The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

cause they had given their verdict upon both counts. What, then, became of the case ? Supposing the jury had given that verdict, and the writ of error was brought, it would award a venire de novo, so that the case would be sent back to the jury to assess the damages on the count that was good. That was the course in civil cases. But what did his friends propose in criminal cases? Why, that the record should be sent back to Ireland. The analogy would be to ask the court of error to send the record back to the court be ' low to pronounce judgment upon the count that was good. But his Learned Friends did not ask their Lord . ships to do that; they asked them to reverse the judgment altogether, and to set the parties free. He would now state the reason why, in his opinion, the principle which was admitted in civil cases did not apply in criminal cases. The jury brought in a verdict, guilty or not guilty ; they assesed no damages ; they awarded no punishment. If he were charged on an indictment with two offences, if one count was bad, the jury who had found him guilty had found him guilty upon each count. So, if one count was good, that would support the verdict and the record. Judgment followed the record ; the record followed the verdict ; and if the record and the verdict were warranted, how could the judgment be erroneous ? That was the prin ciple in civil as well as in criminal cases. He would now call their Lordships' attention to a few cases in the books in which this point had been adverted to. When his Learned Friend said that they found no distinct case in point, his answer was, that no one had ever thought of raising the question. There was not an assizes—not an Old Bailey sessions—not a quarter ses sions, in which cases did not occur in which this point arose. There would have been an infinity of writs of error, and it was impossible that the question could have been left so long without being brought under the notice of the courts, if the law had not been clear. No sittings could have taken place in which the point did not occur. He would now advert to the principal cases which had been quoted on the other side. The first was the case of Grant v. Aspland, which his Learned Friend said had no reference to a writ of error, although the judge had made an extra judicial observation on the point. Now, it so happened that the case was on a writ of error. It was a writ of error to the King's Bench in England from the King's Bench in Ireland, in an action to recover copyhold tithes. There were several counts, one o. which was defective, and Lord Mansfield, in giving judgment, said, that he exceedingly regretted that • so ill-founded a rule as this, viz., that where in several counts one was bad the judgment should be set aside, had ever been admit ted ; more especially upon such an absurd fiction as that when the jury assessed the da mages, they assessed them on all the counts, which was not the case; and Lord Mansfield went on to state that what made the rule the more absurd was, that it did not hold good in criminal prosecutions, for thatwhen the verdict of guilty was once returned, one good count was sufficient to support it. There was a case in Cooper's Reports, in which Lord Mansfield had said the same thing. Then there was the case of the King v. Fuller. His Learned Friend, in referring to that case, seemed to imagine that this question could only arise in cases of misdemeanour, and that there could be no such thing as an indictment for felony with different counts. If his Learned Friend had had as much experience in the criminal as he had had in the civil courts, he would have known that it was quite as common to have indictments for felony with several counts as for misdemeanour ; and that the same question would arise if the punishment were discre tionary or fixed by law ; and the general rule in indict ments for felony was, that if the record warranted the verdict, it was not erroneous because one of the counts on the indictment might be defective. Then there was the case of the King v. Rose, 2d Lord Raymond's Reports, p. 886. This was an indictment for perjury, and some of the assignments were defective, and on that ground the court was moved in arrest of judgment. But Lord Holt and the whole court gave it as their opinion that if all the assignments were wrong but one, that one would be sufficient to authorise the court to give its judgment. Then there was the case of " the King v. Powell," 2d Barnewall and Adolphus, p. 535. This was a writ of error to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that established the principle that if one count of one indictment was suf ficient to support a judgment, and the verdict supported that judgment, the judgment was not erroneous. It was a case that was tried at the Surrey October Sessions, and there were two counts in the indictment. The first was - for an assault with intent to ravish, and the second was for a common assault. Now the first count would warrant judgment of imprisonment with hard labour—the second would not. The jury re turned this verdict—" The said Henry Powell is guilty of the misdemeanour and offence in the said indictment specified a 9 alleged against him." He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. The verdict was brought before the Queen's Bench on writ of error, as the terms of the verdict could apply only to one count, and it did not specify which, and therefore it was contended that the judgment to hard labour was erroneous. Lord Tenterden gave it as Ids opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed, inas much as the verdict warranted the judgment. Lord CAMPBELL—If the second count had been for perjury the same reason would apply. The Arronner-GENERAL--It is impossible to make the distinction. Lord BaocrouAm—Had the party, in the case you put, been guilty of an assault to commit a rape, and guilty of perjury, and one of the counts had been bad, the judg ment of the court would have been passed, not upon the count which was bad, but upon the count which was good. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The verdict of guilty was guilty of both; the second mu;t be defective, but the first warranted the judgment of the verdict. His 'Learned Friend had stated that there was no instance of a court of error acting upon that rule. The case of Powell was a direct authority for it, for that was a case in error. Then there was the case of the King v. . Brady, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, which was reported in the 2d of Jeff and Symes, p. 643, in which the Court of Queen's Bench laid it down that if, in a case of judgment being given one count was bad, that was not enough to vitiate the indgment if one count was good. Then there was the ca.'e of the King v. Connor, which was argued in the Que sn's Bench in Ireland in 1839, in which it was stated, in the argument of counsel, that if one count were good judgment could not be re versed, and cited several cases on that point. Jt was quite impossible for the court of error to i nq uire into the nature of the judgment of the court below. It surely was a fallacy to say that the judgment was made up of a number of counts ; that was not so in point of practice, nor, he apprehended, could it be considered so in wa y. If the judgment were a judgment which the law authorised, the writ of error could know nothing of the motives or inducements of the court below ; and if any presumption was to be made, surely it must be that the court below, in affixing punishment, affixed it only upon counts which warranted it. No doubt the amount of the punishment was discretionary with the court. The court of error had only to see whether the judgment was one which the law allowed. Lord BROUGHAM — The admission of a writ of error seems to admit that the judges may by possibility have given judgment on a wrong count. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--NO doubt • but what he said was, that a court of error would lo ok to see whe ther .s judgment had been given which was nut war ranted. by law. Lord ..`iitOUGHAM—The presumption you say is, that the court below gave judgment upon the right count, but it is just.` possible that judges in the court below may have given lodgment on the wrong count, may have • thought the wrong count right. The ATTORNET-GENERAL—No doubt it was possible, but the presumption of law was, that the judgment of the .'court was a judgment warranted by law, and if brougi;,t up to a court of error, the court would presume that it u'as warranted by law. Lord CAMPBELL —In that case a writ of error is a very imper feet remedy. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he spoke only of the presumption of Jaw. If the law were not right, the proper course would be to make it so by Act of Parlia ment. Let hica take any of the ordinary cases which came before the assizes. lie would take the case which his Learned Friend had put. He sup posed a conspiracy on one day of two men to steal a l oa f; a nd he supposed a conspiracy on a second day .betweeti the same two men to burn a house and in artier the inhabitants. He supposed that the par ti es wei -e tried, and that, on their being triad b y the jury, A nd the facts being investigated, the defendants were found guilty of both the offences. Here was a mi ce in which two persons were convicted, on trial .by jury, of a conspiracy to burn down a house and to incrder the inhabitants. Well, then, he would suppose that, li3 the second count of the in dictment there was a defed. According to his Learned Friend, in order to *do cornp.iote justice, they must allow these men to go free by reversiv,g the judgment. If this argument amounted to anything at all, it went to show ghat the Legislature should pass soma law to prevent the g:ving of different counts in the same indictment. Su.-ely, it was arguing all on one side to say that justice wa s ,not done, because in one particular case the punish ment might have been increased by a defective count. The o ccurrence was not a probable one, and if they wanted theoretical perfection, they must go to the Legislature. Take the case of a man, named Good, tried for murdering a woman. In that case, it was necessary to have ten or twelve counts in the indictment. The jury found the prisotier guilty generally upon the indictment, and the evidence warranted the finding on six or eight of the counts. Shoulid they, because there was a defect in one of the counts, suffer such a party to commit murder with impunity? Surely it would not be improving the law of England, to pines an Act declaring that where there were several counts .upon an indictment, and the jury had found the party guilty of all, he should, if one were bad, be discharged? Lord CA•mpnce.u.—Where there is only one murder, the proper mode would be to find the prisoner guilty upon one count. The A'rroxiskrnr-GENEakx. said he believed in the criminal court the verdict and the sentence were always elitered generr My. In the case of the King v. Fuller, there WAS a ver diet upon both counts in the indictment. The LORD CIIA.NCELLOR said he recollected a case o f t hi s kind. A policeman was indicted for committing a ;rape upon a young girl in his cus tody. He got; off upon a misnomer of the girl. lie was indict (Rd a second time. There was a plea of autrer "quit' and the answer was " went by lis one name a is wall as the other," and he was acquitted a The case was tried at the Norfolk Assizes, second time. . 4.1 .., R srtice Patteson. a __,_ he''' . rag- GENERAL challenged his Learned j. _• , - . , a any case in which the record and the A l* tt;c47 ffe#9 - ~ _ 104na judgment,. and that judgmen t . had t t -ep -4etyo4 . e. yy hen he said the recor d , he did no t l i l iiiiilo4*ty cop , it ire the indictment; but what he main kr,l4•6llol artia, that; when one count in the indictment was c, Iniial,Tthd it vet Inllct of guilty had been returned upon that count, his Learned Friends could fin I no case in which judgment had been reversed. It was a confusion of legal principles and arguments to confound the amount of the sentence with the judgment which the law sanctioned. The jury had nothing whatever to do with the amount of punishment or fine. Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose it were specifically stated stated in the judgment, -" for the offence specified in the first count," "for the account specified in the second count," " for the offenee specified in the third count," and so on to the eleventh count, and a certain sentence was given of one year's imprisonment, or 1001. fine, would you in that case say there is no error? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could hardly answer an hypothetical question, but he ventured to say that no such judgment had ever been entered up. — (Laughter.) The analogy of the civil cases sought to be established by his Learned Friends entirely failed. In one case the verdict of the jury warranted the judgment in the other, which was the court that gave Judgment, and passed the sentence. He submitted to their Lord ships that that was the principle of the law, and that all the practice and the opinion of the profession, from time immemorial, supported him in that statement. He ven tured to ask his Learned Friends on the other side to suggest to their Lordships the form of entering up judgment. His Learned Friend (Sir T. Wilde) said there was a distinction between a writ of error and a motion in arrest of judgment. That when the latter came on for decision the Judges said, "It does not matter; if one of the counts are good, we will pass judgment on that one." He doubted whether any Judge had ever said anything of the kind. He spoke in the presence of several Judges of the Queen's Bench, and he put it to them whether such was the practice. Their language rather was " If one of the counts are good, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the others are good or bad." Their Lordships would not decide this upon any extreme case, but on the principles of law, and the de- cisions of the courts. Should their Lordships pronounce in favour of this objection they would be reversing what was held to be the law of the land for the last 200 years, and under which 100 persons had suffered, and were suffering at this moment. He had only one other observation to make upon this point. His Learned Friend had said that the defendants could not plead autrefois convict, and that the judgment should not pe reversed on this ground. But though a person was found guilty on a count which was bad, yet if he suffered judgment under it he could plead autrefois convict. His Learned Friend put another hypothetical case. He supposed that there were four counts in an indictment, containing different offences, one for murder, one for libel, one for an assault, and, the fourth, for an assault, with intent to commit a breach of the peace He supposed the verdict of the jury was given on all the counts ; that the court of error had decided three out of the four were bad, and that the party was sentenced on the fourth. He next supposed that the Queen had par doned him on the fourth count; and he then asked how he could be allowed out of custody? He (the Attorney-Gne . ral) had the honour of being one of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he very much doubted whether the Crown had this power, supposing • that judgment had been entered up. He would now proceed to the next point, which was also of a technical nature, which was as to the finding of the jury on the first and second counts of the indictment. Those counts charged the defendants wlith conspiring with one another, and divers other persons, 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 lay/ established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and ill will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Majes ty's subjects in the other parts of the said United King dom, and especially in that part of the said United King dom called England." He would stop there, because their Lordships would find that the jury found them all guilty of conspiring to do all those acts. The counts went on to charge them with conspiring for other objects, as to cause changes in the Government, law, and Consti tution, as by law established, and to bring into contempt the tribunals for the administration of the law in Ireland. The jury found seven of the defendants guilty of conspiring with each other, and divers other persons, and then they found three of them guilty of the residue—of an unlawful conspitacy to raise disaffection in the army. None of the defendants were found guilty of the whole of the charge, because the jury acquitted them of the charge of procuring an unlawful meeting, the jury having seemed to consider that the parties who met were instruments and dupes, and they therefiro omitted the words " seditious" and " unlawful," but they found that these parties had conspired " to cause divers subjects of the Queen to meet and assemble together for seditious and unlawful purposes." That was the finding of the jury, and it might be considered in two ways, but in either way it did not affect the verdict. It was either a part of the issue, or it was not. If it was a part of the issue it could not affect the judgment. Now what the jury meant was clearly this—that certain of the defend ants charged with conspiracy had agreed to do all the acts mentioned in the first part of the declaration, but that certain others of them had agreed to go further. Well, the way they did it was this—" As to the residue we convict them of a conspiracy to do nothing." He should submit that that was a good find ing. Be would suppose the case of four per sons meeting in a room—all of whom agreed to rob a house, and three out of the four to commit a murder, to which the fourth did not agree. He appre hended it would be a good finding to find three of them guilty to do all of the acts, and one to do one act only. The meaning of the jury was that all were implicated in the conspiracy, but not to the same effect, and he was not aware of any principle which would prevent a jury from coming to such a finding. His Learned Friends had argued that the defendants were found guilty of more offences than were laid to their charge in the in dictment ; that they were charged with eleven, and . were found guilty on fifteen ; and that, therefore, as judgment was given upon the whole, judgment was given for more offences than the parties were charged with. He sub mitted that this did not vitiate the judgment, and that though the jury found them guilty of more offences than were charged against them in the indictment, it would be considered a surplusage, and would be rejected by the court below and the court above. The Honour able and Learned Gentleman quoted, in support of his argument, 2d Saunders' Reports, p. • 208. It was there argued that the verdict was invalid, because the jury found on matters which were not in issue. The jury found that the defendants had spoken slanderous words which were not charged ; but the court held that the objection to that part did not require the rejection of the whole finding. He would not trouble their Lord ships with the numerous cases which he might cite in support of the same principle. It was alleged in the case before their Lordships that the jury found the de fendants guilty of three conspiracies where but one was charged.. It was quite natural to observe that the judg ment was given for the offences aforesaid, and that must mean for the offences charged in the indictment, and on which the verdict had been found. But if the finding included something which was not in the in dictment, that would not set aside the judgment. If anything of that sort had been found, the Court of Queen's Bench would have set it aside as surplusage, and it would not affect the material parts of the verdict. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is quite clear that the finding of something beyond the issues would be no ground for rejecting the verdict, so far as it was within the issue. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged to call their Lordships' attention to the words of the jury. They were these : " That the defendants all of them conspired with others to create dissatisfaction," and so on. That was the first finding in the verdict ; and then they said—" And as to the residue, the said Daniel _O'Connell," and so on. Now that word residue itself was sufficient to show that they did not mean to find the defendants guilty of three conspiracies, but of one common conspiracy, in part of the objects of Which some only of them had entered. If, as was argued, that finding on the residue was a mistake, yet it would not invalidate that part of the verdict which was within the issue, and which declared all the eight defendants guilty of the conspiracy charged in the in dictment.. In 2d Rowe's Abridgment, p. 714, there was a passage to the effect that " When the jury finds anything beyond the issue, that does not vitiate the verdict on the judgment, as it is only surplurage." The objection on this point had been argued upon the first and second counts as if they stood alone, and the other counts were treated as bad. But he apprehended that there were other substantiated counts all coming under the head of the one conspiracy. He did not think it worth while to trouble their Lordships by dwelling upon the objection, that because some were found guilty and others acquitted of certain objects of the conspiracy, the separate findings were for separate conspiracies. Where a defendant was found guilty of some of the acts charged in one count, and acquitted of the others, that was a sufficient verdict of guilty. The next of those technical objections arose from the discontinuance. Their Lord ships would give them the benefit of whatever they were entitled to on that ground. The objection was this, that the Court of Queen's Bench having given instruc tions that the trial should proceed on the 12th of February, it did so. On the 15th of April, the first day of Easter term, all the defendants appeared to receive judgment. But that judg ment was again postponed to the 22d of May. The objection was this, that there ought t ) be a con tinuance from the 12th of February to the first day of Easter term, and that the defendants had not had a day before receiving judgment. On this point, he was pre pared to submit that if this had not been a trial under a particular Alt of Parliament, this would not have been a defect or error. In ordinary cases, it would not be an error. It was quite impossible that there could be a continuance. The particular circumstances under which this trial took place—were such as rendered the form adopted the only proper one. This trial took place under the statutes 1 and 2 Will. IV. Having read the section, he proceeded to say that the trial did extend beyond Hilary term, and was terminated on the 20th of February without a continuance; the Court could not only not pronounce judgment, ut could do no judicial act whatever ; but the verdict was sufficient without anything else, as the defendants appeared in court on the first day on which judgment could be given, and he submitted that this was the only way in which the record could be made out. This was no ground for reversing the judgment. He need hardly state, that no court at this time of day would reverse a judgment in a criminal case on a mere technical defect of this kind, the act of the officer who made up the record. He ventured to go further and say, that unless there should be a distinct series of mi -1 questionable authorities binding the court to reverse its judgment, on such an absurd objection the court could not entertain it. He quoted the authorities which had been cited by Mr. Peacock from Coke and Lyttleton, and the cases of Smith v. Lock, Bradley v. Banks, and the King v. Vitehen, from Lord Raymond's Reports. THE SUN, LONDON. TUESDAY EVENIN(, JULY 9. 1841. But not one of all these authorities laid down the prin ciple of a reversal of the judgment for not giving a day after.the verdict. But he would show their Lordships several authorities stating that it could not be reversed on that ground. He quoted from Comyn's Digest, title, Pleader. Lord CAMPBELL—That is a common law with= statute. The ATTORNF.Y.GENERAL-It was without the aid of statute.- It was laid down that a discontinuance made prior to the verdict, but not discovered until after the verdict, could not be held to be a discontinuance, and the rule was the same in civil as in criminal cases. Lord CAMPBELL—It seemed it was not thought ne cessary to continue the operation of the statute of dis continuance after the verdict was pronounced. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not necessary. He quoted also the case of Rogers and Ellin, from Comyn's Digest. In the case before their Lordships the verdict had been given. What was the objection of the defendants ?—That a day was not given them on whieh to appear and hear judgment pronounced. Why, they did appear to hear judgment ; then where was the injury ? If a party had been outlawed for not appear ing to receive judgment, he could understand the objec tion, as the party would then plead the discontinuance order to have his outlawry reversed. But he contended that the statute of William IV., under which this trial had taken place, rendered every other form informal. It was a statutory adjournment which every one was bound to take notice of. The Learned Gentleman then said that, with their Lordships' permission, he would close his argument on that point, and resume it to-morrow at ten o'clock, on the question of the challenge of the array. Their Lordships then adjourned until ten o'clock to morrow (this day). COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen will hold a Privy Council tomorrow (Wed nesday) afternoon at half-past two o'clock, at Buckingham Palace. The Right Hon. John Nicholl, Judge-Advocate-General, bad an audience of the Queen yesterday, at Buckingham Palace, and submitted to her Majesty the proceedings of some courts•-martial. Her Majesty and Prince Albert walked yesterday fore noon in the royal gardens. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester visited the Queen yesterday. The Royal Family were taken airings yesterday, in the royal gardens of Buckingham Palace. In the afternoon her Majesty, attended by the Viscountess Jocelyn, Lady in Waiting, took an airing in an open carriage and four. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by the Equerries in Waiting, Colonels Buckley and Bouverie, accompanied her Majesty on horseback. The Queen had a dinner party yesterday at Buckingham Palace. The company included his Excellency the Prince Castelcicala, the Marquis and Marchioness of Exeter, the Marquis and Marchioness of Westminster, Lady Lyndhurst, Viscount and Lady Marianne Alford, Lord and Lady Robert Grosvenor, the Lord Mayor, le General Avitabile, the Right Hon. George Dawson Darner, and Captain Francis Seymour. The band of the Ist Regiment of Life Guards was in at tendance at the Palace during dinner, and performed a va riety of favourite pieces. Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Cambridge and the Hereditary Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, attended by Baroness Ahlefeldt and Baron Knese • beck, honoured the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch with their company at Montague House, Whitehall-gardens, yes terday afternoon, at the public breakfast given by the Noble Duke and Duchess. The Duchess of Cambridge and the Hereditary Grand Duke and Duchess of Alecklenburgh Strelitz honoured the performance of the French plays with their presence yes terday evening. The Duchess of Cambridge was attended by Baroness Ahlefeldt. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon at the Foreign-office. It was attended by Sir R. Peel, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Wharncliffe, the Duke of Buccleuch, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Earl of Haddington, Earl of Ripon, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, Lord Granville Somerset, and Sir Edward Knatchbull. The Council sat three hours. The Ecclesiastical Commission for England had a meeting yesterday at the office in Whitehall-place. The Commis sioners present were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Rochester, and the Dean of Westminster. Mr. Wickham, Chairman of the Stamps and Taxes had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yester day at his official residence, in Downing-street. THE DUCHESS OF BUUCLEUCH'S GRAND FETE. Yesterday afternoon the Duchess of Buccleuch gave a princely fete champetre at Montagu House, at which above 1,200 personages of rank congregated, including the leading members of the corps diplomatique, and distinguished fo reigners visiting this capital. Owing to the fineness of the weather, the brilliant assemblage of fashion were enabled to enjoy to the fullest extent the attractions of the out-door amusements, for the Noble Duke had generously offered a parse of 60 sovereigns to be rowed for by the Thames water men. His Grace, the year before last, gave a similar prize, when the Queen and Prince Albert were present. The garden was tastefully ornamented for the accommoda tion of visitors. Turkey carpets and India matting were placed over the lawn, and costly furniture and reclining chairs were provided, so that the regatta might be observed by all who chose to participate in the frete. The terrace was laid out in the same elegant manner as we observed on Thursday last, and the pavilions at each end were supplied with the rarest refreshments and choice fruit, served up in gold and silver plate. The valuable and costly ornamental plate on the tables added to the magnificence which pervaded the entire arrangements. In the garden the full band of the Scots Fusileer Guards performed a variety of music. The complete range of superb saloons opening on to the terrace were thrown open; the dining-room, as before, being appropriated for quadrille dancing, a band being engaged for that purpose. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge arrived at ten minutes past four ; and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, attended by Lady Georgiana Murray, arrived at twenty minutes to five, and was received at the hall entrance by the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, by whom her Royal Highness was conducted to the terrace. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, accom panied by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz, arrived at five minutes to five ; Baroness Ahlefeldt and Baron Knesebeck being in waiting on the Royal Duchese. Immediately after the whole of the illustrioas visitors had reached the terrace, the signal was given and the first heat of the rowing match was commenced. [The particulars of the regatta will be found in another part of our Journal.] Shortly after the regatta had terminated, the Royal visitors departed. The Grand Duchess of Mecklenburgh Strelitz (Princess Augusta of Cambridge) was cordially welcomed by most of the assembled guests of the Duke and Duchess. The Duke of Wellington, who arrived early, honoured the Duke and Duchess with his company. The Noble and Gallant Duke appeared in the enjoyment of excellent health and spirits. There is no doubt that the prospect of the Waverley Ball induced the company to retire earlier than would otherwise have been the case, for at seven o'clock there was conside rable demand for the carriages, but owing to the vast num ber of the visitors on this occasion, the majority were obliged to walk some distance to their respective carriages. Dancing was kept up with unabated vigour till the fête concluded, both on the lawn and in the salle a manger— the military band performing in the garden, quadrilles, waltzes, and the polka. It was after eight before the company dispersed. We have not room for a list of the company. EXTRAORDINIARY OUTRAGE.-011 Tuesday, the 25th ult., while Mr. J. H. Hynes, of New Quay, and the Rev. Mr. Fullam, Protestant clergyman, were out traul-fishing with a crew of three men, in the Bay of Galway, a fleet consisting of eighty to a hundred boats, from the Galway Claddagh, bore down on them, and nine or ten of the boats having sur rounded the fishing-boat, fifty or sixty of the Claddagh fishermen suddenly boarded her, and after cutting away the trail], rushed on Mr. Hynes and his party with the most awful imprecations and savage yells, armed with open knives, polee,.&c., knocked them down, and beat them most unmer cifully. leaving them apparently lifeless on the deck; they then cut down the sails, which, along with the anchor, cables, ropes, poles, and oars, they threw overboard. Finally, they tore up the deck, and, with the stones that formed the bal last, made many fruitless attempts to scuttle the boat, after which they departed, leaving her a complete wreck, to drift along the sea; fortunately she was rescued from her perilous situation by a New Quay boat, and towed into harbour. An investigation was held on Monday, at Currenrue, concerning this most daring outrage, before Messrs. Bell and Kernan, stipendiary magistrates, and Mr. G. Macnamara, justice of the peace, harbour-hill. Although the lives of two of the crew and that of Mr. Hynes were considered in imminent danger for four or five days, they are now supposed to be con valescent.—Clare Journal.. THE WILLS FORGERY CASES.—On Friday week the convicts Barber and Fletcher were conveyed on board the Agincourt, which vessel has for the last week been lying off Woolwich, in the hourly expectation of receiving orders to sail. Fletcher a few hours after he got on board volun tarily and unsolicited made a written statement, declaring that Barber bad no guilty knowledge of the forgeries which were effected by him (Fletcher) and the other prisoners, Sanders andhis wife and Mrs. Dorey. The document, which was published on Saturday was forwarded to the Home Office, accompanied by a petition from Mr. Peckham, the solicitor of Barber, praying for a revision of the case. On Tuesday last,,FletCher made a further and still more explicit declaration of Barber's innocence. The subsequent declara tion was also forwarded to the Home Secretary, who on re ceipt sent down to Woolwich an order for the detention of the vessel until the case could be thoroughly investigated. THE Moons.—There is every prospect of the ensuing season being one of the finest ever seen in the northern counties. The young birds are already very strong, and with powers of wing equal to what they often are in the beginning of August. They are so far advanced as to be beyond harm from the weather. Sportsmen may confidently anticipate that there will be no halting on the moors, from their dogs leisurely looking at broods unable to take flight. Among the places recently taken are the fol lowing :—Arisaig, by the Duke of Marlborough ; Achna carry, Lord Malmesbury ; Arndilly, W. Peel, Esq. ; Knoc kie, Hugh Munro, Esq. ; Mamore, Mr. Peacock ; Castle Leod, R. Reid, Esq. ; Carr Bridge, Colonel Forbes. An aged but enthtisiastic sportsman, Mr. Lockhart, from Essex, was in Skye last year for several months, shooting and fishing, and arrived here last week to join a party in Sutherland. This gentleman is in his 82d year, but hale and vigorous, and delighted with the Highlands.—lnverness Courier. THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—Yesterday the two pictures purchased on Saturday by Mr. Eastlake, at the sale at Messrs. Christie and Manson's, for the National Gallery, were placed in that institution, and were greatly admired by the numerous visitors. They are numbered 193 and 194, and are placed in different rooms, the "Judgment of Paris" being in the second large room, and immediately facing Rubens's " Rape of the Sabines." This picture, it was stated at the sale on Saturday, by Mr. Manson, was painted by Rubens for Cardinal Richelieu ; it was subsequently in the Orleans Gallery, from which it was brought and sold to Lord Kin naird, who gave 3,000 guineas for it. It afterwards came into the possession of Mr. John Penrice, at whose sale of pic tures, on Saturday, it was bought for 4,000 guineas, as stated in this journal yesterday. The other picture, by Guido, of " Lot and his Daughters," is placed in the large room at the extreme end, in the north-east corner. This picture was formerly in the Lancilotto Palace, at Rome. It was brought from Rome by the second Marquis of Lansdowne. In addi tion to the above, the National Gallery has recently been enriched by three new pictures, purchased at the sale of the late Mr. Harman's collection. They are numbered 190, 191, and 192, and consist of the Portrait of a Jew, by Rem brandt ; the " Infant Christ and St. John embracing," by Guido ; and an exquisite little portrait of Gerard Dow, painted by Wawa THE SECOND VOLUME OF MEMOIRS OF THE IffOUSE OF COMMONS, By W. CHARLES TOWNSEND, Esq. DEDICATED TO SIR ROBERT PEEL. Will be ready on Saturday next, July 13. Orders received by all Booksellers. Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. 13, Great Marlborough-street, July. NEW BOOKS OF THE SEASON, • PUBLISHED BY MR. COLBURN. 1. Mr. D'lsraeli's Coningsby. 2. Hon. Mr. Smythe's Historic Fancies. I Vol. 3. Marchioness of Londonderry's Travels. 1 Vol. 4. Memoirs of the Babylonian Princess. 5 . bu ss Strickland's Queens of England. Vol. VII. 6. Hyde Marston. A Novel. 7. The Wilfulness of Woman. A Novel. 8. A Winter in Italy, by Mrs. Ashton Yates. (Just ready.) Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. THIS EVENING JULY 9, Will be pertzmed tiossini's Opera Serie, OTELLO. Desdemosia, Madame Grisi; Emilia, Madame Bellint; t lmiro, g. Lab'ache; lago, Sig. Fornasari; Rodrigo, Sig. Corelli; II Doge, ig. G. Galli ; and Otello, Sig. Ma. ie. After which, a ‘o DIVERTISSE'vIENT," In which will be intro duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler and M. St. Leon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheirer and Plunkett, and the admired Spanish ance La Saragossa," by Mdlle. Fanny Elseler. To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VIV ANDIERE, ntro oucing the Redowa or • original Polka of Hungary, by Mdlle. Cerito and M. tkt. Leon. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be made at the Box Office, Opera Colonnade. Signor Costa's new Opera, faith with. " Don Carlos," will be repeated HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor PUZZI respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscribera to th e o,lera, his Friends, and the Public, that HI > BENEFIT will take place ON THURSDAY NEXT, JULY 11, On which occasion will be presented (for the First Time these Three Years), Donizetti's celebrated Opera, ANN A BOLENA. Henry VIII, Sig. Lablache ; Percy, Sig. Moriani ; Smeaton, Mdlle. Favanti ;. Anna Bolena, Mad ime Grisi ; Jane Seymour, , ignora Giuseppma Resetti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her first appearance in London). In the course of the Evening, Signor Puzzi will perform a Solo on the Horn. After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT, in which Mdlle. Fanny Engler, Mdlle. Cerito, M. Perrot, and M. St. Leon will appear: To be followed by the Second Act of GUILLAUME TELL. . . Matilde, Madame Persiani ; A rnold , ;,iig. :Mario ; Walter, Sig. t. Lablache ; and Guillaume Tell, Signor Fornasari. To conclude with a Favourite Ballet, in which all the principal Artistes of her Majesty's Theatre will appear. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be mi.!: to Signor Puzzi, 83, Jermyn.street, St. James's, and the Box-oitice, Opera elonnade. Doors open at Seven. The Opera will commence at Veit-past Seven o'Clock. THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET BENJAMIN WEBSTER LES ER THIS EVENING, JULY 9, • Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of 2UID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES. With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Huns&n , Mr. Stuart; Lord Bellamont, Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Grigson, Mr. Strickland; Retry, Mr. H. Holl; Captain Sippett, Mr Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdon, Mrs. W. Clifford; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss Julia Bennett; . Mrs. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget I rim, Mrs. Humby. Atter the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing" Fayre Rosamonde." To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir Charles Coldstream, Bart., Mr. Charles Mathews;. Sir Adonis Leeeh, Mr ; Wurzle, 11Ir. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia Bennett; Lady Clutterbuck, Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE TRUMPETER'S DAUGHTER; or, Love and the Polka. Phillipot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste; who will dance the celebrated Polka. . - Orchestra Stalls, 55.; Boxes, ss. 1 • Pit, 3s. ; Gallery. !s,; Upper O illery, Is. .Half-price—Boxes,_3.s. ; 2s. ; Gallery, Is. ; Upper H Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at all-past Six, and the Performances commence at Seven. _ _ _ rickets and Places to be had of Mr. L T. Archer, At the Box. o l:ce, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-ST ft t ET. LESSEE, Mr. J. M. MADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be performed the celebrated Opera, L'EISIR D AMORE. Adina Mies Austin ; Nemerino, Mr. Allen ; Doctor Dulcamara, blr, Paul Bedford. After which, a New Petite Comedy, called AGED - FORTY. Sir Harry Wilder. Mr. Walter Lacy ; Mr Dapper, Mr. Oxberiy; Lady Clifton, Mrs. Stirling. lo conclude with a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of Aladdin. A banazar Mr. Paul Bedford; Aladdin. Mr. Wright; Princess Badroulbadour, Mis. E. Stanby. • HEA THE ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA HOUSE. Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be produced a New Drama, e ntitled MARTIN CHUZZLE. WIT. Principal characters by 'Messrs. R. Younge, F. Vining, Emery, F. Mathews, A. Wigan, Meadows, Kinloch, Turner, Stanton, J. W. Collier, Yarnold, Sanders, and Keeley ; Miss For.. tescue, Miss Woolgar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs. Woollidge, Miss Grove, Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs Keeley. To be followed by a Grail(' Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called OPEN SESAME; or, a Night with the Forty Thie. es. Illasstrac, Mr. Keeley; Moretana ' Mrs. Keeley. To conclude with:an Ap ro pos Bagatelle, called POLKA MANIA* haracters by Me F. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. Keeley, Miss Woolgar, and Mrs. Keeley. ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF A UTS. Prenrietor SPLENDID 1 d Manager, JUVENILE M Mr. FETES; BATY tireat Success of the Chinese Feast of Lanterns, and N:w Military and Naval Spectacle. THIS EVENING, JULY 9 Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or. The Conquests of Amoy by Ritish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments, &c., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and N.ivy. least of 250 Lanterns. After which, a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY 4 L COTILLION OF FRANCIS TH E FIRST; •r, The Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of Horsemanship by Monsieur Louis Tournafre, Sig. Hermani, Herr Tiesback, La Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, Lie.; with Mr. IL Smith's highly trained Steeds. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLE-CHASE; or, Eng land's Harvest Home. _ - • The doors will open nightly at six o'clocc, and the t orlormances oammence at seven. Box-office opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been reconstructed and decorated with care and splendour. Acting and stage-manager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. DA YTDGES ROYAL SURREY THEATRE. FOR THE BENEFIT OF MR. J. HUDSON KIRBY. THIS EVENING, JULY 9, Will be performed Sbakspeare's Tragedy of RICHARD 111. Richard, Duke of Gio'ster, Mr. J. Hudson Kirby. After the Tragedy Mr. John Dunn will sing Jim Crow, and Sitch a gittin' up Stairs. After which, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled " Napoleon's Gene rosity," in which the Brockstedt Family—three German Lilliputians, 1010MUadneda inches in i height—will perform. Drama, THE CARPENTER OF ROUEN in which Messrs. Hudson Kirby, Hicks , Neville, Vale, Heslop,Johnson, Mrs. Daly, Miss Perrey, and Mrs . Henner will perform. Places and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box.. °dice, from Eleven to Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. aylight View LONDON in the OLDEN TIME! Fainted by Danson and Telbin. The sensation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond all former precedent; the artist, the amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea. , tion, and are unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex hibition ever witnessed. To view it only ar a ve hi c l e f or t h e terr ifi c display at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of the quiet Evening, with its T o wers and Steeples reflected in the spa cious Lake, to be fUlly apprec i ated. and Thursdays, cond ucte d b y M r . G o df re y, days,Tl W Ev ed en n i e n s g days, PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Mondays, Tues. are upon a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in doingjustice to the awful representation of THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON. Its fearftil characteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Mirotechnic Alt, that delight is predo min ant over terror; and thogrhousands who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclaxsations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechuist, has achieved a matchless Zoological Collection are in the most perfect state, triumph.' Th so many and int eres ti ng f eatures , a re by far the most attractive lounge in o r near the metropolis. I. ceding of the Animals at Five —Concert at Six—Conflagration at a G nd ard w on m s b a i n n d ing Dusk. Admittance, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY. IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONS SHILLING Admission to THE NATOLEON MU SEUM, the most magnific ent and ext ens i ve Collect of ,Ilisto deal Curiosities and Wor of Art ever known to have 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 sauctive and interesting manner, the most Important part of Euro pean history, viz.—CIIARLES 1., OLIVER CROM WELL, and L )UIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often , during the last and present year, by the Royal FamEy, the Duke of Wellington, the Foreign Princes , Ambassadors, and their Ladles , rietor has recently been able to increase, by several very line pictures, &c., his previous almost incredible number and variety of MSS., Works of Art, and a multitude of valuable Relic!' , and other lurissities, in this most Instructive and, as hundreds have said it also, many thousands of the Nobility and Public ; the Pro night V.) be, a National Museum. Many thousand have inspected it, Lull THIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PIII3LIC PRESS gave stated that it ought to be seen by every one. The price of admis• Om is reduced to ONE SHILLING. The NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to be seen otily at the Egyptian •-is II," Piccadilly, daily from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATIIER.-Sur7 OFFICE, JULY 9. l'ot ERMO T 29 .97.—Wnen, N.W. 5 8; Highest, 70; Noon, 8 8 . B ME: , .Lowest, nu S °l.E.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the : 01LET, ir,,e?.ing point, and 55 temperate. In Baroueteis fair is u .ually placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. WWI WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE TLIIS TAY. Morning ... 21 minutes after t 5 Evening minutes after IA . ..,., 1 t , ..,.. 4,, ..‘ 01°" !: 1 (* ) . .., . . • . 4y.' 4 4 , -.--,... ." , s. „ . , „, -40 ,, ;* , .....v. , -...., 4 4 ..., . ` 4 " -- • ~,,' ',. I,____ . , . ~,,...,,:.e.:,_, Azit t , , . , rRI. At 014 ROll , , m, ..., , . LAL . ,blh V V, ~, SECOND EDITION. etellinS LOND ON, TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1844, In the Lords, several petitions were presented by Lord ELDON, the Duke of RICHMOND, and Lord ASHBURTON, praying for agricultural protection. It was arranged that the discussion on the Bank Charter Bill should take place - on Friday. Lord WODELIOUSE complained of the calumnies w hich had been published in some journals against the gentry and yeomanry of Suffolk in reference to the working of the New Poor-law Bill. These calumnies had b een ma d e for party purposes, and the fact could be easily ascertained that paupers were now in more comfortable circumstances than they were under the old poor-law system. Lord NoRMANnY moved for returns relative to the late incendiary fi res i n Suffolk, which were ordered. The House adj ourne d a t a Q ua rter to Six. At a Quarter-p as t Si x o'clock, their Lordships, that is to say, th e L aw L o rds, met to hear the argu ments of Counsel on the Irish State trials. The ATTORNEY-GENERA L opened the case for the Crown, and spoke till ten o'clock, when the further hearing was postponed till this day. A division took place in the Commons, on the motion for the further consideration on the report of the Middle Level Drainage Bill, an amendment having been moved by Lord GEORGE BENTINCK that the till be re-committed. There was a majority of 90 for the motion, and the report was ordered to brought up and engrossed. Mr. SHEIL and Sir CHARLES NAPIER put three questions each t o Si r R OBE RT PEEL, relative to the affairs of Mo rocco, and the present state of the English navy. Sir ROBERT PEEL , in his usual manner, answered all the questions categorically; the substance of which is, that there never was a period when England could make a greater naval demonstration than at present, and that the Govern ment had taken measures for protecting British in tere.:ts in the Mediterranean. Mr. C. WooD was not at all satisfied by the answers of Sir R. PEEL, and after alluding to the attacks made by the Tories on the late Government for neglecting the navy, said the shores of England, the interests of the country, were never left in such a helpless state as they were at the present moment. He then asked if the Government were prepared to put the naval force of the country in a state that would command confidence at home and abroad Sir R. PEEL would give no answer, as the notice applied only to the force in the Mediterranean. He considered that he had not been fairly treated. After some remarks from Lord PALMERSTON and Lord Howrcx, on the small naval force now in commission, and the bitter taunts made by the Tories on the same subject in 1838, the conversation dropped. An interesting discussion then took place on the Railways Bill, introduced by Mr. GLADSTONE. Mr. GISBORNE announced, that if the Government did not withdraw the Bill he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. HAWES and Mr. COLQUHOUN said they would support the motion of Mr. GISBORNE ; Mr. WALLACE ? Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others supported the Govern ment, and trusted the amendment would not be pressed to a division. Sir ROBERT PEEL said in bringing forward the Bill, the Government had, and could have, no other object in view, than to protect the public. They had offended many of their supporters by the measure, but still they could not sacrifice their duties to party purposes. All the Government wished was a full, fair ; and impartial discussion. Mr. Gis- BORNE withdrew his amendment. Mr. GLADSTONE then moved the second reading of the Bill. His speech contains statements of the highest importance to the community. An abridg ment would do it injustice, and we, therefore, recom mend it to the careful attention of our readers, for all are interested in this momentous question. The dis cussion occupied the rest of the evening, and the de 7 bate was adjourned till Thursday. Leave was given to bring in the Party Processions (Ireland) Bill, and the House adjourned at Half past One. Those of our readers who may happen to be ac quainted with GOLDSMITH'S works, can scarcely have forgotten his diverting, full-length portrait c f Croaker, in the comedy of the Good Natured Man. This Croaker, like his prototype Heraclitus of old—who certainly ought to have been an Eng lishman—is a born genius for grumbling. He holds the reverse of POPE'S famous axiom, that " whatever is, is right," and stoutly maintains that " whatever is, is wrong." Where other more cordial spirits find the materials for consolation, if not of hope, -he finds only the materials of discomfort and despondency; and is never so much in his element as when discovering some fine, fresh grievance, "war ranted genuine"—as our shop placards have it—on which" he may descant with all the powers of his gloomy and splenetic eloquence. Just such as was Croaker in private life, is the Morning Post in politics—that is to say, a grievance -hunter of the first water. As the former was always indulging, like a JEREMIAH or a CASSANDRA, in the most dole ful vaticinations, so is the latter never so completely at home as when terrifying his numerous readers with all sorts of dire predictions. We have not the good fortune to be acquainted with the person of our triste Contemporary, but whenever we see a gentleman in the streets looking more downcast and hypochondriacal than the general run of London peripatetics, as if some alarming grievance were fer menting in his prolific imagination, we always feel tempted to exclaim with a sigh of affectionate compassion, " there goes the Morning Post!" We hope that our desponding Contemporary may not be discovered some fine morning self-suspended to the lamp-post in front of his office—a vie- tim to overpowering affliction brought on by his conviction of the present ruinous state of the agricul tural interest ; but we must confess that such a catas- trophe, however it would grieve, would not surprise us, for nothing can be more lugubrious—nothing more hopelessly dejected than the language] which he holds this morning. That we may not be sus pected of exaggeration, we will just beg leave to cull a few sprigs from his plantation of henbane, hemlock, and nightshade. " When distress shall return," he says, " and distress such as our agriculturists have never yet known, cannot be far distant, let not our Parlia mentary landowners affect to ascribe the ruin of tenants and the disaffection of peasantry to some in scrutable dispensations of Providence. Recent legis lative measures will account for the utter ruin of the agricultural interest." Again—" In the autumn of 1845, if not earlier, our Parliamentary land owners will have an opportunity of witnessing the action of the economical principles which they have embraced since 1841. When farmers shall be sold up by hundreds—when involuntary idleness and disaffec_ tion shall have spread to a fearful extent among our artisans and peasantry—when the throat of the land owner shall blacken under the gripe of the mortgagee —then will the agricultural supporters of Sir R. PEEL understand the, true nature of that great statesman's enlightened principles." This last vaticination is in our Contemporary's finest spirit of horror, and was evidently penned with a view to depress the spirits of those country gentlemen who may happen to have been too much elated by the late decision on the corn-laws. But, though no very enthusias tic admirers of the Premier, we are far indeed from anticipating that such awful calamities as the Post conjures up, will be the inevitable results of his policy. The agricultural interest need fear no very great or decisive injury at his hands. He stands too much in need of their support to work them any serious mis chief—at least for some years to come. The pear is not yet ripe. The hour is not yet arrived when he may safely throw them overboard, and form an al liance, offensive and defensive, with the free-trade party. Sir it. PEEL'S present policy is to commit himself to no parties, but to establish a sort of claim on all of them, by alternately cajoling and threaten ing them, and blinding them by such vague pro fessions of good will as may fill them with hopes destined, most probably, never to be realised. One day he throws out a lure to Mr. COBDEN ; the next, to Mr. BANKES, of Arcadian-happiness notoriety. Last year, he advanced a step towards the free-traders; this year, he makes a retrograde movement, and falls back on the Monopolists. Those who may have seen two school-boys playing at see saw, and watched with what clock-work regularity the one goes up as the other goes down, will be able to form a pretty correct idea of the Premier's system of policy. It is a perfect game of see-saw between the manufactur ing and the agricultural interests. The Minister fur nishes the plank on which the two parties are seated, and as they go up and go down alternately, he boasts of the impartiality with which the game is played, and the cogent reasons that each party has to be satisfied with it. Madrid journals of the Ist inst. have been received. According to a letter in one of them from Barcelona, the Emperor of MOROCCO had replied to the ulti matum of the Spanish Government in so insolent a style as to leave no alternative but war. The con clusion of the conferences and the commencement of hostilities had been communicated to the diplomatic body. The Madrid Gazette of the Ist contains the following revolting summary of the executions in only one district of Catalonia : " Between the Ist of February and the 15th of June, the faction' in the Maestrazzo have sustained the following losses :—Killed on the field of battle, 54 men ; shot, after being made prisoners, 120 men ; pardoned, for various rea sons, 107. Among the prisoners shot are the chiefs El Ser. rador, Viscaro, Lauva, and Taso ; Marsal and his lieutenant, Pilaren, Cotarro and his second, Martinez El Serano, Taran ques, and Galo de Santa Oleon ; and 25 generals or officers, including one colonel, one commandant, three captains, and thirteen lieutenants. Since the 29th of May fourteen spies and nineteen officers, coming from France, and a certain number of douaniers who had joined the bands have been shot. General Don Juan de Villalonga has, by his energetic activity, not a little contributed to this result." The Funds have again receded. The Three per Cents. closed at 268 cash, and 268 for 60 days; the Fives at 198 for the same period. The French Chamber of Peers did not sit on Sa turday, and the business in the other Chamber was confined to a debate on two petitions from the town of Bastia, in Corsica, complaining of the conduct of the Prefect. The Chamber, however, rejected the petitions, and passed to the order of the day. The Committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the duty on newspapers made their re port, in which, they state that they cannot reccom mend the abolition of the duty, though they disap ,)rove of the present system, and consider that a uni form duty of four centimes (four-fifths of a half penny) should be levied on all journals, whether large or small. They are opposed also to a tax on -advertisements. The Constitutionel contains a strong ittack on the Government relative to the partial and lishonest manner in which Government contracts are nade. According to law all contracts exceeding ;0,000 francs are to be submitted to public comp?. - Won, but in many instances the law has been evaded. Several large contracts for rails and Go vernment supplies, it asserts, have been made by pri vate bargain with favoured parties to the injury of competitors, and sometimes at ten per cent. higher han the market price. A dreadful fire broke out at Algiers on the night ,F the 26th ult., which destroyed property to the mount of 1,300,000 f. (52,0001.) The Akbar gives the, following details : "The fire has destroyed all the barracks situated between the streets Bab Azoum and the Dejeninah. This building 'las been greatly injured, and would no doabt have been en , irely destroyed but for the prompt and energetic means em ployed to save it. The whole of the citizens, directed by the authorities, and aided by the military, navy, and militia, ied with one another in zeal and devotion to the common •ause. The Sardinia frigate Beroldoe sent a strong de• tachment ashore, headed by their brave commander le Che valier , Milece, whose vigorous and intelligent co-operation 'ended mainly to the preservation of a large range of build liigs in the street Porte Neuve. Towards midnight the pro 4ress of the flames was such that it was determined to isolate the Dejeninah from the Manutention, which was done ac cordingly. The Bishop's palace, which was especially threatened, was immediately denuded of all furniture, and the Right Rev. Prel a t e hi mse lf i n t h e street, surrounded by his books and furniture, was desirous of lending a hand to the work of extinguishment, and was only prevented on the assurance that the numbers employed were already greater than the nature of the work required. At midnight the fire was completely got under. Some rather alarming reports were spread in town as to the number of killed and injured. We are, however, enabled, on the best authority, to state that no one has perished, and the number of injured does not ex ceed thirty. It has been clearly ascertained that the origin of the fire was purely accidental." THIS DAY S NEWS HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. THE SUSSEX PEERAGE. —JUDGMENT. The Lord Chancellor entered the House a few minutes after ten o'clock, when Counsel were ordered in. The Judges were 8181 in attendance. The Earl of SHANTESBURY having/I:then his seat as Chair man of the Committee, Lord Chief Justice TINDAL proceeded to read the opinion of the Judges, as to the construction which ought to be put upon the Act of Parliament regulating the marriages of mem bers of the Royal Family of England. After a very long dissertation upon the technical legal bearing of certain of the provisions of the Act, the opinion proceeded to state, that in that portion of the law which more particularly affected the case under discussion, the words of the statute were p rec i se and unambiguous. t expressly stated that no one of the persons therein described shall be capable of contracting mar riage without the previous consent of his Majesty in Council, such consent to be recorded at length in the license of mar riage, in the certificate of marriage, and in the register of marriage. It was not reasonable to suppose that any person ,hould be competent to set aside the law by contracting a marriage abroad. It was never in the contempla tion of the Legislature, when they passed this Act of Parliament, that it should be evaded, or at tempted to be evaded. An Act of Parliament passed in this country will bind its subjects both within and without the realm. If such had not been the intention of the Legis lature, then was it most futile and unnecessary to have passed this marriage law at all. But the Act itself was comprehen sive enough—the words themselves were clear, direct, and unambiguous enough to regulate these royal marriages as well without as within the realm. But even if precise words were not found in the Act bearing upon the question, still the construction of the Act would clearly define the course to be pursued. The Act would be a mere dead letter, if from the moment of its passing any one of the Royal Family could feel himself empowered to go abroad and contract a marriage with out the authority and consent of the Sovereign. Again the, policy and expediency of the Act were clear upon the face of it. No marriage which the head of the realm might hold to be detrimental to the interests of the State, could be con tracted lawfully either at home or abroad. The Sovereign of the realm was by this statute specially entrusted with the care of these matters, but this power and authority—held for the good of the State—would be at once- put aside, if marriages thus contracted and solemnised were now to be held as good and valid. They (the Judges) thought, there fore, that the eldest son of A B, under the instructions of their Lordships, could not make a good title as heir to A B to the lands sought by him to be recovered. After a pause— The LORD CHANCELLOR (as we understood him) said— Perhaps further postponement would not be required after. the very able and lucid opinion of the judges of the land just read to them by his Learned Friend the Chief JUstice of the Common Pleas. Perhaps it would be stated what course it was wished to be pursued. Lord BROUGHAM said he could see no good that could by possibility accrue to any party by any further postponement of the judgment of their Lordships. Such postponement would only cause heavy expense and be of no utility what ever to the claimant. lie was quite prepared to give his own opinion of the case at that moment. He had never had a doubt upon the matter. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he also was prepared to give his opinion at once. He had never entertained the slightest doubt of the scope and object of the Act. The language of the Act could not be mistaken. It clearly incapacitated any person mentioned in it from going abroad and contracting a marriage. Such marriage was not valid and could not be recognized by the English law. Lord BROUGHAM said it was with the deepest sorrow that lre was compelled—reluctantly compelled to decide against this claim —for no person who had heard the evi dence adduced before their Lordships could for one moment doubt but that a wrong, a most grievous wrong. had been 'committed upon the mother of those children whose case they had been hearing.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It appeared to him that the highest jus ti ce required that the Parliament which bad made such a law— a law which ought never to have been made— (Hear, hear) —that that Parliament should give some reparation to those deeply injured persons who had been asking for justice at their Lordships' bar.—( Loud cheers.) The LORD CHANCELLOR' most earnestly concurred in the feeling which dictated the latter portion of the remarks of his" Noble and Learned Friend. Lords DENMAN and CAMPBELL having concurred, The Earl of SHarrissuav put the motion, and the " non contents " being declared by him-unanimously to "have it," the claim of Sir Augustus d'Este to the Sussex Peerage is of course disallowed. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE: (RECEIVED THIS DAY.) At a General Meeting of the Jockey Club, held on Saturday last, July 6, It was resolved— That it being now proved that Running Rein was three yrs old when he ran for the Two yrs old Plate at Newmarket, Crenoline must be considered the winner of that race, and that the Duke of Rutland is entitled to the Plate. " That the thanks of the Jockey Club are eminently due, and are hereby offered to Lord George Bentinck, for the energy, perseverance, and skill which he has displayed in detecting, exposing, and defeating the atrocious frauds which have been brought to light during the recent trial respecting the Derby Stakes. " That it is the opinion of this meeting that no publication of the proceedings of the Jockey Club should be made without the consent of the stewards." The annual general meeting of the club will take place at, the New Rooms, Newmarket, on Wednesday next, July 10, after the races. INTELLIGENCE EXTRA. NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1844. MONDAY.—Duke of Bedflrd's Minotaur, Bst 81h, agst Mr. Pbysalis, 7st 71b ; T . Y .C. 150 h ft. FIRST SPRING MEETING,, 1847, Ft IDAY.—Three yrs old Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, for fillies out of mares that never bred a winner of 50/., &o. R.3l.—Duke of Bedford's by The Saddler, out of Monceda, and Fistiana—General Grosvenor's by Daedalus, out of his Brocard mare—Mr. Batson's by The Doctor; out of Revelry —Lord Exeter's ch by Hetman Platoff, out of Macremma— Sir W. W. Wynn's by Gladiator, dam by Buzzard; out of Emma, by Orville. NEWMARKET JULY MEETING. NEWMARKET, MONDAY NIGHT.—The Handicap did not till. The July Stakes.—The following have paid :—Tunick. Jet, sister to Canadian, Hersey, sister to C ame l eon, and G lee, The match between Glen Fishie and Petrowna completes the day's sport, which commences late. MARRIAGE IN HIGH LlEE.—The nuptials of Lord Charles Wellesley, second son of the Duke of Wel lington, and Miss Pierrepont, daughter of the Right llon. Henry Manvers Pierrepont, was solemnised this morning, in the presence of a most brilliant circle of the relatives and friends of both noble and distin guished families. Loss OF THE THOMAS, OF GLAsoow.—A letter has been received at Lloyd's this morning, from the Ad miralty, containing the official documents relating to the loss of the above vessel, on the coast of Guada loupe, the particulars of which were received about three or four weeks since. THE Wan' OF ERROR.—We received by the Victory steamer, Captain Parker, on Saturday morning, the London papers of Thursday evening, containing an ample and most interesting report of the first day's proceeding be fore the House of Lords in the hearing of the writ of error. We may take the opportunity of expressing our acknow ledgment, in common with our fellow journalists of the Irish press, to the conductors of The Sun newspaper, for the highly creditable exertion and enterprise by which they produce such ample and accurate reports of public proceedings in Parliament and the law courts in their afternoon editions each day, thus anticipating completely, and to the great accom modation of the provincial press through the country, the reports in the London morning papers. We have in its number of Thursday a report embracing all the proceedings before the House of Lords down to its adjournment, from which we shall compile our report.—Cork Southern Reporter. BLENHEIM PALACE.—The infant Earl of Sunder land, the first born of the Marquis and Marchioness of Bland_ ford, was baptized at the palace chapel, Blenheim, last wee k . The Marchioness of Londonderry presented the child at the font, who was named George Charles, the names of his paternal and maternal grandfathers. Besides the sponsors, them were also present the Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Louisa Spencer Churchill, Lady Caroline Stewart, Lord A. Churchill, and Lord Seaham. The font, richly embossed silver gilt, was presented by the Marquis of Londonderry to the infant Earl, his first grandson. SUICIDE.—A great deal of excitement was caused Yesterday at the Custom-house, in consequence of intelligence being received soon after the usual hour of attendance, that a young man named John Cooperot clerk in the Long-room establishment, had committed suicide at his residence. He was a young man of very gentlemanly manners, attentive to his duties, and much respected ; and no one can give any reason for the commission of the rash act‘ THE STATE TRIALS. (FIFTH DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAB') THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTO III The House: _presented an unusual appearance. 01 , tr woolsacks sTeie deserted, and the clerks' table wI;01 moved froneetoe upper part of the House down ottil liji bar. The rd Chancello r ' s c h a i r was placed head of the7.talle, around whi c h th e J u d ge s were s i 7o o , instead of their usua l seats upon the lower Nve° i All the Peers in the House' took their seats close bar. This arran gemen t was ma d e to re li eve the t . % 0 01 iiey-General f r om the necessity of so much e'er ; I ° o o he had yesterday to ma k e . The Right Hon. Ge n fee t) was accommodated. with a seat, and spoke in a tone, and leaning over the bar. Prayers having been read, this case was called oe eiestl The Arroneler-GENERAL resumed his arglieei behalf of the Crown. He l as t n i g ht ca ll e d the attv or of their Lordahips to the objections taken to ther ec t o he would now proceed to th e o th er p ar t o f the ebi e r ler and first, with regard t o th e c h a ll enge ; t h e ir I, ° t isfi were aware that the technical points argued beferedo were points of form with respect to the making -1 9 ell record in that House, and not involving anytheV took place in the Court of Queen's Bench in 1 7,4 1 but the points he was now going to argue were i ",,01 in the Court of Q ueen ' s B enc h i n I re l an d , andille given on them i n f avour of th e C rown. N ow he w _ A S first call their Lordships' atte n ti on t o th e the array, but perhaps it would be better before M o p to advert to the c h a ll enge it se lf, b ecause b e was 59 to when it was read all th e i r L or d s hi ps wou ld co me 0 0' conclusion that it was imp oss ibl e f or th e C r own t o r , any issue upon it, and th a t th e on l y course l e ft eloir them was to demur to the j u d gmen t. Th e i r Lord e were aware that, according to the challenge, it w a s array of special jurors, and the forms and teri: t e which the special jury was to be struck vas `6 , vided by the statute, the panel muscle, struck by the Sheriffs. Upon this eni e g Their Lordships would find, in the first place, nn 701 lion that any person was returned that was not qualified to serve as a juror—there was no 0, 10 that the panel returned by the sheriff was notch! one—and there was no all ega ti on th a t any of t h t he did not stand indifferent b e t ween t h e part i es —a" was no charge that th e p ar ti es ma ki ng t h e c hi were prejudiced by the array, and certainly theo do s no averment that any act of impropriety had be e Folt by the sheriff, or that th e C rown h a d i nter f ere d 04 0 re/urn to the indictment. In Coke upon Lyttletel d h e e B, the doctrine of chall enge to t h e array was laid, bill and it was there stated, that the challenge tang either for a principal cause of challenge of the Old a challenge by favour. The p r i nc i pa l ca u se of chase partiality in the offi cer return i ng the ; s o and if it, were established, the array was qua shet l st el matter of course. In a challeng e b y f avour , the was not quashed as a matter of course, but thell ) , was tried. The grounds of th e pr i nc i pa l JAI' were, that the sheriff or other officer returnljr array were of kindred or affinity to the plaintiff to stl fendant. Secondly, one o f th e j urymen were re is at the nomination of th e pl a i nt iff or d e f en d an t ; 0t h te lY, returned any one more fa voura bl e t o t h e one than. 00 0 1 other, or if the plaintiff or defendant had an set b l o pi battery or debt aga i ns t th e s h er iff , or the sheriff,.ooo action against them ; or if th e s h er iff were un d e r ta dj oe at the suit of eithe r p arty , or f or cause of an in ency ; • or, lastly, if he did not return hundreder s n . 6! hundreders ought to b e re t urne d . In a challerl-ee` favour, the challenge mu s t s h ow a ll the circunisl°S the case. If the plaintiff or defendant's daught er g el of affinity to the sheriff's son , t h at wou ld he ee! ground of challenge for f avour . Th e conse ene ° ol: quashing an array wo u ld b e t h at a new process fe issue to another o ffi cer , diff erent to the one wh °s te rli / had caused the arr a y t o b e quas h e d , who wou ld re or fresh panel. Their Lordships would find that %el! trine of challenges to the array laid down in „di' " Criminal Law," page 526 ; Viner's " Abriue,"Ek article "Trials ;" and Bacon's " Abridgment , JP; "Juries." The Learned Gentleman then pr.ne ee srf' quote a case in which a s h er iff h a d d e li vere d I n a l ' lb for the grand jury, and had sent it by a messenger bid plaintiff got hold o f th e messenger, an d ha d inn° At to alter the panel, by inserting certain names- e lir, time the old sheriff w as remove d, an d a new os ro le pointed. Th e arra y , was c h a ll enged, an d the ,o T6` sheriff came into C our t an d di savowe d t h e P ane f : bench decided that it m i g h t b e a goo d ground obutiOi lenge of the perso ns w h ose names were i nser ted, oul aric notagood ground of challenge in the array. Ile ' I r ag read the challenge in this instance, but their Ti to dei would perceive that there was no statement °f ile s hell of fault, partiality, or misconduct on the part ? f , t ei sionsa who returned the array. Although the alleee tno a the challenge were not made out, yet he unde.nrsaiiwt ofi it proceeded upon this principle—that if, in IV,, tue' the juror's book, under the statuteof 1 Willi° na me, should happen to be any omission' of anY we or' mattered not whether th e om i ss i on was o ne na o f twenty, but if there happ ene d t o b e the ornission. name of any person e ntitl e d to serve on r j a li rit r' es, ye. o ff' v. , ould be a good ground of challenge tothe i l l contended that there was no g round of challenge t o s, array in the case of this jury only ; but it ° ft go to any other jury. In fact, the allegation to show that no jury could be returned , d had nothing to do with th e o ffi cer ; b ut in fact wet to this, that no trial, civil or crimi na l, could i o e place in the year during which the mistake took Pti It was said if there were no jurors' book they ceu l yj the book of the year before. But surely they , eve u lt fot contend that there was not a regu l ar j urors ho o p 1R44, because some of the names were omitted. ~.0 0s ol P the same was most likely th e case w i t h the o pei 1843. It was exceedingly improbable that all the 1 1 were in that book. The fact was that the chalielto the array was not the pr o p er remedy for t he which the defendants alleged they had suffer ed :hie f Learned Friend Mr. Hill alluded to a propositio n tv it° had been made on th e p art o f the defendants to 51°,10' bona fides of the challenge, but his Learned Friel' 0 4 Attorney-General for Irel an d , would be guilty ° f lect of his duty if he consented to anything o f tile f i e' for if he had done so, it would prevent the f url l,, 0 11 1 being a good jury. (The Hon. and Learned Ge n t en' then referred to the provisions of the Act of ra r e u e sa c ,' under which the general list of jurors was Illa7 nt s The challenge began by stating that the CO grand jury cess delivered twenty lists to the and it went on to state that the Rec Order had u u e - e' out a list, b ut h ad not caused to he made out frame; several lists one genera l list containing the id a so' all the p ersons whose qualifications had been r ranged accordi ng t o ran k and property, svai the Rec or d er caused such to be fairly copied in '-ee order, Nobody had said that the Recorder h . , a te made out a g enera l li st — t h at it was not delivereli'res ui clerks of th e p eace, and to the sheriff by the e h ' e d S e e the peace. Nor was it denied that the sheriff :Ol i o made out the jury -list from it. But what wa s 0 11 0 10 was, that a list was made out with all They re L arranged according to rank and property. - " - p e s alr,; no denial that the Recorder had made out a gell though not a general list containing all th w e b is ir d e arranged accordin g t o ran k and property. ",tlea4l` e hat he would ca ll a negative pregnant. The went on:—" And the said Daniel. O'Connell sa•tiet ~ said paper writi ng , purporting to be such genera l , • ' aforesaid, did not conta i n the naives of eh the _ o r t re; whose qualifications h a d b een allowed upon theol; big, allowing, an d s i gning of said list as afbr" e'l the Recorder, but omitted the names of diverse be fifty-nine persons, whose qualifications to be on f el lists respectively had be en so allowed sefee# said by the said Recorder, which said sell ( P b. persons whose names were so omitted are as • bet e That was the c h a ll enge of Mr. Daniel O'Conneileelte begged to call th e attention of their Lordships t° ;re ' its ,it that the challenges of all the other defendants Ail ; ferent, for it was added, " for the purpose, an', eses!)riW4 intent of prejudicing the said so and so." Wile; meaning of the allegation that " a certain PaP e l e ole was made out by some person, or persons un- o n , h e What was the effect of it ? What was its bearing at case ? Ther e was no allegation in the challenge 0 1 Recorder had not made out a general list--tga t o s P o not delivered to the clerks of the peace--that i t • o pt b delivered to the sheriff. There was no allegt lll . l s in that list so made up, and so returned, there j eb •-st v 't omission of a single name. But there was an ;we P - ;tir , that there was an omission of, names from a ce r ",",,, 1 1 1 ` 1 0 ot writing, made up by some person, or persons, - 0 . o• O '', l c It was easy to see why the challenge was madetifer de way. They had not referred to the general lis t e - 40 be the Recorder and the other officers, Von - fo - of found it would be bard to do so without e.Beg'lniar''' against some one of the officers, In a subseclu e " t we si :h° the challenge, it was said that the challenge r 0.0 0 04 aware of or privy to the omission of the naln° he e . O O paper w r iti ng ; but there was no allegation th rn e es P the , general li s t, T he challenge then went °th▪ e `,general said D. O'C onne l l further says, tha" l., feel° t several person s w h ose names were so om i tte d the % re said fraudulent paper writing, purporting t?, be 0,.i3.00 neral list as aforesaid, were, at the time al t,.."„ e et e 1 turn of the collector's lists and at the t r ie - esc,i',ol said special sessions, and still are, sever,Al,l; e i, tltl within the county of the said city of 1/1: ' - iy ;4( 1 were at the said several times and now are d'a pl fled to be, and should and ought to haee bee n i ke ca ll upon the said genera l li st. " On this a;itegatin tl i v eto, their Lordship s ' at t ent i on to this faet, that it cli ii " er el , j o t pear that th e names so omitteel from the gors list 1 were qualified to be placed 'They were qualified to b e placed on the g e en e ali 6 e ,eo but there was no alle;gation that they were e ee e (5, be on the special , on the special P ee l ed t o l'arors' list, The challenge w ib er ss on to say, " arcs the said Daniel O'Connell fur rP °r " that from th ee said fraudulent paper writing, P'! W e e r to be siseh general list as aforesaid, a e er e tt een ti te purporting to be the jurors' book of the sal" e eet'r the 'city of Dublin for the current calendar „d t i fo r th h wit, for the year one thousand ei h hundred e" e ld ? g t four, was made up and framed." He ;t fra'i by whom w as i t made up, by whom was "t tea ce 0 t There wa s no averment that the book was nie by by the challenger himself ;it was not state' s to it was made up, or under what circumstallee nt ' pe ivY K not averred that the challenger himself was fl o e at, and a contenting party to the framing it. _ et be 70 ° minded them that the jurors' book could n_ le o, 0 up by the Recorder, as it was made up by the u„ feel?, the pence. The challenger then went on to saL oo e said book so purporting to be the j u rors' cu e rree t ; re l said county of the city for the d sal he sa id cu oa rd ? was made up the special jurors' list for t lit 11 % 0 0 year, to wit, for the year one thousand flg„,, w and forty-four." Again, he ivould est' . u g s tlenfi▪ he c -"La Was that done with the consent of the AP There was not a word to say that it was not. The ai but it I Officer. applict that fr shown chalk' oveissii ships f plea iv been c witnes sworn a plea does n they s 1 was at tot stg Were U tial pp •Itut th I.he g t ot Lori their c The 441 e of 'earns th ai I t ' xn i 'tY to ' 4l l)lrt I n ti ttle - 1 10 u s: t ho es . Would A fort the e - c, lea w that tl the Cc In " ( of « ::9 Bided xehei ked y And Co •'u of tib