The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-30 00:00:00

monarch, and the 57th George HI. perpetuated the
same treasons. In section 4it was enacted that per-
sons arraigned under the statute should be entitled
to all the privileges to which he was ntitled if
arraigned under the statute of Anne, with the
exception of cases wherein he was accused of com-
passing the death of the Prince Regent, &c., that be-
ing the new offence created by the Act. I that ex-
ception had not been inserted, persons in' cted would
be entitled to privileges to which they otherwise
would have no right. In 1803 and 1817, it was made
matter of complaint in Ireland that the law of evi-
dence with respect to high treason was different in
the two countries, as only one witness was necessary
to prove an overt act, while two witnesses were re-
quisite in England; and the Ist and 2d George IV.
was pasted accordingly, assimilating the law in that
respect. It was remarkable that that Act made no
reference whatever to the provisions of the statute of
Anne, and did not extend its provisions to Ireland,
far as the copy of the jury panel and the list of wit-
n 2-des was concerned ; so it was clearly evident the
Legislature (lid not intend to give in Ireland the
benefit claimed by the prisoner. He relied on those
arguments to show there was no ground for the
application.
Mr. F. FITZGERALD followed on behalf of the pri-
soner. It could not be pretended that Ireland was
expressly excluded from the terms of the Act, and it
being the rule of law that all general Acts should ex-
tend to Ireland unless there was a special exception,
the Attorney-General attempted to show that excep-
tion was made by necessary implication. Such im-
plication certainly did not exist in the provisions of
Victoria 11, because the framers of, remarking that
doubts were entertained if the 57th George extended
to Ireland, introduced a declaratory section, which,
in his opinion set the whole question at rest. Could
it be supposed that if, after the passing of that Act,
the Prince Regent had come over to Ireland, and had
there been assailed in such a way as to constitute the
crime of high treason constituted by the Act, that its
provisions would not reach him because the offence
was committed in Ireland?

After consulting together for a few moments,
The LORDCIIIEF JUSTICE said this is an application to
postpone the trial on the ground that the prisoner has
not been furnished either with the names of the wit-
nesses, or with a copy of the panel of the jury. And
it is contended that under the indictment, and accord-
ing to the statute law, the prisoner is entitled to have
lists both of the witnesses and the jury. The indict.
ment contains various counts, five, I believe for
levying war, and a sixth for compassing the death of
the Queen, and the overt acts of compassing the
death of the Queen are not one of them directed
against the person or the personal safety of the Sove-
reign. The question is, what is the law of Ireland
applicable to that charge ? The charge appears by
the indictment to be manifestly founded upon the
statute of Edward HI. Both treasons are such as that
statute describes and defines. In England, in the
reign of Wm. 111., there was a statute by which the
party charged was entitled to have counsel assigned to
him, to have five days to plead, and to have a copy of
the indictment; and by an Act of Parliament in Ire-
land in all cases of indictments under the statute of
25th Edward 111. the party was entitled to have a
copy of the indictment, and five days to plead. An
English Act of Parliament, the 7th of Anne, enlarged
those privileges to the party so charged, and gave ten
days to plead, a list of the witnesses, and a copy of
the panel of the jury; and the statute law of England
has, in addition to that, entitled the party to have the
overt acts charged against him established by wit•
nesses. That is generally the state of the law in both
countries at this day. An Act was passed (the 36th
George III.) by which a variety of treasons was
either created or declared, as, for example, the bodily
harm or actual personal assassination of the then
King. That Act was not the statute of Ireland.
Then came the Act of the 57th George 111., by which
all the provisions of the 36th George 111., which was
only a temperary Act, where made perpetual—that
is, it made perpetual the statute of the English Par-
liament. Then came the Act of the 11th Victoria,
which recites that doubts were entertained whether the
provisions so made perpetual were by the last-mentioned
Act extended to Ireland ; and it becomes immaterial to
inquire whether those doubts were well founded or
not, for the statute proceeds thus Whereas it is
expedient to repeal all such of the provisions made
perpetual by the last recited Act as do not relate to
offences against the person of the Sovereign ;" and
accvdingly every species of treason described in the
36th Gerge 111. or in the 57th George 111. is
abolished by that Act, save such as relate to offences
againt the person of the Sovereign ; and the plain
meaning of offences against the person of the Sove-
reig❑ Is, acts against the life or liberty of the Mo-
narch, or tending directly to affect his personal
security or safety. Those, and those only, are per-
petuated by this Act of Parliament ; and it is in re-
lation to those, and those only, that all the subsidiary
provisions of George HI. can be now said to exist ;
and this being not a charge of compassing the death
of the Sovereign by means of attempts upon her life
by assassination, by wounding, or imprisonment, we
are of opinion that it does not come within the pro-
visions of the Act, and that the prisoner is not en-
titled to have this application granted.
The indictment was then read by the Clerk of the
Crown ; upon which
Mr. WIIITESIDE handed in a parchment purporting
to he a plea.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after perusing the docu-
ment, stated to the Court that it referred to the indict-
ment, and after alleging that by the statutes in force
the prisoner was entitled to have had delivered to him
a copy of the indictment ten days before his trial, and
also a list of the witnesses and jurors, it stated that
the prisoner had not had the copy of the indictment
and such lists so delivered to him. He (the Attorney-
General) objected to the document being received as a
plea. It was a subject properly for motion only, and
had been already disposed of. It was not a plea in
abatement.

Mr. WurrEsiDE said, there was no other way of
putting the objection on record so that it might he
argued in the most solemn form. If the Attorney-
General objected to it, his proper course would be by
demurrer.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated that the do-
cument could not be received.

Mr. WHITESIDE was not aware of any case in
which a plea put in by a prisoner who was under
trial for his life had been rejected. lie did not say
that the plea was good; but he was anxious to have
the point reserved. In the case of Frost the same
right was insisted on and allowed.
Mr. FITZGERALD was informed that in the case of
Mitchel a plea in a similar form had been put in and
received. In the case of Fitzharris, Bth " State
Trials," page 223, a plea to the jurisdiction was put
in, and the Court then informei the Attorney-Gene •
ral that the question for him to consider was, not
whether the plea ought to be received or not, but
whether it was a proper plea or not.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said this was not like the
case cited by the Learned Counsel. It wa% no answer
to the indictment, but an objection to plead because
certain preliminaries had not been complied with.

Mr. Justice MooRE inquired what was the plea in
the case of Mitchel ?

Sir C. O'LOGIILEN said it was, as to the commence-
ment and the conclusion, in the same form as the
plea now put in.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—In that case there was
no application like the present. The objection then
was properly matter of plea, because it stated that the
prisoner was not properly called upon to answer the
indictment.

Chief Justice DOHERTY inquired whether there
was any precedent in which an objection by motion
having been argued and decided, was afterwards al-
lowed to be converted into a plea?

Mr. WHITESIDE said, that in the case of Frost a
plea was allowed to be put in after the objection had
been argued. Was he to be told that this point,
which he considered of the most serious importance,
might not be reserved ? Several objections, stronger,
perhaps, than had ever before been taken, were taken
by Mr. Justice Moore himself, then counsel in the
case of O'Connell, but they were not rejected on that
ground-
Mr. FITZGERALD admitted that the plea was not
put in as an answer to the indictment, but as a reason
why it should not be answered. If no copy of the
indictment had been furnished, and a motion for it
were refused, could the Crown say that the objection
could not be put on record ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The whole question
is, whether the validity of the plea, or whatever
it is, is to be determined on motion or demurrer.
The best way is to receive it, and let the Attor-
ney-General then take such course as he thinks
proper.
The plea was accordingly put in, upon which
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, I demur to the plea
as not heing sufficient.
The prisoner was then called upon to say whether
he was guilty or not guilty of the charge in the in-
dictment, to which he replied, in an emphatic manner,
"Not guilty."
Mr. WHITESIDE said he had to ask, according to
the practice established before the statute of William
111., for a copy of the panel of the jury for a few
hours. In a case mentioned in the 12th volume of
the " State Trials," for an attempt to assassinate
King William 111 , the prisoner had had a copy de-
livered to him as a favour the day before the trial.
Mr. Justice MOORE inquired whether a prisoner
charged with any capital crime was entitled to it ?
Mr. WHITESIDE admitted that he was not, but this
was a case of high treason.
The ATIORNEY-GENERAL said, the only objection
he had to it was the delay it
would occasion. Ile
could not see any distinction between this and an
ordinary case.

The panel, which contained 288 names, was then
read over by the Crown Solicitor. With half-a-
dozen exceptions, every gentleman upon it was present.
Mr. D. FITZGERALD, on behalf of Mr. O'Brien,
challenged the array. The affidavit on which the
challenge was founded alleged that the panel was not
formed in compliance with provisions of the statutable
enactments, inasmuch as the Clerk of the Peace did
not within one day after the commencement of the
general October session of 1847, or at any time after,
deliver his precept to the baronial collectors to return
the names of all persons qualified to serve as jurors
within their respective baronies, and had not returned
or impannelled the jurors after the custom of the
country previous to the passing of the Act of the 3d
and 4th William IV. Mr. O'Brien in his affidavit
further challenged the panel, because it had been
arrayed by the High-Sheriff with respect to the re-
ligious professions of the jurors, to the prejudice of
the deponent, and because it had hitherto consisted of
380 persons duly qualified by law, of whom one-third
were Roman Catholics and the remainder Protestants,
while the panel now returned contained only 288
persons, of whom 1-18th only were Roman Catholics,
and the remainder Protestants; and this had been
done with a view to injure him on his trial. On the
grounds of partiality and unindifferency he prayed
that the panel might be quashed.
The ATTORNEY* GENERAL, on behalf of the Crown,
begged the Court to allow him and the law officers
of the Crown soma time to consider what course
they should take in consequence of the challenge.
The COURT accirdingly adjourned for some time,
and the audience dispersed in search of such creature
comforts as the imperfect staff of vivandieres in the
neighbourhood of the Court-house could furnish.
The prisoner, who was accommodated with a chair in
the dock, appeared to direct his attention to a news-
paper which was handed to him by a friend outside,
while the persons in the court soon engaged in a
general and rather noisy conversation.
At half-past three o'clock, the judges having taken
their seats, the Attorney-General, accompanied by the
law advisers of the Crown, entered the court, and
handed in his plea in reply to the affidavit of Mr.
O'Brien.

The plea, which was read aloud by the Clerk of
the Crown, averred that the panel was fairly and le-
gally constituted by the Sheriff, and ought not to be
quashed, and that the array was good in law.
Mr. Whiteside having obtained leave to retire for
a few minutes to prepare Ms plea in issue, left the
court for that purpose with Sir C. O'Loghlen, Mr.
Fitzgerald, and Mr. Meagher, and returned in a few
minutes with a plea reiterating the averments of the
affidavit.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thereupon applied to the
Court to appoint triers, and after some slight discussion
raised on an objection of Mr. Whiteside to :the selec-
tion of any gentleman from the grand jury for that
purpose,
The COURT ordered that the Chairman and the
second gentleman on the jury should be named as
triers of the facts at issue.

Viscount Suirdale (the Chairman) observed that he
could scarcely be called upon to give judgment in a
case wherein:his own acts as Sheriff in 1847 would be
directly called in question.
The Noble Lord was set aside, and the Hon. Mr.
G. J. O'Callaghan, another of the grand jury, and the
Hon. A. Prittie having been sworn to try the issue,
Mr. WIHTEHDE opened the case against the array.
There were two questions for them to try—the first
a matter of law on which they would come to a deci-
sion under the guidance of the Court—the second, a
matter of fact in which they would be directed by
their own reason and by evidence.' They should first
inquire whether the jurors' book, if book there were,
had not been framed in compliance with the statut•
able enactments, and, in the next place, whether the
panel was fairly and impartially arrayed between the
Crown and the prisoner. The Act which directed the
constitution of the panel was 3 and 4 'William IV.,
cap. 91, sec. 4. In the plain construction of that
Act, the sessions at which the precept should be
issued by the Clerk of the Crown for the return of
the jurors should be in October. The Learned Gen •
tleman proceeded at length to insist on this view
by quotations from the Act. It would be proved,
however, that the Clerk of the Peace had issued his
precept in July, after the Midsummer assizes. Mr.
Whiteside was proceeding to the second part of his
case when he•was interrupted by the Court, who said
they would decide the first question of law before
they proceeded to matters of fact.
Mr. Prittie, Clerk of the Peace, was called, and on
examination deposed that the lists he produced of the
jurors had been duly revised by the magistrates at
special sessions, and bore date in August, 1847. The
special sessions for revision took place in December
last, according to the time fixed in the preceding
October. The jurors' book had been prepared from
the lists so revised.

The AITORNEY•GENEAOL said that it was con-
tended on the other side that no jurors book existed at
all, and that no precepts had been issued by the clerk
of the peace after the October session of 1847. On
the part of the Crown, he was prepared to contend
that the jurors' book, prepared in December, was the
legitimate result of the revised list returned in Au-
gust, 1847. The proper time for issuing the precepts
was not in October, but in July, immediately after
the sessions, as the plain meaning of the Act would
prove. Even if the Court were of a different opinion
it would remain a question of some moment whether
the statutable enactments were not merely directory,
and whether there should be a failure in the criminal
justice of the country because a mistake had been
made in dates by some barony cess-collector, and a
certain Act had not been performed at an exact speci-
fied time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL followed.—lf the rule
laid down by the Learned Gentleman opposite were
to be effective, it should operate in all cases indiscri-
minately, and the result would be that the Midsum-
mer assizes should hereafter be taken to mean the
October assizes. He was almost apprehensive that
they might have lit upon an old Act of Parliament to
that effect.

Mr. Goring, the Under-Sheriff, produced the
jurors' book, and stated that he received it the
last day of December, 1847, from the Clerk of the
Peace.

MT. FITZGERALD then argued, with much ability,
that the book was not prepared pursuant to the pro-
visions of the jury laws ; the first jury Act, passed in
1833, having spoken of the Midsummer sessions
" hereinafter named," whereas no other than October
sessions were so mentioned ; and the precept haring
been issued for the revision of the list in July after
the Midsummer sessions, instead of after the October
sessions. The second jury Act, passed in 1834, also
referred to the October sessions.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up the
facts proved, said to the triers that the question for
their consideraion was, whether the precept which
was issued by the Clerk of the Peace before the Oc-
tober sessions was issued pursuant to the statutes or
not. That question depending upon tha construction
of the Act of Parliament, the Court had no difficulty
in saying that it was not necessary that the precept
should be issued after the October sessions, and the
Act of Parliament not containing a single word jus-
tifying such a construction, the objection was utterly
untenable, and, therefore, the triers must find agtinst
the objection.
The triers found accordingly.

Mr. WrirrEsins then said. his second point was
this :—The prisoner was to be tried for his life, and
if he were not tried by a fair and impartial jury
they might as well shoot him on the high road.
The question was whether the present panel
was fair and impartial, and whether it was re•
turned in the ordinary course pursued by the pre-
decessors of the present sheriff at the assizes and
special commissions for the county during the last
three years. At the last special commission the
jury discharged their duty with honour to them-
selves and to their country, and the question for the
triers to decide would be, whether this panel was
fairly arranged between the Crown and the prisoner.
They would be told, and it could not be denied, that
there must be no artifice for the concoction of a jury
panel, and that all men were equal before the law.
They had stated upon the challenge the ground upon
which it was made, and he believed it to be utterly
impossible for the triers to affirm upon oath that this
panel was impartial. In all former panels, for the
last three years, two-thirds had been invariably Pro-
testants, and one-third Roman Catholics. That was
considered a satisfactory proportion ; but, in the
present panel, out of 288 names, 1-18th only consisted
of Roman Catholics, and many of those men who
were eulogised at the last commission, by the Lord
Chief Jastice, for the just performance of their duty,
were struck off—purposely struck off—to save his
esteemed Friend the Attorney-General the pain of
telling them to stand by, as they came to the table to
be sworn. lie had the authority of Lord J. Russell
for this objection—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, interrupting the Learned
Gentleman, said, that he (the Attorney-General) was
the public prosecutor in this case, and not Lord J.
Russell, and he must object upon this question to any
such allusions as the Learned Counsel was about to
make.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE hoped the Learned
Counsel would not indulge in any irrelevant obser-
vations.

then it would be better frankly and boldly to re-enact
the penal statutes.
Mr. Pedder, the Clerk of the Crown, proved that
there were 288 names on the panel.
Several jurors of the county, Roman Catholics,
were then examined, to prove that although they had
been summoned, and had served at former assizes and
special commissions, they were not summoned upon
this occasion.

Mr. Campbell deposed that he had acted as sub-
sheriff for six years, and had been in the habit of
placing many of the witnesses whose names had been
called on the jury, though some of them were only
petty jurors.
Being asked by Mr. WHITESIDE what was a fair
proportion of Roman Catholics on a panel of 288
names,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the question could
not be answered ; it was a mere matter of opinion ;
and the Learned Gentleman could not lay a matter
of opinion before the triers, who were sworn to ex-
amine facts.

Several attempts were made by Mr. Whiteside to
put the same question in different forms, but they
were overruled by the Court, or resisted by the
Attorney and Solicitor-Generals.
Mr. Wnrresibs contended that he had a right to
ask a question having reference to a matter of fact
which constituted the ground of the challenge to the
array.

Mr. 'WHITESIDE continued—They had struck off
109 names from the panel, and the prisoner's right of
challenge was a farce. He therefore appealed to the
triers, as gentlemen of honour, to give to the prisoner,
a gentleman of their own rank, a fair trial. If there
were upon the panel any member of a club with
which the prisoner was connected, then they were
properly struck off, but if they were not, and they
had previously done their duty fairly, then they must
have been struck off designedly. He made no charge
against the sheriff; he was a stranger to that gentle-
man, but he wanted justice fur his client. If any
jurors were struck off on account of their religion,

Mr. Justice DOHERTT—I have had some expe-
rience in criminal courts, and I never yet heard it
laid down that a jury panel was to be selected in any
definite proportion as regarded the religious belief of
its members. On the contrary, I believe that an
honest and conscientious officer, in constituting the
panel, would never investigate the religion of any one
upon it.
Mr. WHITESIDE—I entirely subscribe to what you
say, my Lord—every word. What we complain of is
that the officer has not acted in this way, but has in-
vestigated the religion of the jurors.
The witness was ordered to take the jury list, and
examine it for the purpose of seeing how many Roman
Catholics were upon it, and after some time announced
that they only amounted to 17 or 18. In 1846, the
panels contained 331 persons, of whom 34 were Ro-
man Catholics.

The Cutar JUSTICE—Have you any evidence to
connect the sheriff with any corrupt practice with
respect to the constitution of the panel ? It is a
very serious charge, and should not be lightly made.
Mr. WiIITEsIDE—My Lord, I should be sorry to
charge any gentleman bearing his name with such an
offence, but I must act in compliance with my in-
structions, and as I think right.
Mr. Kirwan re mlled—Compared the jury lists for
Tipperary in 1846—found that one contained 192
gentlemen, of whom 61 were Roman Catholics, and
that another contained 94 names, of whom 47 were
Roman Catholics. There were but 17 or 18 on the
present list of 288.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted there was no
evidence to go to the triers at all. The replication
on the part of the prisoner denied the plea on the part
of the Crown, that the panel had been fairly and
imp irtially constituted by the sheriff, but they had
not produced any evidence of corruption, misconduct,
favour, or partiality against him, and he thought,
therefore, that the Crown was not called upon to go
into evidence in support of their plea.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The evidence has been
received by the Court, and you cannot say then, Mr.
Attorney, that there is no evidence for the triers.

Mr. islniTcslDE—My Lord, we have proved the
rejection of nearly 70 Roman Catholic witnesses, and
we have shown that the present is unlike any former
panel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Then, my Lord, we
will call the High Sheriff.
Mr. R. Pennefather was called, and examined by
the Attorney-General.

➢ir. O'Callaghan (one of the triers), to Mr. Kirwan
—Has it been the practice of the sheriffs to make any
difference in the constitution of the ordinary juries
and those at special commissions? Mr. Kirwan—l
have always thought that less than the usual number
of Roman Catholics has been left on at special com-
missions.

Mr. Pennefather was then called into the box by
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and was examined by him
—I am the High Sheriff of the county. I did not
take any part in the formation of the jury panel, but
received it some time ago from the sheriff. I struck
about 25 names off it, because I believed they were
persons in such circumstances that it would not be
fair to bring them from the North Riding to attend
at Clonmel. I did not strike off any of them, nor did
I leave on any of them on account of his religious
profession. I was not anxious, nor was I inclined, to
return a jury unfavourable to the prisoner, and the
panel I made was formed in the fair and honest dis-
charge of my duty. There was no communication
between me and any one on the part of the Crown in
returning the panel neither directly nor indirectly.
The panel was returned according to the best of my
judgment as a fit and proper panel.
Cross-examined by Mr. WHITESIDE—Had not
prepared the panel himself, but considered he was re-
sponsible for it. It was all the work of the sub-
sheriff, who drew it up, and who had received no
directions from him as to the way in which it should
be prepared. Did not know how many Roman
Catholics were on the book. Could not say if any
person employed in preparing the panel in the sheriff's
office had not since gone to Dublin. 'Was surprised
to hear there were only eighteen Roman Catholics on
the panel. Could not say how many Roman Catho-
lics of substance and respectability were in the county.
Mr. Goring, the Under-Sheriff, said that after
receiving the precept he took measures for preparing
the panel, and submitted a draught to the High
I Sheriff, who then struck off certain persons in a low
class of life. He framed the panel from the jurors'
book, according to the rank and property of the
jurors, and did not leave off any individual whom he
thought ought to be on. He received no suggestion
or direction from the Crown or otherwise as to the
preparation of that panel.
Cross-examined by Mt. WurrnsinE—He had re-
ceived a subpcnna desiring them to produce the
draught, but only at seven o'clock that morning, too
late to get the draught which he had left at his office
some miles distant. A cousin of the witness, now at
Balbuggan, had assisted him in the preparation of the
draught. That gentleman held no appointment, but
sometimes assisted witness in his business. He was
now staying at Bulbuggan, having gone there a week
since on account of his health. He did not know how
many Roman Catholics there were on the gross panel.
Could not say whether there were 500 or 5,000, for
he had never counted the number. He did not recol-
lect having had any communication with his cousin
or any other person about the politics of any juror.
There were upon the panel many whose religion
lie did not know. He had prepared a former panel
about six years ago. He believed that they could
not have got 80 or 100 Roman Catholics from one
riding, and upon his oath he had not expressly or
designedly omitted from the panel the names of any
who had served at former assizes. and who were Ro-
man Catholics.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICe, in summing up, said
there was no evidence to prove any corruption in the
formation of the panel, and severely censured the
attempt to impute unfair conduct to the sheriff, or
any connexion between him and the Crown. He
protested against the religion of any individual being
made the test of the conduct of any officer.
Mr. WHITESIDE wished to explain that he charged
no corruption to the Attorney-General, but that
names had been omitted from the panel to save his
friend the pain of striking them off as the parties
came up to be sworn.
The triers made some observations to the Judges,
hut in a very low tone of voice, upon which the pri-
soner said, " Will you have the kindness to speak
out ?" The observations, however, were not repeated
by the triers.
The triers declared their verdict in favour of the
sheriff's panel.
The Court then, at a quarter past seven o'clock,
adjourned until ten to,asorrow, the Lord Chief Jus-
tice at the same time observing that the Court would
open at an earlier hour but that many of the jurors
resided at a distance, and could not conveniently
attend before that time.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—John Kaye, Esq., of Dalton-
hall, near Huddersfield, does not rest the claim as to the
efficacy of the celebrated Kaye's Worsdell's Pills upon
mere theory, or speculative opinion, but upon facts sub-
stantiated by hundreds and thousands. There is scarcely
a town, village, or hamlet throughout the kingdom, in
which this medicine is not well known. Wives and
mothers, husbands and children, are constantly sending
in grateful testimonies, and declaring that no medicine
ever wrought such astonishing cures, or was so invalu-
able to a family, as this. The following is a specimen:
—Sir,--I have found the Vegetable Restorative Pills
a most valuable family medicine. Some time ago my
daughter was very much afflicted, and appeared to be
gradually sinking. We tried medical aid in vain. I
then resorted to your Pills, and to the astonishment of
all who knew her, a complete cure was effected. Being
myself, greatly afflicted, and having spent many pounds
on medical aid in vain, I also commenced taking your
Pills, and I began to mend rapidly; and I can truly say
that I and my daughter received more benefit from
taking one small box, than from all the medicines we had
ever taken before.--Andrew Atkinson, Halton, Hol-
gate; Lincolnshire.—Observe John Kaye's coat of arms,
and a fac-simile of his a;
Price ls. lid., 2s. 91,
fur use, wrapped round eact:-nature, are on the directions
box:.
or 4s. 6,1. per box; to be had of all t.'spectable Chemists
. -
and Medicine Venders.
The letters from Marseilles mention that business
was gradually reviving, and that more confidence was
appatent among the mercantile community. A decided
improvement in the home trade was noticeable, and the
discohnt bank had reduced its rate to 43- per cent. for
paper on cities where other branches of the national ey-
tiblishment existed.

Mr. WutrEsinn said two hours would be sufficient.
The LORD Clinr- JUSTICE- said the Court was of
opinion that the application must bo refused.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
TRIAL OF CUFFEY, LACY, AND FAY.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 3O, 1849.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Davis, the third approver, was here recalled at the
request of Mr. BALLANTINE, and in reply to questions
said he had sold guns. Had sold two during the last
six months, but. :sad lieither sold pistols nor pikes.
Knows a man namset J-shn Staunton, formerly of the R
division. Did not persuade him to join the " Wat
Tyler" division. Never offered Staunton a pike for
3s. 6d. Had a pair of pistols to sell for fifteen
shillings, for which he gave twelve shillings. Might
have offered to sell the pistols in his presence. Was a
broker and seller of old books, as well as a shoemaker;
in fact, he was a general dealer. Did not tell Staunton
that he had powder and shot, and that he could supply
them. Never said so to any one. Never told Staunton
that if he would buy a pike from him, he could pay for
it by weekly instalments. At the time he offered the
pistols for sale he was attending the meetings
of the Chartists. Never said to any one,
speaking of the guns, that if they were to practice
firing, they (the guns ) would serve out the blue
devils. Knows a person named Joseph Munday. Had
never said he should like to have the old Duke of
Wellington before him to try the guns upon him. Would
swear he had never used such an expression. Had de-
fended the reputation of the Duke of Wellington when
any one accu.,ed him of being a bad general.—
(Laughter.) Had asked men to come to the Chartist
meetings for the benefit of the landlord. Never asked
any to join the club. Might have asked 150
to go to the meetings in the course of a month. Would
swear he had not asked 500. Overheard a conversation
at the public-house at Greenwich between Looney and
some other Irish Confederates, who engaged a private
room at the house in order to consider the opportunities
that existed of forming a Confederate club in Green-
wich. Communicated the conversation to Mr. Malla-
lieu, the superintendent, who said " Let the meetings
go on; I will send policemen there in private clothes;"
and he did so. Never said to a person named Heath
that he had brought some guns from London, and that
he was going to take them to the Druids' Arms, where
the Confederate meetings were to be held. Heath did
not say " No sensible man would talk in that way."
Never asked him to go to the Druids' Arms, and
that he would there be convinced of the truths of
Chartism. He did not advise parties to go and
hear the speeches, because he was confident they
would do nobody any good. The landlord had paid
too much for the house, and as there was little cus-
tom, he (the landlord) asked him to do what he could
to get persons to come there to drink. He gave him some-
times 24, 6d., Gs., or lr. for doing so. Knowing the speeches
would do harm to tho parties he asked to go to the
Druids' Arms, he nevertheless asked them to go, for the
good of the house. Never said to Heath about the 10th
August that the Chartists were ready. Heath never went
to any of the meetings. Told a person named Parris, on
Blackheath-hill, between one and two o'clock on the 16th
of August, that the blow was to be struck that night.
Told him to wait at the Druids' Arms that evening until
he came home from London. Wanted him to wait there
to keep him out of mischief. Did not put his hand to
his breast and say he was ready, or anything of the
kind. Knows a person named Robinson. Proposed to
him to hold a Chartist meeting at the Druids' Arms.
Carried two loaded pistols about him when he went
to the meetings. Spoke of them at these meetings.
but did not offer them for sale. Would have sold them
if he could. Was a witness at the County Court, Green-
wich, in an action for an assault, but did not tell Robin-
son that ho would have sworn any mortal thing to have
got the better of the wretches. Knew a person named
John Ward, a farmer, and a leader of the Confederates.
Never asked him to go to the meetings. Told Ward to
be careful what he did for the sake of his wife and
family. Did not give the same advice to those he was
watching to betray. Never advocated physical force to
Ward or any one else. Never got up a radio for arms.
The pistols were to be put up at mile, but there were
not a sufficient number of members, and he
returned the money. Put them up himself ;
could only get one member. Put them up for raffle in
his own shop. Supposed he told Ward that there was
to be an outbreak in London. Told a good many people
so ; told them because he wished them to stop at home,
because be was convinced neither the Chartists nor the
Confederates would gain the day. Told Ward that he
should go to London to see what was going on, as he
would thereby be the better enabled to get out of
danger. Told Robinson once, while he was stripping
off the corers of some old books, that he should
give them to Mr. Blagden, the landlord of the
Druids' Arms, as wadding, for he was in the habit
of going out shooting, No doubt he could show nearly
the whole of it now, as he had only shot some pigeons
lately. Ward and Robinson proposed the abolition of
the Chartist association ; but he (witness) opposed it.
Did so because he believed it would injure the landlord.
Did not say that they were cowards to make such a pro-
position. Might have done so. At that time something
had appeared in the papers about officers of such clubs
having been arrested at Manchester. It had
been suggested that subscriptions should be
received by the officers for Looney. The club
was broken up at that time—broken up notwithstanding
he opposed it. Did not believe he ever said, "If any
one attempted to arrest him that he would blow their
brains out." Might have said so, to throw the persons
who composed the club off their guard. Played every
night at bagatelle or with dominoes at the Druids' Arms
for liquor.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNNY• GENERAL—Rv-
ported to Inspector Marks each day what passed at the
Druids' Arms the day before.
After a short adjournment,
John Staunton was called.—He said Davis asked him
to join the " Wet Tyler" Club, and to buy a pike from
him. He said he should have the head for 2s. 6d. and
the staff for Is. 6d., and he could pay him in weekly in-
stalments. He said he could get one in London. He
said he expected the police would shortly arrest all
Chartists, and that it would be well for him to
have a pike to defend himself. He said if the pike
would not suit him (witness), that he had a
brace of pistols, and could supply him and any of the
Confederates with plenty of powder. He said he wished
he had a place to practice shooting in, in order to prac-
tice shooting the --es, blue devils. Once saw him come
out of the station-house on Blackheath, but he ran away
from him like a dog with a kettle tied to his tail. Davis
was his class-leader, and did not wish to see him leaving
the station-house.

Cross-examined—Left the police twelve years ago.
Was not reported against, and discharged for taking
liberties with a fellow-constable's wife, lie resigned
because he had a better situation from leaving, He had
in the police 21e. a week, and had to pay 2s. a week for
clothes. When he left be got 18s. a week on the Green-
wich Railway. Ho had not so many masters over him
there as in the police. Joined the " %Vat Tyler" at the
request and on the proposal of Davis. Believed, from
the way Davis spoke, that he would have supplied him
with powder and shot if he had been destitute.
Re-examined—Could earn more money on the Green-
wich Railway than in the police, sometimes 265. a week;
and he had the Sunday to himself.
henry John Heath, master brickmaker, said Davis
had formerly lived at his house. Six months ago he
asked him to join a Chartist club, and showed him some
arms, which he said he had brought from London,
and intended to take to the Druids' Arms. lie
showed two pistols at one time and a gun at
another. Witness told him that "no sensible man
would talk like that." lle told him to go to the
Druids' Arms and ho would be convinced of the
truths of Chartism. When the last infant of the Queen
was born he used a disreipectul expression, which the
witness was not asked to repeat. About the 18th of
August, he said, "You will soon see what we shall do—
we shall soon go: all ready." Told him he was a Char-
tist. He (witness) was not a Chartist. The witness
had told a man named B.dlows that he was " afraid Mr.
Davis, the great Chartist leader of Greenwich, was a
spy." For some time he had been suspected of being
one.
Cross-examined—Had been accused by one of his ap-
prentices named Wright, of causing his► humped back ;
but it was totally untrue. He once pushed him over a
heap of coals, wood, and rubbish, because he had robbed
him of some nuts; but he did not fall down, because the
wall prevented him. lie found him cracking the nuts,
and having previously missed some fruit and money, he
struck him. No complaint was made by the boy till two
years after this, and before that time he had had occa-
sion often to complain of him. He was a month and
four days in the hospital, during which time he was very
kind to him.

Mr. Joseph Dunn, 128, London-wall, hat manufac-
turer, said he was a Chartist. Had been a member of
the National Chartist Association. Ceased to he a
member in August, 1846; but had attended some of the
meetings of the body. The witness proved that an
admission card, and a printed plan of organization, were
similar to those used in IS t 6. Belonged to the associa-
tion for six years, and had held the office of president
and treasurer to the City of L oidon Branch. Crn-
sidered the plan of the association perfectly legal and
constitutional, or he woutu nave taken no part i❑ it.
Never witnessed any secret proceedings. There were
delegates, but no class•leatlers—the plan was laid down
at that time.
Mr. Wm. Dickson, of 144, High Holborn, was next
called--Ile said he was a collier, but now a director of
the National Land Company. He was a Chartist, and
corroborated the evidence of the last witness, that the
object of the association was to obtain the Charter by
peaceable and constitutional means.
Mr. George Whitmore Chinnery, clerk to Mr.
Roberts, the solicitor to the defendant, was called to
show that hefted subpcenaed the persons named in the
examination of Davis, but the Court objected to the
evidence.

This was the termination of the case for the prisoners.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to reply. lie
congratulated the jury upon the prospect of being soon
liberated from their arduous duties. It was right he
should tell them that if they did not believe the
prisoners guilty of felony they must acquit
them. There was no gradation in the offence,
for if they did not believe the witnesses in the indictment
for felony, he could not expect them to believe them in
an indictment for misdemeanour. He should not pro-
perly discharge his duty if he were again to submit the
same evidence to them in support of a minor charge.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to deal with the
natara of tke offence imputed to the prisoners, and
said that he was not there as an apologist of the spy
system ; but what he said was this, that if such persons
existed, and were bold enough to brave public opinion,
by communicating to the Government the existence of
treasonable or dangerous conspiracy, he considered
any - ---rnment would neglect their duty if they
that the Go,— T",d they believe that a rising was
did not act upon it. --ehended the circum-
intended ? If so, and _ be_ evi;. have been'
stances left no doubt of the fact, what van....
said of the Government if they had permitted the
teen desperate men, under the command of Weide, to

3.4

have consummated their guilty purpose ? If they were
❑ot to act upon testimony of this description, it would
be impossible ever to obtain uncontaminated evidence in
such a case until the metropolis was actually in a blarze.
In his opinion the Government had done nothing more
than their duty; and, as he before said, that they would
have shown a want of firmness, and have neglected their
duty, if they had not instituted this inquiry. When they
received information that a number of desperate persons
were assembled for this purpose, what could they do but
direct that they should be taken into custody, and,
having done this, to submit the matter for consideration
by a magistrate, and on his committing the prisoners for
trial it was impossible for the Government to shrink
from prosecuting a public inquiry into all the circum-
stances. The Attorney-General then went on to com-
ment upon the evidence given by Powell, and he said it
was part of his case that, having determined to act so as
to obtain information, it was necessary he should play a
part, and if he had not acted as the others did—if he
had not exhibited arms when the others were determined
to resort to violence—if he had appeared to be peaceable,
they would have suspected him directly, and would have
placed no confidence in him, and his mission would have
failed. Was it true there was an organization to carry
out some object by violence ? Had Powell anything to
do with the meeting of the armed men under the command
of Richie at the Orange Tree? Had he anything to do
with the others who were meeting at the Angel? Mad he
engaged the room for the committee meeting at the Black
Jack ? Was it proved that he had ever invited either of
the prisoners to any acts of violence? No such thing.
The evidence showed they were willing enough to carry
out the guilty act that was intended. He would now
advert to the subject of the National Charter Associa-
tion, as it was termed; and he would meet the clallenge
of Mr. Parry upon that point, and would broadly state,
and he wished it would have the effect of disabusing the
minds of those people upon the subject, that this associa-
tion was an illegal association, and every person joining
it was liable to punishment. What were the rules of
this association? The whole country was divided into
districts, placed under leaders. Wardens were appointed,
having the command of a certain number of men; there
were officers, who had certain duties to perform; an ex-
ecutive; and other circumstances which, in his opinion,
clearly brought the association within the scope of the
Combination Act.

Mr. PARRY—If this association is illegal, the Anti-
Corn-law League was also illegal.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL— lie did not say it was not.
What he urged was, that all such associations as the one
he had described were illegal, and he hoped this public
statement would have the effect of deterring persons
from entering a connexion with an association which
was clearly illegal, and according to his opinion of the
most dangerous character. The question, in the first
place, was, did the jury believe there was an intention to
rise in insurrection on the night in question? Of that
fact he did not think there could be any doubt, and the
only question was, whether the prisoners were proved,
by competent testimony, to have been concerned in that
guilty intention. The Attorney-General then proceeded
to go through the whole of the evidence, commenting
upon it as he proceeded, and more particularly the cir-
cumstances which were relied upon as corroborative of
the testimony of the accomplice, and concluded by ex-
pressing a confident opinion that they would do their
duty firmly, and decide the important question that
would be submitted to them, solely upon the evidence,
and that they would not be actuated by any prejudice
in favour of the Crown or against the prisoners at the
bar.

At six o'clock the case was again adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETH.

Yesterday, after the night charges had been dis-
posed of, Spencer Lindfield (against whom a jury on
the preceding day had recorded a verdict of " wilful
murder," in having caused the death of Eliza Wilson)
lifiry Ann Dryden and Richard Orpin, who also stand
charged on the coroner's inquisition with being ac-
cessories before the fact, and also William Lindfield,
the reputed son of the first prisoner, were again
placed at the bar before Mr. Norton for further exami-
nation. The Court was crowded to excess, and
during the investigation several county magistrates
occupied seats on the bench.
Mr. Robinson, the superintendent of the P division
of police, said, that the greatest possible difficulty
was experienced in obtaining any information relative
to the female prisoners, particularly amongst sextons,
gravediggers, land persons of that class, from their
having been so intimately mixed up with them, and
the dread on the part of those people that any infor-
mation they might give would revert on themselves.
Since the last examination he had received
anonymous communications, which led to an
inquiry touching two women—one who had
been a servant near St. George's Church,
in the Borough, who was traced to the
house of Mrs.Lindfield in a state of pregnancy, but
from the time she went there no further intelligence
could be discovered of herself or her child. Another
young woman, who was in a state of pregnancy, and
who had received some medicine from Mrs. Lindfield,
died. There was an inquest on the body, and in the
absence of proof that Mrs. Lindfield had given the
medicine herself, or any one procuring it for the un-
fortunate deceased, the coroner and jury were unable
to establish any charge.
Mr. Games protested against such statements as
those just made being received, as they were cal-
culated to create a most unfavourable prejudice
against his client.
Mr. Robinson observed that he had been directed
to make a diligent inquiry into the matter, and he
felt it to be his duty to state to the magistrate the
result of his inquiries. lie would only state, in ad-
dition to what he had already stated, that there was
a person in court who had been in the habit of sup-
plying Mrs. Lindfield with small shells and boxes,
and he would be able to state the number of shells
for infants he had so supplied.
Mr. NORTON thought the best course would be to
take the evidence as far as it went, and (as the ses-
sions at the Old Bailey;wouldnot be up for some time)
remand the prisoners to a future day, to give
Mr. Robinson and his officers time to pursue their
inquiries.
Mr. Games said, that as the three prisoners, Mrs.
Lindfield, Dryden, and Orpin, would have to take
their trial on the coroner's inquisition, he could have
no objection to this course with respect to them, but
with respect to the fourth prisoner, William Lind-
field, he should apply for his release on bail as soon
as the examination was over.

The evidence of Dr. Flower, divisional surgeon of
police, was then taken as to the deleterous nature of
the herbs found in the houses of the prisoners ; after
whom

Henry Wheeler, th© gravedigger to the parish of
Newington, was called and deposed that he knew the
prisoner, Mrs. Dryden, very well. She had repeat-
edly come to the churchyard with stillborn children,
and on those occasions she produced certificates
signed by Mrs. Lindfield, as the midwife who had
attended the mothers of the children.
In reply to the questions of the Magistrate, the
witness said that on such occasions the certificate of
the midwife was considered necessary, and there was
no account kept, as there was no necessity for re-
gistration or religious ceremonial over the body, which
was buried as a matter of course. The certificates
were given to the sexton, but he did not know whether
he preserved them or not.
Mr. NORTON directed that the sexton, and all
other persons who could speak as to the number of
stillborn children sent for burial by the prisoners,
should be in attendance at the next examination, as
this part of the inquiry would be very important.
The prisoners were then remanded.
THAMES.

Mary Ann Watson a young woman who carried
an infant in her arms, was brought before Mr. Yard-
ley on remand, charged with being concerned with
three other women i❑ assaulting and robbing Mr.
William Ebblewhite, an elderly gentleman, on the
highway.
The particulars in this case were the same as those
specified in that of Julia Lennard, who was convicted
and sentenced to seven years' transportation on Mon-
day last at the Central Criminal Court for her share
in the outrage and robbery, and her paramour, James
Furlong, was convicted and sentenced to three
months' imprisonment for an assault on one of the
witnesses.

The prisoner, who sobbed loudly, declared her in-
nocence, and said she was not in or near the place
mentioned on the night of the robbery.
Mr. YARDLEY committed the prisoner for trial.
MARKET INTELLIGENCE.

(Fram the London New Price Current of Sept. 29.)
~
SUGAR.—To-day the market presented a firm appear-
ance ance for every kind of raw Sugar ; buyers alsonovr)r, "
Lir all
with increased freedom. West India was in
id
de-
wand by grocers and refiners, the rates paid
and
kinds are fully equal to those of y public
the purchases reached 800 hhds, BLe" in
at firm rates,
sale 94 hhds 174 brls Trinidad, which soldw
1. 34s 6d to 355;
cludituagrd:tY'
middling yellow at 35s 6d to
278 hhds 131 barrels St. Lucia,
fine
e 353 to 365, low 34s to
good 36s 6d to 37s 6,1, middling
t.
i,r The purchases for
39s to 40s 6d,
perdscand tierces, and prices in
2,889 hhds 34s 6d, fine brown 33s 6d
the week amount to 36s 6dy,eliovr
trade were desirous to
REFINED.—To-day the home
and higher rates are paid,
wt. Bonded Crushed Sugar
at 494 6d to 50s, and to
dmoo most
ucsainseesss6idnpßereficwnetdasgb:viihen:mhoese of Friday last.
brown grocery lumps'
6d, but there are not many orders
ipsa
heldss th efesrt a2n6dsatred
2561, ,
in the market.
lI A —This afternoon Mauritius Sugar was in
excellent
and 3,344 bags at auction sold at
'
yellow went at 38s 6d to 395, good 37s
l ij36s6'3l, low 34s 6d to 355, fine
3s to 33s 6d, low and
m
low to fine grey 34s to 38s, washed
brawntotitd3B ri
i, uln34 g middling
rates, RiTsdemand,3o3t fine s
e . t
o 3
4 3 3
s 2635,t o
goocl
6d,
32s to 38s, and syrupy 32s 6d to 35s 6d per cwt.
EAST INDIA.—This afternoon at public sale 744 bskts
132 bags Of Penang Sugar went upon full terms ; low
yellow 32s to 32s 6d, middling 33s to 33s 6.1, brown
295, fine 30s 6d to 31s Gd. Of Bengal, 2,383 bags were
disposed of at rather better prices—fine white Benares
435, good 428 to 42s 6d, middling 41s to 41s 6d, ordinary
40s to 40s 6d, good and fine yellow 38s to 39s Gd, damp
38s 6d to 42s per cwt.
FOREIGN.—This afternoon 61 hhds of Porto Rico at
auction sold at the full value, low and middling yellow
`^ 38s 6d, and brown 363 6d per en