The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

O'CONNELL VERSUS THE QUEEN, IN ERROR. THE -WEEKLY SATUR.. DAY and SUNDAY NEXT, will contain a full report or . these interesting proceedings in the House of Loids ; also of the lm portant News .from- India ; Meditated Conquest of the Punjaub by - Elienboroagh, and retreat of British Troops before the Beloochees ;. the Sussex Peerage Inquiry ; the Exhibition of Frescoes and Statuary at Westminster Hall;, the extraordinary case of Running Rein, the. Winner of the Derby the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Frauds, l'orgeries, and Espionage of the Post-office ; the Horrible Massacres. on board the Saladin , and all the News of the Week. Office, 337, Strand, and all Newsvenders. Just ready, in 2 vols. small Svo., with Illustrations. REVELATIONS OF RUSSIA . OR, - - - • THE EMPEROR NICHOLAS AND HIS EMPIRE IN 1844. " One who has seen and describes." " Tot on tard tont se scait."—Maintenon. Fleury Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street Published this day, post Bvo., 10s. 6d., THE MODERN SYRIANS ; or, Native So ciety in Damascus, Aleppo, awl the Mountains of the Druses From Notes made during a Residence in those parts in 1841,42, and 43. By an ORIENTAL STUDENT. London : Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. This day is published, in one thick volume, Svo., with nearly 1,0001 Woodcuts, uniform with Messrs. Longman and Co.'s series of " One-. yolums Encyclopaedias and Dictionaries," 505., bound in cloth, AN ENCYCLOP/EDIA OF DOMESTIC! ECONOMY ; comprising such subjects as are most imme diately connected with Housekeeping, as Building, Furnishing„ Servants, Cookery, Dress, Carriages, Health, &c. By THOMA 4 ,' WILBSTER, F.G.S., &c.; assisted by the late Mrs. PARKE:i., Author of " Domestic Duties." London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longman. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Madam': GRISI has the honour to inform her Friends, Subscriber fis to the O, , era, and the Public, that HER BENEFIT will take pla. THIS EVENING JULY 4, When will be perf xmcd (fir t time these three years), Rossini's Opera Soria, OTELLO De‘demorta, Madame Grisi ; Emilia, Madame Bellini; Elmir f, Sig. Lahlache; lago,. Sig. Fornasari (his first appearance in the tx character) ; Itodrigo, Sig. Corclli; 11 Dcge, Sig. G. Galli; at. id Otello, Sig. Ma io. After which, a " DIVERTHSEMENf," in which will be intr. I (laved a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. E t. Loon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffer and Plunkett, and tl to alb - aired Spanish I mice " La Saragossa," by Mae. Fanny Elssler. To be followed by the Last Act of Donizetti's Opera, LUCIA D LA 11 MERMOOR. Lucia, Madame Persiani; and Edgard°, Stni rc Morani. To conclude with the celebrated Ball Sc:ne of ALMA, in whit h Ai dile. Cerito, M. St Leen, &c., will appear. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to he made at the Box - oftie.i, Opera-colonnade. Doors open at Seven; the Opera will coin metier at Half past Seven. THEATRE. ROYAL, HAYMARKET Mkt. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES EE THIS EVENING, JULY 4, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES. With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Hunsdnii Mr. Stuart; Lord Fellamont, Mrs. Nisbett Jeremy Gri4;son. Mr. Strickland ; He n y, Mr. H. Holl ; Captain, Sippett, Mr Buckstone ; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdoa, Mrs. W. Clifford; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss , Jura Bennett; Mrs. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget lf rim, Mrs, liumby. Alter the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing" Fayre Rocamonde." To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir! Charles Coldstream, Bart., Mr: Charles Mathews ; Sir Adonis t Leech, Mr. Tilbury; Wurzle, Mr. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia 4 Bennett; Lady Clutterbuck. Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE TRUbI PETER'S DAUGHTER; or, Lovei and the Polka. Phillipot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste ; ; who will dance the celebrated Polk , . Orchestra Stalls, Ss. ; Boxes, fis. • Pit, 3a ; Gallery, •Irt.; Upper. dlery, Is. Half-price—Boxes, It.; Pit 25.; Gallery . ; Upper • Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at Half-past Six, and the Performances! commence at Seven. 'rickets and Places to be had of Mr. L T. Archer, nt the Box-. o 'cis, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STH t ET. LESSEE, Mr. J. 111. MADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY 4, Will be performed OWYNNEFH VAUGA AN. Owen lams, Mr. Fitzjames ; Hugh Morgan, Mr. Wright; Gwynneth Vaughan, Mrs. Sti ling. After which, a New Drama, called BLANCHE DE V ALMYS Colooei Chatillon, Mr. Granby; Franval, Mr. Walton ; ; t Hilare,. Mr. W. Lacy; Blanche de Vaimy, Madame Eugenie Prosper. o conclnde wiih a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE: WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of Aladdin.,, isbanazar, Mr. Paul Bedfcrd ; Aladdin, Mr. Wright; Princesst Badroulbadour, Miss E. Staid y. • IHEACRE ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH ()VERA-. HOUSE. Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 4, Will be performed a New Domestic Drama, entitled THE 110-- BIENTOUS QUESTION. Characters by Messrs. Diddear, F.. Vining, J. W. Collier, Miss Fortescue, and Mrs. A. Wigan. After which, a Orchid Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called: °VAN SESAME; or, a Sight with the Forty This• es. llaa.arac,. Illr. Keeley; Morgiana, Mrs. Keeley. To be followed by an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLKA MANIA_ Characters by Mc F. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. Keeley, Miss:. Woolgar, And Mrs. Keeley. To conclude with THE THREE FRA DIAVOLOS. Principar. Characters by Messrs. F. Vining, Keeley, Wigan, Diddear, Woolga. and Mrs. Woollidge. ASTLEY'S ROY AL AMPHITHEATRE OF AXIS. Proprietor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. Great Success of the Chinese Feast of Lanterns, and N:w Military and Naval Spectacle. THIS EVENING, JULY 4, Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or, The Conquests of ' .Amoy by B stish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments. &c.,, to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Navy. Feast. of 2.:,0 Lanterns. After which ' a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROYAL. COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE FIRST; or,l he Beauties of the. Louvre. Marguerite tie Valois, Mrs Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of Horsemanship by Monsieur Louis Tournmre, S g. German, Herr cisback, L't Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, Fen; with Mr. R. Smith's highly trained Steeds. to conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLECHASE; or, Eng land's Harvest Horne. The doors will open nightly at six o'elocA, and the vertormances c'nninence at seven. Box-office opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been reconstructed and decorated with care.and • - o:4endour. Acting and stage.m wager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. DAVIDGE"S ROYAL. SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, JULY 4, Will be rorformed an entirely new Aquatic Spectaee, introducing' Three Scenes of Real Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA— RACT ; or, The Enchanter's Spell. After which, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled " Napoleon's Gene— rosity," in which the Brockstedt Family—three German Lilliputians,. only 23 32, and 36 inches in height—will perform. To conclude with a New Drama, called TiHE CARPENTER OP ROUEN in which Messrs 'Hudson Kirby, Hicks, Neville, Vale ,, Heslop,Johnson, Mrs. Daly, Miss ferny, and Mrs. R. Homier will. perform. Places and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box— office, from Eleven to Four. •- - ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. Daylight View of LONDON in the ()LDEN TIME! ••• Painted by Danson and Telbin. The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond alit former precedent; the artist, tLe amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea tion, and are unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex hibition ever witnessed. To view it only as a vehicle for the terrific display at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of the quiet Evening, with its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa cious Lake, to be flatly appreciated. The Evening PROMENAUE CONCERTS, on Men'ays, Tues. days, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail its doing justice to the awful representation of THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON. Its fearful characteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic Alt, that delight is predominant over terror; and the Thousands who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechr ist, h-..s achieved a matchless triumph. The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfe2t state, and combining so m any and interesting features, are by far the most attractive lounge an or near the metropolis. Feeding of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at Dusk. Admittance, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN. HALL, PICCADILLY. IMPORTANT NOTICE. ON : Pi SHILLING Admission to THE NAPOLEON MU SEUM, the most magnificent and extensive Collactien of Histo iical-turiosities and Works of Art ever known to hive been formed by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a cost of 60,000 guineas, and to completely illustrate, in the most in stri.eti ye and interesting manner, the most Important part of Euro palms history, viz.--CHARLES 1., OLIVER CROMWELL, and LJUIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often, ,daring the last and present year, by the Royal FainEy, the Duke of Wallington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, ant their Ladies, lino, many thousands of the Nobility and Public; urvi the Pro -, rietor 1- recently been able to increase, by several very fine pictures, 'te r , his previous almost Incredible number and variety of MSS., W irks of Mt, - and a multitude of valuable Relic', and other auriositie•, in this most instructive and, as hundreds have said it -night to be, is National Museum. Many thousand have inspected it. and THIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the 1-1/13LIC PRESS have stated t.:af, it ought to be seen by every one. The price of admis tion is reduced to ONE SHILLING. The NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the Egyptian /la I." Piccadilly, daily from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATHER—Stay OFFICE, JULY 4. Timustoburrizn, Lowest, 53; Highest, 68: Noon, 63. BAr.omErisn, 29.7.—NN an), S.W. Nora.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barometers fair is a-lustily placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. WATER AT LONDON•BRIDGE TICS DAY. Morning rA3 minutes after 4 I Evening ... 56 minutes after 4 %4, ( o r etv-c qb so rt 461: •MA L . ) nc \ r. 75V-, Ito -, I}:p •.1 SECOND EDITION: (73 b-se-nins LeNDON, THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1844. The .9 ouse of Commons met yesterday at twelve o'clock, a hen Mr. GLADSTONE moved that the House resolve it golf into a Committee on the Joint-Stock Companit Registration and Regulation Bill. The anotion was opposed by Mr. lIAwEs, a lengthened discussion - . ensued, Mr. HA.wEs finally withdrew his amendine nt, and the House went into Committee. Several clauses were agreed to and the House re fumed. The F,moke Prevention Bill was withdrawn, and sailer t:m transaction of some other business of little Importance, the House adjourned. The H ouse o f Lords did not sit yesterday. The Irish Orangemen are again speaking out,- in their usnal unceremonious style, on the subject of Si r E. PEEL and his Conservative Government. They are always in a ferment about this period of the year, when the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne comes round, which they seem to consider as the most glorious military achievement recorded in the annals of history, and it requires the utmost efforts of their sober and more provident leaders to kßep them within the bounds of pro priety. At a public meeting of these effervescing Onangemen, which took place on Monday last at the Rotunda iri Dublin, for the purpose of commemo iatiag theit great battle, their incorrigible party pre judices, which , would appear to be engrained into their very nature, and which can no more be rooted out of them than an 2Ethiop can be washed white, were manifested in the boldest manner passible, not only by a host of bigoted orations, in which each speaker, whether lay or clerical, vied with the other Sn virulence of sentiment and expression ; but by such flagrant party toasts as " Protestant Ascendancy' r-which every one knows is synonymous with the _ . ascendancy of despotism, corruption, and bigotry in their most shameless form—" The Orange Societies of Ireland," of which the illustrious ERNEST of Hanover is, or was, the head; the " Ten Bishops Restored," which means that the Established Church in the sister.country should be rendered a still greater nuisance than it is at present ; and lastly, " Scriptural education," which, however plausibly this toast may sound, and however inoffensive it may appear, implies neithei more nor less than that the education of all classes of Irishmen should be vested exclusively in the hands of Protestant pastors and masters, in order that another " heavy blow and great discourage ment"—as Lord MELnouRNE would say—may be in flicted on the long suffering millions in Ireland who profess the Catholic faith. But if the toasts of these desperate partisans of a worn-out system were offen sive and intolerant in their character, the appeals made to their passions were, if possible, still worse; and one of the speakers, after abusing Sir ROBERT PEEL, in terms borrowed from the un savoury vocabulary of Billingsgate, went on to oh "the miserable and incompetent Government, now reigning over them, after having supported Popery in every other part of Europe, were now about to put in force what Mr. WYSE calls the Orange Procession Act. Oh, they little knew the force and current of Protestant feeling, if they considered that an Act of Parliament could extinguish the glorious principle of its life. There were a hundred thousand Protestants ready, if the tide of anarchy should con tinue to advance, and at length assail the last bulwarks of the Church and Constitution, to raise once more a Nassau, and prepare once more to cross the Boyne." The meaning of this passage—that is to say, if any meaning can be extracted from it—is, that if Government shall decide on making any fur ther concessions to the cause of liberal govern ment in Ireland, .they, the Irish Protestants, will assemble their thousands in arms, and resist all such concessions by open, bare-faced violence ? As this swaggering threat was an after-dinner one, its in spiration may easily be conjectured ; and indeed so outrageously absurd is it, so faithful a copy of the BOMBASTES FURIOSO style of bombast, that we should scarcely have considered it worthy even Of a passing notice, had it not strictly illustrated the character of the Irish Orangemen. Un 'taught by experience, untamed by the humiliat ing reverses they have encountered since the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, these men are just as bigoted just as arbitrary and self- ' opinionated as they were in the good old ELDON times, when the game was in their own hands—the ball at their feet—and Protestant Ascendancy was the order of the day in Ireland. While the world about them has been in progress, they alone have either stood stock-still, gazing about them, like STERNE'S scullion, " ii 7 ith a foolish face of wonder," or else, when forced into reluctant motion by the irre sistible pressure of events, have taken two steps back ward fur every one they have taken forward. Verily your Irish Orangeman is a queer creature. He has scarcely one sympathy or opinion in common with the age in which he lives, and which he can not be brought to comprehend. His mind dwells exclusively on the past, hating the present, and filled with distrust of the future. It is vain to tell him that it is his duty, not less than his interest, to concede something to the altered character of the age, and that other men, far more influential' than himself, have done the same ; such reasoning is wholly lost on his obtuse, purblind faculties, and he exhibits, in consequence, the humiliating spectacle of bigotry without power, and perseverance without hope. serve :—' We entreat the public attention to a circular, which will be found in another column, addressed, by the Committee of the Society for the Emancipation of Industry, to the Members of the House of Commons, entreating their instant "attention to the consequences which must ensue from the Bank of England Charter Bill passing through Parliament in itspresent state." It is a well-timed appeal to that House—in which we fear, however, this fatal measure is destined to run its full course, perhaps this very evening, for which we see the third reading is fixed. But prier to the Bill being carried up to the House of Lords — a tribunal from whose greater sagacity in the conduct and investigation of all measures immediately affect ing the monetary resources of the country, we look forward with some confidence to extensive modifica- ions, if not the ultimate rejection of the scheme,— it is well that Sir ROBERT PEEL should have been afforded this last opportunity of reconsidering The enactments he is calling on the Legislature to pass. It will not be in his power to pleadhereafter that the erro neous principle of his Bill, and its inevitably disastrou s operation, (if passed into a law), had not been suf ficiently or clearly brought under his consideration. 'The " circular" before us is a most able paper, exhibiting, in a few short paragraphs, not only the demonstration of the errors of principle and the prac- tical tendencies to which we allude ; but a rationale of the whole theory of our currency system since 1819 ; of its inherent elements of disorganisation and disturbance ever since; and of their indefinite and ruinous aggravation under this Bill of 1844. This circular is signed by Mr. SPOTTISWOODE, the Chair man of the Society, and forms an honourable testi mony to the unremitting and intelligent exertions of that gentleman to induce Parliament to discharge a duty which it certainly has not hitherto performed— in giving to the Bill in question a much more search ing, impartial, and dispassionate consideration than it has found from the House of Commons, owing either to the timidity of that assembly in dealing with great administrative questions of this nature ; or to the overwhelming influence which Sir ROBERT has managed to enlist there in support of his scheme, but without reference to its merits—if any could to predicated of it ! Accounts have been received from Naples, dated the 22d ult., announcing the total defeat of the Italian emigrants, and the two brothers BANDEIRA, who left Corfu on the 12th, and disembarked on the 16th on the coast of Calabria. On the 19th, they were at tacked by a party of the Royal troops at Belvedere, in the province of Cantajarra. The commander of the municipal guard and a gensd'arme were killed. After this success the insurgents continued their march to St. Giovani-in-fiori, on the road to Cocenza. At the distance of two leagues from St. Giovani they fell in with another party of the Royalist troops, who at tacked 'there, and the result was that three of the in surgents were killed, two were wounded, and four teen were taken prisoners. The rest took, to flight. Their object was to release the political prisoners de tained at Cocenza. The remarkable article in the Monitrur, advocating the right of the younger branches of the Royal Family to State pensions, has excited a painful sensation throughout France. It forms a subject of comment in every Paris journal of Tuesday. Those of the Opposition attack the Government, or more properly speaking, the Sovereign, in terms much stronger than any they have ventured to use since the passing of the September Libel Laws ; and, even the Govern ment papers can say nothing in its defence. Never was a measure so universally execrated. The Globe, which is reckoned the organ of the Court, uses mere generalities, which might refer to almost any subject; and the Journal des Debats all but condemns the mode in which the proposal has been made. " We will not deny," it says, " that the sudden appearance of this manifesto has somewhat surprised us, and that we have sought to discover its object with a certain degree of solicitude. It is not that we are without fixed opinions on the question itself—they still are what they always have been. The justice and neces sity of providing portions for the Princes of the Royal Family is, in our eyes, a legitimate conse quence, not only of this or that particular law, but also of the monarchical principle. If we have any regret, it is that the question of endowment was not brought before the Chambers when it would have come naturally into discussion of one of the most im portant laws the country was ever called upon to pass —we mean the Regency Bill. If the Government had no more to contend against than the permanent prejudices of M. L ' IIERBETTE, or even the occasional scruples of M. Dorm, we believe that it would be but little disturbed by the one, and not too long alarmed by the other. But there is something which the Government respects much more than the opinion of its adversaries—the opinion of its friends. Now we are not ignorant, and shall Rot attempt to conceal, that even in the ranks of the Conservative party the question of endowments for the Princes of the Royal Family meets with,. objections, which we regret, but which , we respect, because they are sincere." The following, from the National, is evidently di rected against Louis PHILIPPE himself:— " There are some men who are so completely blinded by their love of gold, that they lose the most vulgar notions of prudence. The effect produced on Monday by the admi rable speech of M. L'Heroette, will no doubt appear to them to be a movement of the factious; and some words of good 'sense pronounced by M. Dupin, wiil be regarded as an in sane attack against monarchical institutions. The law of dotation will be incessantly brought forward, and we are glad of it. XiSured as we are of public opinion, which will rally all good men against the stock-jobbers, we are not inclined to be afflicted at the imprudence committed in the Moniteur, or elsewhere." The Quotidiene attacks the Ministry for the article in the Moniteur, and, unlike the National, charges it with falsehood, in stating that tne KING had only received five millions under the head of indemnity. The amount he received, it asserts,- exceeded sixteen millions. " LOUIS PHILIPPE asking for more," bids fair to damage the Ministry more than any event wbilh has occurred since M. Guizin became Prime Minister. 'We see nothing else of interest in the papers. On Tuesday the Three per Cents. closed at 81f. 90c., and the Fives.atl22f. 35c. TUE BOURSE—TUESDAY, JULY 2. First Highest Lowest Last Price. Price. Price. Price. French Five per Cants 122 .. 122 10 •• 121 95 .• 122 10 Three per Cents.• •. • 81 65 • • 81 90 • • Si 65 . • 81 80 ank of France... ....... . • 3015 .. 3015 3010 .. 3010 Lanitte Bank, 5,000 f, SharessoBo —5OBO ..SCBO :.5080 Belgian Bank .. • • • • • • • • • • • • 665 • • 665 .• 6G5 665 Belgian Fives, 1831.. • • 1021 103 .. 103/ • • 1031 1840 ......•• 1041 .. 104 i .. 1011 .. 1011 1842 .. ••• • • • 1081 .. 1081 .. 1081 .. 1081 Sparthh Threes •••••• • • • • • • 33 • • 33 • • 33 .• 33 Neapo itan ••••• • • • • • • • • 93 50 • • 98 70 • • 98 50 .. 98 70 Roman RAILWAY SHARES. St. Germain Versailles, 14.8. • . • • L. 8.... ...... 245 .. 259 .. 245 .. 250 Rouen ,..... 992 50 997 50 .. 990 •• 997 50, Rouen to Havre.• • • • ..... • • 770 .• 770 -. 770 . • 770 Orleans .•• •• •• •• • •• •• 990 -J. 595 .. 990 99,5 Strasburg to 8a1e... ... 235 .. 240 .. 235 .• 240 Mignon to Marsoilles•• •• 767 50 .• 772 50 .. 767 50 • 772 50 RAILWAY SHARES FOlt SETTLING, 30Th JUNE ACCOUNT. Versailles, R•Tl•••• L.B 245 .. 248 75...•245 .. 248 75 Rouen • • • • • .. 992 50 ••1000 .. 992 50 . 1000 Rouen to Ilavre• • • • . • • •• . • 760 .• 770 .. 760 •• 770 Orleans •• • • -• • • • • 987 50 .• 997 50 •• 987 50 .. 997 50 Strasburg to Bale•• 235 .. 240 .. 23% .. 240 Avignon to Marseilles• • • • • • 764 • • 773 75 765 .. 772 50 RAILWAY SHARES FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15ru JULY. Venailles, R. 8.•• .. 377 50 .. - 377 50 L. 8..• •• ........ 245 .: 245 .. Rouen.... Rouen to Havre 765 .• 772 50 .. Orleans • 990 .• 9JB 75 .. 243 75 .• 243 75 992 50 .•1000 765 770 990 .. 998 f 5 Strasburg to 8a1e...... Avignon to Marseilles.... • • 770 .. 243 75 .. • • 775 • • 232 50 .. 243 75 770 • • 773 75 MORTALITY IN THE METROPOLIS.—The number of 'deaths during the week ending June 29, was 964, being 18 above the average •of the last five years. The excess is chiefly in small-pox, scarlatina, and violent deaths. The deaths from small-pox are unusually great, being 51, or 36 above the average. Of the 51 persons who died of this disease, 31 had not been vaccinated. The deaths from scarlatina were 60—average 34; and from violence, 66—average 25. Of these deaths, 14 were caused by suicide, and a considerable proportion from burns and scalds. The thermaneter was highest on Monday, the 24th June, 83 . 3, and lowest on Wednesday, 48. Rain in inches, 1.55, THIS DAY S NEWS. QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.) Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice WIGHT:II4.N and a Special Jury.) BODMER V. BUTTERWORTH. • _ . This was an action to try the right to a patent for certain drawing frames, rollers, &c., used in the cotton and woollen trade. There was not the slightest interest in the case which promised to last throughout the entire day. EXCHEQUER.-(TITIS DAY.) Sittings at Guildhall, before the Loup CmEr BARON and a Special Jury.) REDMAN V. HAY. The hearing of this case, which occupied the Court a great part of yesterday, was resumed this morning. It was an ac tion to recover on a policy of insurance effected with the In demnity Assurance Company on the freight of the barque Lord Wellington,_ There was no point of interest in the facts of the case, the whole question turning on the terms and conditions of the policy, and.as to whether or not they had been complied with in the navieation of the ship. After some discussion between the Chief Baron and Counsel (Mr. Martin and Mr. Tomlinson) as to the form of the verdict"; tha jury were directed to find for the plaintiff, with da mages, 1,522/. ALEXANDER V. PRATT. This cause was similar to the last, being an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of 3,0001. on a policy of assurance, granted by the General Maritime Assurance Com. pany, on the barque Cecilia, 325.t0ns admeasurement. The particulars of the case had not been elicited when our report was sent off. The case is expected to last the whole day. COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.) Sittings aeGuildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL and a Special Jury.) NTCKELS V. ITASLAM. This was an action to try the validity of a patent of certain machinery, invented to facilitate the carding of cotton. The whole matter, as far as it had proceeded, was of the most dry and technical character, possessing not the slightest in terest to the general reader. The case was not expected to conclude until a very latehour this evcniag. BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) IN RE GRANT. Wm. Grant., boot and shoe merchant, Swaffham, appeared to pass his final examination. The amount of the bankrupt's liabilities was originally 42/. 2s. 6d., for which Messrs. Thomas and Co., of Friday street, put.in an execution ; and the losses attendingthe sale of the bankrupt's stock by auction, with the attendant expenses, amounted to upwards of 140/. The bankrupt was unopposed, and passed his examination. IN RE WRITE. The bankrupt, Jonathan Williams White, holds a situation in the Court of Chancery, as clerk of accounts, with a salary of 4001. per annum, which, however, in consequence of extra duty, averaged during the last three years and a quarter 500/. The amount of his liabilities were 6921., and he offered to lay aside 100/. per adnum to meet his creditors. A few of those Attended, and said that they would with draw their opposition if the bankrupt advanced his offer to 1501.—He was finally put back to amend his schedule. CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.) OLD COURT. (Before the RECORDER.) Sharrington Bach was charged with uttering a forged bill of exchange, knowing at the time that it was forged. The case has recently been before the public, when it was investigated at the police-office. The case was not sustained, the principal witness having failed to satisfy the jury that the . name to the bill was a forgery. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. This was the last case, and the court adjourned to the 19th of August. CORN AVERAGES. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN, For the Week ended June 29, 1844, made up from the P.eturni of the Inspectors in the different Cities and Town! in Eugfang and Wales, per Imperial Quarter. Wheat 555. 9,1.1 Oats ..„ ..... 225. 9 - 14 Beans ..„.„.. 38s. Od tiarley 34s. 01. I It ..... 353. Od I Pease 365. Id AVERAGES OF THE LAST SIX WEEKS. Weeks ending: WHEAT. BARLEY.' OATS. I RYE. i BRAES. I' EARL May ;Y5..... » ''ss 10 June I ..... „ 55 6 8.. 55 6 15 55 9 ..... 55 - 8 ;55 9 30 1 30 7 31 9 31 4 31 10 3; 4 21 2 21 7 21 1 - 1 22 6 22 8 22 9 31 7 ?A 0 33 11 32 4 34 2 35 0 33 11 34 10 35 11 311 11 37 10 38 0 33 4 3L 1 34 1 24 1 35 2 36 1 . . - IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERA GES l OT THE SEE. wstaxe ad Oats 225, 111 Bean , .344 3d, Rat1ey•......•• 313 10.1 Rye ••..•..•• 335. 61.1 Pease 345. I d. DUTIIS ON FORZIGN CORN. Wheat l7s. Od.) Oats Barley .......... '7i. Od. I TUT ..... 9'. 6d.1 Pea5e..,...... Bs. 14. MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.) UAY SMITIIFTELD.-6arse Meadow Hay, 3/ lOs to 414 s ' • use ful ditto, 41 5s to 41103 ; line Upland ditto, 4/ 12s to 41 lfis ; Clover Hay, 4/ 15s to Cl 6s; Oat Straw, 11123 to 11 14s; Wheat Straw, 1/ 148 to 1/ 163 perload. Owiag to the showery weather the trade to-day was heavy, at barely late rates. CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay 4/ to 4/ 4s ; use ful ditto, 41 5s to 4l 123 ; fine Upland ditto, 41 14s to 5/ ; Clover Hay, 41 12s to 61; Oat Straw, 11148 toll 16s ; Wheat Straw, 1116 s to 11 18s per load. Supply but moderate, and trade rather dull. WHITECHAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3112 s to 414 s ; use ful ditto, 4l 6s to 41 12s ; fine Upland ditto, 41 14s to 4/ 188; Clover Hay, 5/ to 61 128 ; Oat Straw, 11 12s to 1/ 14s ; Wheat Straw, 11 14s to 11 16s per load. A moderate supply, and a sluggish demand. New Meadow Hay was selling at from 31 5s to 4l 5s per load. LLOYD'S SHIPPING.--(THIS DAY.) LONDON, JULY 4.—Wind light, south-easterly breezes. PORTSMOUTH, JULY 3.—Wind W.S.W.—Arrd. H.M.S. Childers, Hong-Kong, sailed from Ascension May 14, on freight 1,000,000 dollars. Off, Scotia, Drayner, China ; Delta, Jans, India for Dordt ; Duke of Argyll, Bristowe, Madras; Eugezeinhad, Surinam, for' Amsterdam ; Fanny, Hallett, Newfoundland. OFF DARTMOUTH—Tyrian, Clarkson, New Zealand (105 days); Timor, and a Dutch barque, both from Batavia for Rotterdam. CARDIFF, JULY 3.—The Mary Ann, Pitley, of Yarmouth, put in here a few days since, leaky, and has discharged to repair. LIVERPOOL, JULY 3.--Wind S.E., light.—Arrd. Black Prince, White, Ichaboe ; Gonypium, Brown, New Orleans. Sld. Pearl, St. John's; Lanark, Quebec.. Enterprise, Cal cutta; Gleaner and Royal Bride, Ichaboe ; Brothers and Jane, Africa ; Admiral :Nelson, Vera Cruz ; Franconia and Stephen Baldwin, Philadelphia ; General Washington, Vir ginia; Albanian, Clyde, and Trenton, New York; Howard, Boston; Oberon, Robert Newton, and Enterprise, Quebec; Enterprise, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. CAUTION TO MARINERS. RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN, JULY 2.—The sloop Alexander M'Neal, which sank in the Bay last March, lies in the direct track of' vessels, with her mast head visible at low water. PORTSOREN WARD:—A rumour prevailed in this ward yesterday that -Mr. Alderman Johnson had announced his intention of resigning the aldermanic gown so soon as an eligible successor should be found. An active canvass on the part of Mr. SheritE Moon and Mr. David Salomons, respec tively, which - has been going on several days, was actively renewed, and promises of support were received by ,both candidates. Public meetings have already been held in the ward, and others are in contemplation. If report may be credited, Mr. Salomons will retire from the contest, and leave Mr. Sheriff M9Oll in sole possession of the field. . THE STATE TRIALS. WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. This being the,day fixed for the hearing of the great appeal case, in the matter of the Queen v. Daniel O'Connell and others, the entrance to the House of Lords was crowded with persons interested in the case. At ten o'clock the Lords present were the Lord Chan cellor, Lou] Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Camp- Lord Denman, Lord Auckland, Lord Hedesdale, Lord Glenelg, and Lord Camoys. The following Judges were also present :—Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Fleas, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Maule, Baron Gurney, Baron Al derson, and Baron Parke. The following are the names of the Counsel engaged for the Crown :—Sir William Follett, Attorney-General ; Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General ; Mr. T. B. C. Smith, Attorney-General for Ireland; Mr. H. Waddington, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Smyly. The following are the names of the defendants' counsel :—Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Sergeant P. S. Murphy, Mr. Charles Crompton, Mr. David Leahy, Mr. John William Smith, Mr. - J. S. Close, Mr. B. Peacock, and Sir Colman M. O'Lothlen. Agents—Mr. P. Mahony, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Cantwell. . Lord DENNAN—I move that counsel be called. Counsel having appeared at the bar, . The LORD CHANCELLOR (addressing Sir T. Wilde) said---,Sir Thomas Wilde, will you state what course you intend to pursue with'regardT to this ease. Sir T. WILDE---1: appear for Daniel O'Connell. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes. Who appears with you? Sir T. WILDn—I believe Mr. Peacock. But youi- Lordships are aware that then are several defendants in error, who have brought separate writs ; and there are points applicable to some which do not apply to others. With a view to the convenience of the House, I would suggest to your Lordships that Mr. Peacock and myself .should appear for Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and with .regard to the other defendants, who have different counsel, I would propose that Mr. Hill should be heard for Mr. Steele, and Mr. Kelly for the other defendants. Lord IlnouonAm—That is four counsel in all. • Sir T. WILDE—Yes ; and we have also, with a view to the convenience of your Lordships, agreed that, upon several points, we shall not each address your Lordships, but there are others of such importance that each coun sel will address your Lordships upon them. The Loan Cii.tiletuAin-When you come to the re ply, will you reply for all• the defendants ? Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. My. Learned Friends, Mr. Hill and Mr. Kelly, will also address your Lord ships. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we shall have three replies ? Sir T. WILDE—Yes. The LOUD CHANCELLOR—Then I would suggest a circumstance material for your consideration, which is, :.hat the circuits are fixed for Wednesday ; and if you do not complete your argument before Wednesday, so as to get the opinion of the Learned Judges before that time, it will be impossible to finish during the present session. Sir T. WILDE—We will bear in mind the importance of getting the opinion of the Judges before that time ; and with that view we will compress our argument as much as possible,. and as much as is consistent with justice. _ The LORD CHANCELLOR—Having stated the actual position of things, I must leave it to your own judg ment and consideration, to .take that course which you think best. Lord BROUGHAM—There are but four days altogether, but do not understand that the maximum should be ne cessarily the minimum. The LORD CITANCELLOR—TIIO Judges will probably require a day to consider the arguments, so that prac tically you will only have three days. Lord BROUGHAM—That is only if they are necessary. The ATTORNEY GENERAL (for England)—l do not understand ycur Lordships to determine that there shall be three replies in this case. The LORD CHANCELLOR--If strictness, each party is entitled to a separate reply by counsel, and as there are, I believe, nearly ten parties— Lord BR 0 UGIIA M The LORD CHANCELLOR—Seven, is it? Well, as there are seven parties, strictly speaking, seven counsel ought to be heard, that is one for each. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England) was about to interpose with some observation, when'he was inter rupted by Lord CAMPBELL—When there are several plaintiffs in error, each has a right to be heard by himself and his counsel. If that were not the case, injustice 'would frequently be done. In strictness, each party has a right to be heard by himself or his counsel. In the present case I understand that it is Proposed that some arrange ment should be entered into with the view, if possible, of saving time. The proposal, I believe, was that the counsel for one party should not re-argue points which had been already argued. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (fel' England)—lt is a matter of indifference to me whether four or four-and twenty counsel are heard. I believe the ordinary rule is that the Crown has the right of reply. The Learned Gentleman was here interrupted in his argument by the Lord Chancellor, who called Lord Brougham anti Lord Campbell to the table, and a long consultation followed between the Lord Chancellor, Lord Denman, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Chief Justice oF the Common Pleas. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—lt is usual in cases of this nature for all the parties to join in one writ of error. In the present case each party has sued out a seperate writ of error, and in consequecce of their pursuing this unusual course each party claims the right of appearing by separate counsel. Lord BROUGHABI—In civil cases we always make par ties consolidate their appeals. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England) —The course which has been adopted in this case a most unusual, Sir,T. WILDE—Your Lordships will perceive that in this case there have been several different findings. One party has been convicted of one offence, and another party of another, and the Attorney-General asks why the parties did not join in one writ of error ? Simply, because the errors assigned in one ca se diff er from those assigned in another. My Learned F r i en d says that the parties wished to appear by separao couns e l. Possibly that might be the case, and it woull be unfair to deprive by the counsel in It a .h p o e m rso h n e mofigthhteplraicegheot confidence. Lord Lord BROUGHAM — I would suggest,ring Sir Thomas Wilde, that you should try to shorten the case as much as possible, and I do this, not for the iake of the House, not for the sake of the Crown, but for the sak e o f th e plain tiffs in error. You have only five days, including Saturday, and it is for your interest that tie Judges should give their opinion before they go on circuit, Sir T. WILDE—We must endeavour tO take care of our own interests. Each party has clearly a right to appear by his own counsel, as he would have a right to be heard himself if he were present. The defendants, ; they are severally suf feringseve- rally the right to appear before your Lord s hip s . If they severally, al t l h y e , have penalty b ee ofn convicted imprisonment, and they have have not that right, the Attorney-General is too late now in taking his objection. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—l am not objecting to the defendants appearing by as many coun -sel as they may think proper ; b ut h olding t h e o ffi ce which I do, I think it right to draw y our Lordships' iphichmy ought not to be at tention to the right to reply claimed fo r th e pl a intiffs in error. I believe that, in strictness, th e C rown i s always these replies en the other side, or th e rep li es s h ou ld be conductedentitled o uponr reply. theAptriaolelle events,li, there Learned Friend laid down, that two counsel should no t rep l y on t h e sa me -points but I-submit that they arc n o t ent i t l e d to reply. Lord CAMPBELL—I had occ as i on to hear that i n a writ of error for the Exchequer in a revenue case it w as ruled that the plaintiff in error was entitled-to reply. In Frost's case, in which I was Attorney-General, the counsel for the prisoner replied, and each had a sepa rate reply. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is unnecessary to deter mine that point at present. As the case is now stated, I understood Sir T. Wilde to say that no counsel will touch upon any points which have been argued by his predecessor. Sir T. WILDE—I would not wish to deprive Mr. O'Connell of the benefit of any points which may be raised by other counsel ; but, without pledging myself strictly to any arrangement of that nature, we will gene rally endeavour to abide by that rule. The Loan CHANCELLOR—That separate counsel shall confine themselves to separate points. Sir T. WlLDE—Precisely so. The LORD CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General has a right to reply on the whole ease, we can consider that point hereafter--7at present we have nothing to do with it. - Sir T. WILDS—My Lords, I appear for Daniel O'Con nell, who, in conjunctionwith other defendants has been found.guilty on an i n di ctment, charg i ng hi m w ith con spiracy: On that i n di ctment h e comes before y our Lordships in error, and various, errors are assigned. I will now state to yo ur L ordships far as I am concern e d,l i ntend to urge aga inst this convic tion. The present , is the objections which, as an indictment for conspiracy, which contained 11 counts. The first count charged, " that it was the intent of the plaintiffs in error, to raise and create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, and to excite such subjects to hatred and con tempt of the Government and Constitution of the . realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious op position to the said Government and Constitution. •To stir up jealousies, hatred and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and especially in that part of the United' Kingdom called England. To excite dic•Content and disaffection amongst divers o f h er M a j es ty's subjects servin g in her Majesty' s army. So t o cause and p rocure , and aid and assi s t i n, caus i ng and procuring, divers subjects of her Majesty unlawfully, maliciously,and sedi tiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and constitu tion of the realm by law established. To bring into hatred and disreput e t h e cour t s by law establi s h e d i n Ireland for the admi n i strat i on o f justice, and to di m i n i s h the confidence of h er M a j esty ' s subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to in duce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudica tion of their differences with and claims upon each other from the cogn isance .of the said courts - - - - Iby law established, and to submit the same to the - , judgment and determination of other tribu nals to be constituted and contrived for that purpose." That was the charge in the indictment ; it then set forth a vast number of overt acts, among which were attend ing and assembling a large number• of persons between January and October, 1843, and making various sedi- I4ous and infineteatery speeches at those meetings, and &fling that period causing - those speeches to be pithlished in various newspapers. The overt acts ran to a ',teat length, but he had stated accurately the subject of the first count. The second count is the same' as the first, omitting the overt nets. The third count is the same as the second, save that in the fourth charge the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and sedition Jy," arc bmitted.' The' fourth coutt is the same as the third, omitting the charge as to the army. The fifth count contains the first and second charges set forth in the first count, omitting the overt ac's. The sixth count contains the fourth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi tiously," and the overt acts. The seventh count is the same as the sixth, adding the words, "and especially-by the means aforesaid to bring about and accom plish a dissolution of . the Legislative union now subsisting between Great Britain and Ireland." The eighth count contains the fifth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the overt acts. The ninth count, contains the fifth charge set forth in the first count, omitting the intent therein charged and the overt acts, but adding the following charge (that is to say) : "And, to assume and usurp the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of courts for the administration •of law." The tenth count is the same as the eighth, omit ting the intent stated in the fifth charge in the first count. The eleventh count charges the supposed conspiracy to ' be to cause and procure meetings in divers places, and of divers times, in Ireland, " and by means of unlawful, seditious, and inflatuatory speeches and addresses to be made and delivered at such meetings, and also, by means _of the publishing and causing and procuring to be pub lished, to and amongst- her Majesty's subjects, divers malicious, unlawful, and seditious writing§ and Composi tions, to intimidate the Lords spritual and temporal, and the Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and thereby to effect and bring about changes and alte rations in the laws and constitution of the realm-as now by law established." Such were the several counts. The record then proceeded to state the finding of the jury upon the several counts. The parties, when called upon to plead, pleaded in abatement; they pleaded that the bill was found by the grand jury upon the evidence of witnesses that had not been properly sworn in the Court of Queen's. Bench in Ireland. These pleas in abatement were over-ruled, and the defendants then pleaded not guilty, and upon that plea issue was joined, and the trial was appointed for a certain day. On that day, on, the jury bring called, Mr. O'Connell challenged the, array. Mr. O'Connell says "that the said several lists 'respectively Were by the said Recorder at the said special sessions duly corrected, allowed and signed by the said Recorder, pursuant-to-the statutable enactments in such case made and provided, and that the several persons whose names are hereinafter mentioned were then and there adjudged by the said Recorder to have the qualification hereinafter named, ' and that the names of the said several persons were then and there contained in the sail several lists so corrected, allowed and signed as aforesaid; but the ,said Daniel O'C onne ll says that the sa id R ecor d er di d not, as by the said statutable enactments is directed, cause to - be made out from said several last-mentioned lists one general list containing the names of all persons whose qualifications had been so allowed, arranged ac cording to rank and property, nor did the said Recorder thereupon or at all deliver such general list containing such names to the Clerk oF'the Peace to be fairly copied by said Clerk of the Peace in the same order as by the said statutable enactments is directed, but on the contrary thereof omitted so to do. And the said Daniel O'Connell further says, that a certain paper writing purporting to be a general list, purporting to be made out from such several lists so corrected, 4- lowed and signed as aforesaid, was illegally and frau dulently made out by some person or persons unknown." To that challenge the Attorney-General of her Majesty in Ireland demurred. So likewise the several defendants all presented their challenges, and to their respective - challenges a like demurrer was filed. The record pro ceeded to state that those - demurrers were overruled, and judgment given for the Crown. It then proceeded to - state the - cmpannelling of the jury, and their being . sworn to speak the truth. --The appearance of the parties was then set forth. It then-proceeded to aver that the jury found the verdict upon the indictment, which verdict was contained in page 76 and the following pages. The first finding was that eight of the defendants (there was a ninth, who was dead) were guilty of so much of the indictment as charged that they unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously endeavoured to create disaffection among the subjects of the Queen, and to excite hatred and contempt of the Government ; that they " did conspire with each other" which words would be found material in a future stage of this argument—and with divers other persons whose -names were unkown, to raise discontent, and to excite contempt of the GovernMent, and to create jealousies between " different classes of her Majesty's subjects, In fact, the whole eight were found guilty of the .charges set forth in the first and second counts. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the particulars of the finding of the jury, and the sentence of the Court. In page 80, a writ of error, corant ?obis, was set forth. It appeared that the Attorney-General did not take issue upon that, but he joined, and, after the case had been argued, the Court held that the error was not well assigned, and that there was no error in truth, and gave judgment fur the brown. My Lords, continued the Learned Counsel, -upon that judgment, given by the Court below, and also upon the judgment originally given, writs of error have been brought. My Lords, upon this record several objec tions appear to arise.• I will state to your Lordships what these objections are:—ln the first place, it is meant to be insisted that these counts are too generally framed to be properly the subject of an indictment ; that the judgment was not formed upon evidence sworn as required by the statute ; that the jury was not pro perly constituted ; that judgment had been passed upon more offences than are charg•rd in the indictment, than have been presented by the grand jury, and than have been pleaded by the defendants.; and that will apply to the first, second, and third counts ; that with respect to the verdicts of acquittal in certain insances, no proper judgment has been pronounced. Lord CA3IPDELL here put a question to the Learned Counsel which was inaudible in the gallery. Sir T. WILDE—It is insisted that these counts are bad, for the reason I have stated, their being too gene. rally framed, and not stating an indictable offence ; and it is contended that, if any one of the counts is bad,. the judgment must be reversed altogether. The Loup CHANCELLOR—Do you make that a sepa rate position ? Sir T. WILDE—I don't know that it is a separate posi tion; it is stated ratherby way of answer to anything that may be urged, supposing the argument should not sa tisfy ydur Lordships that the whole of the counts are bid. We mean to- insist that if any one is bad the judg ment cannot be sustained. It is then stated that the judgment is unlawful, inasmuch as the parties are re quired to be in prison ( not only till they have paid their own fines and given their own recognizanees, bat also till the others have paid their fines and given their re cognizances. Thirdly, the judgment requires the pri soners to give security fur their good behaviour for seven years, but it does not say from what period that seven years is to commence. The judgment is also defective in its form in not stating where and when the jury was sworn, and it is also alleged that there is an uncertainty whether ,the jury was sworn, or whether they merely affirmed ; and if they affirmed it is not stated that they= were of that description of persons whose affirmation would qualify them to be upon the jury. It is also stated that whether the jury was sworn or affirmed they did not do so in the legal words, " we do solemnly affirm," which are in the statute, but "we affirm" simply. It is also stated that the order for the continuance of the trial out of term is also informal, and that there is a discontinuance on the record. These are the points that will be presented to your Lordships, and it is my intention principally to ad dress myself to the character of the indictment anti the effect of the finding of the jury, and to insist that with respect to the finding it is erroneous in several particu lars, upon grounds that entitle the defendants to the _ judgment of the Court. This, my Lords, is, I believe, the first time that an indictment for conspiracy has come before your Lordships for judgment. The LORD CHANCELLOR—AIIow me to ask, Sir Thomas Wilde, if your statement includes all the points that are ,o be argued by all the Counsel ? Sir T. WILDE—They do, my Lord. lam not aware, my Lord, that I have omitted any. I was stating that this is the first time that an indictment for conspiracy has come before your Lordships for judgment. 'The nature of an indictment and conspiracy has always been the subject of much comment, and I have never con versed with any legal :authority who did not express himself with respect to the form of such an indict ment it was inconsistent with justice. The foundation of law on this subject seems to have - been the 33d of Edward 1., and I be- Hove there was no attempt made to prosecute any one fora-conspiracy from that time down to the trial of the seven Bishops. They were tried for an offence similar to one of the charges in this indictment ; the seven Bishops were tried for attempting to encroach on the royal prerogative, by the'presentation of a certain peti tion. There was a charge in this indictment for en croaching on the royal prerogative, by creating courts of justice. From the time, of the seven Bishops to the year 1796 there was no indictment for any conspiracy to commit a political offence. Mr. Redhead Yorke was the first person tried on such an indictment, but one count of it charged him with a riot,. and being found guilty of that it was useless for him to contest the le gality of the indictment. The next case was that of Henry Hunt, he was charged on one count with attend ing an unlawful assembly. Mr. Hunt defended himself, so was not competent to contest the legal form of the indictment on which he was tried. That case brings us down to a very modern period. The LORD CHANCELLOR—WAS Mr. Hunt only con victed on one count ? Lord BROUGHAM—Was he sent to prison for 30 months fur attending an unlawful assembly ? Sir T. WILDE—For a conspiracy for procuring and attending an unlawful assembly. When your Lordships consider the great expense attending the prosecution of a writ of error before this House, you will perceive that it is not in'the power of many defendants . to contest or impeach the form of an indictment and conspiracy. The Courts of Westminster Hall would not feel inclined to deal with such a -question, but before this tribunal parties are justified in bringing it. And it is one of the most important duties of this House in its appellatejurisclicticn to review the law as it is laid down and acted on in the courts below, or as it may have been retained and acted on till challenged as informal. I think the form of this kind of indictment is utterly inconsistent with justice, and at variance with all the principles of justice, which re quire that a man charged under it shall be adequately, informed by its terms and shape of the crime imputed to him, so that he may know how to prepare his defence; and one of the most important objects of an indictment of this kind is that the def e nd a nt ma y h ave t h e charges presented to him in such 8 ' form that this House, as an appellate court, should have the opportunity of seeing and judging whether, on the several points, a crime has been committed. The chaege involving the crime, may embrace an innocent act, which could only be made an act of guilt by leaving the person charged with the means of seeing and knowing whether he was convicted on a charge involving legal guilt; and to deprive the criminal of appeal in such a case would 'not be consistent with the general principles of law, and which should receive great consideration before it re ceived the sanction of the House. Looking to the doc trine of conspiracy, it eme impossible nut to feel the ex treme mischief which it had done, and is calculated to do; the crime of conspiracy does not consist in au act done; it is complete when the intention is formed. Much is left to uncertainty; it is not like any other crime. You were left to infer inten tions from acts of a very doubtful nature. Most of the political .cases that have cccurredin which in justice is supposed to have been done, have occurred in cases of political conspiracy. To say that the party is protected by the jury because the matter is for the jury, is to give.an answer supposed to afford safety to the sub ject. But the whole history of the country shows this to be utterly fallacious. The objects of persons in the worst periods of - our history have always been accomplished through juries. The difference between the safety which prevailed at one time, and the insecurity which existed at another, had been when the power of appeal to pro cure other judgments on the questions of law on the nature and character of the crime, upon the nature and character of the evidence, was When facilities were given for appeal in those several matters: How stands the case of conspiracy in re ? Your Lordships are aware of•the facts to which this indictment refers, but the question here is as to the form of the indictment, and I ask of your Lordships if such an indictment can be sus tained, what security is there for the subject if those parties have been tried and convicted according* to law ? The charges are of such a nature as to convey nothing sufficient, to ' enable your Lordships to say that they constitute an illegal act or not.- In the course of the trial it was held that those acts could not be tendered in a case of misdemeanour, and when your Lordships look eo the indictment pur porting to prove those charges, ,you will find that they are made up from circumstances occurring from January to October, a period of ten months, by the selection of. speeches of different persons, not made in the presence of the others charged, of reports of newspapers, done in the ordinary course Of business, giving 'the news of the day. One of the objects was to procure a dissolution of 'the Act of Unidn between Great Britain and Ireland—a great political object, no doubt; but when in the history of this country was it, that certain parties did not hold opinions on some great political subject ? That con formity of action should result front coincidence of opinion, might bo naturally expected—not upon any par ticular transaction in which the parties had any indivi-. dual interest, not conspiring to obtain goods by fraud, to affect the eharacter or interests of individuals, but in a conspiracy to obtain Parliatneeriary etekirm, to obtain a repeal of the Corn-laws, to prevent Catholic Emancipa• tion, that was to say, there must he a coincidence of opinion, leading to uniformity of action upon any gem* event affecting the interests of the country. There was a charge of exciting th e su bj ec t s o f h er Majesty . to dis affection against the Government. In what age of the country was it that persons had not endea voured to excite disaffection against the Government? Did the Government mean the Constitution, or the form of the Government, or thtl persons administering it ? Why, may not the present Government be charged with exciting disaffection against the late Government ?, Each of the parti es o f th e p resent d ay seeme d d es i rous of producing disaffection and hatred towards what wass called the Government ? If the parties were guilty of making seditious speeches, let them be tried for it. I ' would call attention to what was done at the Revolution' in France. There was then a conspiracy to excite dis affection against the Government. One drunken woman uttered a few idle words, tending, it was supposed; to produce hatred towards the Government, - and - she` was hanged for it. I cou!d find many parallels to this in dictment, where the parties charged have been hanged. I would- ask of your Lordships to consider whether a charge of this kind, seeking to establish guilt by those means, can , be the subject of a prosecution ? But here a course of conduct is permitted to be persisted 'in for two months—and there is no limit to it—the time may be extended indefinitely until the victim is caught. Here are these transactions , allowed to go on, until by an accumulation of acts, each innocent in itself, it is sought to take the chance of the weakness, or the in firmity, or the prejudices of the jury, to lead them to a conclusion, not that any particular act. has been done, but to some conclusion which is -utterly false and un founded—that the defendants met together and con spired. 1)0 your Lordships 'believe that the jury were .told that Government endeavoured to'ascertain when and where those parties entered into a conspiracy ?—that they were not to convict them unless they could come to the conclusion that there really had been some common consent and agreement between the parties ?. No such thing. In an ordinary case, , such as a conspir acy to defraud or obtain money .under false pretences, if. you see parties acting together for that common illegal object, it might be evidence to go to the jury, and it might be. for them to consider whether the so acting together could be considered us proof of some common agreement. But when a case is on in which great public interests are concerned the principle does not apply—then the acting in concert cannot be taken as proof of conspiracy, and it must be shown that the several parties actually met and conspired. My Lords, I submit that all the counts of the indictment from the fifth to the end are bad—bad for generality. They are framed in terms unknown to the law, and are wholly destitute of legal precision. The fifth count charges that the said DanieLO'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas Mathew Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, 'Thomas Tierney, Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray', and Richard Barrett, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously contriving, intending, and devising to cause and create discontent and disaffection among 4 the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm as by law established heretofore ; to wit' on the thirteenth day of February, in the rear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, with force and arms, to wit, at the parish' of St. Mark, in the county and the city of Dublin aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously and mditiously did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, end" with divers other persons whose names are to the jurors aforesaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and sedi tious opposition to the said Government and Constitu tion ; and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to promote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in the other parts of the said United Kingdom ; and especially in that part of the said United Kingdom called England, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. Now, what is meant by creating discontent and disaffec tion ? What is the legal meaning of these words ? What is the crime against which a party thus charged is called to defend himself ? Why, at the time the Bill was pro posed granting, Catholic Emancipation, there were many persons who endeavoured to persuade the people that if the King consented to the measure he would be violating his coronation oath—that it would introduce Popery, and upset the Church. They endeavoured to excite a spirit of hostility to the Government which supported that measure. Now, who were those men who thus en deavoured to excite discontent and disaffection '? The words conveyed no legal charge. To what are we in debted for every legal change which is brought about but to the attempt made to excite discontent and dis affection with the existing state of things ? It is impos sible to produce any change except by such means. Now ought such words to be introduced into a criminal in dictment, and left to the jury without any explanation of their legal meaning ? Are the words to be looked out in - " Johnson's Dictionary," and is the meaning, there found to be attached to them ? Tho charge of disaffec tion does not necessarily imply guilt. Some of the greatest patriots that ever lived might be liable to a similar charge. They are alto charged with unlawful and seditious opposition to the Government. Now, what is meant by illegal opposition ? Who is to decide what is meant by seditious opposition ? . Is it' to be left to the jury ? They will determine, according to their party ,politics ; if they are of the same party with the Government, they will probably consider all opposition seditious ; if they are opposed to it, it will be hard to convince them that any opposition can be seditious. But how is a man to know what he is called upon to de fend himself against when he is accused of seditious opposition .? It may be a refusal to pay taxes—it may be some other act which is to show that he has been guilty of seditious opposition. Now what act except the commission of the crime of sedition—a crime to be sepa rately proved—is there to give meaning to the words seditious opposition.' If the word seditious is to be re jected as surplusage, as a word of' no meaning, then' the count stands for offering opposition to the Government, which is no crime at all. Now, your Lordslips should recollect that you are nowelealing with a criminal charge, and that,. therefore, the most rigid construction is called for: I submit that the fifth count is of too general a nature—that it embodies no legal charge, and that from the wording of it the party charged cannot tell what it is that he, is called upon to answer. It .is of the utmost importance, in order to secure the' due administration of justice, that there should be upon every criminal charge sufficient to enable a court of ap peal to see more clearly than they could in the present case what was attempted to be charged. In the present case no bill of exception could he tendered to the sum ming up of the Learned Judge, and the only course, ex cept coming to that House, would be to apply for a new trial. When they could not bring. the charge of the judge before a higher tribunal, the indictment ought most clearly to describe.the offence of which the party was charged. The importance of individuals having a fair means of defence, . and the necessity of the indictment conveying some definite charge which the party might', grapple with, had been clearly stated by Lord Ellenbo rough in the case of the King v. Perry. In that case the man suffered his whole imprisonment before his writ of error was argued, although upon - the arguing of that writ of error, he was found to be an innocent man. (The Learned Counsel then proceeded to refer to the state ments of Lord Ellenborough in the case of the KinT v. Perry, and then proceeded.) In the count to which I am now referring, there are no overt acts ' attached, but if there were, they did nothing te show, clearly what the charge was. Now, appY the doctrines of Lord Ellenberough to the present case the indictment in the King v. Perry referred to several transactions, but in this case it refers to a variety of subjects. It is scarcely possible, I will venture to saaa fur any individual to be able to meet such a charge as is made in the present case. Certainty, in matters of a . crie initial charge is one of the great principles of the lot that should le acted upon always, and never lost sight • of in a criminal charge. Such, then, my Lords, is the fifth count. The si x th coun t c h arges t h e assem bli ng o f large number o f p ersons , f or t h e purpose of chang ing and altering the Gove rnmen t o f t h e rea l m as b y law estAlislu-d. 'f he question is,. were th ese meet i ngs ill egal ? they al l , not charged us b e i ng so . Th e Ist and 2cl counts, which charge else illegality of th e meet i ngs , were overru l e d by the jury. Here . wa s i n ti m id at i on at a legal meet i n g charged as a crime. Lord BROUGHtM—The count says f or an un l a wful and seditious purpose. Sir THOMAS WILDE—The count o ug ht t o h ave s tated how it was unlawful. The c o un t sa y s , procur i ng di v erl suleiects of • our Lady the Queen t o mee t an d assemble far in large n um b ers , r the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtai n i ng , by moans o f intinii dation to be thereby cause d, a lt era ti ons i n the Government, laws, and Constitution of the reaku• There is no charge that the meetings were unlawful, or that they were called together for the purpo4e of intitvi' dation. In fact there is not a single circumstance that gives to these meetings any illegality. If they bad bee° illegal what, I would ask, would be said to the Execir tive for allowing them to go on ? L_ook at Ilunt's cas es, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonnieui for attending an Illegal meeting: There is u ° charge that the objects of the meeting were illeg 3lt . It is stated that a meeting of a great number of persons, was caused, but nothing - is asserted as to the co nduct 01 those who attended the meeting. - - - The LORD CHANCELLOR—Thera is. no allegation' i° this count that any meeting was held. Sir T. WILDE—I thank your Lordship. The LORD CHANCETILOR—The charge is a charge ° f , conspiracy to do oertain acts ; there is no st a t emen t that it was followed up. The question, therefore, is th e question of law, whether the conspiring of persons to d° the acts which are here stated is a sufficient allegation -- conspiring to do that which on the face of the indict* ment is stated to be illegal. Sir T.' WILDE-.-What I complain of is, not that the indictment states it to be unlawful, but that it does no t ' ; ; show it to be • unlawful that it does not show lb° , which it ought to have shown, in order to enable you to ' say that it charges a crime. „ The LORD CHANCELLOR—A S the obje c t of th e co..' spiracy the parties must be supposed to have met toge' Cher, and to have agreed to this. ' 1 Sir T. WILDE—Yes, so I understand it. I The LORD CHANCELLOR—The charge is that theg , l agreed to cause a meeting of a number of persons 1 ° order by a demonstration of physical force to procarl; changes and alterations in the Government, laws, ail' Constitution of- this realm as by law established. Th e question is, whether, if parties conspire and unite toge' ther for that purpose, snob meeting is unlawful. Sir T. WlLDE—Whether the egreemeot i t = l a wful ? The LORD c naezcgaaeon-eYes. Sir T. Wereae„ , --Well, ifiein, I ety that ttio statemeu l that they meant to intimidate by-causing a large Die C. s l l ing is not a statement of -aat agmetnent which forms 1 itself a crime. . Lord BnoraerAet—Cotrspiring - together *as Otlel stated to be assembling—to be assembling a portion U., the people of England together on Salisbury Plailia.fuh the purpose of intimidating the Government. '- Sir T. WILDE—The quesaion, my Lofts, is, who is: °) be intimidated ? The LORD CHANCELLOR—When you are consideril ._af this indictment you must suppose the parties to /au met together, and to have come to this agreement • , ‘i Let us assemble a great force—so great, so enorm ous' it shall produce intimidation and alarm, and cau se a change in. the Government and Constitution of the., country." They may have failed to accomplish the purpose ; but are parties, by meeting together ac c t agreeifig to such a scheme guilty of an unlawful a or not ? . Sir T. WILDE—Any. epithets which may be intr ° ,f duced, I app re h en d, are no t ma t er i a l. It i sa meeting a large number of persons. The LORD CHANCELLOR—YOU cannot' say that el )ii thets are immaterial. " S e diti ous " i s an ep i t h et , a nd 1 has a specific meaning. Sir T. WILDE—But your Lordship used the wor ds ts " great and " enormous," and I say that such ePith ° 4 will not be material. Now, I say, that this agreemen, this conspiracy, is not charged in terms sufficiently E_ t , vise to constitute a legal offence. Of course, 'th e indie , ment is addressed, or purports to be addressed, to a a ti r r , posed agreement between the several plaintiffs in trt Q p i The - indictment supposes an agreement to the effeet s p forth. (Their Lordships here consulted together ),, two or three minutes.) . I say, my Lords, it must looked at with reference to the object here stated. e to Lord CAMPBELL—What meaning is to be attached " physical force ?" When was it first inserted ill indictment? Sir T. WILDE—L e t us fi rs t see, my Lord, what a' i 01 meant by " demonstration." I' believe that word i g o be least entitled to th e m er it o f nove l ty . I . h ave not ~`' re , able to find it used in any other legal form. • Bet ° s o however, I catl your Lordship's attention 'to ti te r words, I wish to ask 'What .4 meant by "intimidatio%, Who is to be intimiclatedV - Hcyeb,y ineans,ofiethe lt l o , tion, is the effect to be producca.or - fibeuring an alt ° , o l tion of the law? It is not to " break the law;" it is l ' re to " set the law at defiance;" it is to procutv an alteration of the law. Does that mean by legal l 'ay thority or otherwise.? Is it 4 sufficient charge that o 5 a great numiter of persons meeting the M e r v! and the Commons Will be intimidat e d, an d th a t they `l io be induced, under the influence of th a t i n ti m idation , consent to an alteration of the law contrary to their e c e o , victions, and as to what the interests of the country. t le quire ? Are these persons to be suppoced to Ills ..lihelled your Lordship, as well as entered into cooloee, racy, by imagining that your Lordship s wou ld I ) , 0 t it duced by intimidation to repeal an existing law? l' tl e t is not said that your Lordships are to he intimidateae c e, that the House of Commons are to be intireithl t 0 Who, then; is to be intimidated? "Are these pereoet,sicii set of maniacs who met for a purpose wt te t they could not possibly ac com pli s h. It i s no t s t a ted i t ,"e these parsons intended t o p r o cure t h e i r o bj ect b y °Per es ing upon her Majesty, or upon your Lordships, or t e n t the House of Common s ; w h a t i s state d i s an agre cai b y to call .meetings of l arge numbers a persons, thereool, trying to intimid a t e , an d by t hi s i nt i m idat r so called, to put:icier° tin alteration of the law. I Bu ', mit to your Lordships that it is absolutely necess ° r c o in order to mike this intelligible,"that it s hould 00 stated who it was upon whom the intimida'o4 was intended to operate, so es to procurc , r oy a consequence, an alteration of the law. Sur d, it is not enough to l eave thi s unc e r t a i n . '''' by then, how is this intimidation to be p ro duced 4 1 the " demonstration of physical force ?" Is it trei that physical force is to be used ? No ; it iS 0 1 1 i e stated that by the meet i n g of a num b er o f p erso ns, so: 0 9 how or other, the alteration is to *be procured. 1- rc e, thing more meant by a demonstration of physical ' ° o,e d than the calling together of a number of well of women ? Surely that is not suc h a d emons traa 0 ° t ie physical force as can be suppoted . or intended to hav c a li effect of intimidatio n . I k now o f no au th or i t y for 5 i l l• a. position. In the case of Lord George Gordon, tilde dictment was for high treason, for levying war ; still court laid it down, that the bringing of an immense O. round the Houses of Parliament, and perseu co e intimidating the Legislature, 'was not a P , ir p spiracy, but a levying of w ar aga i ns t the t he Lord George Gordon was tried for high treasoaa °l v' til ground of personally inti m id a ti ng th e M em b e rs of itit e Houses of Parliament, surrounding the lobby, assal,",, g e Memberi, and pulling the Bishops out of th e ir carrl°lo That was an intimidation that could be understood• ic e the intimidation here was confined to meetings in land, at a time when the Legislature was not sittl ° °or vvhenit was uncertain how many of the Member d ia l , which of them, would ever meet together again. I t e " re to dation is stated without saying who it is to eit' e e' on ; I contend that such a charge is infinitely too g i e co l ral and too-ambiguous to be made the subj ec t of 3 ' ea charge. How is such a char ge t o b e met ! 18" °, el ' bet timidation the necessary cons equence o f a l arge ottol of persons meeting together for a p o li t i ca l pur p o se ' 0 ; 1 Lord' CAMPBELL—Might there not b e an 10, 1° jea agreement in the city of Dublin, to call' meetings lt! v ag lace-yard, Westminster, for the purpose of oven`` the Legislature ? i r e' Sir. T. WILDE—The count says meetings in land only. el R C ' The LORD CHAN CELLOR —Y es ; ' meet i ngs a t Pi " within Ireland." „ao° vwar S si i e r tso T ofr . oln W ,alg eLmesubmitted that the ch arge of intilal lu- o° l a , general, Filth by e x n t eral; and adding indefinite.u)the general l'h e nc o ett i : t li e; li th e e le o procuri ng an y a l teration in the laws, the special °wife of pro cee di ng to procure a repeal . of the Leg is.- c Union between Great Britain and Ireland. 0 - The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is not the alteratinid gist tt ofa lttheerai the law that is the question, it is the means by ! v ie t iiirctm is ent t . o To ° c e n fi te e r the i • t t a e i t— th th e a l t eg i a s l q t u h e e st r illoiiiit i ll o indictment we must consider that such meeting s I been held.' - t .Sir THOMAS WILDS--Yes, my Lord. But ‘ 1 1 1 : 1:0 lair complain of is this, that the charge in theco 70 11/ such a on e as th e d efendants can answer. I is° that it is not shown to whom the intimidatio o apply. If it was stated that it was meant to apply t° e¢ titular persons, it might be shown that the means ta acil were not suffi c i en t to make it so apply, but, as it 5 11 15 it is impossible to say whether it is directed gg the whole Irish people, the Legislature, or her istly jesty. The seventh count is the same as the 0 0; The eighth count c h arges defendants with a coorf " To brin g i n to h atred and disrepute the courts tisticrl established i n I re l and for the administration of jubjecti; and to dimini s h t h e confidence of hal Majesty's s ti . {0 ,in Ireland in the administration of law thereir'W o the intent t o i n d uce her Majesty ' s subjects to wit opt, the adjudication of their differences with and claims each other from the cognisance of the said courts v iocif o established, and to submit the same to the l ," ment and determination of other tribui lol ,, o "' se', be constituted. and contrived fur that flu', e jl : Now, first of all, your Lordships have often b e :";01„o gaged in framing Acts removing certain kinds °,;pprio diction from onAribunal to another. It o fon Do that merchants and traders present petitions 'T oss i:; # Houses of Parli amen t, pray i ng for alterations in a risdiction by w hi c h t h e i r differences and d i s pu, settled—the pendi ng a l terat i ons in the laws e„ ruptcy are cases of th a t ki n d . 41 11 Ab Lord CAMPBELL—This count Charges an unla' s jcct—the last one c h arge d t h e use of unlawful ° Sir T. WILDE—Both counts proceed on the s ss nt 1 tier' of an illegal o bj ec t , b ut the defect of the tea, 0 not betting forth how that object is to be call to feel 11 rtia: