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

SAILINGS.

The Pearl, the Marquis of Anglesey, for London.
The Flirt, Vice-Commodore Sir B. Graham, Bart.,
for the French coast.
The Ariadne, Lord Godolphin, for Southampton.
The Gipsey Queen, Sir H. B. Houghton, Bart., for
London.

The Lark, Captain C. 11. Williams, R.N., has come
into harbour to lay up, as has also the Emerald cutter,
J. L. Symonds, Esq.
YACHTS AT AND ABOUT THE STATION.
The Elizabeth, Nymph, Amazon, Camilla, Sybil,
Syren, Turquoise, Gem, Susan, llawk, Aurora, Bianca,
Arrow, Cygnet, Destiny, and Foam.
J. L. Syznonds, Esq., has sold his yacht the Emerald.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
HERALD.—Our readers are well aware that we
have always drawn a broad distinction between La.-
martine and Ledru Rollin. While the enemies of
the former, to serve their own base purposes, and to
nourish the venom of their disappointment, have for
the last seven months represented their opinions ea
identical, we have always contended that neither in
the character—nor in the antecedents—nor in the
conduct of the two men, was there any one point of
resemblance. M. de Lamartine—a gentleman by
birth—a soldier and diplomatist by profession--a
poet by nature and by choice—a politician only by
necessity and the force of circumstances—is endowed
with one of those happy natures which it is impossi•
ble not to admire and to love. Born to, in any country
a competent, and in France to a large fortune, he
never prided himself on his wealth, nor turned it
in his youth to the ignoble uses of mere personal
gratification. Even in his earlier manhood his ex-
penditure was not in feasts and follies, at the gaming
table or in the eoulisses; but in the improving pur.
suit of travel, or in the acquisition of the treasures of
literature and art. Returned to the Chamber, he
sought not office, :or emolument, or personal aggrane
disement of any kind. On the contrary, he is well
known to have had three interviews with the Count of
Neuilly (when Louis Philippe, King of the French),
and to have more than once declined the perilous
honours of a French Portfolio. Pursuing an inde.
pendent, and, as he believed, a national course, M. de
Lamartine continued as a private member till the
days of February, and then, nolens yolens, was raised
by the public voice to nearly the highest, and cer-
tainly the most popular, eminence in France. As
Minister for Foreign Affairs he on every occasion
proclaimed peace ; and it cannot be too well remem-
bered by Englishmen, that when the unhappy man
now on his trial at Clonmel proceeded to Paris, the
reception of Mr. Smith O'Brien by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs was of 'the most glacial description.
Nothing at the time would have rendered Lamar-
tine more popular with his countrymen than the
holding out some expressions of hope to the Irish'
rebel delegates— but, true to honour and to the sanc-
tions of international law, he maintained a dignified
reserve, and refused to play the traitor to an ally. So
great was then his popularity, that this honest act in
no degree injured him, and it was not until he
covered Ledru Rollin with the tegis of his name that
the bourgeoisie and capitalists of Paris began to look
on him with disrelish. From generous motives, and
from generous motives alone, Lamartine did not wish
to see a colleague run down because of his impru.
dente in one act ; but now that it has become ap-
parent that Ledru Rollin wishes to revive the scenes
of 1793, and to act, on a smaller scale the part of a
Danton, he receives no encouragement from the
Member for Macon. It has been said and insinuated
by interested slanderers in England.—foreign and
domestic—that the reason of the temporary agree-
ment and accordance of view between M. Ledru
Rollin and Lamartine might be founded
in their common peculations, of which both
were cognisant. But it is a sufficient answer
to this to say, that Lamartine is a much poorer man
now than he was eight months ago—that the accord-
ance of view between the parties no longer exists—
and that while the one sits in the National Assembly
among the Montagnards, the other takes his place on
a level with the Ministerial bench. These circum-
stances, joined to the moderation of M. Lamartine—
to his rare disinterestedness—to his gentle and win-
ning manners—and, above all, to the publication of
the Trois Mois au Pouvoir—have caused the public
feeling again to flow in his favour—a feeling which
every day gains strength. Ledru Rollin, on the con-
trary, though a man of unquestionable talents, and
of admitted power and effect as a tribune, has been
losing ground with every class excepting the Red
Republicans, and if anything could render him more
unpopular with the bourgeoisie and wealthy classes, it
would be his speech on Saturday last, at Chalet, in
commemoration of the 22d of September, 179 g.
That he is in earnest—that he glows and burns with
the spirit of the old revolution—is evident ; and this
silly renders him the more dangerous. Among the
900 men.returned to the Assembly, he is perhaps the
only one who has revealed to an astonished public
first-rate demagogical powers. He possesses the
voice, the gesture, and the pose of a tribune of the
people, and neither his courage nor his sincerity is
doubted by those who know him best. Fortunately,
however, there is a straightforward soldier at the
head of the Government, and the few plain words
spoken by General Cavaignac on Monday, in follow-
ing M. Goudchaux, the Minister of Finance, suffi-
ciently indicate that the head of the French Execu-
tive is prepared not only to maintain order, but to
protect property. No laws of confiscation, professing
to be just to the poor, but really and in effect spolia-
tory of property, will be allowed under the reign of
Cavaignac, or sanctioned by the majority of the As-
sembly that supports him ; and if M. Ledru Rollin,
joining his forces to the partisans of Louis Napoleon,
descends into the streets to call for such laws and to
overturn opinion, ho will find himself vanquished,
like the insurgents of June, by the strong hands of
power, and rot merely become more unpopular, but
odious and hateful to the great body of his country-
men.

STRANGE FISH.—Two fishermen, named Ross
and Nichol, from Larne, have now in their possession
in this town a curious fish, which they intend to
exhibit to the public. It is of a very peculiar con-
formation, the shape being nearly oval. It
measures nearly feet in length, and about three
het in depth in the side, and weighs rather
more than four evil. The skin is very hard and of a dark
green hue, and on pressing it with the finger feels as
rough as the surface of a file. The head is very hard
and thick, with a small projecting snout, beneath
which is the mouth—an aperture of about four
inches in length by one and a half in breadth when
opened. It has no nostrils, and the eyes, which
are not large, are situated in the upper part of the
hew]. It has but two fins, a dorsal, and a ventral, of
a triangular shape, about eighteen inches in length,
and standing quite erect. The tail is of' a moat
p culiar form, having five circular or rather eliptical
indentations, the skin being granulated and nearly
hard as the upper part of the body, and some-
what resembling a lady's frill. The fishermen don't
know the name of the fish, having never seen any•
thing of the same species before, but they state that an
old seaman who examined it gave it the name of " Devil
Fish." It was taken on Thursday evening, about four
o'clock, at a place called Huntsr's Buoy, a short distance
from the " Maidens." It was observed floating lazily on
the surface of the water, and suffered the boat to approach
it very closely. One of the men having in his hand what is
called a " clip," to which was attached a small piece
of rope, struck it on the back, and it then darted
away with great fury, never attempting to go un-
derneath the weather. It took the boat a run of
about three miles, and having been nearly ex-
hausted, as they thought, they managed to throw
another: rope about it, and then hauled it into the
boat with great difficulty. When in the boat it nearly
broke the sides in its struggles to get free, which were
so great that two of the fishermen became alarmed, and
ould very gladly have launched it overboard again
into the sea. They succeeded, however, in killing it,
by sticking it repeatedly with the " clip," and brought
it into Belfast, where it now may be seen by those who
are any way curious in icthyological monsters. After
xhibition, the fishermen purpose selling it.—Belfast
paper.

- SPIRIT TRADE IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.—.-The
last return moved for in the last session by Lord George
I3entinek was issued after the death of his Lordship, on
Saturday. It contains a copy of the report of the Board of
Customs to the Lords of the Treasury, dated the 29th of
February last, on the subject of admitting to entry, at a
duty of 7s. 6d. per gallon, or any less duty, certain quantities
of sugar made in the Channel Islands and Heligoland, &c.
TURNPIKE TausTs.---By a return made to Parlia-
ment and just printed, it is shown that there are
1,108 turnpike trusts in England and Wales-1,063 in
England and 45 in Wales. The length of:roads in Eng-
land is 19,942 miles and 148 yards, and in Wales, 2,382
miles, 2 furlongs, and 197 yards, making in England
and Wales 22,324 miles, 3 furlongs, sad 125 yards.
CITUBH, THE REGISTRAR'S CASE. -- A mandamus
from the Court of Queen's Bench was received by Mr.
Rushton, the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, yes-
terday, Friday, September 29, requiring him to accept
bail for the appearance of the prisoner at the next Liver-
pool Assizes, provided the sureties were in accordance
with the requisition of the said mandamus, which is, that
Mr. Chubb enter into his personal recognizance in the
amount of 3,0001., and procure four sureties of 750/.
each, making together the extraordinary sum of 6,0001.
It further requires that three days' notice of the place of
residence of each bailee, and the time at which be will
tender bail, be given to the court by the prisoner's attor-
ney. As yet there has been no notice tendered.
A Court of Directors was held at the East India
Clouse on Wednesday, the 27th inst., when Mr. Charles
Robert Mitchell Jackson was appointed to the office of
Advocate-General of Fort William, in Bengal.
THE CHOLERA.—A letter dated Odessa, the Bth
inst., announces that the cholera has totally disappeared
from that pity. A 7.e Deum was sung in all the churches
un the occasion.
THE IRON TRADE OF SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE.
BIRMINGHAM, FRIDAY.--The ironmasters of these dis-
tricts held their usual preliminary meeting at the Hotel,
Dudley, yesterday. The attendance was numerous.
After a long and animated discussion it was resolved not
to make any advance on the prices of iron fixed at the
last quarter day. The first of the ensuing quarterly
ineetings takes place at Walsall, on Tuesday, the totfa
of October. The masters appear to have arrived at a
wise determination. A rise was unquestionably, from
the state of trade, expected, but should it occur, there is
litt:e doubt but that it would lead to:an agitation of the
question of wages in a more aggravated form than it has
yet assumed. After all, however, some of the masters
will unquestionably decline orders except at an advance
)f price upon certain descriptions of iron. Orders aro
.epresented to be plentiful, and contracts which for some
inenths have been suspended are now in the course of
execution.
APPROACHING MARRIAGE IN HIGH LIFE.—The
nuptials of M.P., eldest son of the Mar-
quis Lady Georgians
a
l' slt e nnlid a ni ,Ld osrudg Marchionesshl3feurrg
holefYl':xeter, and ,
of the Countess (Dowager) of Long-
ford, and sister of the present Earl, are 4 ye solemnised
on the 12111 pEQ7IIIIO. _

IRELAND.

TFLE STATE TRIALS.

CLON:MEL, THURSDAY, SEPT. 28.—The trial of
Mr. Smith O'Brien, M.P., for high treason, was
opened this /Iltiming.
The Judges took their seats at eleven o'clock, and
within a few miautes every part of the court was
filled.

The Countess of Donoughmore sat in the
Sherif.tW box near the Judges. Lady Osborne and
sevePal other ladies were in the Sheriffs' gallery,
but neither Lady -O'Brien nor Mrs. O'Brien were
pmsent.
'Sir Lucius O'Brien and the Rev. Edward O'Brien,
brothers of the prisoner, Lord Hawarden, and Lord
Dudley Stuart, and also Mr. Sergeant Shee, of the
'English bar, were in the body of the court. General
M'Donald was in the Sheriffs' gallery.
The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr.
Scott, Q.C., Mr. Sausse, and Mr. Lynch were the
counlel for the Crown ; Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., and
Mr. Francis Fitzgerald appeared for the prisoner.
Before Mr. O'lien was called upon to plead, the
prisoners Tyne, Orchard, and O'Donnell were
brought up, and Mr. O'Callaghan was assigned as
c,,unsel for each of them. Upon their retiring Mr.
O'Brien came to the front of the dock, and stood f„r
'sortie minutes leaning against the rail. He .t.';as then
accommodated with a seat, lie was tn:rfectly com-
posed, and nodded familiarly to Dr. Gray, who sat
near the dock.

:eir C. O'Loghlen, who, though not engaged as
Counsel, was present, and took an active part in the
proceedings, handed a parchment document to the
prisoner, why-h was forthwith sworn to by him, and,
from what afterwards occurred, appeared to be an
4ffidavit that no copy of the panel of the jury or of
the list of witnesses had been delivered to him.
Mr. Wurrasina, then addressing the Court, said,
that that was the proper time f)r him to show cause
whz the trial could not at that time proceed, but
must be postponed until their Lordships had decided
'what was the true construction to be given to certain
Acts of Parliament to which he would refer. The
Auestion was, whether the prisoner was or was not en-
titled by Act of Parliament to a copy of the jury panel
and a list of the witnesses to be produced against him.
Unless there was to be one law for England and
another for Ireland, that must be granted to the pri-
soners. It went to the very root of the defence of a
man tried Itar high treason, that he should have the
privilege to prepare for his defence. The statute of
William 111., chap. 3, an English Act, gave the party
accused a copy of the indictment, and a copy of the
panel of the jury must also be delivered to him. By the
7th Ann% chap. 20, also an English Act, the prisoner
was further to have delivered to him a list of the wit-
nesses, with their description, at the same time with
tile copy of the indictment. It was upon that very
point that in the case of " The Queen v. Frost and
Others" the lives of the prisoners were spared. The
next Act, that of the 36th George 111., an English
Aet also, made compassing the death of, or levying
war against the Sovereign, high treason, and re-
affirmed the old treasons declared to be such by the
statute of Edward 111. Those statutes were all
before the union, but the 57th of George 111. was
passed since the union, and was the Act upon which the
question chiefly arose. After reciting the statute of the
36th George 111., which merely applied to the life of the
then King, it enacted that all the recited provisions
should relate to the heirs and successors of his Ma-
jesty. Their Lordships were aware that since the
union, as there was said to be but one realm and one
-Parliament, Acts made in relation to the United
Kingdom included Ireland, unless that part of the
United Kingdom was excluded by a distinct provi-
sion. Now, this statute of the 57th George 111.
}ming recited that outrages had been offered to the
Prirree Regent of the United Kingdom, and that it
was expedient to extend the general provisions of the
36th George 111. to the heirs and successors of his
Majesty, enacted by section 2, that any person who
should compass the death or destruction of the Prince
Regent of the L.pited Kingdom, or the heirs or suc-
cessors of his Nrajesty, should be deemed traitors, and
suffer the punishment of death ; and by section 4 it
was provided that all persons arraigned under the
stet* should be entitled to the benefit of the statutes
of William lIL and Anne, except in the case of high
treason, where the overt act of treason should be
the assassinaiion or killing of his Majesty or any
heir of his Majesty. The question then was, whe-
ther that Act applied to Ireland ? and if it did there
was an end to the discussion. He believed that since
the union not a single case had occurred in which it
was ever held that a specific provision was requisite
to extend a general act of the United Kingdom to
Ireland. Dwarris, in his hook upon Statutes, laid it
down that all Acts extended to Ireland, whether men-
tioned or not, unless that part of the United Kingdom
were expressly excepted. It was so as to Scotland,
for there was the decision of the case of " The King
v. Cole" (2 Burroughee, 353), upon the point ; and,
unless there was a difference between England and
Scotland and England and Ireland it must be se as
to Ireland. The 4th section of the .57th George 111.,
was a proviso, and must be read as incorporated with
section 2, making the compassing of the death of the
King or his heirs the same in Ireland as in Eng-
land. Supposing, however, that their Lordships
were of opinion that the Act did not apply to Ire-
land, because not expressly named, then the second
branch of his argument arose, that by the statute of
11th Vat. the provisions of the 57th Geo. 111. which
were not ttiereby repealed, were extended distinctly
to Ireland. The only provisions which were so re-
pealed were
..gee which did not relate to the death of
the Sovereigwirand it made the other provisions ap-
plicable to all parts of the United Kingdom. It was
plain, therefore, that every part of the 57th George
111. not so re pealed was applicable to Ireland—that
anything relating to the compassing of the death of
the Sovereign was, by the terms of the antecedent
part of the section (2), directly extended to Ireland ;
and by the 6th count there could be no doubt that
the prisoner was expressly charged with that offence
against her Majesty. He might be answered, as he
had been in the' case of Samuel Gray, that there was
in certain cases a different practice in Ireland ; but
that case went to the House of Lords, and was there
reversed. Here, however, there was no practice—
there had been no judicial decision on the question he
now raked ; and he wished to hear from their Lord-
ship; why it should he the law in a country which
bo,lsfed of being governed by the Legislature of the
United Kingdom, that there should be one law for a
person tried for his life in England and another law
for Ireland, He relied upon the 57th George 111. for
what he asked, and if th.ir Lordships were against
him upon that point, then he relied upon the Act of
tie 11th Victoria to have the same privileges for the
prisoner as would have been allowed to him if he had
been tried in England.
The ATTOUNEt-GENTRAL resisted the application
on the part of the prisoner, and contended that he
was not entitled to a copy of the jury panel and a list
of the witnesses against him previous to arraignment.
It was conceded by the Counsel for the prisoner, that
at common law no such right existed, and the only
question that remained for the Court was, whether or
not there was any statute in force in Ireland entitling
him to such benefit ? The present indictment was
framed under the statute of treasons in the reign of
Edward 111., and it remained to be seen whether the
'Court thought a person arraigned under the provi-
sions of that statute could claim the advantages ex-
tended to prisoners arraigned on treasons made by
subsequent statutes in the reigns of William 111.,
Anne, and George 111.

Chief Justice DonERTT 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 ha 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 he 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 ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the only objection
he had to it was the delay it would occasion. He
could not see any
distinction between this and an
ordinary 'case.
Mr. WHITESIDE said two hours would he sufficient.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the Court waS of
opinion that the application innst h 9 refused,
.0.Lni447#4 4-.4.1 41'4 e-

monarch, and the 57th George 111. 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. Ithat ex-
ception had not been inserted, persons in icted would
he 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 passed 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, as
far as the copy of the jury panel and the list of
ne'ses was concerned ; so it was clearly r.yident the
Legislature did not intend to "...,ve in Ireland the
benefit claimed by the prin,jer. He relied on those
arguments to show 'criers teas no ground for the
application.

Mr. IfTmEttiLD followed on behalf of the pri•
'`[.,tier, 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 suppoeed 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 LORDCHIEYjUSTICE 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 in het-
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 111. 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 67th 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 perpetualwere 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
accordingly 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-
reign 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 111. 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. WutTEsIDE handed in a parchment purporting
to he a plea.
The ArrottNEr-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. WiturEsine 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. He did not say
that the plea was good ; but he was anxious to have
the point reserved. In the case of Frost the name
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 informed 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 was no answer
to the indictment, but an objection to plead because
certain preliminaries had not been complied with.

Mr. JuFtice MoottE 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
indtctment.

The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that it was by a
statute of Queen Anne the right to have a copy of the
jury panel and of the list of witnesses was granted to
the prisoner.
'r ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was not contended
that the Stith G.-:(irge 111. extended to Ireland, its
object being to constitute a new class of treasons
against the reigning Sovereign of a temporary na-
ture. Then came the 57th George 111., which made
perpetual certain provisions in the preceding Act, and
included within the crime of treason offences therein
described against the person of the Prince Regent.
This statute &a not extend to Ireland, and the sec-
tion on which the prisoner's counsel relied, while
enacting that the accused should be entitled to the be-.
netits of the statute of Anne, excluded him from those
advantages in respect to the new treasons constituted
by the statute. There was nothing whatever in the
Act to alter the law of Ireland or to entitle a person
arraigned under the statute of Edward 111. to benefits
created by the subsequent Acts. If he were right in
contending that the Aot of George 111. applied to the
Ze, not to the old treasons, it followed that the pri-
the nr Ras
eTint entitled to advantages created under
for
oo,inwpl.)..in Statute solely, and that there was no ground
mr. \s,l3llrg with the present application.
slubilkitted that he on being called upon to reply, was entitled to it finally, and that
the Solicitor-General
he should follow the Attorney-
General on the part ofCrown.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL—In the case of " The
Queen v. O'Connell" the question was discussed and
deciaed against you.
Mr. ITE.
in the Court in Ireland
114 when the case was carried up to the House;
nods the MA-) practice was discussed,
and it w
of
decided that the reply should rest with the counsel for
the prisoner. In" Cox's Criminal Cases" (414 p),
a discussion on the very question was fully reported,
and it was most fully settled in Frost's case, at Mon-
mouth, that the counsel had a right to reply.
'ie Court having consulted for a few moments,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that they would
hats the Solicitor-General then on the same side,
without deciding whether or not Mr. Whiteside was
entitled to the reply.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reiterated the arguments
used by the Attorney-General. It was manifest that
the Mai George 111. created temporarily a new class
a- treasons in reference to the person of the reigning

LONDON,

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
and 4th
previous
William IV.
evlousto th e
Ir. O'Brien
g of the
i n
Act
his of the 3d
affidavit
further challenged the ravel, because it had been
arrayed by the Filth-Sheriff with respect to the re-
ligious r':.,tessions of the jurors, to the prejudice of
ti—
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 he quashed.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL, on behalf of the Crown,
begged the Court to allow him and the law officers
of the Crown some time to consider what course
they should take in consequence of the challenge.
The COURT acclrdingly 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 ley 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 his 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-GIENERAL 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. WHITESIDE 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.7: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.

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. WRITESIDR what was a fair
proportion of Roman Catholics on a panel of 288
names,
The LORD Oilier JUSTICR 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 swor❑ 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. WHITESIDE 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. Justice Donsart —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 CnlEr 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. WHITESIDE—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 retailed—Compared the jury lists for
Tipperary in 1846—found that one contained 192
gentlemen, of whom 51 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 ATrottNET-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 patVel had been fairly and
impartially 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. ilrurrEsinELMy 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-GENZRAL—Then, my Lord, we
will call the High Sheriff.
Mr. It. Pennefather was called, and examined by
the Attorney-General.
Mr. 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 hastbeen left on at special com-
missions.

Mr. Pennefather was then called into the box by
the ATTOREET-GENERAT„ 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
certain persons in a low
p
classS h e r i
off wholf
life.
then
Ile
framedstruck
anel from the jurors'
book, according to *le 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
a subpoena
WHITESIDE—He had re-
ceived 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
bpce ria by Ur
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 Bulb!lggan, 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
he 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 AITOXNEY-GENERkL 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.

Mr. 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 having
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 JUSTlCEhaving summed up the
facts proved, said to the triers that the questio❑ 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 thr construction
of the Act or 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 against
the objection.

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. WarrEnrol 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,
but 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 triers found accordingly.
Mr. WHITESIDE 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 Justice, 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. He had the authority of Lord J. Russell
for this objection—

The Court then, at a quarter past seven o'clock,
adjourned until ten to-morrow, 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 test 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 andmothers, 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:
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
for box,e.—
on medical aid in vain, I also commenced taking your
tl'aikllisi,ig On and 1 began to mend rapidly; and I can truly say
that I and my daughter received more benefit from
At fromhnadnrew all
Atkinson,the a
medicinesi It
o
we had
ever taken e small
before.—Andrew
n
gate, Lincolnshire.--Observe John Kaye's coat of arms,
and a facsimile of his signature, are on the directions
for use, wrapped round each box. Price Is. lid., 2s.
or 4s. 6d, per box; to be had of all respectable Chemists
and Medicine Venders.
The letters from Marseilles mention that business
was gradually reviving, and that more
.confidence wasapparent among the mercantile community. A decided
improvement in the home trade was noticeable, and the
discount bank had reduced its rate to 4i per cent. for
paper on cities where other branches of the national es-
tablishment existed,

The ArrORNEY- 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 JUSTICH hoped the Learned
Counsel would not indulge in any irrelevant obser-
vations.

Mr. WHlTEsnac continued—They had struck off
100 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 Rot, 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 for his client. If any
jurors wore struck off on account of their religion,
• 'A

SATITUDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 30, 1849.

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

(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 :lad :either sold pistols nor pikes.
Knows a man named jetin Staunton, formerly of the R
division. Did not persuade him to join the " Wet
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 au expression. Had de-
fended the reputation of the Duke of Wellington when
any one accused 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 juin 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. Malta-
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 Is. 6d., is., or le. for doing so. Knowing the speeches
would do harm to the 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 !theta 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 raffle for arms.
The pistols were to be put up at raffle, 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 he 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 covers 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 Rubinson 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
ho 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 ATTORNET•GENERAL—Ite-
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 " Wat 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 bad a place to practice shooting in, in order to prac-
tice shooting the 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. HQ resigned
because he had a better situation from leaving, lie had
in the police 21s. 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 bad not so many masters over him
there as in the police. Joined the " Wet 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 shr,t if he had been destitute.
Re-examined—Could earn more money on the Green-
wich Railway than in the police, sometime* 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. He
showed two pistols at one time and a gun at
another. Witness told him that "no sensible man
would talk like that." Ile told him to go to the
Druids' Arms and he would be convinced of the
truths of Chartism. When the List infant of the Queen
was born he used a disrespeetui 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 get all ready." Told him he was a Char-
tist. lie (witness) was not a Chartist. The witness
had told a man named Bellows 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, bat 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 organizition, were
similar to thus,' used in 1816. Belonged to the associa-
tion for six years, and had held the office of president
and treasurer to the City of L ,radon Branch. Con-
sidered the plan of the association perfectly legal and
constitutional, or he wouiu nave taken no part in it.
Never witnessed any secret proceedings. There were
delega'es, but no class leaders—the plan was laid down
at that time.
Mr. %Vm. Dickson, of 144, High Holborn, was next
called—He 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 subpoenaed 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. He
congratulated the jury upon the prospect of being soon
liberated from their arduous duties. It was right be
should tell there 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 fur misdemeanour. He should not pro-
perly diseharge 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
nature 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
any treasonable or dangerous conspiracy,
he considered
that the Government would neglect their duty if they
did not act upon it. Did they believe that a rising was
intended ? If so, and he apprehended the circum-
stances left no doubt of the fact, what would have been
said of the Government if they had permitted the thir-
teen desperate men, under the command a liiebie, to

have consummated their guilty purpose ? If they were
not 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 blaze.
In his opinion the Government had done nothing more
than their duty ; and, as ho before said, that they would
have shown a waft 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 tor
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 be
had not exhibited arms when the others were determined
to resort to violence—if he had appeared to be peaceable,
they would have suspected hie] directly, and would have
placed no confidence in him, and his mission would have
failed. Was it true there was an organisation to carry
out some object by violence ? Had Powell anything to
do with the meeting of the armed men under the command
of Hichie at the Orange Tree? Had he anything to do
with the others who were meeting at the Angel? lied 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. lle 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—He 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 vihich
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
vvoul.l 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)
Mary 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, and 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
'<mild 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,would.not be up for some time)
remand the prisoners to a future day, to give
Mr. Robinson and his officers time to pursue their
inquiries.
Air. 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, the 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, th•
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 in 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 iri or near the place
mentioned on the night of the robbery.
Mr. YARDLEY committed the prisoner for trial.