The Sun. — London, England, 1844-09-04 00:00:00

ftfitrt ambition THE STATE TRIALS WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY. JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE QUEEN v. O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Lord DENMAN (in continuation from our After noon Edition) said—But their Lordships were not to be -satisfied merely with the opinions of the judges, they had a duty of their own to perform. They must satisfy their own consciences. The opinions of the judges were merely the materials for making up their minds, and they must be satisfied before their minds were made up. What had happened in that House not twelve months ago 'I There was an universal opinion of the • bar founded on three distinct judgments of different Lord of former times, as to the law of marriage. Lord Mansfield, Lord Kenyon, and Lord Ellen borough had all taken the same view as to the nature of the marriage contract, and Lord Stowell, who had had half a century of experience, and who had de voted the greater part of his time to the consider ation cf this subject, agreed with them in opinion. Their _Lordships had entered on the consideration of the case, and had requested the attendance and opinion of the judges. The judges had given their opinion, which was contrary to the opinion of their predecessors • but their lordships, convinced by the arguments Which had been laid before them, differed, toto ccelo, from the opinion of the judges, and felt bound to say, according to their own convictions, that the judges had not taken a correct view. On that question their lordships were equally divided ;and the consequence was that the judgment of the court below was affirmed contrary to the opinion given by the learned judges. He admitted that when he had first heard the argument on that point at the bar, he had heard it with surprise, but his surprise had afterwards changed its object, andi he was surprised not so much that the objection should have been taken, as that such a rule should ever have been considered law. He was convinced that it never had been law, and the slightest attention would show that such was the case. It had arisen from a dictum of Lord Mansfield's, not in a case relating to the criminal law, but in a case relating to the civil law when he was not called upon to inquire into the state of the criminal law on the subject; and when he went out of his way to make a grievance against the law, as he thought, he found it by making an antithesis between the civil and criminal law. He said that in a civil action in which there were several counts in the declaration, and in which a jury gave general damages, such a verdict would be laid aside if one of the counts of the declaration were bad, and he commented upon the inconvenience of such a rule. He regretted that it had not occurred to Lord Mansfield that there was a plain remedy for this inconvenience, and that he had nothing to do, while sitting at Nisi Prius, but to tell the jury to assess the damages upon each count, and then the verdict could be set aside upon those counts which were bad, while it would stand upon those which were good. Why it should be necessary to say that the rule was different in criminal cases he (Lord Denman) was at a loss to know. No doubt since that time the opinion had been universal in Westmin ster Hall. The Bar had all expressed the same opi nion, and why ? Because they had taken the law for granted. And here he would say that they looked at the law in columns, as it were, to consider on what it rested. They would find that a certain portion of it rested upon Acts of Parliament, a certain other portion upon decisions, a certain other portion upon dicta, and a considerable portion of it would be found to be taken for granted. There was a great deal which was taken for granted as law which when examined turned out to be no law at all, being founded on no reason, and resting on no deci sion—and such, he thought, was the case in the pre sent instance. He thought that his Learned Brethren, on Monday, must have forgetten certain facts con nected with the administration of the criminal law. They had stated that in an indictment for felony, consisting of several counts, it was usual to take a general verdict, and if there was one good count that was sufficient. He denied that that was the universal practice. Whenever he tried criminal cases in which there were several counts, he always put it to the jury in this manner— "Do you think there is anything on such a point ? if not, you will acquit him on that point." For in stance, in case of an indictment for attempt to murder, to maim and disable to do some grievous bodily harm, be would say, with regard to the attempt to murder, "if you consider he did not intend to murder, you will strike that out at once. It is clear that he never intended to disable, therefore you will acquit him on that point. There is no evidence to support the intention to maim ; and with regard to the count alleging some grievous bodily harm, you will consider it." Now, in that case a jury would most probably bring in a verdict of not guilty on the three first counts, and convict on the last alone. That was the proper course for a judge to pursue, and one which would xemove all difficulty. It was said that the adoption of such a course would 'give rise to the in convenience of the judges being called on to form an opinion upon the goodness of the counts before the delivery of a verdict. No inconvenience could arise ; on the contrary, he thought great good would be pro duced from their adoption of the practice. In his opinion there could not be a greater grievance and oppression than these endless, unintelligible, nnwieldly, voluminous indictments. An indictment extending over fifty-seven pages was itself a grievance ; many prisoners could not afford to pay the clerk of the peace for a copy, and, when they got it, the most learned persons could not find out with what the prisoners were charged. The words were so ambiguous, that it might be that the pleader who drew it up might mean one thing, the jury another, the judge a third, and the court of error a fourth, if they did not overthrow the whole judgment. There was also a mistake as to the prac tice of the Court of Queen's Bench in this country. It was said that when an arrest of judgment was moved on one count, the court was in the habit of refusing if there was an other count which would support the verdict. Had that been so in the case of Feargus O'Connor ? He had been convicted on two counts. The Court had heard the argument on one count in arrest of judgment, and had granted it, and then had proceeded to hear arguments on another count, which was so full of verbosity and ambiguous expressions, that the At torney-General discovering the great doubt which the court entertained, had never pressed for judgement. No inconvenience could arise from adopting the cor rect practice. In a case of conspiracy which he had tried at Guildhall, objection had been made to a count. He said it was immaterial, as he was not going to pass judgement then, but had he been going to do so, he should have considered the goodness of the count, also where there were several counts on each, saying, "we apportion such and such a punishment to such a count, ana l such and such a punishment to others." And thus it would be reserved for the after- considera tion of the Court, how far the objections affected that judgment. Such was the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the proper mode, as it seemed to him, of proceeding. But his Noble and Learned Friends said that the objections were merely technical, and that no injustice could arise from the course that bad been followed by the Court below. Now lie must say that he thought there would be the greatest injustice. The case was not the same as if some irre levant stuff had been inserted which imputed offences. But it was impossible not to see that if there had been three or four indictments, some of them bad, and the court had passed judgment on all these, the case would be the same, and there would be the greatest injustice, for the court might pass its judgment on the strongest clauses, and then the bad ones. The first case, which was relied on by his Noble and Learned Friend was, that of the King v. Powell, where the defendant was indicted for two ' o ffences—assault with a certain intent, and with a common assault. The jury found a verdict generally, and a writ of srror was brought on the ground that the defendant was fos. , nd guilty on two indictments. Now, there was o ne remark which fell from Mr. Justice Taun ton, to which he (LordDenman) wished to direct atten tion. That learned judge said that there were not two indictments, that there was but one act charged, 2nd that the defendant was found guilty o f on ly one o ffence. The words " misdemeanour" and " offence" camprised both the counts, and formed, in fact, a nomen conjunctium applying to one act. He thought that the decision of the judge separated that case from tWs aver I. The next case is led on was that of the King v , Mut Is" for suborn stion of perjury . Sonia ingstreire dee.ned bad, be( a , us time were n o nt psrjt.ry in them. The view taken of that case by the Lord C hief Justice Holt was, that there was only one offence, that of perjury, and that it was no matter what werethe as sign - nents. 'Now to him (Lord Denman) that answer completely _removed the case from the present argu ment. Thk- next case was an indictment against a man and his wife• for assault. There the objection was sc m 'what or a grammatical nature. In the first part of the indictment the singular number was used in the words " vulneravit verberavit." But on the latter part the error was corrected, " vulneravesunt et verberaverunt." In that case Mr. Justice Parker held that there was only one count, and that the verdict was rightly found. These were the only cases which were relied on, and these were all the authorities on •which he state of the English law before Lord Mans. field Was nfArmed to be in support of his Noble and Learned F4end. But they relied further on cases which occurred since : Let them first, however, consider THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 4, 1844. - What was the weight of Lord Mansfield's general dictum. His learned brother, Baron Parke, with more doubt than his subsequent argument seemed to war rant, had shown their Lordships that it was not of great weight as applied to this case. He (Lord Denman) concurred in that view. He would come now to the causes which were afterwards cited. The first was the King v. Hill, Ist Powell and Ryan, that case was relied on, but he could not see what bearing it had on the present case. There were several counts; they all charged one offence and some of the counts were objected to. The judge said that lie would reserve the objections, but in the meantime would pass sentence, and if all the counts were found bad judgment would be arrested; but if one was good the sentence would be carried into effect, but that it was the practice of the Court of King's Bench to take care that no verdict should be taken for the Crown on a bad count. The next case was that of the King v. Mason, an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences, for which the punishment was dis cretionary—either pillory with imprisonment, or transportation. Now it was admitted that in the indictment two of the counts were bad; but it was evident that there was great want of distinctness in the case as an authority, for the learned reporter himself said in his marginal note that judgment was arrested. That case, however, was very different from those in which the successive counts contained cumulative charges, which would lead to greater punishment in the discretion of the court. Now he thought that in those cases where there were bad counts, the discretion might be ill exercised, and he thought the court was bound to arrest the judgment, lest it should appear to have been awarded on the bad counts. The King v. Young was no authority on the point, although it was relied on by his noble and learned friends. But there the court only refused to arrest the judgment in the way stated, because there were good counts in the indictment, but it is relied on that because no writ of error was brought the decision of the court must be taken as conclusive. Yet, there was actually no means of trying in what way the judgment was entered upon the record, nor was there anything whatever to show whether a writ of error could or could not be brought. His noble and learned friend said that the point had never been decided by a court of error, and, therefore, it was only difficult to make out any authorities upon this very doubtful, very loose, and (he would say) very censurable practice. His Noble and Learned Friend said this was purely technical in its nature, and that the effect of it would be, that if a party were found guilty, not generally upon such an indict ment, but upon the good counts only, he would not be able to defend himself in case of any other charges being brought against him, by pleading that he had been already punished ; for the answer would be "No," because he had not been punished on the imperfect counts. What was the answer given by one of the most acute and learned persons he had ever the good fortune to meet with in an argument ?—let him observe not stated with any doubt—it was stated by Mr. Justice Coltman, whose plain and manly understanding brought the question before them in a way that could not be doubted. He said it was an injustice that a person should be punished who could not plead that punishment against being punished a second time on the same state of facts. What was the answer of Mr. Justice Patteson to that ? He said that the proceedings would be estopped. Why were they not estopped now, a conviction having taken place on this indictment ? Now, again, there would be a difficulty in calling on the judge to decide at the assizes whether a count was good or bad; and they were to assume that he did so decide, and they were to get rid of that question, whether the decision was good because he did not so decide. They were to have it both ways. They were to assume it was too difficult for him to give his mind to the subject at all, and they were to say that he had apportioned the judgment on those counts which were good in point of law. He thought when they got rid of the supposed authorities, the dicta founded on a mistaken and unfortunate observation of Lord Mansfield, that the principle would appear altogether unsatisfactory, and he thought when they looked at the record itself, without at all adverting to the other circumstances of the case, it would be found that judgment was pronounced on counts stating no offence, as well as on counts stating that there had been offences upon which there were erroneous findings entered up, and that therefore the judgment of the court below had been incorrectly passed. He stated again that this point overpowered him not only with its novelty, but with the clear and demonstrated force upon which, when he came to the examination of the arguments, it rested, and he took up, therefore, the principle on which he thought they could only set aside the judgment of the court below, namely, that what had been done by the court below was not properly done. He regarded the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin with the greatest possible respect, and he had the highest opinion of the talents and endowments of the learned judges of that court, He had still a greater veneration for the opinions of his learned brethren here, with whom he acted, and for whom he entertained the greatest pos sible respect. He acted there, however, as a judge for himself, and he felt bound in duty to ex ercise his judgment on the reasons brought before him. He thought that the reasoning in support of the judg ment was not good in point of law, and it was his duty to vote against the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend. Lord COTTEMIAM then proceeded to deliver his judgment. He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend who preceded him, as to the difficulty in which any Member of the House was placed who felt him self called on to come to a conclusion adverse to the great majority of the judges, and the effect of an opinion expressed by a great majority of the judges ought, of course, to make any one extremely cautious] of coming to a conclusion con trary to what was expressed by their opinion, and it ought to make one watch every step o ne t oo k and to weigh every conclusion which the mind was supposed to come to, in order that if a person came to an opinion adverse to that of the majority; and he should exercise all the powers with which he was invested if he was to come to a different conclusion. lie adopted that course, he carefully attended to all that had been urged at their Lordships' bar, and all the reasons that had been urged by the Lord Chief Justice in delivering the opinions of the judges. He hesitated at every step of the reasoning, as he followed him, and he still came to the conclusion that the opinion expressed by the majority was wrong, and•the opinion expressed by the minority was right. He apprehended it was his bounden duty to state the reasons upon which he came to that conclusion. They asked for the assistance of the learned judges, in order to inform the House, to assist them in coming to a right conclusion in matters of law, and their opinions were entitled to great weight, but they were not to bind the House, they were merely to assist the House; and no doubt when a majority of them came to one conclusion, the great est caution and care should be taken at every reason ing upon which one felt bound to come to a different opinion. On a question which lately came before their Lordships, there was a unanimous concurrence of the judges, and two of their Lordships concurred in their opinions, and two others dissented, so that the decision come to was against the opinion of all the judges. Upon one part of the case, to which his Noble and Learned Friend had last adverted, namely, the point of the challenge of the array, he would merely advert to, for the purpose of guarding him self against the supposition of forming an opinion adverse to the case of the plaintiffs in error. He would only say that, if the judgment in that case was right, it would establish this strange proposition that there was no remedy for an acknowledged wrong of great magnitude. The only part of the case on which he would address any observations to the House was, as to the effect to be given to tha opinion of the learned judges, who thought that the first, second, third, and seventh counts of the indictment were to be rejected; the two last because they were bad in them selves, the others because the findings and the enter ing upon the findings were erroneous, and that a judgment and sentence of the court, which was " for his offences aforesaid " could not be impugned. A court of law could not be affected by a consideration of the nature of the counts which it was called on to reject. The question they had to consider was, whe ther there was error in the record, and if they read the record as any other document, and only gave to the words found there the construction they would receive if used in any other instrument, could it be for a moment doubted that, on the intend ments stated in the indictments in the several counts, the jury had found a verdict of guilty upon all, and that the defendants, for the offences aforesaid, _ were subject to punishment ? Had not the court below passed sentence for the offences in the sixth and seventh count, as well as for the offences charged in the others ? It was so found in the record, and were they to say that the court had 'not passed sentence upon all the counts ? He considered that the only , answer given, namely, that the court only passed sen tence upon the good counts, was unsatisfactory. They could not look to the record to ascertain cer tam proceedings not mentioned in it. Some of the arguments that had been used, supposed the court below to be right in all particulars. In his opinion the reverse was the fact ; there was manifest error on the record, and it was not competent for a court of error to inquire into the causes of that error. Supposing there was a charge in a count of a malignant libel, and that count was proved to be bad, w as it to be said that the party was to be punished equally as if the count was good? Now, the judg ment of the House was to be governed by the cases that had taken place ; and with respect to them se ve _ ral had been referred to. Two classes of cases had been cited, the second of which he considered 414 to be applicable to the present case; the first were utterly inapplicable. The Noble and Learhed Lord then adverted to the cases of the Queen v. Rhodes and the Queen v. Ingram, for the pur pose of showing that the court in those cases had arrested the judgment on the ground that, some of the counts being proved to be bad, the court could not apportion the punishment. Young v. the King had been relied upon on the part of the Crown. He had carefully examined that case, and he did not consider that the decision pronounced in it had any bearing whatever on the present. It had been said, that in the King v. Mason, a misdemeanour was charged on two counts, and therefore the judgment was sustained. Now that was not the fact ; and in the King v. Fuller, it was clearly laid down that judgment could not be passed if there was any good count. From all these authorities, it appeared that the rule in criminal cases, on a motion in arrest of judgment was, that the court having ascertained, before it pro nounced judgment, what counts were good and what bad, awarded the punishment, as it thought right, upon the offences contained in the good counts. It appeared to him that a court of error was in precisely the same predicament. It had no more jurisdiction over the quantum of pu nishment, and no better means of referring one por tion of it to one count, or another to another, than a civil court had with respect to damages in an action. In both cases the judgment proceeded on an indict ment which was found to be defective, and having come to one result upon the whole, which the su perior jurisdiction could not apportion, the same necessity existed in the one case as in the other, of holding the whole to be bad. It had been urged that much inconvenience would arise from adopting this rule. He felt satisfied that the inconvenience which would arise from the opposite course would be far greater, and would in many cases be productive of great injustice. The only inconvenience was, that the prosecutor would be com pelled to be careful as to the counts upon which he rested his case; whilst the rejection of the rule would deprive the defendants of the benefit of a writ of error. The rule contended for by the de fendants was founded on principle, and necessary for the purposes of justice; and it was in perfect analogy with the decisions in civil and criminal cases. The opinion which he had then expressed he formed early in the argument. He had carefully attended to all that had been urged at the bar by the majority of the judges against it, and lie had not found any reason for altering his view. Lord CAMPBELL then proceeded to read his judg ment. He said it was now his duty to state to their Lordships the opinion which, after great considera tion, he had formed upon the questions of law raised by this record, and to these, of course, he should strictly confine himself. In the first place, he had no doubt that there were various good counts in the indictment. A conspiracy: to effect an unlawful purpose, ur to effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means, was, by the common law of England, an indictable offence ; and if several persons deliberately plotted mischief to an individual or to the State, they were liable to punishment, although they might have done no act in execution of their purpose. Where they had actually done what they intended to do, it might be more proper to prosecute them for illegal acts; but in point of law, they remained liable for the offence of entering into a conspiracy. The first five counts in this indictment clearly charged the de fendants with having conspired together to effect un lawful:purposes. The fifth count was strongly objected to. He considered that any person who deliberately attempted to promote feelings of and hosti lity between different classes of her Majesty's sub jects, to make the English hated by the Irish, or the Irish by the English, was guilty of a most culpable proceeding, and that, if several combined to do so, they committed a misdemeanour, for which they might be indicted and punished. He was likewise clearly of opinion that the plea in abatement was bad in form, if not in substance, for not averring that there were not other witnesses duly sworn, on whose evidence the indictment might have been supported, and for not showing that the witnesses who were examined could not on account of their religious profession have been lawfully examined without being sworn in. He thought the Court of Queen's Bench was fully authorised to continue the trial in the vacation, and that the order for that purpose, though conditional, was quite sufficient. In his opi nion, the rule of the common law requiring the con tinuance of the order did not apply. The question raised by the writ of error coram nobis was more doubtful. The assignment of error in respect to the witnesses not having been sworn in court, was free from defects fatal to the plea in abatement. He had no difficulty in over-ruling Mr. Steele's point, that there was no statement written on the indictment of the names of the witnesses sworn. He was at first much struck with the objection to the validity of the judgment by reason of the form of the recognisance into which the defendant was required to enter, and he was by no means free from doubt upon it then, although he was not prepared to say that it would be a sufficient ground for reversal. It must be taken to be part of the sentence pronounced upon the defendant for the offences of which he had been found guilty, and it could not be separated from the finding. The recognisances imposed in this case might lead to perpetual imprisonment. Magna Charta provided that no fine should be im posed upon any party which it was out of his power to pay. The effect of the sentence, in this case, would be, that if the required recognisances were not found, the party would remain in prison for the rest of his life. He felt still more difficulty when he came to the next part of the case—probably the most important part of it, as it was not merely a technical question, but one which affected the administration of justice—he meant the constitution of the jury by whom the defendants were tried. The only question here was, whether the challenge to the array was a remedy which the law allowed. (The Noble and Learned Lord here read that portion of the plea of the defendants which applied to this part of their case.) Now, he was clearly of opinion that the defendants ought not to have been tried by a jury constituted in the manner described in the case of the plaintiffs in error. It was there described not merely as a casual omission of names, but the averment was that the names had been fraudulently omitted. He conceived that under such circumstances the panel ought to have been quashed. No other remedy was suggested. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack bad suggested no remedy. If the jury list was found to be defective, the jury list of the former year ought to have been brought into operation as thOugh no list had been formed for the current year. He confessed that he should not have been inclined to ad vise their Lordships to reverse the judgment merely upon this ground upon his own sole opinion, but since writing his judgment he had listened to the argu ments of his Noble and Learned Friend the Chie Justice of the Queen's Bench, and also those of Mr. Justice Coltman. The jury were unanimous in the opinion that the finding of the jurymen on the Ist, 2d, and 3d counts of the indictment were contrary to.law. His opinion was that the punishment must be taken as having been bad awarded in respect of the supposed offences charged in the bad counts. According to the plain use of language and the com mon sense of mankind, the defendants were being punished on charges which did not amount to crimes, and for crimes of which they had not been con victed. With respect to the bad counts, it was said that it was a rule of law if there were any good counts, a bad count would not vitiate the judgment. It would be strange if such were the universal rule. Such might very well be the case where only one corpus dilicti was charged in an indictment consisting of more than one count in utile per inutile non vitiatur ;" but where the separate counts of an indict anent charged distinct offences, they must be consi dered as separate indictments, and, as had been shown in the case of Feargus O'Connor, where the court had arrested the judgment upon one count as soon as it was discovered to be bad. They were told that they were to presume that the court below knew what . counts were bad, and what were good, and passed judgment upon those' counts only which were good. Such an opi nion would be contrary to the whole spirit of our law, which supposed judges to be fallible, and p rov id e d a machinery by bills of exceptions, writs of error, and other expedients for the correction of any errors into which they might fall ; and it would be contrary to fact, for all the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland had held the sixth and seventh counts to be unexceptionable. He would suppose a case, in which there were two counts, A and B, A being a good count and B a bad one, the court below held B, which charged a grave offence, to be good, and A, which charged a light offence, to be bad, and passed sentence on the count B, would it be held that a court of error, finding the count B to be bad, would be bound to subject a man to that severe punishment, because A, charging a lighter offence, was good ? This doctrine was attempted to be upheld on authority, and by the general opinion of the profession. The dictum of Lord Mansfield referred solely to motions in arrest of judgment, and not to writs of error. It had no application at all to the present case; and in the cases of the " King and Mason," and the " King and Young," the point had not been raised. The case in " Russell and Bligh" amounted to nothing, as the Court had no power to consider any thing but the point reserved; and in the " King and Powell" it was decided that misdemeanour and offence must be con- sidered as a novum collectinum, and as both counts were held good, there could be no doubt that the judg ment was correct. In indictments for perjury, if one assignment were good, that would support a verdict, because perjury was but one offence, and one good assignment was sufficient to support it, how many bad ones soever there might be in the indictment. It was said that this indictment ought to be supported on the ground of expediency. He could not see what inconvenience could possibly arise from taking a verdict upon such count, and passing sentence only upon those counts which were good. He understood that Mr. Baron Rolfe had passed sentence in an indictment for murder in whic! - I one count was bad, but in such a cafe no practical difficulty would arise, as where one felony was proved it was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty, and it could never be worth the while of a person con victed of felony on one good count to sue out a writ of error. But in cases of misdemeanour it was very different, for according to the present loose system of drawing up indictments, a pleader having drawn one good count, might go o n d raw i ng o th e r counts, each increasing in vagueness and ambiguity, until he involved the party indicted in such perplexity, that there would be the greatest difficulty in ascertaining of what he was accused. There could be no difficulty in taking a verdict of acquittal, or entering a nolli prosequi on the counts that were bad, and passing judgment only on those that were good. It had been said by the learned judges, with the ex ception of Justice Patteson, on the good counts only, and not on the three, bad ones ; and yet, those counts contained the most serious charges, including that of creating discontent in the army. Now, could their Lordships concur in the incredible fiction, that the judges, having the general verdict, so far neglected their duty as to overlook those grave charges? He would remind their Lordships that they were not bound by the opi nion of the majority of the judges. The appeal was not from the Irish to the English judges, but to that Chamber, in the exercise of one of its most important functions, which he hoped their Lordships would long continue to exercise for the benefit of the coun try and the protection of its liberties. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question thus —ls it your Lordships' pleasure that the judgment be reversed ? Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell said " Content." Lord Brougham and two or three Tory Peers (lay Lords) said " Not Content." The LORD CHANCELLOR was about to put the ques tion again, in the usual form, previous to taking tie numbers or dividing, wh en _ Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose, but on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, he sat down, put on his hat, and addressed the House from his seat. He said that he did not think it desirable that their lordships should divide, as there was a majority of the law lords in the House in favour of the appeal. He humbly recommended those of their Lordships who were not law lords—and who, not having heard the whole case, were not so well qualified to judge of the question—to abstain from voting. It was far better that the character of the House, as a court of appeal, should be maintained, and that their decision should be against the opinion of the majority of the judges— even though in this case it should produce great inconvenience—than that those Lords who had not heard the case should, by their interference, reverse the judgment of those members to whom the deci sion of such cases was usually committed by the prac tice of the House. _ _ Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred in the opinion of the majority of the judges in Ireland and England. But he also agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken that it was more advisable that those cf their Lordships who had not heard the case, should not vote. He deeply lamented the division to which the House would come; but he would now only say, that when he differed from the majority of the judges on the question of Presbyterian Marriages in Ireland, he did so upon the authority of Lord Stowell and other eminent persons. Lord CAMPBELL had voted with his Noble Friend on the question of Presbyterian Marriages, and for the same reason. He would now only say that the dis tinction between lay Lords and law Lords was not known to the Constitution, but that it was the rule of all courts of law that no judge should decide a case which he had not heard. The Duke of CLEVELAND was understood to say that he had paid great attention to the case, and that he thought he had a right to vote upon it. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that if any other lay Peer voted, he would vote also, although he thought it would be calamitous for the character of the House, as a Judicial Body, if the established rule in such cases were departed from. After a few words from Lord VERULAM, the whole of the lay Peers withdrew. The question was again put, and Lords Cottenham, Denman, and Campbell having voted for the reversal of the judgment, and Lord Broligham against it, The LORD CHANCELLOR said—My Lords, TIIE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—If we are later than some of our Con temporaries in noticing Mr. Ward's " Ideal of a Christian Church," we derive this advantage from delay—that three months having now elapsed since its publication, we are entitled to express surprise that an open plea far Popery, and protest against the Reformation, by a clergyman of the Church of England and resident fellow of Baliol College, Oxford, has yet evoked no remonstrance from the University, or censure from his diocesan. Mr. Ward's work is a long one ; but a very few passages, or even sentences, are sufficient to enable our readers to judge whether we have fairly described it as an open plea for Popery, and protest against the Reforma tion. Protestantism," says Mr. Ward, "is intellectu ally the subtlest and most extensively poisonous of heresies, just as Lutheranism is morally?' (p. 41.) Mr. Ward is speaking of the English Reformation, when he expresses, in page 44, " the deep and burning hatred with which some members of the Church (in cluding myself) regard that miserable event." And in a note in the same page, determined that there shall be no mistake about his feelings, he adds, "I cannot agree with those who prefer the English Reformation to the foreign ; so far from it, I know of no single movement in the Church, except Arianism, in the fourth century, so destitute of all claims on our sympathy and regard." Mr. Ward charges against the Reformation that it has violated two great prin ciples—the sacredness of hereditary religion, and the supremacy of the moral consci ence . A clergyman of the Church of England, holding such opinions as we have already quoted, is a funny champion of " the supremacy of the moral conscience." The meaning of this phrase we do not profess to understand; it may be a misprint for " supre macy cf the Roman pontiff;" for Mr. Ward tells us, in page 480, that he takes the oath of supremacy, " which would naturally be understood as denying spiritual authority to the Pope," in a " non-natural sense." In the same "non-natural " way he sub scribes the eleventh article, which enunciates justifi cation by faith only; for Mr. Ward thinks this (4 a most atrocious and immoral senti ment," and stigmatise s it as i nvente d b y L u th er for his heresy. The Romish Church, as it is, if it is not its e lf, Mr. Ward's , to, For my o wn part, I t hi n k i t wou ld not rightielda com ese l ld ea l ." nearest to , conceal—indeed, I am anxious openly to express my most firm and undoubted conviction, that were we, as a Church, to pursue such a line of conduct as has been sketched in this work, in proportion as we did so, we should be taught from above to discern and appreciate the:plain marks of Divine wisdom and autho rity in the Roman Church, to repent in sorrow and bitterness of heart, our great sin in deserting his com munion, and to sue humbly at his feet for pardon and restoration. . . . In these two necessary and fundamental duties of a Church (moral and religious discipline and orthodox faith), never in any period has the Roman Catholi c Ch urc h shone with brighter lustre than since the Reformation." (P. 472.) There can be no mistake about the sentiments of the author of the above passages, and no chance of his being unjustly judged by them. Mr. Ward does not con sider that he Subscribes the twenty-second article of the Church, on Purgatory, in " a non-natural sense," but looks upon the common understanding of that article as " non-natural." He thinks that the twenty second article "cannot, without distortion, be ap plied to abstract Roman doctrine at all ;" and that so to apply it is to force the natural mean ing of the article as much as he himself forces the eleventh article, in order to sign it. (p. 480.) This is Mr. Ward's view of the present state of the Church. "In a word, lam perfectly convinced that no one clergyman of our Church would be able to subscribe all such formularies of our Church in a natural and straightforward sense; and I attribute this fact to the utter want of fixed religious principles displayed by the leading Reformers." (p. 481). And Mr. Ward is a clergymen of a Church based on Arti cles, some of which he avows that he subscribes in " a non -natural sense," and having its distinctive birth in the Reformation, for which he feels " deep and burning hatred," w hi c h h e ca ll s " a m i sera ble event," and to whose promoters he ascribes " utter want of fixed religious principles.". Where is the Bishop of Oxford? Mr. Ward is also a resident Fellow of a College in a University which makes the Articles of the Church of England the test of membership, and will not part with that test, to allow avowed Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to share in its advantages. Where are the orthodox zealots who raised the in sulting clamour against Mr. Everett's degree—where the lusty champion of purity of doctrine who hounded on Dr. Pusey, and Mr. Newman, and Mr. Sewell, to e , prosecute Dr. Hampden, that they have been silent all this while on the subject of Mr. Ward's extraor- , dinary production ? Do they who strained at Dr. Hampden's gnat, bolt Mr. Ward's camel ? STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle will not await, or permit us to await silently, the decision of the House of Lords upon the writ of error in Mr. O'Connell's case. Our Contemporary has, this day, a long article upon the subject, in which, however, it does not make the slightest allusion to what we said yesterday of the complete finding upon the unobjectionable eleventh count, which count, fully found and free from all exception, comprises the whole offence, with all its attributes, as variously laid in the other ten counts. This eleventh count, in fact, describes a crime which could receive no aggravation whatever from the most ennr!eff. finding- of the oth^r ten. To even mention it would, of course, be fatal to the whole of our Contemporary's argument, which goes upon the hypothesis suggested, we regret to say, by Mr. Baron Parke, that the several counts of the indictment charge either separate offences, or at least the parks integrantes of one offence, or more; and by consequence, that the judgment pro nounced upon the convicted culprit must be taken as compounded of modicums of pu nishment proportioned to the guilt imputed by the counts severally. Now, with all respect for the Morning Chronicle and Mr. Paron Parke, we contend that this hypothesis is wholly untenable. The counts of an indictment do not charge different offences, or parks integrantes of one offence or more. Each count is a substantive indictment per se, and whatever their number, these counts all charge but one and the same offence— they charge that offence in different aspects, and in varied terms, in order to meet all the possi ble chances of a trial. A different hypothesis leads to the absurdity of supposing that when a grand jury presents an indictment containing several counts, twenty-three gentlemen upon their oaths falsely assert that several offences have been committed, where, in fact, there has been but one; and it may be worthy of Baron Parke's con sideration to get out of this difficulty, and to reflect whether the intervention of the grand jury does not wholly destroy his fanciful analogy between civil and criminal cases in this respect. But if the counts of an indictment are, as the truth is, but multiplied descriptions of one and the same offence, it is obvious that the punishment due to the offence is neither augmented nor diminished by the number of these descriptions that may be found de fective or sufficient, accurate or inaccurate. It is precisely the same thing whether a party be convicted upon one sufficient and accurate description or upon fifty. THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES , BRITISH FUNDS. Bank Stock — 1 Indian 5t0ck............... 280 3 per Cent. Red 9914 Ditto Bonds .. ... . . ....... 03 Pm 3 per Cent. Cons . 3% per Cent. Red lO2 Ditto New Annuities ... New 3% per Cent. lOlU'Ex. Bills, 1,0004 I%d ... 75 pm. New 5 per Cent. — Ditto 5001. Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small 73 pm. Jan 1860 l2 7-16 Bank Stock for Acct.... Oct. 1859 Consols for Act. 99% Jan. 1860 l2 3-16 India Stock for Acct.... 281 -- ^ -- FOREIGN FUNDS. Austrian, 5 per Cent ...... ... 'Portuguese, 5 per Cent — Belgian, 5 per Cent lO2ll, Ditto, New Ditto.... ....... .... Brazilian Bonds Buenos Ayres, 6 per Cent... Russian, 5 per Cent Chllian, 6 per Cent ....... ..... 102% Ditto, Metallic Colombian, 6 per Cent Ditto, 1824 ......... ........ !Ditto, 3 per Cent ....... ...... .. 33% Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent — 'Ditto, Deferred Danish, 3 per Cent ... ....... .. ;French, 5 per Cent. —t —c. Greek, 1825, 5 per Cent — Exchange —f. —c. Mexican, 5 per Cent . ... .... ,French, 3 per Cent. Bof. 50. Ditto, 6 per Cent., 1837 j Dutch, 2% per Cent...... 61 % Peruvian, 1825, 6 per Cent — /Ditto, 5 per Cent ..„.....100% SHARES. Birmingham and Gloucester (100 paid) lll Ditto, New Shares, 17% paid 27% Chester and Holyhead ( a paid) Edinburgh and Glasgow, 50 paid Great Western (75 paid) Ditto Firths, 12 paid Hull and Selby, 50 paid 65 Ditto Half Shares, 10 paid London and Birmingham (Stock) Ditto, Quarter Shares ( 2 paid) London and Brighton (50 paid) London and South Western (411. 6s. 10d. paid) Ditto Eighths (15s. paid) Lynn and Ely, 1% paid .AS M ' . - ‘,l Lee& - .anchester and _ is (70 paid, Ditto New Quarters ( 2 paid) ll% Manchester and Birmingham Midland Counties (WO paid) lOB ~. North British, 2% paid --% Northern and Eastern (45 paid) Paris and Rouen,2o paid STATE OF TRADE.—The yarn market continues steady, but without animation, so far as regards the ship ping demand ; but with a very animated inquiry for cop yarn suited for the home trade. Goods are very quiet, and some descriptions are a shade lower than on Tuesday last.—Manchester Guardian. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, SEP TEMBER 2.—The market has been much the same as for some weeks past ; perhaps with rather less in quiry for the coarser kind of goods. There has not been much activity in the wool market, and no change in prices. NARROW ESCAPE.—On Monday night, soon after ten o'clock, three inspectors of the Thames police, named Hambrook, Everest, and Griffin, were going down the river in one of the police galleys on the ebb tide, when their boat was capsized, and they narrowly escaped a watery grave. It appears that the City of Aberdeen steam-ship, lying off the police-station at Wapping, came up the river at seven o'clock, and was riding head upon tide, with one rope out ahead of her, made fast to the London, about eighty yards ahead, and another to the shore. In making their way towards the station, the inspectors shot ahead of the London to get inside the City of Aberdeen ; and while they were passing directly between the two vessels, a steamer coming up at full speed caused so much commotion in the water that the warp ahead of the City of Aberdeen became taut just as the galley was passing over it, and lifted the boat high into the air, turned it right over, and threw the inspec-_ tors into the river. Fortunately they were all expert swimmers, and, though two of them were encumbered with heavy clothing, they all managed to reach the shore, and landed at Wapping New-stairs much exhausted. The galley was carried under the paddle-wheel of the City of Aberdeen, where it remained fast between two floats until several constables put off and got it clear. During the last six months eleven of the Thames police have been thrown overboard while passing over the warps to which the steamers are made fast, near the Aberdeen and Dundee Steam-wharf, and unless something is done to abate the evil, and compel a safer mode of mooring the steam-ships, similar accidents and loss of life must inevitably occur. HER MAJESTY'S MARINE EXCURSION.—WINDSOR, TUESDAY EVENING. - --Ten of her Majesty's ponies and six of his Royal Highness Prince Albert's saddle horses left the Castle this morning, and were conveyed by the Great Western Railway from Slough to Paddington, en route to Woolwich, to be embarked on board one of the Government steamers for Scotland. They are to reach Blair Atholl by Monday next. The present arrange ments are, for the Queen and the Prince Consort to take their departure from the Castle on Monday, proceeding from Windsor to the Farnborough station (where pre parations are now in progress for the accommodation of her Majesty), and thence by a special train to the coast of Hampshire, whence they will set sail in the Royal Victoria and Albert yacht. The Court is not expected to be absent from Windsor for more than three weeks or a month. LONGEVITY. ied, a few days since, in Killarney, a cat and a parrot, belonging to Mr. John M'Seehy, New-street, both at the advanced age of 86 years. The cat and parrot had been given to him by the late Sir Aubrey De Vere Hunt, of Curragh House, county of Limerick.—Dublin Packet. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) • WANDSWORTH. Yesterday James Dawes, waggoner to the Earl of Lovelace, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Surrey, and John Clements, carmen to Mr. Collins, a distiller at By fleet, Surrey, was brought before Mr. Clive for re-ex amination, the former charged with stealing a bundle of hay, the property of the above-mentioned nobleman, and the latter with receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen. The facts, as detailed at the first examination, were as follows :—On Friday morning last, at about half-past five o'clock, police-constable Gardiner, 279 V, was on duty in the high-street, Wandsworth, when he observed the two prisoners behind a waggon loaded with hay. The constable saw Dawes draw it bundle of hay from under the waggon, and give it to Clements, who put it into his cart. The constable afterwards went to Cle ments, and told him that he had been doing wrong in taking the hay, when the latter said that it was no busi ness of his, and drove off. The policeman caught hold of the reins, and was dragged upwards of half a mile before another constable came to his assistance, when he took the prisoner into custody, and afterwards went back and apprehended Dawes. The defence made by the prisoners was, that it was no robbery, and that they were merely exchanging fodder —Dawes giving hay for clover. The prisoners, for whom the sitting magistrate (Mr. Clive) refused bail, were remanded until Tuesday next. After the prisoners had been placed in the dock yes terday, Mr. CLIVE asked if there was any one in attendance from the Earl of Lovelace ? Mr. William Kaye, his Lordship's steward, stepped forward. Mr. CravE—l have received a letter from Lord Love ' lace. I suppose you are aware of its contents ? Mr. K a ye—l believe I am. His Lordship won't prosecute ' his waggoner. He has had him for many years, and believes him to be an honest servant. The practice of exchanging fodder on the road is one that frequently occurs, and I should allow it. Mr. arvE—Whatever your opinion may be, I think a decided case of felony has been made out; but if your master will not prosecute, why the men must be dis charged. Mr. K aye sa i d that the prisoners had acted as they had done believing that they had a right to do so. Mr. CLSTE called police-constable Gardiner, 279 V, and asked him it; when the prisoners were taken into custody, they attempted to set up their act as a matter of right. The constable replied, certainly not ; and it was not until they had been brought to that Court that they said they were only exchanging hay for clover. Mr. Kaye submitted, that it was a known practice for waggoners and carters who were acquainted with each other to exchange fodder, whilst on their journey, and the prisoner Dawes had his authority to exchange fodder if he thought fit to do so. Mr. CravE—There is no evidence here of exchange, and there is no proof that Clements was possessed of any clover, and it is my belief that thi s d e f ence was con cocted between the parties after they were in custody. Robberies of this kind are exceedingly numerous, and it requires the utmost vigilance on the part of the police to detect them. T have been led to malco these remarks in consequence of the reoeipt of a letter from Lord Lovelace, in which his Lordship thinks the police are to blame ; but I will read the substance of the communi cation. (The worthy Magistrate then read portions of the letter, which were to the effect that Lord Lovelace considered his servant had been most unjustly treated in being committed to prison on a frivolous charge of steal ing hay, when the practice on the road of exchanging fodder was generally known, and allowed by the masters. THE HARVEST IN SCOTLAND, RENFREWSIIIRE.— We last week had a series of the most delightful harvest weather which we have ever witnessed. Since our notice of this day week, the crops in this neighbourhood have made rapid progress, and the farmers have not been idle. On Saturday the ripened fields were clustered with reapers plying their laborious undertaking. In the low-lying purely arable districts, one-half the crop is about cut, and we should think that with another week of such favour able weather, very little grain, in these quarters, will be left standing. It is a remarkable feature of the times, that notwithstanding the existing stir amongst the manufacturers, even in this centre of manufac tures, and with the hurried harvest that has come on, there has not only been abundance, but rather a super abundance, of hands for cutting down the ripened grain fields. Wages throughout last week were mo derate. During most of the days 2s. and 2s. 3d. were the current prices given ; but on Friday morn ing the supply of shearers far exceeded the demand ; a number were left unhired, and as low as Is. 6d. per day was offered by some farmers, though few sub. matted to these terms. BERWICKSHIRE.—During the month of August, up to the 24th, the weather continued very wet and un settled. The greater part of the wheat and barley crop is very much laid, and in some instances the wheat will be damaged. Since the 24th, however, the weather has been all that the farmer could wish —fine, bright, and airy during the day, and sharp and cold during the night. Since Monday last, a great many large fields of wheat and barley have been cut down, and look well on the ground in regard to bulk, though samples of wheat and barley are likely to be far short of last year's crop. In regard to qua lity, however, should the present fine weather con tinue, much good will be effected. Harvest is now general in all parts of the country. Three weeks of such weather will put a great part of the crop safe in the barn-yard. The turnip crop is backward, and looking indifferent on clay soils. Our corn market on Saturday last wai well supplied with grain, prices for which were on the decline.—Berwick and Kelso Warder. PERTHSHIRE.—The weather this week has been as fine as could have been wished for, and the cutting down of the grain is proceeding with rapidity in all districts : and it is thought that a continuance of the same delightful weather for a week or ten days would finish the harvest in this quarter, except a few very late patches here and there. WIGTONSHIRE.—Since our last number we have had a splendid change atmospheric, with the prospect of a continuance of good harvest weather. The con sequence is, harvest has become general—all kinds of crop look well—potatoes and turnips excellent ; and pastures thick and much improved. A great deal of grain will be safe nnder the thack and rope in the Rhins, in the course of the week.— Wigton Free Press. AYRSHIRE.—Harrest, thelleasantest of the hus bandman's labours, is wbll.begun, and indeed literally half-finished in this quarter. Dile hundred acres of the grain crops 0f.. - Mr. Guthrte, Crossburn, have already fallen to ale. sickle, and a goodly band of reapers will probably cut out as much more for him this week, and thus conclude the harvest. The beautiful clear airy weather we have had is most favourable for winnowing the grain, and in many quarters the stack-yards are being replenished; so that sportsmen, on the 2nd September (for Sabbath gives a day of grace to the partridges)will run little chance of doing any mischief to the standing crops. Samples of oatmeal, the first this season, were shown in Ayr Grain Market on Tuesday, from Mrs. Gird wood, Greenfield, and Mr. M'Creath, Doonbank, which sold at 14s. and 14s. 3d. per boll.—Ayr Advertiser. KELSO.—Since Saturday last we have had as fine harvest weather as could be desired. Previously con siderable apprehensions had been entertained, in conse quence of the continued humidity of the atmosphere, for the safe getting in of the crops ; but now, we are are happy to say, appearances indicate settled weather —sunshiny days and frosty nights—and harvest operations have commenced in earnest, and with the necessary degree of confidence.— Kelso Mail. A quantity of Himmalaya wheat was cut, on Wed nesday last, as Craignothie, Fifeshire, belonging to Mr. Clelland. The seeds were sown on the 24th April last, being only three months and twenty days from sowing and reaping. THE MOORS. His Grace the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of March, and Lord Templemore, have killed an im mense quantity in Glen Fiddich and Blackwater. Lord H. Bentinck, one day last week, killed three fine stags, two of them instantly shot right and left. Sir Richard Sutton, Bart., has terminated a short but successful campaign on the Killin moors, having shot 1,536 head. The party consisted of Sir Richard, his son, and Mr. Heathcote. Great as the number is, they would have bagged much more had the weather permitted. The Balmacaan party—Lord Reidhaven, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Bainbridge —had a fair day's sport on Saturday, having brought home 71 brace. On the same day , Sir H. Meux and Richard Arabin, Esq., at Dundriggan, came in with 67 brace. At Erchless Castle. Mr. Boulderson and Dr. Gray bagged 71 brace. Another day Mr. B. shot a couple of stags, right and left shots. At Invereshie, W. Evans, Esq., and G. Gisborne, Esq., had a fortunate day in the corries lately. They secured five stags, two of them by ono rifle shot. The Redcastle party have also been very successful, having killed two stage, a bind and a roe—the latter by Mr. A. Baillie, being his first shot at deer. Some large stags' heads have arrived here, for preservation, from Mr. Gilian ders, Highfield, J. W. Eyton, Esq., Fasnakyle, and Mr. Jones, Shiness. For angling, the Ness has im proved from increase of water. The other day, Master W. Fraser, the son of Affleck Fraser, Esq., landed from one pool three salmon, and a trout as large as a grilse, in the course of an hour and a half. A splendid clean-run fish, weighing upwards of 261 b. was taken by the rod in the Arndilly pools, on the Spey last Friday, by J. Ella, Esq. This gentleman is a frequent visitor to the Highlands, and seeks re creation in angling, from his professional duties in her Majesty's Italian Opera Band, of which he is one of the most accomplished performers. Mr. Arabin has caught some fine grilse in the river Ness ; and the net-fishing has greatly improved. On Saturday some salmon were taken, weighing 271 b ; and Tuesday veral were caught from 181 b to 201 b weight. BEI.EMAR.—We hear frofromßraernt? th e same fa vourable account of the different shootings in that district as is so generally the ease in the north this year. The Duke of Leeds at Mar Lodge, Sir Alex. Duff at Coriemnilzie, and Mr. Farquharson at Inver cauld, with their respective parties of friends, a re en joying.both deer and grouse shooting in the highest perfection. All the I nvercau ld shootings are occu pied by their former t enants, v i z , Mr. Edmunds, and Captain Methold, with Captain Bell, have Glencala dar ; Colonel Towers, the forest of Caich ; Sir F. Sykes, Corndayon ; Sir Benjamin Hall, and Lord Castlereagh, the Moss of Monaltrie and Gairnshiel ; Sir Frederick Stowin, Deskrie Shiel ; Messrs. Light foot and Boyd, Glennvvick ; and Messrs. Barker and Fowler, the Spittal of Glenshee.' STOW.—On the 12th there was bagged on these moors, by two young shots, fifteen brace, among which was a woodcock, flushed in the open moor. Had it not rained in the afternoon, they would have made a much better bag, as the bird s were sitting tolerably well. So much for preserving these moors. No such bag could have been made a few years ago, these moors having been formerly the rendzvous of all the dog-breakers and poachers in the country, but are now strictly preserved. ABET(p,MENATIRE.—The accounts from the diff e r en t shooting quarters at the head of this county, and ad joining districts are of the most favourable descrip tion, and seldom have we heard of all parties being so generally delighted as is the case this season. There is rarely any change among the sporting tenants in that district. The Duke of Leeds still con tinues at Mar Lodge. Mr. Alexander Duff, and a numerous party, is at Corriemulzie ; Mr. Edmunds and Captain Methold occupy Glencallader ; Colonel Towers has Catch on the Invercauld West Deer Forest ; Messrs. Barker, Towler, and party, the Spit tal shootings ; Sir Benjamin Hall, and Lord Castle reagh and platy, Gairnshiel and Moss of Monaltrie; He considered his servant had done nothing more than he would have done in the steward's presence ; but owing to the officious meddling of the police he had been treated as a criminal, and his (Lord Lovelace's) property had been . jeopardized by 'wire); intructe-1 to a littl trate iitiukt leei ii ri B itt, vi order tt,e ietease ser vant, and make him some reparation for having been confined among felons. If that was not done, he should take legal advice as to the best means of exposing the oppression under which an innocent man had been de prived of his liberty, and respectable bail refused.) Mr. CLIVE said he had distinctly understood the lad's age to be sixteen who was intrusted with his Lordship's team, and that he had himself stated that he was fully capable of managing it; but that did not matter. It had nothing to do with the charge. Mr. Kaye—My opinion is that the police should have found some one more competent to take the team home. Mr. CLIVE—It does not matter about your opinion. If his Lordship thinks it necessary to take proceedings against the police, they will be prepared to meet the charge. Kaye—llis Lordship will expect compliance with the terms of his note. Mr. CLIVE-It is not becoming in you to threaten in a court of justice. I told you before, the police will be prepared to meet any charge, and I repeat that they were justified in what they did. Mr. ClaV, afterwards road a letter from Mr. Collins, the master of the other prisoner, in which that person regretted that his servant should have got into trouble, and blamed him for not having taken sufficient food for his horses from home. The Magistrate thought this letter proved that no exchange took place, or was in tended; for it was pretty evident that Clements had no clover, or any other kind of fodder, to give in exchange for hay. The prisoners were then discharged. Sir F. Sykes and party, Corndavon; Lord llenrs fink, Gienavon and Tomintoul shootings; Sir 11 7 1 4 Sitwell, Balmoral ; Lord de Tabley and Mr., burton, Abergeldie ; Messrs. Lio.htfoot, B o 3'L l i Sir ar(-2, described z.s b i g Do t only ino't r : i dant, but strong and w e ll- grown . In gene parties seem to have averaged about forty brane. the first day. Sir Benjami n Hall has one day s o y we believe, bagged 69 brace; w hile another g e man of his party shot 40 brace in two hours on th e o lo called the Brown Cow. Capt. Bell, in the 0 5 1 5 : 0 ,0 bagged 68 brace, 6 white hares, and a roe.,gt although not on the ground till late in the day; Mr. Boyd (a gentleman upwards of seventy )'e llts k A age) brought home his 50 brace from Glenonn e Ross-shire Advertiser. BANK ISSUES. wite The Gazette of last ni g ht co n t a i ns the folio turns under the new " Act to make further Pre relative to the Return s t o b e ma d e by Banks °f rio di amount of their Notes in circulation." The P e o dt twelve weeks prior to the 2ith o f Ap r il last, of average amount in each case is certified by two '. Majesty's Commi:sioneri of St am p s an d T a xes • Swaledale and Wensleydale Banking Compaq , at Richmond (Yorkshire), Leybourn, Bedale , 'Tawas, and other places ......................••••• Sheffield Banking Company, at Sheffield anci 35 Rotherham West Riding Union Banking Company, 11 at dersfield, Dewsbury, and Wakefield ............ Warwick and Leamington Banking Company, 0 Warwick, Leamington Priors, Stratford-upon' Avon, Southam, and Henley in Arden ......... Worcester City and County Banking Compaq , 6, at Worcester Whitchurch and Ellesmere Banking Company' 7,40 at Whitehurch and Ellesmere ..................... Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Co"' 51 .0 pany - , at Wolverhampton .......................... York Union Banking Company, at York, 71,0 field, Burlington, Thirsk, and other places ..•••' York Cit y- and County Banki ng C om p an y, el York, - Malton, Scarborough, Whitby, an other places .......................................... Wilts and Dorset Banking Company, at Sage; bury, Axminste r , Bl an df or d , D orchester , and /6, other places ........ Lynn Regis and Norfolk Bank, at Lynn—l 3 Massey and L. W. Jarvis Lane End Staffordshire Bank, at Lane End-X. 6,0 and H. Harvey .. 25 7 1 Cambridge Bank, at Camb r id ge —T. M ort l oc k ; Birmingham Bank, at Birmingham—Attwonetg Spooner, and Co. .................................... Bath City Bank, at B a th—G. Moger and Son.' Tavistock Bank, at Tavistock and Launceston' is, J. H. Gill and J. Rundle ........................... Monmouth Old Bank, Monmouth Bank, Breve! Bank, Chepstow Bank Chepstow Old Bare" and Ross and Herefordshire Bank, at Mee mouth, Brecon, and Ross—J. S. F. B. Brornage and J. P. Snead ............................. . ......... Saddleworth Banking Company, at Saddlewort h f Ashton-under-Lyne, and Oldham ...........•••' Sheffield and Retford Bank, at Sheffield, Retford' 161 Tuxford, and 011erton .............................. Newcastle, Shields, and Sunderland Union Joie' Stock Banking Company, at Newcastle.o r , Tyne, North Shields, South Shields, Sunde r selfi' land, and other places ........................... Halifax and Huddersfield Union Tanking Con" pany, at Halifax and Huddersfield l3t Helston Banking Company, at Helston ....... Christchurch Bank, at Christchurch—W. T ree $r andJ. K. Welch .................................. • c i Devonport Bank, a t D evonport—W. Hodge en A J. Norman ........................................... Darlington Distri c t J o i nt -S tock Banking C orjr 1 6,1 pany, at Darlington, and other places..... Newark and Sleaford Bank, and Sleaford and 51,' Newark Bank—Peacock and Co ............. Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard Bank, at Leig: l i ton Buzzard, Dun s t a bl e , an d Newport PAP' S 6 —Bassett and Co. Knaresborough Old B an k and Ripon Old BO"' or Cat Knaresborou g h an d Ripon—Terry' and O ' ,t Hull Bank and Ki ngston - upon-Hull Bank, 191,0 Hull—Smith a n d C o ...........................••'•'• 41( Derby Bank, at Derby —Smith and C 0......... Richmond Bank, at Richmond (Yorkshire) --41 and T. Stapleton ...............................•• 1 . Ipswich and Needham -market Bank Suf f° 4 Hadleigh Bank, M ann i ngtree and' Miswo Bank, and W oo db r id ge Bank—Alexander SA and Co. ............................................ ••" Bilston District Banking Company, at Wolt er hampton ........................................... 17e Barnstable Bank, at Barnstable—Drake and td. COURSE OF EXCHA] Amsterdam CF. 12 5 Ditto, at sight l2 3i Rotterdam 2U. 12 5 Antwerp Hstmburgh M.B. 13 13k Alton l3 14 Paris, 3 days' sight 25 60 Ditto, 3 months 25 85 Marseilles Bourdeaux 25 90 Frankfort on Maine l2l Petersburgh, 3Us 37 Berlin 7 Vienna, effec. ft 3 M 952 Trieste, ditto Madrid 37 Cadiz Bilbao 36 Barcelona 36 Sevilla — EP I" CGE.—(YRST-- /0 Gibraltar •••' 09, Leghorn. .............. es Genoa ................. Milan ................... Venice ..... .......... 1.4 l`Taples .................. 101 Palermo, per 0%.• 54 Lisbon ................ 64i Oporto ... jS Rio Janeir0............ 5 5 Bahia ................... Buenos Ayres...... NewYork,2ldyssig m Philadelphia ......... ' 2 455 PRICES OF BULLI01:410 Foreign Gold, bars- s 11 1 Portugal Gold Coin 0 OA New Doubloons...* 0 New Dollars ..... •••• 0 Silver in Bare. .•••' to/.111 . . ea Ladies travelli ng , or temporarily tube°, r s o ftd: deviation of equable temperature, v:111 find ,' F1 ,,," , eY'O O Kalydor a renovating and refreßbing auxi"7 l 'oo , A4 ling the cloud of langour from the coroP e- s tteP" 40 immediately affording the pleasing sense° 10 . 1;14 restored elasticity o f t h e skin. The dist i oo JO unsightly varieties of cutaneous eruption s pioOriti promptly eradicated by the Kalydor . SP ° D e a 9. freckles, discolourations, and sallowness , /11 1 00100 specific qualities, and are succeeded by a 812°° Lions ° ;(1 ( transparency of the skin, giving rise to seas t e - g res'all utmost pleasure and surprise. Its univerbatpkeT c ar mand excites the cupidity of unprincipled S "jos of who give the title of 66 Genuine" Kalydor t e t s i e let B ..n ."oo pounds of their own manufacture, of the rat r iftwj f er character, containing mineral astringents tl,,„' -- e aas: 4 l° to the complexion, and by their repellant ae° - ",, r elis'ib. ing health. It is, therefore, imperative on r — . re 0, 13 1 see that the words "Rowlands Kalycloi ,f ;; t a ! 4 0 t, wrapper. All others are fraudulent coant e : l o ,: if tb , [ADVERTISEMENT].—A MAGIC CUS P fu l i t ottl LOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS. --- " Tarie ripP le j - 11 residing in the Calton, Glasgow, had been s c d " leau'd her youth with a contraction in the knee , °ce ,:firee‘ r ss ll . ° a fall, which produced fifteen abscesses il l W id 0 4 1 ' of the leg and thigh. It need scarcely be tates i- n oi had had the advice of medical men of the g hat slie"0" nence, but all failed to afford the least relief' bu ear 64 , now be seen walking about Glasgow perfectlisfter 0. 1 abscesses healed, and her limb sound, and this ad f ei other means but these wonderful medicines4o o il Sold at Professor Holloway's Establishinet"oo4 4 (where advice may be had gratis), and "idle e ll respectable vendors of medicine throughnu" ite4 i f world. 4 , 0 lag' 0 .00 4 TUE WEATHER-.—THE CROPS.—For .--...,, 5 t, . 0 0 the weather has been most favourable for bs b i' s , gol i r and we learn with much satisfaction that it field y rapidly through the country districts. The ie/il .-, vest is nearly everywhere finished, and tlle,Y g ood o f 0 scribed as being productive, and the ',lop is 00 1 ol d dition. Indeed the complaints of wily cr0P1 5 05 00,.., , 0 0 0 character to cause uneasiness or apPrelthe P h. ' di e should we be favoured with a continuance well" widloes genial weather, everything promises to ge,,, SO agriculturist iu the south of Ireland.--"' Reporter. , 1 „,,. / aoso ....0.!--- .—.......... L , ifi ft o t illt t j le eid BIRTHS. On the 31st ult., at Belle Vue-terrace, ne sf n 4 01- of C. 11. Phill i p s , E sq., of a daughter. f Ste ' 4ll'-'1 h t On the 30th ult., M rs. Edward Toulalin' - Nelu -f North Brixton, of a daughter. lio viard # On the 31st ult., at Kilburn, the ladY of E soq On , o f thea 3 daughter, latui t..,a e, th lad" f of ardcastle .. , F,:qb the W I H ~ 0 f a t Copt fold Hall, TA bet ' C. On th°, 2d inst., at the Lawn, South Lam P„T - 1 '' lliiirsl . augens, Esq., of a daughter. ~,,, LIY of 1 ~i ; 0 13° On the 2d inst., at Southampton, ,'"" la ‘. Ilumphrys, Esq., of a son. I r r s 1 .8 ; 1 '"' $ li' On the 2d inst., at Highbury-place , a•- -- * o l d of a daughter. tou o , n of t a he da 2 u d g i h n t s e t r .,. at Kidderminster, the 114 1;1 : ' Sill On the 3d inst , at Woolwich, the Wife of ham, of a daughter, still boil]. f.. , f• .31-4117.R1ED. 4 _ the gen et / /e 't j i eldest daughter of the Yen,_ On the 27th ult., at the Cathedral of C10m..-,. °- J. Phipps, Rector of Devizes, Wilts, to Sass g A rj ,Thdas_.,' ~ e.t - 0 1 Clonfert, only son of the late T ord Bishop On the 31st ult., at St. Peter's' Church , . 11e11 , 1 106,, J. S. ButsooTtit'-t di to oz..z e r, George Henry Goodwin, Es . q. to Emma Marls' „jai, ' P i . W. L. T. Robins, of St. Peter's9-square, Harawers'"Geerb,,,, Carruthers, Esq., On the 31st ult., at St. Mary's' Chelt'euhr,,ht I , a te r i h n e to 1 his in e Royal Regiment of Militia, to Anne, third daughter of ..herl l- .o o ' David William S m ith, chaOpnlatsurgeon of the Queen's Own 'ale ''',n(l. 2 , at Leamigt n t.l , e Rev. Fra r , ll '; hr,ial , 0; Bart., of Alnve,ck, Ser thu ,.,g T (Pee, ii Andalusia, highness ' the - Duke of ` 1 0 . 3 3 - 1(1, I ' 7 ' l' a, youngest daughter of John Fitzg Portland-place. or .-----. i 5544 DIED. oro ' On the 28th ult., Edward, eldest son of L. ''''. OW P of _Jethnal-o - reen, aged 28. 9 4 y W- On the ° 3oth ult , Pet-er Augustus La Fargu, „ te oo 3 bands Bosworth,. L,oicestershire, Deputy-Lie"- a 4. ova° 0 senior magistrate for the county. 1, ro s' tfal On the 30th ult. Mr. Thomas Paris, of 1 4 4-, e _ n ' e s IR , On the 30th nit.,at T d wells ''"" cols Tunbridge-wells , ge- , of Turnley, aged 21. ,; rOel ci '' On the 31st ult., at Norwood, Miss Sop hi a 5 kit 6 Harbour-lant•,, Camberwell. Nicholas Loc On the 31st ult., Eliza Sykes, wife of O es Ean,, o ~ Mayor of Plymouth, aged 36 . f D u' J On the Ist inst., Harriet, second da u g hter sf rt s 3°l Coates, of Kirby, Essex. on, On the 2d inst., at Brooksby's-walk, ituale - 1,10 Ch er wife of M. Robert Mpey. I g Ark , On the r 2d inst., in o Ssussex-place, Beg Churchill, Esq., aged 60. Or a ITBDO D d i z ili- 1 15 € London : Printed and Published by la- - r , f fi c e, ..-°•,„, o , No. 112,. Strand, Printer, at The Sus, `',, he 0010 v Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , . 'n '''" Middlesex, Wednesday, September 4, 1844 ~i ~~.