The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

;rep r a 410 r publication, under the sanction of his Family and Executors, with original documents, TILE I of W. BECKFORD, ESQ., OF FONTITILL ABBEY, AUTHOR OF " VATIIEK." . 4 All communications relative to the above work are requested lobo. made to Henry G. Bohn, York-street, Covent-garden, who is Yee c nly perscn authorised to receive the same. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Stormer PleZ3l respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscri'acr: to the ra, his Frieads t end the Public. that HI • II I T will take plate TGIRMORROIV EVENING, JULY 11, On which °caution will be presented (for the First Time theat Three Years), Donixetti's celebrated Opera, ANN 4. BOLENA Wary VIII, Sig. Cablicie7Perci,ig. Moriani ; Smeaton. plane. Favanti; Anna Bobna, Mad me Grisi ; Jan.; Segettt, *nom Giuseppitra Itis.etti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her eiglt appeirance la London). After Vitt 001ra, Signor Purzi will perform a Solo on the Horn. After 4144 A, a 4, DIVERTNSEMENF.' in which will be intro adurest 3 11019 PAS de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elssler anti 111.• St. Loan, PA4I de Deux by Mdiles. Schafer aryl Plunkett, and the " 11 1 1 444npanish lance Sarigossa," by :Mlle. Fanny Elssi'er. To be folio red by the Second Act of GUILLAU NIE TELL. - Matilde, Madame Persiani; Arnold :Matto; Walter, Sig. 3.1 ablache; and Guillaume Tell, Signor Pornasari. To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VIV AN DIERE, .ittr,incing the Redowa or Onginat Polk of Hungary, by Mdlicl 4'er:to and M. It. Leon. A pplicatfona for Boxes, Stalls, and Tckets to loa to t 14 to Signor Piirzi, 34, Jermyn-street. St. James's, and the Box-o Hoc, Opera • 'n.roinade. Doors open at even. The O,iera will co - omence at I 'ail, me Seven o'Cloelt. THEATRE RoYAL, HAYMARKLT Mit. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES F.E. THIS EVENING, JULY 10, Will be rep,ated the Prize Comedy of QUID PRO QUO; or, THE D t Y OF DUPES. With a Pro l ogue sp iken by Hr. Webster. . _ Furl of 141modon, Mr. Stuak; Lira' 1 , 61 inioni, Mrs. Nisbett ; ss,rorriy Griison. Mr. Strickland; Ho) y. Mr. H. 11011; Captain 4Apipect s Mr Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr W. Farren ; Couutess of Humidor, Mrs. W. Clifford ; LA) , Mary Rivers, Miss ..10.2% Bennett; Mra. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget rim, Mrs. Usti by. Atter - the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing Fayre Rocamonde." After which, will be repeated a New Varce, entitled TrIE MIL. LINER'S HOLIDAY. Sr Sinton Sparkes, Mr. tuc•istone ; Mr Pennywig, Mr. Str.ckland; Fanny Thompson, Miss Julia Bennett; 2.liss Potts, Mrs. Ilumhy. co2elude with THE WHITE HORSE OF THE PEPPERS. skrald Pepper, Mr. Leonard. Orchestra *tails, Ss. ; Boxes, Ss. • Pit, 3a. ; Gallery, ; Cl .itery. Is. Half-price —Box':‘, 337. ; Pit ; Gallery, ; Upper sitllery, 6d. Doors opened at Half past Six, and the Performances commence at Seven. Tickets and Places to be had of Mr. I. T. Mel er, t the Box ' "c«, from Ten till Five. PKINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD.STIIFLT. LIiSSEE, Mr. J. M. MADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY 10. Will he performed the celebrat,d Opera, L'EISIR I) AMORE. Adisat Miss Austin; Nenterino, Mr. Allen; Doctor Dulcamara, Ale, 'Paul Bedford. Mier which, a New Petite Comedy, sailed AGED FORTY. Sir Marry Wilder. Mr. Walter Lacy ; Mr Dapper, Mr. Oxlerty ; Lady Clifton, Mrs. Stirling. 'ln conclude with a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, lacing an Illustrated Version of Aladdin. Abanazar Mr. Paul Bedferd; Aladdin, Mr. Wright ; Princess Ilatiroulbadour, Mis. E. Stanl-y. !if T: E ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA- tiou'sa Under ilse,Memacement of Mrs. KEELEY THIS EVENING, JULY 10, Will be produced a New Drama, enti:led MARTIN CHUZZLE WU'. Principal characters by Messrs. R. Younge, 1 . . Vining, Emery, F. Mathews, A. Wigan, Meadows, Kinloch, Turner, inton, J. W. Collier, Yarnold, Sanders, and Keeley; Miss For. tescue, Miss Woolpar, Mrs. A. Wigan, Mrs. Woollidge, Miss drove, Mrs. Usher, Miss Turner, and Mrs Keeley. To be followed by a Or-ard Burlesque Fairy Extravaganza, called OPEN SESAME; or, a Nighr with the Forty Thie e.. Ilassarac, Mr Keeley; Moreiana, Mrs. Keeley. To conclude with'an Apropos Bagatelle, called POLK AM A.NIA• Clsaiacters by Mr.' F. Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. i:ecley, Miss Wnolgar, and Mrs. Keeley. ASFLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF ARTS. PrAorietor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. SPLENDID JUVENILE FETES. Greet Suecesa of the Chines Feast of Lanterns, and N ,w Military and Naval Spectacle. THIS EVENING, JULY 10, Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian fiwrtacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or. The Conquests of Amoy by Bntish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments. &c., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Navy. Feast of 2.50 Lanterns. After which, a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY a L COTILLION OF FRA NICIS "THE Fl ttS 1'; or, The Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of HoesemanAip by Monsieur Louis Tournaire, S g. flennani, Herr Tlesbeck, La Petit Isabele, Mr. Newsome, &c. l with Mr. R. Smith's kiely trained Steeds. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLECHASE; or, Eng land's Harvest Home. The doorq, will open nightly at six o'clock, and the verlormances commence at seven. Box-office opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been reentastructal and decorated wi•n care and splendour. Acting and stage.rn anager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. DAY 'DOE'S ROYAL SURREY THEATRE THIS EVENING, JULY 10, Will be performed an entirely new Aquatic Spectacle, introducing Three Scenes of Real Water, entitled THE MOUNTAIN CATA RACT ; or, The Enchanter's Spell. After which, a Lilliputian Ballet, entitled " Napoleon's Gene resit!," in which the Brockstedt Family—three German Lilliputians, reify :lei 32, and 3tS inches in height—will perform. 'ln conclude with a New Drama, called Tri I. CARPENTER OF ROUEN, in which Illes , rs Hudson Kirby, Hicks , Neville, Vale, 'lesion, Johnson, Mrs Daly, Miss ferrey, and Mrs.R. Honner will perform. _ _ . - Pi.ices and Prvrate Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box. office, iron: riven to Four. 'ROYAL SURREY Daylight GARDENS. LONDON in t e 0 1 1. vi DEN TIME Painted b Danson 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 gre unanimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex. hibition ever witnessed. To vies it only ar a vehicle for the terrific :Si+play at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of 'b , • (Pkiet Evening, with its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa- Lake, to be fully appreciated. Elie Evening PROMENADE CONCERTS, on Mon 'ays, Tues. lays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, are epee a scale of more than usual excellence: but words fail in doingjustioe to the awful representation of THE GREAT' FIRE OE LONDON. _ _ Its fearftil chiracteristics are truthfully pourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the Wonders of the Pyrotechnic :kit, that delight is predominant over terror; and the thousands who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit t'h it Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechuist, h - ts achieved a matchless ity The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect state, and combining so many and interesting features, are by far the most attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. bet...ling of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at Dusk. Admittance, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY. IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONF. SHILLING Admission to THE NAI OLEON MU ISEIJM, the most magnificent and extensive Coll3ction of Ilisto rica Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to h e been formed by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a cost of frO,ooo guineas, and to completely illustrate, hi the most in si ruetive and interesting manner, the most important oart of Euro pean history, viz.--CHARLES 1., OLIVER CROM WELL, and L.MJIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and tie EMPEROR APOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often, daring the last and present year, by the Royal Famry, the Duke of Wellington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, ant their Ladles. s) so, many thousands of the Nobility and Public; rut' the Pro “ietor has recently been able to increase, by several very fine pictures, &c., his previous almost incredible number ant variety of 10VA., Works of Art, and a multitude of valiarble Relic , and other ruriosities, in this most instructive and, as hundreis have said it Hight to be, a National Museum. Many thousand have insoected it. mid VIIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PITISLIC PRESS 'nave stated that it ought to be seen by every oae. The pries of admis • iftta is reduced to ONE SHILLING. The NAPOLEON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the .• ggyptias Hall." Piccadilly, dant from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATIIF•R.—Svx OFFICE, JULY 10. runumobtrran, Lowest, 55; Highest, 71: Noon, 67. BAROMETER, 30.02.—Wnw, W. _ _ ticrra.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the freezing point, and 55 temperate. In Barptneteta fair is Usgally placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. HIGH WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE T4IS DAY. Morning 29 minutes after 9 1 Evening... 0 minute 3 after O . Asamsammur-sus.. _~' 41?, 1 . ‘ 1111( • , * 7St '.I •, i 1."-,-.'k • , :',-;.‘11" !•,- , •,. ,Qt--- -,.. .7‘ ' 1 4 • •e, . ' 'O , k-kr.... : '-`•:-,' 4".",„ ~.'- ..'. 11111k-li ~,-,' x 4 .' P. ''-- _ • '.., ~""• 1. • 1 ,r, 4 ''' , - .„ 4.7",b1".. ' \:: , -,!-N.,"ti , ,p).IV .6- ,• • ~ • Orr k , ,-, '' # , SECOND EDITION Cite Wink LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1844. No business of the slightest importance took place in the House of Lords, if we except the motion for the third reading of the notorious Bill of the Bishop • EXETER. Lord FOLEY moved that it be read a • gird time that day six months. The Duke of WEL t .INGTON concurred in the motion, as her MAJESTY'S qovcrnment had informed themselves on the subject, aad would at a future period bring in a Bill on the .'abjt•rt. We d,Jubt the statement. The Bill was ..;thdrawn, and the Howe adjourned. The House met again at six oclock, when argu meres were heard in reference to the Irish State 'Trials. It i 3 understood that judgment will be given in ibis monster trial in the course of this day. In the Commons, after the presentation of peti Cons, Mr. WrtarACE gave notice, that when the House divided on the Railways Bill, the names of Member interested in railways should not he received. Mr. T. Descomn?, moved for copies of the cor respondence which had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Governor of Guernsey relative to the late disturbances. Sir J. GRAHAM said the sub ject would, in a few days, come before the Privy Council, and it would, therefore, he better to post pone the m ,tion. Mr. DuNcomrsc assented, and post pned his motion for a fortnight. The Irish Pre.sbyteran Marriage 811 was read a first time. • Mr. CHRISTIE thou brought forward a motion on the Danish Claims. This is no new motion. - The question has been discussed and decided several times, and, we believe with only one exception, the decision has been in favour of the claimintA. Indeed, so far did the nonse. of Commons admit the justice of the claims, that they drew up an address . to 'her Majesty in fa- • your of the claimants, and that address was graciously responded to ; the Whig Government, however, re sisted the decision of the House of Coinmons, and con trived some new scheme to defeat the petitioners, who have now for nearly 40 years been deniea ;justice. The Tory Government have unfortunately imitated their ea duple. They mustered all the forces they could last night to defeat Mr. CHRISTIE'S MG:1011. It was a desperate run, and the Government carried, their point, only b a ma jority of four. Is not this a most disgraceful mode of conducting public business? A Commission of Inquiry had been appointed by the Treasury to investi gate the claims—that Commission reported favourably V..-hili4.lkablibt Commons sanctioned that Report over ,-_aii4Witiii and yet bilth Whig and Tory Cabinets ALIA f..:0041)4 o the KG 05 t ) contemptible shifts to } . `, ;~.:,/ xt a s deprive men of their just claims for no reason that any man can see but to have command of more toomy, They will, however, be compelled tln yield. The speech of the Premier \\ls .Pstkiti'Ctik display of misreprestntalloh M liictffty‘ 'ON I tkV?4,t Mr. GOULFSURIN A 401-...nt ttilcie of fallacies. It is really monstrous to hear this latter gentleman sonle stress on the amount required t. paY tte claimants, although it Ime attually been found by Government cenlii.ssioners to be due to them, when at tk t'arne time himself and his relations have*e_cli_rd more of the public money duritaft 4 1 ' 1 7 1 mono poly than the thole #43.M Mil - lied to indemnify these parties, Aottliti argument used against the claim ant# that they had solicited Members to stiprett their case—nothing could be tilerr.; 4it,gtieei'ul than this charge, when thr Ci'3 l :6llment whipper-iu was in the door.lvoy nnvassing every Member who came in ark went out. It is therefore surprising what the claimants have been able to ace0m1)141.... ttll proves the justice of their PAII4cI Mta it says much for the honour and lmlependence of the Tory Members who supported the case. The claimants may be considered 23 havina• gained another victory, for the Government majority of four is virtually a defeat, and they have only to persevere, and justice must ultimately triumph over cruelty and oppression. We wish Mr. GOULnURN joy of the majority of four, on a question whiAl had repeatedly been dteided by the Commons in favour of the claimants. The House adjourned at. Eight o'clock. The Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords yesterday, announced their decision on the in teresting and important claim of Sir AUGUSTUS D'ESTE to the title and honours of the Dukedom of Sussex. The Committee was very fully attended, and, upon the answers of the Judges, as delivered by Lord Chief Justice TINDAL, to the case referred to those learned functionaries by the Committee, we lament to find that the latter have determined " that the claim of Sir AUGUSTUS D'ESTE has not been made out." It will be in the recollection of our readers, that the gist of the question propounded for the opinion of the Judges, was this :—Evidence having been offered to the Lords of a marriage sulemnis , d at Rome, in the year 1793, by an English priest, in holy orders, of the Church of England, according to the ritual of that Church, between A B, a son of his late Ma jesty King GEORGE 111., and C D, a British subject, without the previous consent of his said MAJESTY, according to the requirements of the " Royal Mar iage Act " (12th Geo. HI., ,passed in 1772), would such evidence, if held to establish the fact of such marriage between the parties in question, indepen lently of the provisions or enactments of 12th Geo. 111., be adequate to establish the validity of that marriage in a suit wherein the eldest son of A B claims, eo nomine, an estate in England by virtue of such mar riage ?—The Judges, admitting the rule of our Ecclesiastical Courts, as illustrated by the luminous judgments of Lord STOWELL, " that a marriage good according to the forms of the country wherein it is celebrated is good all over the world ;" and adverting to the important fact, that evidence had been given by qualified officers of the papal jurisdiction on ques tions of marriages, to establish the perfect legal rail lity in Rome, and throughout the limits of the Papacy, ,f the de facto marriage between A B and C D, re mark that " the rule of construction with regard to :my statute is, that it shall be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which has passed it." Now, inasmuch as the intent of the Parliament of 1772, in passing the Royal Marriage Act, is not any matter of doubt—inasmuch as that Parliament clearly timed at prohibiting the marriages of any of the legiti mate descendants of GEORGE 111. without the Royalcon sent previously obtained, and inasmuch as its enactments were, therefore, as binding on A B, as " a Bri - ish sub ject," whether in Rome or any other foreign dominion, as if he were within the realm ; the Judges were unanimously of opinion that under the circumstances this had not been such a marriage as could enable the eldest son of AB to make a good title to lands or estate as heir to his father. It is remarkable that the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM, Lord DENMAN, Lord CAMPBELL, and Lord COTTENHAM in delivering their judgments seriatim, concurred unanimously in dismissing the claim of Sir AUGUSTUS ; but each of these Learned Lords also concurred in the sentiment that the most cruel wrong had been inflicted on the parties before their bar by the Act in question. Under that statute there could be no doubt the marriage of his late Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX with Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY was invalid. Of the de facto marriage between those eminent persons there could be as little doubt. Lord BROUGHAM, in alluding to the cruel position of the claimant, justly said" the feelings of every one must revolt at the consideration of that wrong. It appeared to him to be of the highest jus tice, of the first claim, of the slowest discharge of public duty, that Parliament, which had such a law is that which had been under the consideration of -heir Lordships—a law which ought never to have been made—that that Parliament should give some compensation, should make some reparation, to those innocent parties who had been so injured by its ope- ration." Lord CAMPBELL concurrei most fully in the re gret which had been expressed that such a law was in existence. He thought such a law ought not to have been , passed, and he concurred in the opinion that it ought to undergo some modification. In these feelings and opinions we cordially participate. When we find the LORD CHANCELLOR reminding, the Committee that the marriage, in fact, was proved evidence, of its having been celebrated by a law, ;idly ordained clergyman of the Church of Englant, and that there was further evidence of the mar riage being valid according to the law of Rome; and that Lord COTTENHAM'S opinion against he claim " was founded solely upon the Royal marriage Act, for that was the only point which had been concluded before them," we are induced to press upon the attention of the public the urgent merits of a case in which the ap pellant is turned back upon a mere technicality. True, as Lord COTTENIIAM observed, the Royal Marriage Act incapacitated the parties from con tracting a marriage except upon certain conditions." But we say that that Act was rnalum per se. It was denounced and protested against, at the time it was forced through the Legislature by the active and indecent canvassing of the Crown—as a cruel and impolitic and disabling statute—by some of the best and wisest men, and highest authorities in the country. It was a tyrannous control, devised and enforced beforehand, on the human affections 83 they might develope themselves in the existing, or the yet unborn, progeny of the Sovereign. The late Duke in invoking the sanction conferred upon his marriage with Lady AUGUSTA MURRAY, by the pre cepts of our religion and the ritual of our Church, not unreasonably assumed that he' was pro tected and upheld by authority so solemn and AO sacred, that it must override the enact ments of a vicious statute. No man, accordingly, ever took more pains to recognise, by repeated and spontaneous acknowledgements and declarations, the fact of his marriage ; his own deep convietion cf its legitimate and banding character; and his voluntary call upon his family, his country, and the whole world, to observe these his so remarkable acts of con firmation. What course remained to a gentleman of high feeling and spirit and intelligence, like Sir AUGUsTUS D'EsTE, but to reclaim the legacy of the honours thus descended to him, and by such reclama tion to vindicate the honour of his mother, and the legitimacy of another connexion not less dear nor less immediate ? The documrntary papers adduced, in his father's hand-writing, were like voices from the tomb, conveying injunctions which he cou'd not, and ought not, to resist. He was bound to assert his position. He has done so, but necessarily at a vast expense in the collection of evidence and papers. In the amount of any such expense it is clear that he ought to be immediately reimbursed. We trust that so righteous a duty will not be neglected for a morrient in the proper quarters. Bat the whole conduct and deportment of Sir A. D'Es - re, throughout the try ing and spirit-wounding abeyance in which his claim has been permitted to lie, and the protracted period occupied in its formal preparation and trial, j have been of a character beyond all praise for their ' moderation, constancy, and patience. We have no de sire to institute painful comparisons by invidious reminiscences. But we should shrink from the dis charge of a public duty, if we forbore to eulogise the dignified forbearance with which Sir AUGUSTUS has , lived to ,see the illegitimate issue of his Royal uncle THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 10, 1844. ennobled, protected, and rewarded, by titles, and honours; - nr 1 employments; not ,cale of, which was stiitered:te. be;diYerred , l;')FP OWn person. lin 'A, laWrr of career he has Seen .aliother iSaternl cOnnexion,, withno such p re‘klatit; claims of riink or ascertainedf!clition. As lAs .I. , :ofif Mother, selV!v4tV4 e, t,',e highest dignity with which the hand of the Sove:eign can invest, in this country, a female brow —a tribute, probably, of affectionate resneFA for the station apil cliarr,cria_r o Tis li t nistrious father. But a Bing that, on the one hand, a disability purely technical, under a statute which ought never -to have become law,—which VMS t"intt.d . , in its origin ! , 13,r rnelial pique and resentment in the Monarch at whose solicitation it was finally carried, — has defeated his claim, in its recent shape ;—and that on the Other his own unsullied eharsettti his Virtues, his talents, end (skl 11111 A repeat) the excellent bear ing he has shown through nit the long, but unobtru sive agitation of his rights, are calculated to impart a lustre toany dignities or honours to which the generous munificence of the Crown might be pleased to call him, in repairing a mere accidental deficiency of the proof necessary to the legal substantiation of his hereditary pr: euslons ;—we do earnestly hope that the grace and favour of the QUEEN may yet be manifested to Sir AUGUSTUS D'EsTe in a manner and to an extent which may fully and royally repair the present failure of his equitable claim. Certain we are that such an exercise of the royal prerogative would be hailed with signal gratification and sympathy by the prixate friends of the late claimant; and with unanimous approbation by the public. Madrid papers of the 2d inst. have been received. A general belief prevailed that a war with Morocco I,vas inevitable, as the Spanish Consuls had been Irdered to withdraw from the Morocco territory, if they did not obtain satisfaction within fifteen days, and it was not likely the EMPEROR would yield to a power so helpless as Spain. ~It is extremely probable, however, that the affair will be settled by the inter vention of other Powers. The four Ministers who had been summoned to Barcelona on important busi ness left that place on the sth for Madrid. General YARVAEZ remained with the QUEEN. On the 2d the Three per Cents. were quoted at :M i l, for cash, and 2.G1 at GO days. The Fives at 20i at 52 days. The French Government on Monday received dis patches from Marshal BUGEAUD, dated Ouchda, June 19, giving details of his proceedings at that place, and I is return into the French territory. They add little, however, to the news conveyed by the telegraphic , lispitch. It appears he wrote a letter to the Moorish chief, EL GUENNAONI, previous to passing the fron tier. An evasive answer was returned, and after another vain attempt at obtaining some more satisfac tory explanation, he proceeded to Ouchda, which he reached on the 18th of June. Upon this the Moorish chief and ABD-EL-KADER retired with all their forces, the former to the interior, and the latter to make a razzia in a district to the south-east of Mascara. The Marshal had announced to the authorities of Morocco that he did not mean to keep Ouchda, nor declare war, and promised to treat with them when they had made amends for the unjustifiable attack upon the French troops. We are glad to find from these dis patches that the Marshal did not anticipate a war between the two countries. Accounts from Tangiers state that the French steamer Pluton arrived at that place on the 23d of June with dis patches for the French Consul, and on the same day left for . Oran, where she was to join the squadron of the Prince DE JOINVILLE. At the moment of her departure from Tangiers the Consul-General of Eng land at that place was preparing to set out for La rache, Mogador, and Morocco. It was generally supposed that the journey of this-agent related to the affair between Spain and Morocco, and that, at the same time, he proposed to recommend MULEY . ABDER.. RHAMAN to employ all his authority to put an end to the armed incursions of his subjects on the other side of the French frontier. The discussion on the affairs of Morocco, which was to have taken place in the Chamber of Peers on Monday had been postponed till Wednesday. The proceedings in the Chambers on Monday were desti tute of interest. M. CHARLES LAFFITTE had been returned a fifth time for Louviers by a great majo rity, his opponent, M. DE FONTENAT, having only 6 votes, while he had 331. As he had withdrawn his offer for a branch line to Louviers, it was understood that he would be allowed to retain his seat. THE BOURSE-MONDAY, JULY 8. First Highest Lowest Lasl Price. Price. Price. Price. French Five per C3nta 122 15 122 20 .. 122 10 .. 122 15 Three per Cents.. ••• 81 85 .. 81 85 .. 81 70 .. 81 70 Rank of France Laftitte Bank, I,ooof. Sharesll2o ..1120 ..1120 .. 1120 4,000 f. SharessoBo —5OBO .. 5080 ..5080 Belgian Bank. 6BO .. 682 50 .. 680 .. 682 50 Reigian Fives,lß3l. 1840 1842 .• • • ...• 1081 • • 1081 .• 1081 .. 1081 Spanish Threes, ex div..• •.. 331 .. •• 331 •• 331 Passive .... •• • • ...• 51 • . 51 • . 51 •. 51 New Deferred l3 .. 13 -. 13 .. 13 Old Deferred •• • • 51 • . 51 .. 41 .. Neapolitan ••••• . • • • .... • • 99 99 10 • • 99 .. 99 10 Roman THE STT II LS. ( sTkTri DAy.) IT F HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.) THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Mr. KELLY resume!l i his, reply about a quarter past tien: 1. 4 1 1 _.e Pti am d e ouusel commeticesi by saying he felt that their Lordships' decision, in reference to the point upon which he addressed them last night, might be grounded—first, upon authority—secondlly, upon ,, practica—and .lastl , r, if nelth4 iitiiVorh nor prac tice 47ere d'Ceisive of the question, upon legal principles. It seemed right, therefore, in order to prevent all possi bility of misapprehension, that he should shortly refer their Lordships to those authorities whicict alone had any bearing on the quePtion aild reefred td these cases merely to show that in what the judges had stated it was quite impossible that they could have referred to a writ of error in which there had been a conviction upon seteral offences, but that they must have referred to the well-known practice upon motions in arrest of judgment. The first case to which he should refer their Lordships was that of " Peat and Oldham," in Ist Cooper's Reports, p. 270. In that case Lord Mansfield, after lamenting that a mere slip of counsel, who were not always sufficiently careful as to the count on which judgment should be taken, should be fatal, contrary to the truth and justice of the case, went on to say, " However, in civil cases, the rule most certainly is settled, that where a verdict is taken generally, if any one count is bad it vitiates the whole. It has always struck me that the rule would have been much more proper to have said, that if there is any one count to support the verdict it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.' In criminal cases the rule is so." What was the meaning of saying in criminal cases the rule is so ? Why, that where there was a verdict upon an indictment or information with several counts, a general verdict ofguilty would follow, and the court was called upon to pass sentence. If one count were good it supported the verdict, and entitled the court to give judgment. But what did this mean ? Did it mean that upon motions in arrest of judgment the court were called upon to give judgment on the good count alone, or on all the counts, bad as well as good ? Their Lordships would find that in some other cases to which he had referred, the very reason and principle of the rule was, that where the court had the whole record before them, standing in the position of a jury if they found any one offence well laid in any one count of the indictment, they would do per fect justice by inflicting punishment for that offence. Having power to do so, it was their duty to do so, and the judgment which they gave was given only on the one good count. This was the only meaning which could be given to the expression of Lord Mansfield. The moment they supposed the case of its application to a writ of error, where three counts showing three distinct offences were before the court, although two of those counts were bad, judgment was entered on the bad count as well as the good, the whole reason and foundation of the observation fell to the ground. So far from doing justice they would then be doing injustice, for they would be awarding punishment not only for the offence of which the party had legally been convicted, but for the other offences of which he had not been legally con victed. Throughout the whole of the language of Lord Mansfield there was no reference to a writ of error. In civil cases the rule was, where the judgment was taken generally; in criminal cases, if there were one good count judgment was passed and punishment inflicted for the offence stated in that count. Another case to which he begged to refer was that of " Grant and Hassell." It was there laid down that if there were one good count, and the other counts were bad, the judgment should be taken for the fictitious reason that the jury had assessed the damages on the good count. There was another case bearing on this point, the "King v. Ingram," which was decisive of the question. Lord BROUGHAM thought that a Court of Error would " intend" that a fine must have been applied on the count of the indictment that was a good one. Mr. KELLY said the whole great question with which they had now been occupied for a considerable part of the six days the hearing had occupied was this very point—was there any authority for such an intendment, and did the practice exist that would support it ? The moment they assumed that where one of several offences was well laid, and the court decided in a motion for arrest ofjudgment on that one, but nevertheless entered up that judgment not on one but on all, the moment that was the fact, they gave a foundation for an intend ment, which if made without foundation was an intend ment false, in fact, injurious in its consequences, and en tirely without foundation either in principle or practice. He should comprise all he had to say on this point, as to the practice, in a very few observations, for the point was simple and clear, and beyond all doubt. He should show that what the Noble and Learned Lord had thrown out was not the fact, and if it was assumed to be the fact they might on that build up a superstructure of error, which would be productive of i n calculable mischief. Lord BROUGHAM—You put a case of a motion for arrest ofjudgment; but put a case in which there was no motion for arrest of judgment. Lord CAmPBELL—There may have been a motion for arrest of judgment, and the court ma _y have held one count to be good, and have pronounced judgment upon it. Nothing more may appear on the record. Mr. KELLY—Clearly not; if the indictment contained three counts, setting forth separate offences, and the de fendant was convicted for all three, and on a motion for arrest of judgment the court was of opinion that the whole were well laid, and therefore should pronounce a triple sentence—if the court. considered each offence finable with 5001., it would impose one fine of 1,5001., so that one judgment and one fine would be imposed. Now, supposing that two of the counts should turn out to be bad, that two of the offences were illegal, then came the question whether there was any rule that would com pel their Lordships to presume contrary to the prin ciples of justice that the court had imposed the fine of 1,5001. for the one count that was good. It was impossible that any court possessed of the smallest particle of understanding could so act and de termine. Then let their Lordships see what the next consequence would be. Their Lordships could only hold the judgment to be put upon the presumption that the whole fine was imposed in respect of the good count, and the defendant would be supposed to have suffered punishment only for the one count. Supposing that he was indicted afterwards on the other two counts and found guilty, he could not plead autrefois convict, but must suffer the punishment and fine over again. Lord BROUGHAM — Supp ose th ere are three counts, one good and two bad, and suppose there is a m o tion in arrest of judgment, and the court was in favour of the party against whom the judgment had been given, and would let the defendant go free but for the good count, does the record show the arrest of judgment on the bad count and the giving of the judgment on the good? Mr. KELLY—Supposing it was a perfect record, the judgment ought to appear upon it. Lord BROUGHAM—It is just possible that the court might say there is no necessity for entering up judgment on the bad counts, because there is one good count to hold. Lord CAMPBELL—The arrest of judgment on one count was well known to the law. Mr. KELLY said that there were two instances which bore upon the present point. The "King and Hod son," sth Term Reports. There the court gave judgment on the good counts, and judgment for the defendants on the bad count. Then there was Mr. Feargus O'Connor's case. In that case the judg ment had never been completely entered up, because the Attorney-General had not called for it ; but there was no doubt the judgment would have been given on the good counts, and for the defendant on the bad. In all cases, whether at assizes, or at courts of quarter sessions, or the Queen's Bench, whether in trials for felonies or mis demeanours, the same course was pursued. If there had been any record made up in any of the courts of West • minster Hall] that would have suited the case of his Learned Friends, the counsel for the Crown, they would have been brought forward in abundance. But the truth was, there was no such record. In the "King v. Collins," the counts were expressly stated upon which the judg ment was to be entered up. Now supposing that the judgment had been entered up on the whole counts, would it have been supposed that sentence had been passed upon the whole of them? Lord BROUGHAM recollected a case, in which he was counsel ; when he was carping at some of the counts, Mr. Baron Wood said, " There is no use in that ; for there is clearly one good count, and that will support the judg ment." And the court of error would alwaye presume that the court had given judgment on the good count. Lord CAMPBELL—It would be correct to do so at that stage, because then the court could enter up judgment, upon which count they chose. Mr. KELLY—That was precisely the difference. There was a great difference. There was a great and terrible mistake in confounding the proceed ings when a party was brought up for judgment with the proceedings in error when judgment had been pronounced. If he had been convicted but of one offence it was at the option of the court to give him judgment in the counts which they supposed good in law. But here was a case of a court doing that which he should satisfy their Lordships a court had no right to do—that was, where it was manifest to the court that but one offence had been well laid on which the court could pro nounce judgment, they entered up judgment not only on that count, but on another count laying a different offence, which count was bad in law. Were they right or wrong in doing this? It could not be disputed, but that any man who was about to receive a verdict, much more any man who was about to receive a judgment in a verdict, had a right to insist upon the counsel for the Crown selecting one count and abiding by it. The Crown had no right to obtain a verdict and enter up judgment upon several counts when the jury could not return a verdict upon more than one. Hence arose the practice of defendants in sisting upon having a verdict upon one count only, and calling upon the eounsel for the Crown to elect. He had taken that course himself frequently, and he was speak• ing before a Learned Judge who, in a case of conspiracy, a few weeks ago, when he was counsel for the accused, and had called upon the prosecution to elect, decided he bad no right so to call upon there. and the counsel for the Crown acce led and did so elect. The defendant had a right to call upon the jury to give a verdict upon every separate count. They had a right to compel the jury to give a verdict on those counts only on which they could find him guilty. Lord CAMPBELL—In strictness, where there is only one count, and that alleges several offences, some of which are not true, the defendant has a right to insist upon a verdict being entered for him on those parts which are not true. Mr. KELLY—Yes, My Lord. Lord CAMPBELL—I doubt if the law recognises the distinction of courts. It is one presentment by the grand jury, but that presentment is severable, and the jury may acquit of a part. Mr. REDLY said there : could be. no doubt of it ; for in stance; a man Might be igdieted en one cOrit f"r murder; and on another for, manslaughter he Might be ae quitted,of the murder And foitna, guilty,. of the man slaughter. „He might,' be inclie:ed for; barelau E . trAd , I. o 'l' • cony, and aeduitted et the blittlarY Vrid funk! of the larceny. In cases of libel, a man might be found guilty of composing and publishing, but not of printing. In all these cases it was perfectly clear that no judgment o.)uld be given except upon the verdict returned. He would call tht.lr rttentickn ko 91e gatthof "Fox v. Austin," to be found in Lawes's Reports, p. sy. It,'W?.? an information against Austin and others for engrossing a thousand quarters of corn. The plea was not guilty. The jury found oni of the defendants guilty for seven hundred clutheis; ara licit giitqy fOr the residue; and found the others not guilty for all. I") . dvi - . case of engrossing, it might be of stealing, in which jury returned a verdict of guilty as to seven hundred, but not guilty as td the residue. In most cases it was not necessary that thOre should be any such verdict, be cause the punishment would he the sat& tiff ttealing corn, whether seven hundred, t*o hundred, or a thort= sand qliartOrs. Bat it alight be important to the prisoner to have the verdict so eniOred, because he might be suspected of having stolen another I,dgd quarz tern of corn, and therefore he had a right to insist upon having the verdict and the judgment entered up predisely according to the fact. It was there important to the proBectltiati, bedaase under the old law he was entiled to his writ of reStittitlan, Either party had a right to have the precise matter found entered upon the record, and to require that judg• meat should be prove for that and that only of which he had been found guilty, and that that, and that only for which he was suffering punishment,. should appear upon the record. His Learned Friend the Attorney-General had asserted, with that confidence with which he always made such assertions when he had no authorities to produce, that it appeared that the practice was universal of entering up judgment upon all such counts. He (Mr. Kelly) said that there was no such practice. There was no authority produced for it, and wherever such practice did exist it was against the law, against the righti of the Crown, against the rights of the prisoner, and, he said it with all submission, against the duty of the court. The judgment ought to be entered up on that count which was good, and on that count only, and on the other counts he was entitled to have entered up either a verdict of acquittal or eat sine die. The only case in which there was an opponent were cases in which, in fact, the record was not made up, such as eases in arrest of judgment, and one other case. Lord BROUGHAM—You mean when a point is reserved at the assizes ? - Mi. KELLY meant that case. Then, in consequence of their being no court of appeal, the whole matter was reserked, and the point argued before the judges, as if it had just arisen. Lord BROUGHAM—Sentence is never pronounced there until afterwards. _ . Mr. KELLY—The court in that case received the evi dence and the verdict, and if they found the party duly convicted of any one offence on any one count, they passed judgment for that one offence on that one count In the case of the " King and Fuller," there was this sentence - bearine upon the same point, " but in the cir cumstances in which the prisoner now stands, there being a conviction on the first count of the indictment to which no sound objection has been taken, and on which judg ment must be pronouuced against him, it is not necessary that judgment should be given on the last count." The whole matter being before the Court, it was for them to determine whether any one offence was well laid in any part of the indictment, and then to give judgment on that part. Now he had gone through the whole authorities, and there was not one to be found which would apply in reason or by analogy to the proceedings of a writ in error. Neither of his Learned Friends on the other side, nor his Learned Friends who were on the same side with him, were able to produce any records to show what the practice had been after entering up judgment upon mo tion in arrest of judgment ; and it arose from this, that whether in the Court of Queen's Bench, or in the Cen tral Criminal Court, or at the assizes, there were not ten cases out of the ten thousand in which the records were ever actually made up, and in those few cases in which they were made up they were made up for a pur pose which would throw no light on this subject. With regard to cases upon writs of error, they were so very few, that in the whole of the books which they could re fer to, he was not aware of a single instance to be found in those books in which, after motion in arrest of judg ment, the records had been completely made up, where the Court had found one or more of the counts, and one of the counts only, to be good ; and under those cir cumstances, there being no authority actually bearing on this case, their Lordships must decide it upon prin ciple. His Learned Friends on the other side next chal- lenged them to state the mode in which a judgment could be entered after motion in arrest of judgment of the Crown in one count, and for the defendants in the other. He(Mr. Kelly) did not see any difficulty about it, and their Lordships would find several instances given in Davis's Pleas of the Crown, p. 393. From those it appeared, that all judgments in favour of the defendants must be expressed by those words—eat sine die. Now, after exhausting the point of authority on this subject, and after showing the total absence of all precedents, he had only a few words to add upon the principle. He felt that it was upon the principle involved in the question that their Lordships must decide. There was no autho rity, there was no settled practice, and therefore the question must be determined upon principle. He had urged upon their Lordships, in opening the case on behalf of his clients, that if this doctrine pre vailed, that one good count would sustain judg ment before a court of error, the defendant would suffer punishment for three offences. He was met by a statement that he had only put hypothetical cases, and that the cases supposed were of an extreme, improbable, or even impossible character. If that were the fact, he was content that their Lordships' judgment should be against him on that point. He would therefore apply himself one moment, not to what was matter of hypo thesis, but matter of actual experience and fact. In a case in which a great political conspiracy was alleged, he had felt bound to state that this doctrine would be fatal to justice, remembering that in political conspiracies the object might be lawful, and yet each ten men out of one hundred might endeavour to obtain that object by different means ranging from the most venial offence, such as a common public house drunken meeting up to a conspiracy to commit high treason and murder. It was impossible to say that he was now putting an improbable or merely hypothetical case, because conspiracies, differ ing thus in their nature, had actually been formed in this country within the last few years. His Learned Friends wrapping themselves up in the vague generalities befitting such an-argument, said that if a judge were to find a pri soner indicted for two or three different offences of a different character, he would put the prosecutor to his election. Now he believed there was no power of that kind vested in the judge in case of misdemeaneur, unless itwere the power of recommending. The jury were sworn to try three or more issues, and try those issues they must, unless both parties consented to a release. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you mean to say that the judge is bound to take all the issues together ? Mr. KELLY submitted that that was so. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be done if it were necessary to prevent the party from being entangled in his defence. What power was there in the other case ? Mr. KELLY said it arose from the practice of 200 years. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the objects were to protect the party charged ; it applied equally to the one crime as to the other. Mr. KELLY said the misfortune was, that with all the anxiety of the judges to do justice, the practice was not as his Lordship supposed. He must entreat their Lord ships' attention for a moment to this point, otherwise a very grievous misapprehension, from which those he represented might suffer deeply and irreparably, might prevail in their minds. He was quite aware that if two totally distinct misdemeanours were charged, such for instance as a libel against one individual, and a conspiracy to murder another, in one and the same indictment, the judge would recom mend, and probaby his recommendation would be adopted, that either the one or the other should be abandoned ; but they were not then considering a case of that na. tore. In a case tried last week before the Lard Chief Justice of England, there were three totally distinct offences charged. There was a conspiracy to deprive the prosecutor of property of immense value by influenc ing a foreign Legislature, which,' if entered into at all, must have been entered into in 1828 ; a conspiracy to deprive the same individual of the benefit of a valuable lease, and to place another person in possession of it, which could not have been formed before the beginning of the year 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and then there was a charge of a totally different conspiracy, by circulating reports injurious to the credit of the pro secutor, and bringing his mercantile house in London into discredit, and tending to impoverish himself. The offence laid in the first indictment was completed in 1828. The other came up to the very end of December, 1829, nearly two years after the first ; and the third could hardly be fixed as to time, as the evidence relating to it extended over a period of six or seven years. The LORD CHANCELLOR—But what took place on the trial? Mr. KELLY--Every charge was fully gene into. Two days were occupied with the hearin g , and he himself (Mr. Kelly) had the painful duty of defending the eminent parties charged. After he had addressed the jury, the Lord Chief Justice told the jury there was no evidence to be left to them in support of the last charge. He then referred to a correspondence of rather a voluminous character, and ultimately expressed his opinion to the jury, that there was no evidence in support of the second charge, and the case went to the jury on the earlier con spiracy. But the counsel in the case had to address the jury on all the charges of the indictment. The LORD CHANCELLOR was sorry the case had not been mentioned when the Lord Chief Justice was pre sent, as he (the Lord Chancellor) had a distinct im pression that the Lord Chief Justice had told the jury to direct their attention to one of the charges only, and that an election was made. Mr. KELLY said he did not direct the jury to one charge till the summing up. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Did the counsel for the de fendants at an earlier stage of the trial suggest such an election? Mr. KELLY—NO, my Lord ; how could he do so? The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had a distinct im pression of what the Chief Justice had stated as to this trial. He regretted, therefore, that it had not been mentioned when the Lord Chief Justice was present. Mr. KELLY said he had mentioned the case on the first day he addressed their Lordships, as a proof that persons might be indicted, tried, and convicted, for three totally different offences, committed at int. rvals of years. On that very case, whatever might be his Lordship's impression derived from what had fallen from the Chief Justice — The LoRD CHANCELLOR said the statement had no reference to this case, as this communication was made before ii ;,'me on for hearing, and he, being engaged on 9the,r matters, clia pay so much attention to it as he liafo ttottot . -- that an t4idatied Opcfiott tytti,offeredto the parties, : and that gmwhin. of thesp,copnts were not left t i o . the jury;. he Was hoinici tti say that tlielnipiesSion was,v,p etmeonspn 6: It was only on summing up, on the close of the sci.end Pitig (162 y a the that the Lord Chief Justice told the jury that oRe only must be left to them; because the evidence on the two greater charges had altogether failed. In that very eign those individuals, instead of being the high and . honourable Vai`ties) tIVly sure; might have been really guilty, and might havd Been Hand goity of all three of these objections. He theil qUoied the language of Lord Ellenborough -in a case from the 4d of Cattipbeit's Reports, in which his Lordship laid it down Ci 4 a Tiffin idled Ve tfi&l fet several offences under one indictnieni, if kftd a offlindes Were all of the same sort. That was the only Men might he chttrird, and evidence given against them, for.edietal sever ral assaults, or several frauds. Let them fiat lie to - h 1 then that jndges put defendants to their election as to the charges. They do not put them to such election where the offences are of t the site description. He re ferred to a recent trial before Justice Holeoyd, in which there was an indictment for three libels, published at ill-. tervals of three thmi four months, against a Dissenting minister. Lord BROUGHAM—That was one the first actions in which the question was raised whether the :filth might be pleaded in mitigation of damages. Mr. KELLY—fin was not now putting hypothe tical, or merely possible canes P.t all. Where there was no authority to bind or guide tiiAt llKruse —where they found the practice silent, and wiigtW they knew what the practice ought to be, but where there were neither authority or practice, and when they came to principles, and applied them to practice—he would 'ask whether it was arguable that where a person was convicted of several offences under one indictment, which rendered it necessary for the court to pass a heavier. sentence for the number of offences than it would! for one, and where, upon error, the party stated that he was suffering for those offences of which he was not guilty, could their Lordships say that upon principle and upon reason he should continue to stiftet that punishment. If such a rule existed, which he contended there did not, it was against reason and justice, and even if it had existed for centuries, it would be the duty of Nvz..._ their Lordships to over-rule it. On these rotting he submitted that the proposition contended for on the part of the defendants was good; that if one count in the indictment was bad the judgment was vitiated, and must be reversed, and the effect of that would be, not that the parties pho were really guilty should go unpunished, because they must be tried and convicted of any of the offences on the record of the court—all that they prayed was, that their Lordship would relieve them from the present sentence of any offences for which they were suffering punishment, !Jut of which they had not been found legally guilty. Ile would advert no more to this point, but would proceed to the consideration of the two counts of the indictment to which he had before alluded. He had submitted that the 6th count was bad. That count charged the defendants with conspiring to procure, by assembling large numbers of persons, and by intimida tion and the exhibition of physical force, a change in the laws and constitution of the realm. The real ob jection to this count had not been met by the other side. The objection was not that the name of the parties was not mentioned, but the objection was, that the count charged a conspiracy to intimidate, but did not mention the names of the persons to be intimidated. Here their Lordships consulted together for a short time, during which Mr. Kelly did not proceed with his argument. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Go on with your argument, Mr. Kelly. We are attending to what you say, although we occasionally consult among ourselves upon the points as they arise. Mr. KELLY contended that this sixth count was bad, because it was not stated on what particular class of lersons it was intended the intimidatio'n should operate. - It was a general charge of intimidation, without stating the party on whom it was intended to operate, and the result was, that if any species of intimidation could be created by a legal meeting with a legal intention, the count was bad. The case had not been fairly argued by his Learned Friends on the other side. They had said that that was legal for one which it was illegal for many to do.—(here their Lordships again engaged in conver sation, and Mr. Kelly paused.) Lord BROLreHAN—Mr. Kelly, go on, go on. Mr. Kisixy—His Learned Friends had referred to cases which he admitted in which names had not been men- tioned in indictments. But although names had been omitted, classes of persons had always been mentioned. No doubt in cases of conspiracies to defraud, it might be impossible to name the parties. For example, if per sena were indicted for a conspiracy to rob on the high way, the names of the persons to be robbed could not be mentioned. But there could be no doubt that the conspiracy would be illegal. In the first place it was illegal to rob at all ; and in the next place the conspi racy would be laid as a conspiracy to rob all the Queen's subjects who should pass on a certain highway. Again, in case of a conspiracy to defraud, which had been tried before Mr. Justice Williams, although no names were mentioned, the class of persons to be defrauded was dis tinguished as all persons who could be induced to give the defendants credit. That indictment was good, be cause it alleged an illegal agreement to affect an illegal object. It was definite, for it so distinguished the par ties as to enable the defendants to prepare their de fence. But in the present case there was nothing to give the slightest information as to what was the nature of the intimidation, on whom it was to net, or that it was unlawful, and therefore the count was bad for generality. For instance, if a count charged a con spiracy to use threats and menaces, and there was no thing to show whether they were lawful or unlawful, if in any conceivable case the employment of threats could be lawful, the count would be bad. Here there was nothing to enable the parties to meet the charge. It was not said whether it was intended to intimidate the Sovereign, the Parliament, or the Queen's subjects generally. The case of the King v. Hill and others, 2d Barnewall and Alderson, page 204, had been decided by the Court if Queen's Bench to have gone to the extreme verge of the law. The defendants had been found guilty of conspiring by false pretences, to obtain from D. B. divers large sums of money of his property, and to cheat and defraud him of the same. There the party came into court, knowing whom he was charged to cheat and defraud. The only complaint was, that the means were not sufficiently set forth. The answerwas, it is prima facie criminal to cheat any person. The subtle means and devices must be within your own knowledge, and might be such as could not be stated in an indictment. The party knew whom he was charged with defrauding, and that was sufficient to en able him to prepare his defence. That case, however, went to the extreme verge of the law. He could not help observing that, in touching upon this part of the case, the Attorney-General for Ireland could scarcely utter a sentence, without mentioning some class of per sons to be intimidated. Now, if that had been stated in the indictment, the defendants would have known the charge against which they had to defend themselves ; but as it was, if it were possible to imagine a case in which intimidation might be lawful by means of a law ful meeting, the count would be bad for generality. He would not report the case which he had already put on that point, but the Counsel for the Crown had stated, that if it could have been proved at the trial that such had been the nature of the intimidation they wauld have been entitled to a verdict of acquittal, and if such were the case he would under take to prove to their Lordships that this count was a bad one. The charge was to cause and procure a large assemblage of persons to meet for the unlawful and sedi tious purpose of obtaining, by means of intimidation, changes in the laws and constitution of the realm. Now, how could any one sentence of that be disproved by evi dence which would show that the assemblage was for the purpose of causing intimidation in aid of the Legislature, that they might not be prevented from passing an Act of Parliament. If that count were good, any meeting was unlawful ; no matter who were to be intimidated, no matter whether they were wrong-doers. If one species of intimidation was lawful, and another unlawful, they must show that the intimidation was unlawful to make it a criminal charge, and here he begged again to refer to the case of " the Queen v. Peck," the principle of which case was, that the count was bad, because it did not show that the purpose was necessarily criminal. His Learned Friends on the other side had referred to the prosecu tion of Feargus O'Connor. He begged their Lordships to look to the count in his case, which was of so doubt ful a character that the Court of Queen's Bench had not pronounced judgment upon it. 'The count, in that case, was far superior, in point of legal precision, to the count now under consideration, and yet it was by the court considered so general, that his Learned Friend the At torney-General had not called the party up to receive judgment. The Learned Gentleman then referred to the language of Lord Kenyon, in reference to criminal charges in general, and particularly to the charge of conspiracy in the case of" the King v. Holland," in sth Term Re ports, page 653. The eighth count of the indictment was that which charged the defendants with conspiring to bring the tribunals established by law is Ireland, into hatred and contempt, and to withdraw the adjudication of differences from those courts„ and to transfer them to others. He believed their Lordships were of opinion that this was not necessarily illegal, and had nothing approaching to illegality in it. His object might be to bring the judges themselves into hatred ; but here a mitigated character was given to the act by its being stated that the intent was to induce the people to submit their differences to other tribunals. His Learned Friends had observed that they had put extreme cases by referring to the time of the Charleses and the Jameses ; but it was necessary to put such eases when applying a test to ascertain what was lawful and what was unlawful, as a means of correcting an abu , e. If the courts of this country were at one period of such a cha racter as to require the most powerful efforts to change the system, it was important to ascertain the legality of the means which might be resorted to for that purpose. With regard to the cases cited on the other side, he dismissed them all with the single observation, " that they were all cases in which a spe cific violation of the law was charged in the indictment." No one would dispute that a libel in court was a misde meanour, but, as in this case, the means were not stated, the .object was not necessarily illegal. Ile submitted, therefore, that this count was bad, and that it would vitiate the judgment. He had next to observe upon what was called the triple finding. That point lay in a very narrow compass. His Learned Friends had not contended that there were not three distinct findings, and it was perfectly clear that here was a conviction for three different conspiracies, and judgment passed thereon. The findings were all equally good in law, and which would they choose, and which would they , reject ? There was no more power in that court to reject one than to reject the whole. The finding ought to have been of one offence, only, and in the one count The principle of law was as applicable to misdemeanours as to felonies. The argument of the Attorney-General was, that there was something in a charge of conspiracy :^ll distinguished it from any other charge with re number of defendants who might be found 1,;w4 to tn., tge, ee. He was not aware of any dis guilty oil i hiweet ctilvir... 7 and other misdemeanours. i4tiction' qu'es'tion, bete wens hoe: wi,e,... lear in the same indict ment ill hitch there was a saltkieat nee - l xi be r ,... e? f p c ;; l t t s ) ,.: they could find A IS gnifey of one comet s of another--that could be done if there werea eattasel en number or counts—but the question was whether, under One count, charging one offence, they wield carve out se multiplicity of offences? For that there was no authority' ewe& and it was opposed to the principles of emmoir sense. In toning to a conclusion on this point he would again advert to the case of Feargus O'Connor. He had read what fell from Mr. Baron Rolfe on that trial, but he had since been referred by one of his Learned Friends who was present at the trial to the same point which arose. It would be found in page 180 of the printed re• port of the trial of the sixty-nine Chartists. The Attorney-General suggested that in case of a mis demeanour it was not at all necessary that all the defendants should be convicted on every count of the same indictment. Mr. Baron Rolfe said no, but you ean riot have an indictment against A, B, and C for one offeoee, and convict A of one offence, Bof another, and C of a third, and the case was so left to the jury at last. In the present case, several issues were left to the jury on one count. He submitted, therefore, that the objection appeared here in a clear and simple fia•ro, One offence was stated in the count ; three offences were found by the verdict. One judgment was p a ssed upon all the OffeliCON aforesaid. It came before their Lteelehips as one indivisible judgment on two more offences than were ever presented by the grand jury. It was impossible their Lottiehips could reject one .or an other. The jury had divided on all, and, as it wag im possible to distinguish them, he submitted that there was no alternative but to reverse that judgment. He must now make one or two observations, but one or two only, on the point of discontinuance. It was quite unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with a reference to those authorities which had been gone into by his Learned Friend Mr. Peacock. Others had been adterted to by the Attorney-General, but the result of the Whole of the authorities was this, that a discontinu ance, Eiftet a verdict had been given, and where the parties were Waiting for judgment only, could not be 'osused by appearance. It had been stated, that front the particular form flf thwe proceedings, there had been no discontinuance at all. But this went to limit the operation of the statute in a very extraordinary manner. The argument was, that the statute extended the term, and made that extension the same for all purposes as if that extension had taken place within the tern. Well, thug, it was said that this was for the purpose or trial only, and therefore the trial taking place in vacation, that it was the trial only the court had power to hold in vacation, and that they had no power to enter into a cen tinuance. Why, must not the power that was given to them be not only for the purpose of the trial itself, but for the purpose of subpoenaing the witnesses, and giving force and effect to every trial connected, with the trial and all its incidents. If the court was supposed to have no- other power than to' hold the trial out of vacation, they would have no power to record the verdicts. The Legislature must have pre sumed, in giving this authority, to have known the prac tice of the courts, and that these proceedings were in tended by it to be adapted to all forms. On those grounds he submitted that whatever authority the court had in term, it had out of it, and that what they might have done in an ordinary case they might have done in the pre sent. The discontinuance, therefore, not appearing in the record, there was manifest error, and the judgment must be reversed. The manner in which the discontinuance should have been entered in the record clearly applied in the case of " Hart and White," in the State Trials, and in the case of the " King and Robinson," in ed Burrells. There was another point to which his Learned Friend had thought it necessary to advert, and which, if not in the present, in many cases might become a point of great importance. The point of the judgment of ac quittal to which many of the defendants were entitled, as in many matters contained in this record, there had been no judgment at all, and such being the case, they could not plead autrefois acquit to relieve them from it. In his opinion it was utterly impossible to imagine a record more utterly defective in most important particulars than the present. Under such circumstances the defendants were entitled to take any objection to the record, however techni cal. His Learned Friend had stated that it was true that defendants had no power to enter an acquittal, but that that House, sitting in error could do so. He (Mr. IC) apprehended that that House, sitting in error, had no right to amend a judgment in any criminal case, and oil that ground he would submit also that the judgment on that particular point ought to be reversed. There was ano ther point to which, although both his Learned Friends had adverted, he felt it his duty, considering its im portance, to make a few observations, and that we" with respect to the right of challenging the array. The facts of that appeared in the record. They were tha t the recorder ought to have delivered to the clerk of the peace a list of the juries for the year, that from that lid a book should have been made, and that from that Weir the panel ought to have been taken by the sheriff. NI it was said, on the one side, that he never made out ee c ts , a list—that if he did, he never delivered it he the clerk of the peace. It was said that did deliver it to the clerk of the peace, but 01. some of the names might have been wrongly place", Now he conceived that when the allega tion appear:: upon the record, in the language of the statute, t mstaeatuntienTmodf or th had ealhe t ti b o e n et way, complied t p h i a ie t d t • rith. if the Crown substance of the had taken issue upon that, and it had appeared that a list substantially within the meaning of the statute; al though some of the names might have been misplaced , and one or two omitted, had been given in, there would have been a verdict given for the Crown. But if it had appeared that the Recorder had never delivered a list, and the panel had been made out en a fabrica tion, that would be an abundant ground of chal lenge ; or suppa.e the Recorder hid strictly performed his duty, and had delivered in a list contain ing the names of all the jurors, but that there the chain of regular proceedings had ended, and some third un; known person had interfered and furnished the s halt' with a fraudulent list from which the panel had been struck. No one could doubt but that would furnish abundant ground of challenge for trial by ki r Y would be a mere mockery if jurors could be selected from a fabricated list. The great ques tion was, if challenge of the array was the rig ht remedy or not, and their Lordships were told, by reason of a multitude of ancient authorities relating 1° proceedings before special juries were known, that it tve s only by reason of some charge against the sheriff that 6 challenge to the array coulsl be allowed. He apPre: hended that that doctrine was founded upon 11 ,' incorrect proposition—in point of law. The ch si : lenge of the array was given to the subj ee ' in order that he might secure to himself a fair and I 11 1; partial'trial by jury ; and as long as the jury was 11° selected by stat u t e , but by the sheriff or his officers, 6° long the subject could be entitled to his challenge of er ray only in consequence of default on the part of 01 sheriffs. But when the statute created a new state things, and intended to provide for the subject a greater safeguard, by providing due laws of a better chara cter i and when for that purpose the statute had superadd e to the silt riff other officers to be concerned in the p re : paration of the jury list, without taking away the chec lenge of array, it was clear that the subject. was entitled to the challenge of array on accoun t e the indifferency of those officers to whom the duty o', sheriff had been entrusted, as he would have been urea° the common law, on account of the unindifferency of tb ° sheriff himself. Therefore, in this case, they were as, much entitled to a challenge of the array, on account 0.1 the default of the Recorder, as they would have been e account of the default of the sheriff ; and when as ked what must be the award if this challenge to the arra); were allowed, lie would ansWer,, that if the Recorder he duly made out the list, the award should be to the IT; corder to deliver that list, that the jury panel might be formed from it. If they were of opinion that list, Recorder had not duly made out the 115 r then the award should be to the proper office... to make out the book, and if, in consequee'" of any difficulty at any stage of the proceeditV it should appear that no good jury list could se made out for this year, then the award should be to 1 1;, sheriff's to produce the jury list of last year. He si l bs mitted therefore that the challenge to the array Ott to be allowed, and that on that ground also the jul went ought to be reversed. Ho would now briefly ti o f vert to the point. of the recognisances. The case ar Hunt and White showed that in cases of m i s dernean e , it was competent for the court to order defendan ts be enter into recognisances to keep the peace, but it mut t , for a reasonable time. But in this instance it was us e ` a , tain for what time they were bound to keep the P etl se No time was specified, except from the time of giving ire recognisances. This was entirely against all pra ctl e s and precedent, and it was further ordered that t 4 should be imprisoned until they entered into their o j recognisances, so that if they were never able to 'A ts sureties it was a sentence of perpetual i m prisonnl e . l3 o l. It was different in cases of fine. Magna Charta ref:l n " e, that no man should be fined beyond his ability to nod therefore, when a man was sentenced to be ireprisol:o,4 until his fine was paid, the law presumed that be ter able to pay and free himself if he chose. But the ex ing into recognisances with sureties did n ot . ne e pend on the parties themselves. Magna Charts dleies• compel any man's friends to come forward as sure . re .. He contended that the whole judgment ought to b e e o versed, because there was uncertainty as to the tire the giving and taking the recognisances. It was said oa t is other side, that this would only vitiate the judg e anin part; but if it was bad in part, he held that it was " A sr of the whole, because the court of error had no posy-ed. altering the sentence which the court below pronou rl os ea and that the judgment must be reversed on this gr, oo ld also. There was only one other point which he 'esses shortly advert to—that was, the point that the wi tn e rn were sworn before the grand Jury, and not Iti es ite court, which was in contravention of the Act of V iet s eaG and, in his opinion, the still more important point,coest the foreman had nut ' certified to the s ot that the witnesses were sworn, and had bin' endorsed the names of the witnesses on the 00 The authorities cited showed only that no error leeciser was originally assignable in the Court of Ex.,,,e ll i s ed s Chamber as a court of error. His Learned .e o bject contended that this error ought to be made the 't he of a plea in abatement; but he had clearly stated Le s o declined so to make it. The defendants haeillgesla means of discovering the error till after, the trial, The not be bound to plead it in a plea in abatene' be for e Learned Counsel then referred to a case tried ego16:1 Mr. Baron Parke, in which there being some L e gra°, rity in the swearing of the witnesses befo re tuna tits jury, a now special commission was issued, ; w e 0 : parties were tried over again. They had the l'sseor''' all the judges that if the witnesses were not du.' RAILWAY SHARES. Versailles,L.B.• • •• •• •• •• •• 247 50 .. 247 50 .. 246 25 .. 246 25 Rouen Rouen - to Havre• ••••••• • • • . 766 25 766 25 . 765 .. 766 25 Orlesais ..... . ••••• 992 50 .. 992 50 .. 990 • • 990 :Airasburi to Bale• • • ..... 240 .. 241 25 .. 240 .. 241 25 tvignon to Marseilles•• •• •• 766 25 7G6 25 .. 766 25 . 766 25 RAILWAY SHARES FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15TH JULY. Versailles,ll.B.•• •••••..... 380 .. 380 .. 377 50 .• 377 50 L. 13.•• •• .• ...... 247 50 .• 247 50 245 .. 246 25 Rouen..•••• Rouen to Havre.. •.. ..... 765 765 .. 763 75 .. 763 75 Orleans .• 995 996 25 992 50 .. 992 50 Strasburg to 8a1e.... ..... . 238 75 .. 242 50 .• 238 75 .. 24? 50 THIS DAY'S NEWS. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. (THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a full Bench of Magistrates.) THE LATE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF GAMBLERS AT TILE WEST END. This day being appointed for hearing appeals, the court was crowded to excess by persons anxious to hear the cases of those individuals who had appealed against the decisions of several of the metropolitan Magistrates, who sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, and inflicted fines, some of which amounted to 501., for being either proprietors and managers of gambling-houses, or being found upon the premises when the police, in a large body, and simulta neously, stormed a great many of those dens of iniquity in the neighbourhood of Leicester. square 'and St. James's. The names of the appellants were John Barlow, William Canty (better known as Captain Cauty), William Smith, Joseph Everett, and William Allan., Mr. Clarkson and several of the gentlemen of the bar who were engaged on either side appealed to the Learned Chairman as to the propriety of entering upon this appeal now, as they had to go on circuit to-morrow, and it would be quite impossible to close the sessions in one day. Mr. Sergeant ADAMS concurred in the views of the Learned Gentlemen, and said that the best course to adopt would be to defer the hearing of these appeals to the October sessions. Thev were then fixed for Oct. 25. The Court. then proceeded to hear parochial affairs, in which there appeared no feature of general interest. CLERKENIVELL.-(THIS DAY.) Two women named Curtan and O'Leary were charged riith violently assaulting Elizabeth ZirDonald, residing in Ultra grove, Chalk-road, Islington. It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses, that between seven and eight o'clock last night, the prisoners went to-Ultra-grove, Chalk road, a row of small houses, and knocked at the gates leading into them. They inquired for a " stout woman," but were answered by the female living there that they knew of no such person. 'Their whole inten tion however, seemed to be to get the women out who lived in the cottages, for Mrs. King, one of the housekeepers, had no sooner made her appearance, than the prisoners fell upon • her, and gave her an unmerciful beating. Mrs. M'llonald another housekeeper, came to the rescue of her fallen friend, but she shared the fate of her companion, and speedily measured her length on the ground. All the other landladies came to the combat, but they all proved unequal to contend with these Amazons, who regu larly stripped for the , conflict. Bonnets, caps, and gowns, were torn to ribbons, and the precious ringlets of these staid old matrons were scattered• over the field of battle. The women screamed, the children cried, the dogs barked, and the whole of the quiet locality of Chalk-road was " thrown into a state of great excitement." when luckily two policemen came up, and by taking the two prisoners into custody put an end to further disturbances. O'Leary was discharged, as the evidence did not reach her, but Curtan was fined 11., which was paid immediately. UNION-H ALL.-(THIS DAY.) - - - MLluiel Miley was charged with robbing a young woman, named Malern, of ten sovereigns, under the following cir cmnst ances— It appeared the complainant had received two sovereigns at a club, of which she was a member, on the preceding night. Soon afterwards she met a young woman, her acquaintance, and took her into a public house to treat her. On paying for the liquor she produced the two sovereigns, which were tied up in her handkerchief, and the circumstance being witnessed by the prisoner, who was standing in front of the bar, he followed the complainant out of the house, and when she arrived at rather an unfrequented spot he rushed upon the affrighted girl, and snatching the handkerchief which con•- taincd the two sovereigns ran down a turning. She, how ever, raised an alarm, which being heard by a policeman, who seeing.the prisoner running, stopped him, andfound the hand kerchief containing the two sovereigns in his possession. The complainant added that she had since been threatened by some of the prisoner's companions. Mr. COTTINGIIAM dealt summarily with the charge, and. committed the prisoner for three months to the House of Correction. ESSEX SUMMER Assn - E.—Of twenty-one prisoners in the gaols for trial at this assize, seven aro charged with arson, Th.„_ 11 01 le set C 4 111(i 1 34 N ti \V Q 1 1 ad elr ian ad cmil pr evi (I f or t e `,!,?tli ' f r : rate:' a; "Q nex e t Tiq ltl i ' c l i ear, b u tor am at a a nt] 1, re a s dll )I ''er. 11 )e t , Eh 011, 1 , ',`, 4 1.." . ......... reitz::::.....: