The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

I have the honour to be, Ladies and Gentlemen, Your most obedient humble servant, RICHARD JENKINS, G.C.B. East India House, Leadenhall-street, July 5, 1844. Henry VIII., Sig. Lablache ; Percy, Sig. Moriani; Smeaton, Signora Favanti; Anna Bolrna, Madame Grisi ; Jane Seymour, signora Giuseppina Rosetti (from the Italian Opera at Vienna, her first appearance in London). In the course cf the Evening, Signor Puzzi will perform a Solo on the Hora. After which, a DIVERTISSEMENT, in which Mdlle.' Fanny Mdlle. Cerito, M. Perrot, and M. St. Leon will appear. To be followed by the Second Act of • GUILLA U ME TELL. Matilde, Madame Persiani ; A rnoldo, Sig. ;Mario; Walter, Sig. Lablache; and Guillaume Tell, Signor Fornasari. To conclude with a Favourite Ballet, in which all the principal Artistes of her Majesty's Theatre will appear. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be ml.lc to Signor Pun', 38, Jermyn.street, St. James's, and at the Box.odice, Opera Colonnade. Doors open at Seven. The Opera will commence at Ralf-past Seven o'Clock. THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET MK. BENJAMIN WEBSTER, LES EE THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be repeated the Prize Comedy of QUID PRO QUO; or, THE DAY OF DUPES. With a Prologue spoken by Mr. Webster. Earl of Hunsdon, Mr. Stuart; Lord Bellamont, Mrs. Nisbett ; Jeremy Grigson. Mr. Strickland; Hcn , y, Mr. H. Hell; Captain Sippett, Mr. Buckstone; Sir George Mordent, Mr. W. Farren ; Countess of Hunsdom, Mrs. W. Clifford; Lady Mary Rivers, Miss Julia Bennett; Mrs. Grigson, Mrs. Glover; Bridget I rim, Mrs. Humby. After the Comedy Mr. John Parry will sing " Fayre Rosamonde." To be followed by a New Comic Drama, entitled USED UP. Sir Charles Coldstream, Bart., Mr. Charles Mathews; Sir Adonis Leech, Mr. Tilbury; Wurzle Mr. James Bland; Mary, Miss Julia Bennett; Lady Clutterbuck, Mrs. Humby. To conclude with THE TRUMPETER'S DAUGHTER; or, Love and the Polka. Philli pot, Mr. Webster; Madelon, Madame Celeste; who will dance the celebrated Polk s. Orchestra Stalls, ss. ; Boxes, ris. • Pit, Is. ; Gallery, ~ s .; _Upper Gallery, la Half-price—Boxes, ; Pit 25 .; Gallery, Is. ; Upper Gallery, 6d. Doors opened at Half-past /fix, and the Performances commence at Seven. Tickets and Places to he had of Mr. I. T. Archer, At the Box eace, from Ten till Five. PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD.STH k.T. LESSEE, Mr. J. M. MADDOX. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Wili be perform d the celebrated Opera, L'EISIR D'AMORE. Adina, Miss Austin ; Nemerino, Mr. Allen ; Doctor Dulcamara. Mr. Paul Bedford. After which, LOVE AND CHARITY. In which Messrs. Fitz. amen, Oxberry, and Mrs. Stirling will perform. To conclude w►th a New and Original Burlesque, entitled THE WONDERFUL LAMP, being an Illustrated Version of kladdin. Ahanazar, Mr. Paul Bedford; Aladdin, Mr. Wright; Princess Badrouthadour, Misi F. Stan Ly. 'll-10ArRE ROY AL LYCEUM, LATE ENGLISH OPERA. HOUSE. Under the Management of Mrs. KEELEY. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be performed a New Domestic Drama, entitled THE MO. TiSENTOUS QUESTION. Characters by Messrs. Diddear, F. Vining, J. W. Collier, Miss Fortescue, and Mrs. A. Wigan. After which, a (*mod Burlesque Nairy Extravaganza, called OPEN SESAME; or, a sight with the Forty Thie es. klassarac, M r . ; Morgiana, Mrs. Keeley. To be *Mowed by an Apropos Bagatelle called POLKA MANIA. e'. Characters by Mz Matthews, Mr. Wigan, Mr. Keeley, Miss Woolgar, And Mrs. Keeley. To conclode with THE THREE FRA DIAVOLOS. Principal Characters by Messrs. F. Vining, Keeley, Wigan, Diddear, Miss Woolgar, and N!rs. Woollidge. ASTLEY'S i7OYAL AMPHITHEATRE OF ARTS. Propric.tor and Manager, Mr. BATTY. Great Success of the ChiDese Feast of Lanterns, and N. w Military and Naval Spectacle. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will be repeated an entire new Military and Naval Equestrian Spectacle, entitled THE CHINESE WAR; or, The Conquests of Amoy by 13 ltish Arms. New Scenery, Dresses, Appointments, &c., to realise the recent triumphs of England's Army and Navy. Feast of 250 Lanterns. _ _ _ After which, a graceful and novel pageant, entitled THE ROY COTILLION OF FRANCIS THE El tIST; or,lhe Beauties of the Louvre. Marguerite de Valois, Mrs. Batty. New and unequalled Scenes of the Circle—Extraordinary Feats of Horsemanship by Monsieur Louis Tournaire, S g. Germani, Herr ejoback, Lo Petit Isabelle, Mr. Newsome, &c., with Mr. R. Smith's /Wily trained Steeds. To conclude with THE GREAT STEEPLECHASE; or, Eng. land's Harvest Hume. The ri, - bors will open nightly at six o'clocA, and the i crlormances commence at seven. Box-office opened daily from ten till four. The private boxes have been recoLstructed and decorated win care and splendour. Acting and stagednanager, Mr. W. D. Broadfoot. DAVID:4E3 ROYAL SURREY THEATRE. THIS EVENING, JULY 5, Will Iv" 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 rosity," in which the Brockstedt Family—three Germati Lilliputians, only 23 32, and 3d inches in height—will perform. To conclude with a New Drama, called THE CARPENTER OF ROUEN, in which Messrs Hudson Kirby, Hicks, Neville, Vale, Heslop, Johnson, Mrs. Daly, Miss rerrey, and Mrs. R. Honner will perform. Places and Private Boxes to be had of Mr. Kerschner, at the Box office, from Eleven to Four. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. Daylight View of LONDON in the OLDEN TIME! Painted by Hanson and Telbin. The selsation caused by this unrivalled production is beyond all former pr.cedent ; the artist, tie amateur, the casual observer are all struck with its extraordinary beauty and fidelity of delinea. lion, and al-0 :manimous in pronouncing it the most wonderful ex hibition ever :vi:nessed. To view it only as a vehicle for the terrific display at Dusk is unjust ; it should be seen in the calm stillness of the quiet Evening, N vith its Towers and Steeples reflected in the spa cious Lake to be fu;! )' appreciated. The Evening PROVENA DE CONCERTS, on Men 'ays, Tues. days, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, are upon a scale of more th.P usual excellence: but words fail in doing justice to the awful rep% nentation of THE GREAT 1- T RE OF LONDON. Its fearful characteristics are truth.Nlizyourtrayed, but at the same time so beautifully blended with the wonders of the Pyrotechnic Alt, that delight is predominant over terror; and the Thousands who nightly crowd the Gardens hail it with acclamations, and admit that Southby, the Unrivalled Pyrotechnist, has achieved a matchless triumph. The Gardens and Zoological Collection are in the most perfect state, and combining so many and interesting features, are by far the must attractive lounge in or near the metropolis. eeding of the Animals at Five—Concert at Six—Conflagration at Dusk. Admitt ince, One Shilling. EGYPTIAN HALL, PICCADILLY . IMPORTANT NOTICE. ONE SHILLING Admission to v TILE NAI OLEON MU SEUM, the most magnificent and extensive Coltact 'n of Histo rical Curiosities and Works of Art ever known to have heen formed by One Person, during Twenty-five years of elaborate research, at a cost of 60,000 guineas, and to completely illustrate, ltt the most in structive and interesting manner, the most important part of Euro pean history, viz.--CHARLES 1., OLIVER CROM WELL, and LUIS XIV., to the deaths of GEORGE 111., and the EMPEROR :NAPOLEON, in 1821. This unique Museum has been visited often, during the last and present year, by the Royal Fa.mEy, the Duke of Wellington, the Foreign Princes, Ambassadors, aLLI their Ladies, also, many thousands of the Nobility and Public ; aryl the Pro rietor has recently been able to increase, by several very fine pictures, &c., his previous almost incredible number and variety of :MSS., Works of Art, and a multitude of valuable Relics, and other ZuJlosities, in this most instructive and, as hundreds have said It might Lo be, a National Museum. Many thousand have inspected it, and T:JIRTY PRINCIPAL EDITORS of the PUBLIC PRESS have stat.'d that it ought to be seen by every one. The price of admis tlon le reduoed to ONE SHILLING. The i4.7A1; OXON MUSEUM is to be seen only at the •• Egyptian Flan." Piccadilly, daily from Ten till Dusk. THE WEATHER.—SUN OFFICE, JULY 5. riIERMOMETER, LoweOt, 55; Highest, 68: Noon, 59. BAROMETER, 29.65.—WLND, N.E.' No rE.—The number 32 on the Thermometer denotes the freezing point, and 55 tempef.qte. In Barometers fair is n many placed opposite 30, and rain at 29. WATER AT LONDON-BRIDgE THIS DAY. Morning ... 18 minutes after 5 1 Evening 30 minutes after 5 O'CONNELL VERSUS THE QUEEN, IN ERROR. THE WEEKLY CHRONICLE, o f SATUR DAY and SUNDAY NEXT, will contain a full report of these interesting proceedings in the House of Lords ; also of the im portant News from India; Meditated Conquest of the Punjaub by Ellenhorough, and retreat of British Troops before the Beloochees ; the Sussex Peerage Inquiry; the Exhibition of Frescoes and Statuary at Westminster Hall; the extraordinary case of Running Rein, the Winner of the Derby ; the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Frauds, Forgeries, and Espionage of the Post-office ; the Horrible Massacres on board the Saladin , and all the News of the Week. Office, 337, strand, and all Newsvenders. TO THE SILIREHOLDERS OF THE LONDON JOINT-STOCK BANK. LIDIEs AND GENTLEMEN, AVACANCY having occurred in" the direction of your affairs by the lamented death of Joshua Scholefield, 1;81 1 ., 31 • E, I take the liberty-of offering myself to your consideration as a Candidate. Should Ibe so fortunate as to be selected to fill the vacant seat, my best energies shall be devoted to the interests of the Company. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. TO-MORROW EVENING, JULY 6, Will be performed Rossini's Opera Seria, OTELLO. Desdemona, Madame Grisi ; Emilia, Madame Bellini; Elmiro, Sig. Lablache; lago, Sig. Fornasari; Rodrigo, Sig. Corelli; II Doge, Sig. (d. Galli ; and Mello, Sig. Mario. After which, a .. DIVERTISSEMENI," in which will be intro duced a new Pas de Deux by Mdlle. Fanny Elsaler and M. St. Leon, Pas de Deux by Mdlles. Scheffbr and Plunkett, and the admired Spanish I sance 'La Saragossa," by Mdlle. Fanny Elsaler. To conclude with a Divertissement, entitled LA VIVANDIERE, intmlucing the Redowa ; or original Polka of Hungary, by Mdlle. Cerit• and M. St. Leon. Applications for Boxes, Stalls, and Tickets to be made at the Box Office, Opera Colonnade. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Signor PUZZI respectfully informs the Nobility, Subscribers to th e O,iera, his Friends, and the Public, that HI BEN will take place ON THURSDAY NEXT, JULY 11, On which occasion will be presented (for the First Time this Season), Donizetti's celebrated Opera, ANNA BOLENA. - - . 0.. ,„,,, SECOND EDITION: ittning At LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1844. A vast number of Bills received the Royal Assent in the House of Lords, a very significant symptom of the speedy termination of the Session. The Earl of MINTO gave notice that he would ask Lord HADDINGTON this evening whether it was the intention of the Government to send a naval force to the coast of Morocco to protect the interests of British subjects. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice for Monday of a motion relative to the war pending in the West of Africa. .Fhe Earl of RADNOR, after adverting at consider.. able length to the obnoxious and anti-English prac tice of opening letters at the Post-office, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the system of open ing letters at the Post-office. The Duke of WELtiNGTON fully admitted that the quntion had assumed a shape which required inquiry. After defending the practice to a certain extent, and exhibiting a number of bugbears to justify it, he moved as an amendment a Secret Committee, to be composed of the following Members—Earl Somers, the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and the Bishop of London. We regret to find from a few remarks made by lord. NOUMANBY, that the practice was not confined :to the Tories, and that the power had been exercised in Ireland against suspected Ribbonmen. It is a detestable power, and whether exercised by W higs or Tories, will be universally denounced. We have never heard one disinterested man say a word in supi ant of such an un-English practice. Party feel ing not mixed up in the question. Tories, Whig An amendment was proposed by Mr. BORTHWICK, the discussion on which, or rather on the general principle of the Bill, occupied the House the re mainder of the night. The Bill was then committed pro forma. The House immediately resumed, and adjourned at a Quarter past Two. In moving last night, in the Hotise of Lords, for the appointment of a Secret Committee to inquire nto the practice of detaining and opening letters at he General Post-office, the Earl of RADNOR justly remarked that when the Home Secretary of State thought that the public safety required an examina tion of private letters, he ought to open them on his own responsibility. If the law were to be violated with the object of securing the safety of the State by seizing upon correspondence, then, added the Noble Earl, " the Minister ought to violate the law on his own responsibility, and having done so, he ought to come down to Parliament and boldly say he had done so, because there had been a public necessity for it, aid call on Parliament:to protect him from the conse quences. Those who urged the necessity of opening letters in order to secure the safety of the State, sup posed the case of correspondence, the seizure and examination of which might prevent rebellion or dis turbance at home; but such a necessity for the inter ference of the Home Secretary could never have been anticipated with respect to the letters of foreigners. It appeared to him that this detention and examination of the letters of foreigners was a breach of the laws of hospitality which was revolting to the public mind." This is well put by the Noble Lord. The law on the subject of opening private corre spondence at the Post-office, which was never in tended to be other than a dead letter, except in ex treme cases of necessity, which the Legislature has no right to anticipate, should at once be abrogated; and the Secretary of State—as Lord RADNOR sug gests—should open suspicious letters on his own respon sibility, plead the imperative emergency of the case, and claim the protection of Parliament for the con sequences of his act. Rarely, if ever, it is to be hoped, will he be compelled to have recourse to this step ; but while the law exists as at pre sent it arms him with sufficient power to have recourse to such an obnoxious stretch of au thority, which, in the hands of a suspicious, unscru lous, tyrannical Minister—and such have existed, and may exist again—could not fail to be attended with the most injurious aad demoralising consequences. As regards the Committee, to which the Duke of WELLINGTON unhesitatingly acceded, on the plea that there was no alternative, we must honestly confess that we are very doubtful whether any really good results will follow from it—first, from] the absolute se crecy which is to be attached to all its proceedings, and secondly, from the nature of the inquiry which it is proposed to enter into. Another curious feature in the business, which we do not pro fess at all to understand, is, that the Lords' Com mittee are to have the benefit of the advice and assis ance of two law Peers, while lawyers are rigidly ex. eluded from the Committee of the House of Commons. Surely there is some inconsistency here ! What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the aid of a lawyer is considered necessary in the one Committee, we should have thought, as a matter of course, that it would have been considered equally necessary in the other. The whole affair, we suspect, will end, like many others of the same sort, in smoke ; little or nothing more will be heard of the proceedings of either conclave ; but, meanwhile, a substantial good has already been effected, for public attention has been strongly fixed on the subject, public indignation and astonishment everywhere ex- cited, and the consequence will be, that no private letters will ever henceforth be opened at the Post- office, whether with or without the warrant of a Home Secretary, unless .the necessity of the case be made so apparent to Parliament, that no rea- sonable man can possibly object to it. The most remarkable feature in the whole affair, and not the most creditable to our vacillating Government, has been the high, authoritative ground which ,hey took on the first mooting of the question by _ _ _ _ Mr. DUNCOMBE, and the readiness with which they immediately afterwards abandoned that ground. In the first instance, they were strongly opposed to any thing in the shape of inquiry, and would give no explanation at all ; yet, not three nights afterwards, they were unanimously in favour of inquiry, w ith a _ _ _ . . view to afford the fullest: explanation ! The truth is thky have been influenced, in this as in every other case, by sheer motives of expediency ; and have granted the Committee, as they will be pretty sure to grant a repeal of the corn-laws, the instant it suits their views of expediency. to do so. As for acting upon principle, and the convictions of their own un- derstanding, such a thing never once enters into their calculation. IThe whole " talk" of the House of Commons, this s emion, has not afforded us so much amusement as a lachrymose and vituperative little a tt ac k ma d e , on Tuesday night last, by Mr. ARTHU R RoEnucic, on the conduct "of the daily press of this country," touching the Post-office exploits of Si r J AMES GRAHAM. When serpents cast their skins, accord ing to a popular superstition, they assume with their new cuticle all the vigour and sprightliness of renas cent youth. Whether Mr. ROEBUCK has experienced, in his own person, the genial influences of some such vivifying process on throwing by his gown of "stu f f," and involving .himself in one of silk, we do not undertake to determine. But, under some conscientious conviction of such a fact only, could - " he," Mr. ARTHUR ROEBUCK, whose freaks we have watched for these last fourteen years, " assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he fully sympathised in the feelings he had expressed." The association of " ROEBUCK. and sympathy" would be too extravagant—tgo ludicrously monstrous—for the heading, even, of a Bath electioneering placard. It would not impose on the credulity of a Bath chair man. " Sympathy"—and for-a political superior too —from the splenetic, querrulous, cavilling de nouncer of all parties, and all partisans, by turns ! and Radicals, if we except the Government hacks, are unanimous in the opinion that the Post-office should be sacred. Extreme cases may occur. In times of danger, and more particularly when rebel lion prevails, the Habeas Corpus Act may be suspended, but that can be done only by Act of Parliament. Let the same rule apply to opening letters. Nothing but the safety of the State can justify it, and the permission should not be given without a ;specific Act of Parliament, which would put every man on his guard. In that case no man or woman would write to a friend, but in the belief that their correspondence might be known to the Grahamites, and that every family communication might be read by the underlings of office. We agree, however, with that consistent and honest lawyer and statesman, Lord CAMPBELL, that in every instance it would be better to put an end to this obnoxious power. The Earl of RADNOR withdrew his motion. The Committee was appointed, and ordered to meet on -From the waspish, petulant aspirant after impracticable honours and hopeless elevation ! Why we could more readily credit a rumour that the Duke of YORK'S bronze statue, from the somewhat more majestic isolation of its position, had heaved a sigh ()f "natural sympathy" (for his Royal High n e ss ' s sur viving creditors), than that Mr. ROEBUCK has any such graceful weakness in his moral or physical com position. If he ever had it, we should say "it withered all"—like OPIIELIA'S flowers—when the common catastrophe of extinction overtook the re nown of his friend, M. PAPINEAU, and the insurrec tionary efforts of Lower Canada. But Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded to say that " advantage had been taken of this incident"—(the whole subject matter of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S inculpation—the fact of opening the letters—the mooted question whethef one or more warrants were requisite for his authority to do so, all are compressed into this convenient " incident") — advantage has been taken, he says, " to call down public indignation upon an officer who has done nothing more than tread in the footsteps of his predecessors." (Exemplary Sir JAMES ! He would not even break open sealed letters except under warranty of precedents !) " This opinion has been aided and created out of doors, by all the vile arts which attach to the daily press in this country." What means this ? That the " daily press" has no sympathy with Mr. ROEBUCK ? We trust it has not. Mr. ROEBUCK, as the Morning Chronicle well observes, " is, in his small way, as unpopular as Sir JAMES GRAHAM ;" and, after these marked advances on the part of the " sympathising" silk gown, we should not be astonished to see them figuring together as partners, in a political " Polka dance," for the re mainder of the session! Mr. ROEBUCK passes from the imputation of " vile arts" to the daily press, to the declaration " that a fouler instrument of calumny cannot be found." No? Not in the wholesale, unmeasured, unfeeling, insolent invectives against distant Lieutenant-Governors of colonies, and absent military commanders, and de eoac,Pd cavil and profoookma A Ltlavaitica , wItAl wrucn the House of Commons has been occasionally nauseated, for wearisome hours together, in endless arraignments, night after night, of all that has been said or done, written, directed, or transacted, by the Government of the day at home, and its representa tives abroad ? With such remarkable instances of individual slander on record, does Mr. ROEBUCK ven ture to talk of "all the foulness of the calumny of the public press having been heaped on the Right Hon. Baronet ?" Come, come, Mr. ROEBUCK ! You are troubled, we felt; either with a short memory, or a bashful unconsciousness—" teinporis acti." But since we, for our parts, cannot give to Mr. ROE BUCK credit for any such mere " prejudices"—(more important principles pass by that designation, in his system of ethics, than simple emotions)—as "sym pathy" for any human being:in existence,—save one —we must suppose his " sympathy" is for the conduct of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. He would " tread in the footsteps" of Sir JAMES'S predecessors. We wish him joy of his prepossessions. We have often ob served, that on questions wherein the personal rights and liberty of the subject have been found in collision with corporate or peculiar claims, or with the accidents of industrial occupa tion (such as those of female and infant labour in factories, or such as those wherein, for example, the " privilege-of-Parliament" pre tensions have been urged to their highest flight ;) Mr. ROEBUCK—with an inconsistency peculiarly , graceful in the noisy advocate of democratic institu tions and the working classes—has taken a part utterly opposed to the popular—to the generous view of the great majority of the community. Perhaps a vulgar love of paradox—perhaps the simple fact that " a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind" —may prompt his vote on such questions, or questions of that class, and may incite him to the rescue of the Home Secretary on this occasion. It is not worth while examining how this may be. But we have just one grain of curiosity touching another topic, personal to this busy declaimer and silent barrister. What are the past distinctions, the present ser vices, or the existing position of Mr. ROEBUCK (saving always the rights of that most fussy and obtrusive Aof dignities, identified with an acci dental M.P.)—on which the Learned Gentleman deems himself at liberty to hold such disrespect ful, such abusive, language of the " daily press of this country ?" We never heard him even suspected of any such superiority in. position, in services, in dis tinctions. His ill-breeding in all this, being the Learned Gentleman's misfortune, we don't insist upon. If he cannot help that, however, he is not, therefore, at liberty to advert to the press in terms of insult and contumely, for having discharged what it has conceived to be its duty, on a great public quo*. tion. Does Mr. ROEBUCK imagine that the official conduct of members of the Government is not public property, and, therefore, a legitimate subject for the discussion of the public press ? Or has he such a freehold, whether in fee-simple, or in (imaginary) expectancy and remainder, in the ministerial reputa tion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that, like that other hero of a farce, who over-estimated his own prowess, he will not allow even the boots of his mightiness to be challenged ? Really, Mr. ROEBUCK has no excuse for his over weening folly. A man so infirm in temper, so un genial in temperament—without poetry, without sentiment, without the power of attaching others, or appreciating in others the softer or more generous pur poses in which he is careful to show himself deficient; such a man might surely learn to be practical, con sistent, temperate, in his public deportment. His idiosyncracy, and the crude, harsh, utilitarian cha racter of his philosophy—(such as it is)—suggest no excuse for these escapades of peevish imprudence, and atrabilious resentment. 'We have one word more for our parting. In the true King CAMBYSES vein he thus concluded : —"/ will not do honour to one more than another of these detestable channels of public information by— naming them r Horresco referens. Their doom, then, is fixed ! For ourselves, we shall endeavour to live on, notwithstanding. We have taken a part — perhaps no inactive one—i n the general delinquencies of our unhappy brethren. What we might have gained, first in our own good opinion, secondly in that of the public, had we been selected, by name, as an excep tion to this fearful sentence, we cannot tell ; but it would have been little, indeed, if we may judge by the terrible constancy with which we support ourselves under our actual calamity. Mr. ROEBUCK will not "honour" one journal more than another by naming any one of them. An overwhelming avalanche of silent destruction! An awful but voiceless ruin ! And yet—(such is the indomitable levity of these " detestable" natures) — that the Chronicle replies to these " words of power" with this irreverent exclamation—" Heaven help the poor irritated little gentleman !" We shall only add, of the distinction thus barbarously withheld from us and our brethren, that we can imagine no dose so in finitesimal—so utterly imperceptible to the highest microscopic power—in the homeopathy of political depreciation, as—the " honour" of Mr. ROEBUCK'S nomination. _ Thursday. In the Commons,Mr.CHRISTIE presented a petition from CHARLES HENRY RUSSELL, the plaintiff in cer tain actions against noblemen and gentlemen for gam bling, and gave notice that he would this day move that the petitioner, according to his request, be heard at the bar of the House. Mr. SHELL gave notice of a motion for this day, relative to the French possessions in Africa. In answer to a question from Mr. WALLACE, Mr. GLADSTONE said it was the firm determination of the Government to go on with the Railways Bill. Mr. P. M. STEWART asked Sir ROBERT PEEL, whether the report was correct, that Government, after having carried the Bank Charter Bill, intended to interfere with the banking and currency of Scot land and Ireland. Sir ROBERT PEEL gave an answer which would lead to the belief that he is about to make an inroad upon the Scotch and Irish banks. Mr. HUME denounced the practice of opening letters at the Post-office, and said, if the House had appointed him on the Committee, he would have declined to attend it. He would have nothing to do with Secret Committees. The Bank Charter Bill, after some conversation and several attempts at amendments, was read a third time, and passed. Sir JAMES GRAHAM' moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. On a division the amendment was negatived by a majority of 180. Madrid journals of the 27th ult. have been received, but they are filled chiefly with rumours. It is re ported that an extensive conspiracy has been dis covered, that the Marquis DE VILLUMA will retire from the Ministry, that the Royal Family of Naples is expected at Barcelona, and that the Cortes are to be dissolved forthwith. The Three per Cents, were done at 284 at GO days, and the Five per Cents. at 20i at 30 days. Several of the Paris journals continue their attacks on the demand made by the KING for pensions to his sons and daughters, but we find nothing in the articles deserving particular notice. The excitement is dying away and probably little more will be heard of the affair till some motion is made in the Chambers for a provision to the Duke DE NEMOURS as Regent. In the Chamber of Deputies the discussion on the Paris and Strasburgh Railway Bill was brought to a close on Tuesday. M. ARAGO moved an additional article for limiting to one-tenth of the whole the number of foreign-made locomotives to be used on the line, with a view to encourage home manufactures, but the motion was rejected by a large majority, 191 to 62. The sum voted for carrying the works is 88,700,000 f. The line is to run from Paris by Essernay, Chalons, and Nancy, with branch lines to Rheims and Metz. No authentic accounts have been received from Morocco later than the 27th ult., when the French troops retained their positin. The follov,ving curious details respecting the Enperor of Moi tocco, in a letter from Tangiers, apper in the Ake rie, a paper published at Algiers : " The Emperor is suspectel of having poisomed his prede cessor and cousin Solyman, aid lie is now constantly afraid of a similar death himself. 'Except his son,' says the letter, ' nobody can approach him. t is he who serves him at table, and always first tastes his food. For a length of time this duty devolved on Sidi-Mahonmed, the Sultan's eldest son ; at present it is the task of duley -Ali, his younger brother. Both of these sons are born the same mother, called in the country Rhamouna, and sfe is an Englishwoman. Sidi- Mohammed, the heir-presunptive to the throne, is a man of about thirty-five years of ace ; his blue eyes and fair beard betray his half British origu. Abder Rhaman, who is about sixty, is strong and active, and of a cruel and brutal charac ter. Sidi-Moharnmed replaces his father in all difficult cir cumstances. At the conflict of May 30th, at Lalla-Magrania, it was he, it is said, who ,ommanded the Morocco troops. He, besides, for a length )f time kept up relations with Abd-el-Kader, whom he enc•uraged in his struggle against the French. The people of Morocco state that, without him, the ex-Emir would have given in years ago. The correspondence between the Khalifa and tie future Sultan has always been exceedingly active.'" The trial of CADOT aid ROUSSELET, for the murder of M. CA DOT, the banker at Pointoise, was brought to a close on Wednesday, when the son was acquitted, and the other convicted of murder, but, according to the verdict of th 3 jury, under extenuating circum stances. He was condemned to the galleys for life. THE BOURSE--WEDNESDAY, JULY 3. First Highest Lowest Price. Price. Price. Price. French Five per Cmts .. 122 20 • • 122 35 .. 122 20 .. 122 25 Four-and-a-lialf..• • 113 23 • • 113 25 .• 113 25 .. 113 25 Four per Cents. Three per Cents.• • Bank of France.• .• • ..... • • 3015 ..3013 ••3015 ..3015 Belgian Bank. Belgian Fives, 1840 ••• • .. 1051 .. 1051 .. 1054 .. 1051 1842 .• •••• •• 1681 .. 108( .. 108# .. 108( Threes • 78 90 • • 78 90 .. 78 90 .. 78 90 Spanish Threes, ex div 33 .. 334 • ,33 .. 33f Passive ...... ••• • • • 5 4 •• 5f .• 5# .. 54 Portuguese Five per Cents • • 46; • • 46; • . 46; • • 46; Dutch Two-and-a-Half ....• 61+ .. 61+ .. 61+ • • 61 1 Neapolitan. 98 60 98 90 .. 98 60 98 90 Roman 104; .. .. 104; .. 194 f RAILWAY SHARES. Versailles, ........250 250 .. 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75 Rouen • • • • • • • .1005 ..1005 ..1002 50 ..1002 50 Rouen to Havre— •• •• •• •• •• 770 .• 772 50 .. 770 772 50 Orleans .lOOO ..1003 75 ..1000 ..1002 50 Strasburg,to Bale• ...... ... 246 25 .. 246 25 .. 241 25 .. 242 50 Avignon to Marseilles-- 775 .. 775 775 . 775 R ri.WAT SHARES FOR THE ACcouarr, taw. JULY. St. Germain ...... .•• • • • 892 50 .. 892 50 .. 892 50 .. 892 50 Versailles, ... • • • . • • • 380 .. 380 .. 380 .. 380 •••• •• 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75 Rouen... ......... ........1005 ..1000 ..1002 50 ..1002 50 Rouen to Havre.... ...... .. 772 50 .. 772 50 .. 763 75 .. 770 Strasburg to Bale.- • . • • 245 Avignon to Marseilles.... • • 775 .. 245 .. 240 •• 777 50 .. 775 242 50 775 THIS DAY'S NEWS. QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Wmunt.uf and a Special Jury.) CURLING AND YOUNG V. COLLINS, PRYCE, WARBURTO:s7, AND OTHERS. -Mr. Whately, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Price for the defendants. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well known ship-builders, at Limehouse, against the defendants, shareholders in the once celebrated British and North Ame rican Steam-ship Company, to recover a sum of 1,744/, the amount alleged to be due for repairs done to the British Queen steamer, once the property of the Company alluded to, but since sold by them to the Belgian Government. It was stated to the Court by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs to take such a sum from each one of the several defendants as he might have been, b y the non-payment of his calls, in debted to the association itself. Should counsel for the defend ants wisely consent to this arrangement, then the question for the Court and jury would be merely one of liability. Counsel for the defendants at once admitted this to be a very hand some offer, and would not therefore trouble the plaintiffs to prove the various items of account, but would confine their efforts to contesting the question of liability. Upon this evi dence was at once adduced to show that all the defendants had signed the deed of partnership with the exception of Collins, and that he (Collins), as well as the rest of the de- fendants, were all of them shareholders in the Company. On behalf of Warburton, witnesses were put into the box to prove that the handwriting of Warburton to the deed was net the handwriting of the present defendant to the action, Peter Warburton ; and it was urged generally for the other defendants, that they had not held themselves out to the world as responsible parties in connexion with the British and North American Steam-ship Company. The jury, how ever, found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, for the several amounts due and unpaid by them as shareholders in the Company. EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.) ,Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.) HALIFAX AND OTHERS V. VERNON. Mr. Erle, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Bovill, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Unthank, for the defendants. This was an action brought by the eminent firm of Glyn, Halifax, and Co., bankers, to recover the sum 0f4,137/. 17s. 10d. from the defendant, Colonel Vernon, M.P., alleged to be a shareholder in the well-known Talacre Coal and Iron Com pany. The case appeared of a very intricate character, and likely to occupy the Court ver , y many hours in its u nrave lli ng . When our reporter left Mr. IN arwick Werton, jun., was under cross-examination, a determined effort being made to extract admission from him that several sums of money, subscribed by shareholders to the Talacre Company, had, by witnesses father, in conjunction with Alderman Thomas 'Wood, been applied to the purposes of the St. George's Harbour Com pany. Many strange disclosures were expected to be made before the conclusion of the case. COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.) Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and a Special Jury.) YOUNG V. WILCOX. This case, which is an action to recover for repairs of damage done to a ship-yard and dock, was partly heard yes terday, and was resumed by the Court this morning. The trial, which presents not the slightest feature of interest or importance to the public, was likely to occupy many more hours than those already consumed in its hearing. THE STATE TRIALS. (SECOND DAY.) WRIT OF ERROR. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. MONEYAND COMMERCIAL NEWS. CITY, QUARTER TO THREE. The Cotton Market at Liverpool yesterday was quieter. Sales, 5,000 bales, at steady rates, in c l u di ng 500 Surat, at 3d. to 34d. ; 500 Pernam, at 54d. to 61 1 d ; 200 Bahia, at sid. Mannchester Shares were in ?O.—Grand Junction, good to 6dd demand, Birmingham emana anddnd, 150 b uEt others eh t r i ep a ro; n s lcl, atau and ct Chester and Birkenhead,dm. to 294; Eastern Perpetual, 11. 13s. 4d.; Grand Junction, 227 ; Ditto New, 41 ; Hull and Selby Quarter, lla ; Liverpool and Manchester, 231 ; Ditto, 321. Shares, 384 ; Ditto Quarter 9 S 5 h a ; r N e so, North 9 e ter ; Ditto,an d B H u a ly l 4 34 ;; Midland Counties, North Union, 974 ; South Eastern, 354 • , York and North Midland Half, 20g Paris and Lyons, 21. 15s. ; Paris and Strasburg, 381. Arrivals from Australia bring news to the 20th March from Van Diemen's Land, where trade was rather improving, though for a long time to come the utmost caution will be necessary in making shipments to the Australian colonies. Sydney is evidently suffering the most, as up to the latest dates insolvencies continued there. We learn from New Zealand, under, date of the 27th of January, that Governor Fitzroy, was determined to deal according to law with the natives concerned in the Wairau massacre. The Funds, owing to an anticipated good revenue return, are again very firm, and there is a steady business doing. Consols have touched 984 4. The Three per Cent. Reduced Annuities 994 to a ; the Three-and-a -Half per Cents. 102* to 4, and South Sea Annuities 98 4. Bank Stock has been firm at the improvement to 198 and 199. Exchequer Bills realised 745. to 765. premium, supporting the improvement of yesterday. East India Bonds are 965. premium. A rally has occurred in the value of Spanish Bonds, which are marked 234 4 fur the Five per Cents., and 334 # for the Three per Cents. Mexican, are 354 to ; Dutch Two-and a-Half per Cents, are firm at 61; and D Russian at 112. The Railway Shares are steady, and a moderate business is doing. Great Western obtain 504 to 514 ; Birmingham, 1224 to 123 ; Ditto, New Thirds, 354 to ; Bristol and Glou cester, 16 to 4 ; Norwich and Brandon, 54 ; and South-East ern, 18 to 1 premium. Blackwall are 04 discount. London and Westminster Bank Shares are 6 premium. AHnlnSuiDtiAesY...... . 9,3%39 (From the Official List.) Bank Stock for Account ................. ....... ...... 198 1 26 AT ONE O'CLOCK. 3% per Cent. Reduced Annuitic i ""'"'"" logN% India Bonds, 1,000....................„ ... . Ditto under 1,000.................... ... ... ""'""..".'. 26 B 3 R pe IT r IS C South Sea 5t0ck....... .............. •• ••••........ ... e li nt. F ß U ed ND uc S ed T Ditto Old Annuities 99U Consols for Open ng ..... ..........=:::•••." • 834 % Exchequer Bills, 13(o, 1301 1,0001. ........«.............. ••......"•• 74 pm. 5 00 1 .•...•.....••••.......•• ••• ..........." 76 pin. Ditto Small.-- ... .. .... .. 76 pm. Ditto AdvertiseZ . "" . "'" .... pm. FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Alexican Bonds, 1 837, 5 per Cent. ....... ..... 36 ,4 Ditto for the Acc ount. 35% Russian Bonds, 1122, 5 per Cent ll9 Spanish Bonds, Five per Cent 1840... • 0 ,9 u Ditto for the Account.... ..... ......• 23`49436 Ditto, per Cent ..... " ........ ""*"....„ 5341 4 Ditto for the Acc0unt".."."."...."...."*"." 33 Dutch 2% per Cents 6l Dutch 5 per Cent 5........... PRICES OF SHARESTiirs DAY AT ONE. RAILWAYS, PAID. PER SNARL Bristol and Gloucester. . 30 ... ..... • 464 Chester and Holyhead.: .......... 5 Eastern Counties .... ....... "*. 23 ..... .... 11 Great Western .... ... '"'"••• ........ ,‘, 126 Ditto Fifths..... """»""»•• ....... ••••••••• I',Z . 14. ••••••••• to 223 London and Birming " l7a - m." . " ....... 100 ........ .222 Ditto New Thirds ..... 2 Ditto % Shares . ..... 2 London and 81ac1Ava11......"" ..... 163 ••••" 75 "0, to .. Norwich and Brandon .......... 2 ....... . IA, to South Eastern and D over 32% ...... 35 Ditto New . ........... „ . 4 ......... 10S% Trent Valley .. .. „. „ .... ......... 2 ....... .. 914, to 10 York and Nor th. Midland ......... 5 0 ,;••• ..... 71 Ditto Scarboro' Branch .. 2y. •••.•• -• 1( to to Orleans, Tours, and Bordea . u"x" .. 1 .... ". 1 . 394 Paris and Orleans "' go ... ...... Paris and Rouen... .. ..». .•.•••......... 20 ... . 69 U% ••• t. 3 '"' .................. ''' .. JOINT STOCK RAMC& London and Westminster 2O ......... 26 MANCHESTER STOCK EX CHANG E, JULY 4.—The business to-day is by no means extensive, but the market exhibits a firmer appearance. Eastern Counties, Registered, 13-1 ; Lon don and Birmingham, 221 to 9 23 ; Manchester and Birming ham, Quarters, 3i premium ; M anc hester and Leeds, Half Shares, 44 ; South- Eastern, 34i ; Trent Valley, 8 i i• _____ DEATH OF MR. SCHOLEFIEED, MEMBER FOR 818.. MINGHAM.—We regret to announce the death of this gentle man, which took place at his residence in Manchester buildings, at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. He was attacked by paralysis on this day se'nnight, and his recovery was at once pronounced to be hcpeless. Few men were more esteemed in private life than the deceased Member for Bir mingham, and he has left a widow and several children to lament his loss.—Tim es . WHITE SPARROWS.—About three weeics ago a lad residing at Upway, D orset, took a sparro w's nest, whi c h con tained five young o nes, four of them per f ec tly w hit e , th e fif t h of the natural col our ; they were secure d i n a cage, and so placed that they c ou ld be fed by the paren t bi r d s, b oth of which were constant in daily attendance, and evinced the greatest anxiety and impatience until they were permitted to administer food to their young. The four white ones have red eyes, the other the natural colour; both the parent birds are brown. The five, in the same cage, are in the possession of Mr. R. Rolls, ornithologist, Weymouth. Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the arguments in the above case. Counsel having been called on, Mr. Peacoes. said that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or to make any observations on that part of the case which related to the generality of the counts, but he would en deavour to show their Lordships that judgmedt had been given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had been charged against them in the indictment, and he would submit to their Lordships that in cases where punishment was discretionary, and where it appeared that the court had given any part of the judgment for offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences badly charged in the indictment, it was a ground for reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict having been entered in the way it was on the third count. He would also submit that the judgment was bad for want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of the indictment of which the jury had found the , parties not guilty ; and finally, he would submit that judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their Lordships had no power to amend the judg ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be fore their Lordships could pass their judgment, and that as punishment was discretionary with the court which tried the parties, that their Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment. With regard to the first point, he would submit that the parties had been found guilty of three several and dis tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three distinct conspiracies under the second count, and thut under each the parties were charged with one offence. The case would be simplified by treating this part of it as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be cause the second count was the same as the first, with tho exception that it set out the overt acts. Their Lordships would observe that by the second count nine persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid unknown, to raise and create discontent and diaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Ma jesty's subjects in the other parts of the said United Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said United Kingdom called England." Now he would not contend that the jury were not justified, under this count, in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others guilty of a distinct and separate conspiracy. The jur) found the parties guilty of one thing, and then the) found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing : they found them guilty of so much as charged them with combining to cause others to meet, but they acquitted them of conspiring unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi tiously to procure and assist them to meet. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you quite sure that is in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement in the case. Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordship. , that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77. He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with the other parties. The words of the finding were— " And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said first and second counts of the said indictment, respec tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilt) of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr. Tierney, but with each other and divers persons un known. The words of this part of the finding wen these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say that the said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, are, and each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend incr and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in the tribunals duly and lawfully constituted for the administration of justice, and further contriving, intending and devis ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra tion of great physical force, to procure and effect changes to be made in the government, laws and Constitution of this realm as by law established, did un lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire. confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown, to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at va rious times and in different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and Constitution of this realm as by law established ; and further, t( bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta blished in Ireland for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in the administration of the lam therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with and claims upon each other from the cognizance of the said Courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said residue of the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in marine' and form as therein is so above charged." So that they were found guilty of conspirinc , on what he would call No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3. Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven without the eighth were found guilty of charge No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind. Then with regard to the residue of the remain der the jury acquitted all the defendants except Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with regard to this third part none were found guilty of con spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus— " And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said premises in the said first and second counts of the said indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously . in tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising, and intending to create discontent and disaffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army, did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac quitted except Mr. Daniel O'CoiQell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy. They were found guilty ofconspirin g witheach other but not with the other six. If that were an offence punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there was still something behind, and of that the jury found Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:—" And as to other the premises in the said remainder of the said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof." Th e y were not found guilty o f conspiring to cause seditious and un lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were : " And further to excite discontent and disaffection amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure, and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici ously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstra tion of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the govern went, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by law established ; and further to bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire land for the administration of justice, and to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with, and claims upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said courts by law established, and to submit the same to the judg ment and determination of other tribunals, to be consti. tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the evil example - of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity." While the finding was, that they did un lawfully and seditiously combine, and conspire, to cause divers subjects of her Majesty to meet, they were not found uilty of causing them "unlawf u lly an d sedi tiously" to meet, which are the words of the indictment, and, therefore, they are acquitted of that part of the charge. Lord BeorcnAm—The words of the finding are " to meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and se ditious purpose," &c. The LORD CHANCELLOR—A s I understand the objec tion, it is, that they are not found guilty of having con spired unlawfully and seditiously to meet for an unlaw ful and seditious object. Mr. PEACOCK said that was the case. Daniel O'Connell, Barrett and Duffy were found guilty of so much of the residue of the remainder as related to the charge of endeavouring to corrupt the army ; but they were acquitted of something, and he contended that this was the portion of which they were acquitted. Mr. Tierney was acquitted of the greater portion. Five were ac quitted of that portion relating to the corruption of the army, and three of the rest of the charge. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Does not that mean that the three were found guilty of all ? Mr. PEACOCK—NO.They were acquitted of something— of all the residue of the remainder. Now they were charged with conspiring, unlawfully, and seditiously to meet: they were found guilty ofconspiring to cause to meet. The LORD CHANCELLOR—To cause them to meet for an unlawful and seditious purpose? Mr. PEACOCK—Yes, my Lord. The jury had pro fessed, however, to find them not guilty of that offence; they had found them guilty of all the residue of the re mainder except that, and they must, therefore, have in tended to find them not guilty of something. There was also another part of the residue of the remainder : the parties were not only charged with conspiring with each other, but with Mr. Tierney. It was clear that such a conspiracy might take place ; but the death of one of the conspirators could not acquit the others, and yet by the verdict of the jury all were acquitted of the charge of conspiring with Mr. Tierney. They were found guilty of conspiring with eight persons, and not with the ninth. Now those very parties might be indicted to-morrow with conspiring with Mr. Tierney ; and what had they got to defend themselves with but the finding of the jury ? The LORD CHANCELLOR—Suppose they were indicted with conspiring with Mr. Tyrrell ? Mr. PEACOCK—The finding of the jury would be a good answer, but he should have to deal with that more fully by and bye. Now although the jury had found them not guilty of that part of the charge, the Court had given no judgment of acquittal. The jury had also found Mr. Tierney not guilty of certain parts of the indictment, and the Attorney-General had entered a nolle prosequi ; but there still remained in the indictment five persons who had been acquitted of attempting to excite discontent in the army ; those persons were John O'Connell, Mr. Steele, Dr. Gray, and Mr. Ray, and the Court in giving judgment upon them gave it for that on which they had been found guilty, but they had given no judgment of acquittal. He submitted that on this finding eight persons had been found guilty of a joint conspiracy, No. 1. Seven were found guilty of conspi racy with each other, but not with the eighth, to do No. 2. Three had been found guilty of conspiracy with each other, but not with any other parties, to do No. 3. He supposed his Learned Friend the Attorney-General would contend that it was an offence to excite discontent in the army. If that was so, Daniel O'Conuell, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Barrett had been found only guilty of it ; and how could that be said to be any portion of the conspiracy of the eight to do some thing else, that was no portion of the conspiracy of the three to raise discontent in the army ? Unless the Attorney-General could say that it was an offence— unless he could do that he could not support the finding of the jury. The jury had found the parties guilty of three conspiracies, and the jury had given judgment against the parties for three conspiracies, in which they had been found guilty on the first count. Which of the three offences was the punishment for, if it was not for the whole ? And if it was for the whole then Mr. O'Connell had been convicted of three offences under one indictment that only charged him with one. Was it to be supposed that the Court would give the same amount of punishment to a man that was found guilty of one conspiracy as it would upon a man who had been found guilty of fifteen? The Court, it was true, in cases of misdemeanour, had a discretionary punishment, and in the exercise of that discretion they had sentenced Mr. O'Connell to a year's imprisonment and a large fine. Mr. John O'Connell not having been found guilty of conspiring to cause discontent in the army, was to have line months ; whereas Daniel O'Connell, who had been found guilty of the same offence, was to have one year's imprisonment and pay double the amount of fine. Why was that ? Was it not because Mr. Daniel O'Connell was considered by the Court to have been guilty of a greater number of offences, though their nature was the same, than Mr. John O'Connell ? The one had been found guilty of simple conspiracy, the other of endea vouring to cause discontent in the army. Therefore he thought their Lordships must assume that the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, in apportioning the punish ment, had taken into consideration the finding of the jury, and the extent to which the defendants had been found guilty ; and he submitted that if they had passed judgment upon the defendants for se veral offences for which they had never been indicted, and which had never been presented against them by the grand jury, their punishment had been aggravated by the finding of the common jury upon the first count, and that consequently judgment had been pronounced against them for a greater number of offences than they had been found guilty of. The jury having acquitted some of the parties of a conspiracy, to Cause discontent in the army, and the petty jury having found them not guilty of that conspiracy, he appre hended that the conspiracy of which the others had been found guilty was a separate and distinct conspiracy, and that the conspiracy to cause discontent in the army was a separate and distinct conspiracy from that of which they were found guilty conjointly with the other five in the first part of this finding. Suppose seven persons were to go into one room and conspire to do certain things. Three of them said " Let us 111 conspire to do tw o thi ngs. " The other four said, " No, we'll not go to the extent of No. 1, but we'll go the extent of No. 2." In that case, he contended, the three would not be guilty of conspir ing to do No. 1 and No. 2. The conspiracy, in law, de pended not on the act, but on the combination and agree ment between the parties. If seven parties agreed to do one thing, it was perfectly distinct from an agreement between three of them to do another thing ; it was a listinct conspiracy and separate offence. He thought he could not better illustrate this than by reading the charge of Mr. Baron Rolfe to the jury who tried Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The Learned Counsel then read an extract from the charge. The Judge said, that in order to convict all or three of the defbndants, they must con vict them of one and the same conspiracy. If they thought that all the defendants, or any number of them, had combined together for the purpose of carrying the Charter, and some of them said, " I will not use any violence, I will give no countenance to any thing but voluntary abstinence from labour ;" and others said, " I will give my countenance not only to voluntary, but also to forced abstinence ;" if they found the parties all agreeing in one act they might convict them all upon separate counts. So here, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, might have been found guilty—assuming the evidence to be sufficient-- under separate and distinct counts, of having conspired together to cause discontent in the army. But having been found guilty under the first count of one joint offence, they could not afterwards be found guilty of a separate and distinct offence. Lord CAMPBELL—The question is whether it was a separate and distinct offence, or a part of the general offence. Mr. PEACOCK—Suppose all of them had been found guilty of conspiring to create discontent in the army, except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and then Mr. Daniel Jury. , O'Connell himself had been found g u ilt y o f conspiring to j Mr. PEACOCK had before directed their Lordship s cause discontent in the army. Would that be a good attention to Comyn's Digest on argumentative verdict' conspiracy ? One person could not conspire. If Mr. Daniel O'Connell was found guilty of alone conspiring to create discontent in the army, that finding was faulty. With whom did he conspire ? Certainly not with the others, who were not found guilty of conspiring with him. _ If Mr. Daniel O'Connell had alone been found guilty of conspiring tocause discontent in the army, the finding that the other seven were guilty of some other conspi racy, would not support the finding as to Mr. Daniel O'Connell of being guilty of conspiring to cause dis content in the army. If that were so, then Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the others, were found guilty of three distinct offences. Now, the same rule, he believed, held in every case, in civil cases as well as in criminal. If several persons were charged in an action of trespass, with a joint trespass, and some of them were found • guilty of part of the trespass, but all could not be found il jointly of part, each must then be found guilty of It was there stated that verdicts founded on argli and inference are void. (The Learned Counsel h ey ,, quoted several cases from Comyn's Digest and Roll o Abridgement, in support of his position.) In sec ti °, s 9 3d of Comyn's Digest, it was said, " So if a verdict repugnant, it is void." (The Learned Counsel again quoted several cases in which verdicts had been declar ed j void on the ground of repugnancy.) He submitt' r that in the present case the verdict was repugnant, of else that it required argument to show that it was if repugnant. If it was repugnant, it was void, and il ; was only not repugnant by reason of its bai"c' argumentative, then it was void for being 11 argumentative verdict. If the verdict were taken mere l y lt as an argument to show that these parties bad be en guilty of conspiring with each other, there was no arg ct " .. meat to show if theparties had entered into a conspire with each other, or with Mr. Tyrrell, who wa s dea,, r. ome other part separately. Unless their Lordships Were they guilty or not guilty of conspiring w ith Ai d could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy be- Tyrrell ? The verdict was uncertain, ambiguous, le e , tweet). eight persons to do one thing, was the same as a unargumentative ; and if it was not intended to say ni, conspiracy between other persons to do another 9iing, the they were guilty or not guilty of conspiring O w Mr. Tyrrell, then it was bad, because it did not find the he thought their Lordships would agree with him in what he had stated. The grand jury had presented Pleader," it was laid down that a verdict was void 1 whole matter at issue. In Comyn's Digest, ti de o ten offences, and the common jury had found . to the whole, if it found only part of the issue and s a .,„ i r nothing as to the remainder, and the authority stated l',, the parties guilty of fifteen. In one charged action for trespass in which several parties are st with one joint offence, which is proved . again st that was " Coke upon Littleton," 227 A, in which it w e 'i some of them, and not against another, hs the jur c y ra m t u he laid down that a verdict finding matter uncertain) Y ~a acquit him. He quoted, in support of ers i h (3d Campbell's ambiguously was insufficient, and no judgment could ), case of Heron, Alexander, and others given thereon. For these reasons he (Mr. Peacoca) oras guilty of a separate Reports, p. 35), in which Lord Ellenborough said, that they could not find one prisoner _ d , ov id, either for repugnance, or ambiguity, or not En d ' offence ; and the other two guilty of one offence. He ing upon the whole matter charged, and. if the verdic t of that the rule was universally adopted in courts was void on that count, then he submitted that the jour; . of justice. It was impossible to cite any case, either meat was also void, because some portion of the punish„. criminal or civil, in which several parties charged with ment must have been given in consequence of the find: fi l l' , m e joint trespass, and the whole of them are found the party guilty on that count, and the judgment be'''.7. guilty of a part of the trespass, each of them is found void as to that count, was void altogether, but thei t guilty of separate parts of the same offence. If a jury Lordships could not say how much of the punisheue : ' l , could go into that, it might go into as many conspiracies had been given in consequence of the finding the par ti t e ° as it pleased ; and by ringing the changes on all the • guilty on that count. This objection applied equalli . 0 " t charges of the indictment, it might find Mr. O'Connell the sixth and all subsequent counts. The next p 0 1.,, guilty of a hundred conspiracies ; whereas, when the to which lie would call the attention of their Lordsh ip racy, defendants have been found guilty of one joint conspi racy, the count is, as it were, exhausted, and the jury was, that upon the record there was a discontinuanf o between the finding of the verdict and the sentence. The had no right to go on finding them guilty of any more. Mr. D. O'Connell was thus found guilty of three venire was returnable on the 15th January, and upon tll, day " the said jurors of the said jury so empannelled as offences; he did not mean to say that he might not have aforesaid, being duly elected, tried, and sworn to spea k not found guilty of any one of there ; he would not go into th a t po i nt, but he contended that . the truth of th e several matters in the indictment afore no one party o ug ht to b e found guilty of more than one I said spe c ifi e d and charged against the said Daniel offenc e . Il e su b mitted that defendants could not be O Connell, J o h n O' Connell, Thomas Steele, Thohl ; Mathew Bay, Charles Cavan Duffy, the Rev. Thowq 'Tierney, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, the trial ° 0 found guilty of one joint offence and then guilty of sepa- 1 rate and distinct offences. The next point was the the issues as aforesaid by the jurors aforesaid, in the d arts court here before the Queen herself, is duly ev - ,,i finding on the third count, which charged all the defen- 1 tinued until and upon Wednesday the thirty-first day ii - t dents with " unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously, contriving, intending, and devising to liegeiaise and create January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eig to discontent and disaffection amongst the subjects of hundred and forty-four ; and now at this day, that is t 0 our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said liege say, on the said thirty-first day of Januar f °l. I subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and constitution of this realm as by law established, and toas appears to the Court here thatthe • much it trl4, I, a' excite hatred, jealousies, and ill-will am ongst diff erent of the s a id i ssues so joined as aforesqt:Ag classes of the said subjects, and to cr ea t e di scontent and 1 not, " nor can th e sa i d trial thereof i)e P,;e' d 0- , disaffection amongst divers of th e sa id su bj ects, and eluded on thi s same day it is ordered by amongst others her Majesty's subj ec t s serv i ng in her w The LOIID CHANCELLOR.—Have you l e f t your first said court he re , th at the paid jUrors so empanelled Majesty's army," O ' sworn to try th e sa id issues shall have leav e to withdra t this same day fr om t h e b ar of this court here, and 132 , 3 3 ,3 point ? the . said jurors shall aga i n come to the bar of t 1 Mr. FEACOCK— 1 Yes, my Lord. court here on th e morrow, that is to say, on the first “ Tbe LORD CHANCELLOR—Then now enunciate yo ur econd. Mr. PEAC OCK p ropose d on this point to show that the verdict on this count found Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett' and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found th e other five d e f en d ants not guilty of conspiring with the former three. The verdict in that respect, th e refore was repugna n t. Th e verd i ct was bad on accoun t of l': ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding thr ee persons guilty o f consp i r i ng w i th six others, when f o ul of these oth ers were found not guilty of conspiring al hat all. The ru l e o f l aw was this, that if a party is once P a on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a 0 . 1) 1 as to preve n t th at person from being put on his tried again for th a t same o ff ence. The verdict must be suc h an answer on th e j u d gment, that on a second trial trt prisoner shall be a bl e to p l ea d either previously cow r i e or previously acquit. He cited the case of " Hung er ford in 2d E as t, 518 , " i n which the prisoner was indicted for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to t , bi , value of 61. Th e ver di ct found him not guilty of wi burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence e ' death was passed. The case was reserved for the CO lr v 1 sideration of the judg es , w h o h e ld that the finding ",; sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the eo tr ,', should have b een " not gu i lty of breaking open ,'' night," as that wou ld h ave b een more wi tinct. It app eare d t o b e t h e constant cou rse 1 in indictments f or mur d er, i n w hi ch there was a verdieot of guilty of m ans l aug h ter, to enter the finding as 11, guilty of the murd er an d gu il ty o f t h e manslaughter, ' of killing and slaying, a lth oug h t h e charge of murder ill' ° ,l eluded the killing an d s l ay i ng ; t h erefore, though finding of the jury might warrant the officer in enterig judgment, still he did not enter up the judgment so 0 , to appear distinct. N ow th e quest i on was, what was the meaning of the words—" Guilty of the premises 1 Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found goit t P with other person s , t o d o severa l th i ngs. They We'„ found guilty of the premises —that was, guilty of CO l. spiring with each o th er . If one person was indicted D'i, conspiring with another, and divers other p erson s ai r known : say that A an d B were indicted for conspiri with each other, and divers others unknown, and that, was acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the cot'', of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiriaa with persons unknown, not that he was gu il ty o f CO spiring with B and persons unknown, and th ere f o re c ube entry of the verdict would be, that A was 0 31 1 of conspiring with persons unknown, B ° o f guilty. But the verdict here was "guilty f the premises," th a t was to say, guilty conspiring the oth er way. Wh ether it was that tP, jury found th e e i g h t gu i lty of conspiring togethe " though they found four not guilty, or whether the/ meant to find the whole eight guilty, he did not know• The LORD CHA NCELLOR —I S i t an objection to the finding that it i s argumentat i ve of the inference ft.(' the argument being clear ? Mr. PEACOCK said it was not clear what the .1 meant here. The LORD CHANCELLOR said this branched itself in!, two points—one wa s , w h et h er i t was an objection to 01 , finding that it was argumentat i ve i f the inference iw clear ; the next was, whether it was cl ear . Mr. PEACOCK said that if it was certain what the PO meant, he did not apprehend that it would be an obje c i Lion ; but where it was no t certa i n, the finding was b a Lord CAMPBELL —There is anothe r way i n whi ch this may be viewed. Th e j ury are to fi nd a true verdict, according to the e v id ence . Thi s m i ght be to s ho , ; that A, B, and C, cons pi re d w i t h D upon their 0 acknowledgment, so th a t th ere wou ld b e no evidence against D, and 1) would be acquitted of the conspira c y with A, B, and C. Mr. PEACOCK —That was what he wanted to shelf their Lordships. Supposing that A and B were il l s ; dieted for conspiracy together, leaving out the Ot t words, " with others unknown." Suppose that A CO,I fessed that lie w as gu il ty o f conspiracy with B, tu'l would be no eviden ce u p on w hi c h to convict B, but il would be evidence t o conv i c t A . But if there was s h ! failure of the evid e n ce aga i nst B i n po i nt of law, A CO not be convicted, b ecause it was a contradictory findill; in the record. If A, B, and C, were charged vvitb, joint conspi rac y, A an d B could not be found eibtifi of conspiring w ith C i n t h e same verdict in which tl found not guilty of conspiring with them. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Supposing that A 15 lil. dieted for conspi racy w i th B and C, and that he COP; fessed he conspired with B and C, and that the ju t / upon the trial find that C is not guilty, because tiler no evidence agai ns t hi m ; and then, supposing that, and B are guilty of the premises, and in the same fir ing it is found that C is not guilty, would not that do , Mr. PEACOCK submitted it would not. gol The LORD CHA NCELLOR —Th e mean i ng of " Guilty" in that c ase must b e, t h at there was no eviden,,, to find them guilty. A i Mr. PEACOCK sub m itt e d i t wou ld not be sufficient The verdict, if it was one , an d on one record, mustbs of consistent. The jury could not, upon the confessioa v Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy, find them pl u i. of conspiring with others. What they should find l'i' eb that they were not guilty of conspiring with ° li d other. They were to look to the finding of the jury,,a ef they must presume that the jury meant what Pi t a found, for, if there was a difference, the record would be entered up accordingly r and therefore it o t 4l only be on the confession of the three that they o ° :' be be found guilty of conspiring with others, when ' O , others were not found guilty of conspiring with tb e ,,, (The Learned Gentleman then quoted " Co l 4, l i ' d Digest," title Pleader, s. p. 23, to show that a verdict which was rep ugnant was vo id ; and also 2d Hawklll,, Pleas of the C rown , b . 2, p. 47, s. 8.) He would sub' mit that if a p erson confessed to conspiracy with anot her, but if the j ur y f or want of evidence found that pefs° ij not guilty, that the confession of the other woulo, ,it void, becau se th e record would be repugnant ; for if confessed to b e gu il ty o f conspiracy with B, and B .w 0 ~ r found not guilty, A cou ld not b e f ound guilty of cons r , ing with B, f or th ere wou ld b e a repugnancy on the re 13 coi cord. So when i n an i n di ctment A was charged 0 principal, and B as accessory, i f A was acq A uitted, not be found guilty ; even if B confessed that was the ;„ 3 principal, and that h e h a d b een accessory, because Oaf) would be a repugnancy on the record if it said that ; was guilty as a ccessory t o i t, an d yet that A was not guilty as principal. lii The LORD C HANCELLOR —Th e question is, how on 4 that be since th e a l terat i on of the law ? You have " authority, I suppose, since the alteration of the law ? Mr. PEACOCK apprehended that the alteration of al law, by which accessor i es could be convicted withou t the convictio n o f th e pr i ncipals, would not make l'' „ll '' ,/ difference if both pa r ti es were included in the same I.a, cord. The accessory might be convicted upon a seP rate record, but h e cou ld not be found guilty in the sa'', record which acquitted his principal, inasmuch as th':i would then be a re p ugnancy in the record. Therefore+ i certain partie s were f oun d gu i lty on their own conlessi. °ii of a joint consp i racy w i t h others, and those other parti es were acquitted, the ve r di c t aga i nst t h ose parties on they ha own confession cou ld not stand, b ecause there would "" a repugnancy on the record. ' The LORD CHAN CELLOR —D oes not the princlPh: apply here that the Court can correct any repugato lc ' if they can show clearly what the jury intended. Mr. PEACOCK apprehended that that was an arg il ; ment in his favo ur , b ecause, if the repugnancy had ot) existed in fact, the Court could not have corrected it. They were bound to have it that the Court had entered verdict accordi ng to t h e truth and finding of the C 1 1 5 , e , i The Court did n o t t a k e i t as a minute of the jury, ~."" they entered it a ccor di ng to the actual finding to dee''—e to a court of error what that real finding was. The LORD CHANCELLOR—I believe the finding on tr e record must be pres ume d to b e the very words of tm THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 5, 1844. a rt di( col cr iec Jie ani thi