraught with danger to the peace, because so pregnant with wrong to the people, of Ireland. The suspiciously "dropped" sheets, contain ing the sixty-three names omitted from the revised jury list, assumes a form vastly different from that it would have borne but for the striking out the Roman Ca tholics from the panel. That which would have been received as a blunder, is now looked upon as a fraudu lent abstraction. The more the list was reduced, the less probability would there be of an inconvenient num, ber of names pertaining to the proscribed creed being drawn upon the ballot and consequently the greater chance 4f the jury being exclusively of the right sort, But what an onus has the Go. vernment placed upon the jury, as packed by its officers ! We scarcely know whether a conviction or an acquittal of the parties charged will be the most da maging. An acquittal will be a popular triumph, which will prostrate the Ministry in the dust, because obtained in spite of its preconcerted schemes to force a convic tion; while a verdict of guilty against O'Connell and the rest of the traversers,twill be deprived of all moral in fluence by the disreputable means which have been taken to secure that result. STANDARD.—At the aggregate meeting of Roman Catholics, which was held in Dublin on Saturday last, the Emancipation Bill was proclaimed a nullity, because the law officer of the Crown had availed himself of the right of challenge provided by the statute, to reject some 10 or 11Roman Catholic Repealers from the panel; the attorney for the traversers having challenged an equal number on his part, apparently for no other reason in the world than that they were Protestants and not Repeaters I It would be idle to repeat the proofs we have already ad duced, that the conduct here complained of was not only perfectly proper and legitimate, but that the Crown Solicitor would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty had lie acted otherwise. How, in the name of common sense, was the panel to be reduced, if both parties were not permitted to strike off the number required by the law ? Was Mr. Kemmis to reject the names of re spectable Protestants, with whose intelligence and up rightness he might happen to be acquainted, for the purpose of retaining some ten or eleven persons, who were not only Catholics but Repealers—men who had pledged themselves deeply on the very question they were called upon to try ; or was it expected of him that he should leave the panel in the hands of Mr. Pierce Mahoney, in order that he might challenge twelve Protestant jurors with impunity. "But," says Mr. Thomas Wyse, "if being a Repealer renders a man unfit to sit upon a jury, why should not an anti-Repealer be deemed equally in eligible?" We will answer this inquiry by another. If being a notorious burglar renders a man unfit to sit upon a jury impanelled to try a gang of housebreakers, why should not a person who has never committed the crime of house-breaking, or shop-lifting, be considered as equally disqualified ? Simply, because it would be a mockery of justice to depute a man who is obnoxious to punishment himself, to decide on the guilt or innocence of a fellow criminal and, in all probability, an accomplice. It constantly happens in this country that men of the most irreproachable character are rejected from a panel on the bare suspicion of being friendly to the parties they are to try, but no one has ever regarded their exclusion on such a ground as a stigma on their credibility. If the Emancipation Bill be a mere L''‘` .k because Roman Catholic R e p ea l ers ~„ sit in judgment on each other, it is, we trust, long timely to remain so. The argument of Mr. Ford, that because Roman Catholic ' constituencies had occa sionally returned Protestant agitators instead of representatives 'Leir own religious persuasion, they were ince?' ;tile of being influenced by religious preju dices, is - 1 - ;ardly less absurd. A Protestant agitator is often more useful in his vocatiob than a Roman Catholic of toile same political professioi, could be ; and this is prfscisely the haison why s. » man will II e q. seetiro a pc.rereuce eve. / zr__ - ,3-^raite and c, e.aitious Roman Catholic. Mr. Sheil's speech, in which he did not overlook the 63 jurors acci dentally omitted from the ,panel, affords a striking proof that a Protestant representative is —ten selected, not 16:' , .ause he is a Protestant, but because he is the cham pion of Roman Catholic agitation, and only boasts of his Protestantism when he desires to give value to his attempts to degrade and calumniate it. Mr. Steele is a Protestant ; but who ever heard him give the Church, or the community to which he professes to belong, a good word ? Yet the head pacifi cator is, for obvious reasons, a greater favourite at the Corn Exchange than many Roman Catholics of much more exalted character and pretensions. In a feeble and jejune speech, stuffed with the usual number of thrice refuted falsehoods, and presenting, in fact, a mere echo of the groans of Mr. Pierce Mahoney on the latest of his grievances, Mr. O'Connell is silly enough to invite a comparison of the probable treatment of Chartist with that of Roman Catholic jurors. He has the effrontery to declare his belief that Chartist jurors would not be rejected in favour of men having no avowed sympathy with the parties prosecuted, or that if they were, they would not put up with such an indignity. We have no doubt, did Chartists often happen to be qualified to serve on special juries, that they would be equally liable with Roman Catholics to be rejected from the panel in cases in which they would be called to sit in judgment on their brother Chartists ; nor would they have reason, therefore, to complain that any stigma had been imposed upon them. Men of the slightest delicacy of feeling would rejoice at being relieved from a position which, if they meant honestly, must be a most painful one— that of weighing the imputed offences which have originated in the very principles and prejudices by which they themselves profess to be actuated. The pre text that the right of challenge has ever been regarded in this country as conveying the slightest reflection on the character of the party rejected, is notoriously un founded. Who that had the right to exercise such a privilege, would hesitate, in the absence of a more serious disqualification, to challenge a friend, or even an avowed political sympathiser of his opponent, in pre ference to rejecting hap-hazard some one who might be much better qualified to deal impartially with the case ? Such objections are made every day in British courts of justice without giving rise to the shadow of a complaint that the credibility of the parties so rejected is intended to be impeached. The whole tenor of Mr. O'Connell's speech is a gross insult to the Roman Catholic body; for treating his figment as a fact, that so many as 35 Roman Catholics were omitted from the panel, among the 63 of whose absence he makes such bitter complaint, he would, he tells us, " have beaten the Attorney-General with his own weapons." In other words, he ex presses his conviction that had he been able to secure the presence of but one Roman Catholic on the jury (for the proportion, even under the cir cumstances he describes, could hardly have been greater), he would have been secure of a triumph I If this be not a stigma on the body in whose praise he is so fervent, we know not what is. For the rest, the falsehoods he reiterated with so much volubi lity have been so frequently refuted that it would be worse than absurd to travel over the same ground again. Truth, instead of coming " mended from his tongue," always requires a great deal of " mending" after he has meddled with it. There is hardly a " fact," great or " little," indeed, to which he professes to refer in his Saturday's salmagundi, which has not been either wholly falsified, or grossly distorted to suit the purposes of the moment. TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. ADMIRALTY, JAN. 8, 1844. This day, in pursuance of her Majesty's pleasure, Sir James llawkins Whitshed, Bart., G.C.8., Admiral of the Red, has been promoted to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet. Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Kincardine shire.—Lieut.-Col. Wm. Fraser, to be Deputy -Lieute nant, Nov. 20, 1835. Commission by the Vice-Lieutenant of Essex.—East Essex Regular Militia —11. Eustace, Gent„ to be ensign, Dec. 28, 1843. WHITEHALL, Jaw. 11. The Lord Chancellor has appointed George Hamilton Verity, of Bridgend, in the county of Glamorgan, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. The following places have been duly registered for solemnizing marriages therein, pursuant to the Act 6th and 7th Will. IV., chap. 85 ; Long Holme Wesleyan Chapel, Rawtenstall, Lancashire. Independent Chapel, St. Alban's, Hertfordshire. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. JOHN KIDD, grocer, Kendal, Westmoreland. JOHN HARWOOD and FREDERICK HARWOOD, stationers, Fenchurch-street, City. BANKRUPTS. JAMES PIGGOTT, jun., cabinet maker, Richmond, Surrey, to surrender, Jan. 26, at eleven, and March 1, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane ; Brown, Marten, and Thomas, Commercial-chambers, Mincing-lane. MOSES JAMES DYKE, innkeeper, Romsey, Hamp shire, Jan. 23, at half-past one, and Feb. 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Coleman-street ; Curtis, Romsey ; Bower and Co., Chancery-lane. WILLIAM BROMLEY, scrivener, Gray's Inn-square, Jan. 26 and Feb. 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Turquand, official assignee, Old Jewry-cham bers ; Wilde, R ees , an d C o., College-hill. CUIARLES STEWART SWEENY, apothecary, Albion-place, Hyde-park-square, Jan. 26, at two, and Feb. 27, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Mawe, New Bridge street. HENRY SLESINGER and JOSEPH SLESINGER, warehousemen, Cateaton-street, City, Jan. 30, at two, and Feb. 23, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry; Spyer, Broad-street-buildings, City. ED WARD HODSON, linen-draper, Thraps ton, Northamptonshire, Jan. 23, at half-past eleven, and Feb. 28, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. - Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Sole, Alderman bury, London. WILLIAM BAKER, surgeon, Lower Grosvenor. street, Bond-street, Jan. 24, and Feb. 28, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Ba singhall-street; Lloyd, Great James-street, Bedford-row. JOHN CHAMBERLAIN KNILL, tailor, Glou cester, Jan. 31, at half-past one, and Feb.27,aatsseilgenveene: at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official Bristol ; Smallridge, Gloucester. GEORGE PHILLIPS, dealer, Leicester, Jan. 27, at eleven, and Feb. 24, at half-past eleven, at the Birming ham District Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Bir mingham ; Henderson, Mansell-street, Goodman's-fields NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. R. S. Taylor, veterinary surgeon, Sheffield. E. Chapman, policeman, Little Albany -street North, Regent's Park. B. J. Reynolds, commission agent, Queen's-row,Pimlico M. Grist, livery stablekeeper, Portsea. D. Thorne, farm er , Brentwood and Shenfield, Essex. T. Parker, grocer, Leicester. J. Sandbach, book-keeper, Edge-hill, Lancashire. T. Wroe, grocer, Dudley, Worcestershire. H. Webb, carpenter, Medina-place, Westminster-road. T. Marsden, licensed victualler, Hampstead. C. M. Brand, milliner, Duke-street, Manchester-square . Clark, horse-dealer, Drummond -street, Euston-sq B. Mostyn, farmer, Amlwch, Anglesey. W. Dorlin, Fordharn, Essex. J. Samuels, grocer, Kent.street, Southwark. T. Heath, envavev, Holywell-street, Strand. W. Willis, vessel hawler, Leamonroyd-lock, Yorkshire C. Armitage, engraver, Sheffield. J. Thompson, veterinary surgeon, Boroughbridge. A. Wetid, livery-stable-keeper, Queen's-row, Pimlico. J, Fox, warehouseman, Manchester. T. Loverock, licensed victualler, D u dley,W orces t ers hi re . J, bitch*, wire draw, !Ipohester. W. Dobbin, superannuated clerk, Arundel-street, St a H. Delf, Upper Stamford-street. Ov a ' J. Bingham, laundress, Hawl e y- c rescent, Camden - J. Simpson, oilman, Grosvenor-row, Pimlico. E. Casement, carpenter, West-street, Bermonsey. A. W. Shaw, landing-waiter, Stratford-le-Bow. F. Shaw, barm dealer, Rotherham, Yorkshire. J. Walker, table-knife manufacturer, Sheffield. J. B. Crafter, jeweller, Portsmouth. W. Franklin, Blacksmith, Bedford. M. Mackintosh, carpenter, Lower Crown-st., Vi r es tnii C. F. Krafft, fishmonger, Edgeware-road. clOt T. Pearson, j un ., coa l-d ea l er , T oxtet h- par k, LiverP J. Younge, plumber, Fincham, Norfolk. J. Baxter, clothier, Almondbury, Yorkshire. B. Rhodes, cloth maker, Calverley, Yorkshire. W. A. King, clerk to a ship builder, Rotherhithe. J. Senior, beer seller, Thornhill, Yorkshire. M. Barnet, watchmaker, Swan-street, Minories. J. Whitaker, beer seller, Halifax, Yorkshire. W. Williams, unman, Llanrwst, Denbighshire. J. E. Oliver, organist, Queen's-road, Bayswater. Li * E. Hawkes, b oo k se ll er , Ch urc h- street, S t . L u ke, O be R. Stevens, butcher, Worcester. J. Sykes, weaver, Huddersfield. hire' H. Ellston, toll coll ec t or , N ew A ccr ington, Lanca s "'re ety W. Hollis, lieutenant in th e E.I.C. serv i ce , Sussex a Old Brompton. J. S. Huhue, commercial clerk, Bloomsbury. C. Blenkin, farmer, Otteringham, Yorkshire. tr eet, W. T. Ashton, decor a ti ve , g ild er , Sherrard Golden-square. W. Hughes, tailor, Took's-court, Cursitor-street. M. Brook, grocer, Halifax, Yorkshire. T. Thompson, Barnard Castle, Durham. W. Cock, jun., bookbinder, Maidstone, Kent. H. P. Wright, hair dresser, Great Surrey-street. G. Salter, boatman, Tipton, Staffordshire. SECOND NOTICES. 22, $ 1 F. F. Davis, Ly m i ng t on , S out h ampton , Jan half-past t wo , a t th e C ourt o f B an k ruptcy . Tull- official assignee. 22, $ l l, W. Swain, f armer , Hit c hi n, H ert f or d s hi re , Jan'„, twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham , assignee. to° F. Finnemor e , G reat C o ll ege - street, C a mden' Jan. 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankrupt.* quand, official assignee. 0 13 J. P. Fryer, licensed victualler, M on tp e lier-re/ 1 , 00 Brompton, Jan. 22, a t h a lf-p as t t we l ve , a t the C ° Bankruptc. Tuand, official assignee. ch y er, sen ur ., t q oll-collector Paris-street, Lain ~f n. 22, at half-past e l even , a t the Court of Bank rtir Turquand, official-assignee. 2i, J. B. Ash, carp en t er , High Holborn, Jan.,, ,00 half-past one, at the ourt of Bankruptcy. u ro official assignee. M. Moses, furrier, Staining-lane,' Wood-stree i tt Jan. 27, at eleven, at the C our t of Bankruptcy. W I official assignee. Bl air W. L. Martin, corn dealer, Kew House-road,,„ol, mond, Jan. 24, at e l even , at t h e C ourt o f Bankr"r Johnson, official assignee. J. Belben, cattle dealer, Newton, Dorsetshire, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankrupt* ington, Coleman-street-buildings, official assignee. otb, H. Castle, linen draper, Tranquil-vale, Ble T c k h li ns oof Jan. 24, at three, at the Court of Bankruptcy. l' °- Basinghall-street, official assignee. „ AR O W. Eveleigh, commission agent, Dalston, M i .'""Aisr Jan. 24, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. •L'g ton, official assignee. J. Couch, saddler, St. Erth Praze, Cornwall, . 1 10 1 at eleven, at the E xe t er Di s t r i ct C ourt, Ilirtzel, ° assignee.• W. Hancock, attorn e y, N or th C urry , S o merse fi t stt o ire i: Feb. 20, at tw e l ve , a t th e E xe t er Di strict C our t. 'll e man, official assignee. T. Lamping, pl um b er , T av i s t oc k , D evons hire, P Ti ' c itil at twelve, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, ow assignee. - 2, 2 W. Jones, m ar i ner , W oo d s id e, Ch es hi re, Jan' -f6CIF twelve, at the Li ver p oo l Di str i ct C ourt. Bird, ° assignee. 0 26 1 J. Brook, hatter, Holmfirth, Yorkshire, All eleven, at the Leeds district Court. Young, office signee. J. Holroyd, Halifax, Jan. 22, at eleven, at th elP District Court. Young, official assignee. 2 . 01 S. Wright, stone deale r , Kilnwick, Yorkshire, J an. 6 0 ' at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, assignee. 1 ,0 1 A. Pinder, clothier, Kirkburton, J an . 20 , a t eleve n ' the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. W. Hammerton, wi re wor k er , H u dd e r s fi e ld, 3 s /j f ficill at eleven, at the L ee d s Di s t r i ct C ourt. Y oun g, ° assignee. e 0 T. Ridler, sen., builder, Gl ouces t er , J an . 23, at. e " e e at the Bristol Distri c t C our t. Mill er , official assigl i ef elif J. Hignett, tobac con i s t, Li verpoo l , J an . 2 3, at e o . n ee' at the Liverpool Distri c t C our t. Bi r d, o ffi c i a l 0 54 * /01 %V. NV. Vaughan, Brace Meole, Shropshire, ja u l/ ittle' at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. ston, official assignee. M. C. Thompson, Shrewley, Warwickshire, Jan' Oclr eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. ViJPY , assignee. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-stre et 'or T. Creeke, tail or , C am b r id ge, F e b . 8, at ona—j• e/ shall, merchant, Birchin-lane, Feb. 6, at half-psts!, ° f ,ps sl J. W. Dyer, plumber, Colchester, Feb. 6, at Ii two—A. W. and T. S. Lowman, cheesemonger* cheap, Feb. 7, at one. the Country. T. H. Jackson, gla ss cutter, Sheffield, Feb. 7, 8 - lir at the Leeds District Court—T. W. Winsmore , 0 1 manufacturer, Barnsley, Yorkshire, Feb. 13, at ele /g ifil the Leeds District Court—W. Sheerd miller , ;4 01 Drp Acton, Gloucestershire, Feb. 12, at e leven, at the District Court—C. Pearsall, boiler maker, Al l ,",Ftrig i Cheshire, Feb. 8, at twelve, at the Manchester v. a 'iolt' Court—W. H. and T. B. Turner, cotton spinners/voter burn, Lancashire, Feb. 8, at twelve, at the Mo Bc ,, l i i i iro; District Court—W. Smith son , li nen d raper , o titl Yorkshire, Feb. 9, at e l even , a t t h e L ee d s D i str ict 'fell. —M. Willock, merchant, Huddersfield, Yorksbir e 4ool 9, at eleven, at th e Leeds District Court—T. PR oo: printer, Liverpo o l, F e b. 9, at e l even, at t h e Liver Pt District Court—G. Brinsmead, flour retailer, Bilotti / Devonshire, F e b. 8, at e l even, at t h e Exeter D i str ict d e ll' —S. Butler, W. B u tl er , an d J . B utler, iron fe...11/106 Birmingham, Feb. 12, at twelve, at the B i rmwo District Court. 4 10 01/ CERTIFICATES to be granted, un l ess cause be A to the contrary, on t h e d ay herein-mentionew d,to J. R. Spenc er , tanner, Halstead, Essex, Feb. °,3, Leaf, war e h ousemen, Wood-street, Cheapside, Feb. ( 4,-0 T. Wright, c h eesemonger, Blackmore-street, ,11 market, Feb. B—R. H a l e, b ookseller, Margate, F"; ae R. T. Milbanke, surgeon, Burwood-place, Edg o or road, Feb. 7—T. M art i n , v i ctua ll er, Pavement, t, fields, Feb. 6—J. Mallet, miller, Hadley, Feb. 7- 6 4 White, stone mason, St. Mary' s , Hampshire, Fev•.„." Webster, newsp a p er proprietor, Sheffield, Feb. 7 Raphael and A. Nathan, silversmiths, Hull, Feb- s m og Bestow, sen., J. Jackson, and T. B astow, jun., cc'-„indeif brewers, Birmingham, F e b. 9—J. S ma ll ey, i ron fol l ,,,ttlj Sneinton, Nottinghamshi re , F e b. 9 —T . Water s, salesman, Christchurch, Monmouthshire, Feb.l;,biti Bumby, hatter, M a lt on , Y or k s hi re, F e b . 6 -4 • more, pawnbroker, Stockport, Cheshire, Feb. 6 god Morgan, bookseller, Lichfield, Feb. 6—T. 11. P A c h bot/ 1 glass cutter, She ffi eld, Feb. 6—A. T. an d R. T. 0 -- wholesale tea dealers, Birmingham, Feb. 6. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. „lista' J. Calton, and C. Calton, jun., grocers, MAO' er e Yorkshire—S. O g d en and J. Carruthers, gingbal li wo rdel nufacturers, Radcli ff e, L ancas hi re —W . and M. - I - t or merchants, Liverpool—T. and J. W. Thompson , 13 ,,,ies' neys, L ancas t er —W. C. P au l an d T . Martin, b ea st men, Smithfield—J. and F. Harwood, stationers' f ierl' church-street—J. P eac h an d W . Wi ll i s, general ear'siast Melton Mowbray, Lei ces t ers hi re —R . Ridway,• , and T. Dent, joiners, Manchester—J. Parker, s e- in 'elif Parker, jun., and D. Parker, woollen warehntl e olr Minories (so far as regards J. Parker, sen.)—lL efs e ; with, T. Dunn, and W. Taylerson, cabinet 0 3813 ,, etr turers, Stockton-upon-Tees, Durham—C. Daviso n C. Reinhardt, commission agents , Leeds—B. Wsit ° , o bit 4 Walton, and Js. Walton, size deaers, Halifax, Yor ks —H. Hetley, C. W. Everett, R. Hetley, and Vi r .:l, bankers, Salisbury (so far as regards R. Hetlef), and T. Squier, jun., bazaar keepers, Dover--„vv ford, G. Nottidge, jun., T. Gre,enwood, S. H..... 11 .. ; 91 , i 've* Walford, jun., and B. Sparrow, bankers, - 15111 '0 04 Essex (so far as regards S. H. Day) —G. Nottidge l or d' T. Greenwood, W. M. Tufnell, S. H. Day, W. Wller/ 1 jun., and B. Sparrow, bankers, Bishop Stortfordt 6 03 fordshire (so far as regards S. H. Day)—R. SniT r o , R. Painton, cheese factors, GreatFaringdon, Berlis. oo oo, W. Hastings, H. Haworth, and R. Pagan, cotton sP l .,,,erot Spotland, Lancashire—W. and T. Sutcliffe, cart o'i re et , Liverpool—C. and W. Lufkins, stationers, Silver-s ue rth St. James's—W. H. Goodlake and W. Beard, oil brf o rtpt Great Winchester -street—T. Blunn and T. Wigles," C' silk mercers, Leamington Priors, Warwicksbi r 'o o Thatcher, J. Thatcher, and G. Thatcher, co w l (}, brewers, Welt on , S omersetshire (so far as regs rdi Thatcher)—J. Miles and W. Martin, cheesetn enge o-c t Gilbert's-passage, Clare -market—B. Hainswort b j ag& W. Tetley, common brewers, Liverpool—F. C itlr d, i isc G. Claridge, and J. Nicholls, wine merchants, rik a " r idr i lane —E. R. Pratt and T. Bromwich, mercers , . 11 0 0 0 north, Shropshire—C. Billson, jun., J. P. Dowlef' J. B. Billing, cotton winders, Leicester. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. , bo rgil i t ALEXANDER MACKAY, merchant, Mus s , e 'llote m Jan. 22 an d F e b. 13, at twelve, at Ferguson's Slur Edinburgh. tbsl iire° JOHN CAIRNS, farmer, Kippendavie, per- bio ne; Jan.2o and Feb. 10, at twelve, at Kinross's Inn, 1) 811 0 an d WILLIAM BROWN, merchant, Troon, Jan. 2 Feb. 17, at two, a t th e Ki ng ' s A rms I nn , I rv ine. t oo CHARLES BLAIR, merchant, Alloa, Jan. 22 Feb. 12, at one, at the Crown Inn, Alloa. - • THE WRECKED F ISHERMEN .—W e are gl ad 1.11" observe that the appeal t o th e sympa thies ° public in behalf of the poor fishermen w h° bee s lost their bread-winners, is not likely to hilc ° o .(lo made in vain. The subs cr ipti ons advertised oti oclo , amount to upwards of one hundred and sixtY„, l l, it 5 and we know that more is forthcoming. Nor ";eci‘" - unrequired. The sum necessary to replace thr - A nd, l A S I boats is much larger than was at first su pposed ; 7, A iv the people can do little or nothing themselves, th e e! be the greater claim on the generosity of the r i Aberdeen Herald. 11 , 1 0011 CUSTOMS AT LEITIL—The revenue or 0 at this port is still increasing, showing . 8 , diffeLefill tha t amount between last year and the one just en is 1 31-° proves a very great improvement in the trade in t t he i u n: or the country, and in amount forming one-tenth °f T he crease in the Customs of the United Kingdont• enc le revenue collected at the port during the year w hich 1 6 / on the sth of J anuary, 1844 , was B 'o 7' 1 9 Do, sth of Jan uar y, 1843 Increase 14 I ° £581 323 —Scotsman. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANTJAIC ,,7 17, 1844. 'Was Woo )4es of 2 th re