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

ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THREE PAPERS, Morning Noon, and Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.

NATIONAL LOAN FUND LIFE ASSUR-
ANCB SOCIETY,
26, CORNIIILL, LONDON.
Capital Z 500,000.
Empowered by Act of Parliament.
DIVISION OF PROFITS.
The steady success and increasing prosperity of the Society has
enabled the Directors, at the last annual investigation, to declare a
second Bonus, averaging 60 per cent. on the amoants invested ox each
Policy effected on the Profit scale.
EXAMPLES.

t•JU
g g*T
oti
4
ra.
IS s. d. s. ds
12 3 $ 346 2 3
9 16 4 2% 13 4
I 7 11 9 247 4 i

I Zs'
.1
PI 0

Premilua.

Bonus
added.

Bonus fa
Cash.

IZ s. d.
1837 170 9 3
74 2 4 r' 1838,,144 2 2
1839 116 16 •

Z s. d.

X s. d.
77 S 1
64 i 6
51 i 11

~oliooo
I

ivisioa of profits is animal, and the next will be made in De-

camber of the present year.
This institution offers many important and substantial advan-
tages with respect both to Life Assurances and Deferred Annuities.
The assured has, on all occasions, the power to borrow, without ex-
pense or forfeiture of the Policy, two-thirds of the premium paid,
(see table) ; also the option of selecting benefits, and thi conversion
of his interests to meet other conveniences or necessity. Assurances
ter terms of years are granted en the lowest possible rates.
F. FERGUSON CAMROUX, sec.

NATIONAL LOAN FUND LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY, 26, CORNHILL, LONDON,
July 2, 1844.

Notice is hereby given, that the HALF-YEARLY INTEREST, at
the rate of 5 per cent, per annum on the Capital Stock of this So-
ciety, due on the 30th ultimo, together with the bonus of 236 per
cent. declared thereon, will become PAYABLE on the 10th Instant ;
and Proprietors may receive same on that or any subsequent day,
between the hours of Eleven and Three o'clock.

By order of the Court of Directors,
F. FERGUSON CA.AIROLTX, Secretary.

LONDON, EDINBURGH, and DUBLIN
LIFE ASSURANCE, 3, Charlotte•row, Mansion-house, and
18, Chancery-lane, London.
The more than usual success which has attended this Company has
arisen—

From the combination of advantages formerly obtainable partly
from proprietary and partly from mutual societies, thereby affording
to the assured bonuses, reduction of future premiums, and complete
freedom from responsibility.
From the indisputability of the policies, leave to travel beyond
Europe, the option of payment of one-half of the premiums for the
first seven years, and immediate settlement of claims.
Prospectuses and rates forwarded by the agents and Manager.
ALEX. ROBERTSON, Manager.

LONDON LIFE ASSOCIATION,
No. 81, KING WILLIAM-STREET.
PRESIDENT.—Sir John Chettham Mortlock.
VICE-PRESIDENT.—SIT Claudius S. Hunter, Bart., Alderman.
TRUSTEES.

Charles Franks, Esq.
Michael Gibbs, Esq., Aid.

I Dease Barnwell, Esq.
Charles Perkins, Esq.

DIRECTOILS,

Richard Beggslley, Esq. Henry Luard, Esq.
Thos. Bulcock Burbidge, Esq. Thomas Moore, Esq.
Matthew Clark, Esq. Isaac Nicholson, Esq.
Charles Druce, Esq. Josiah Roberts, Esq.
William Gilpin, Esq. Thomas Saunders, Esq.
George Hodgkinson, Esq. Wm. Flexman Yowler, Esq.
This Society is essentially one of Mutual Assurance, in which the
Premiums of its Members are reduced after seven years to the lowest
amount consistent with safety. The average rate of reduction,
during the last seven years, has exceeded 60 per cent.
But the Society also undertakes • other descriptions of Assurance,
in which the assured do not become members ; and in order to confer
on these a corresponding advantage of Reduced Premiums, the Court
of Directors, having ceased to allow any Agency Commission, have
determined to effect this Class of Assurances in future at the follow-
ing very low rates, and it has also been determined to reduce the
Premiums charged upon existing Policies of the same Class to the
same Scale.
ANNUAL PREMIUM FOR THE ASSURANCE OF £lOO.
AGE. £S. -d. II AGE. XS. d. AGE. £S. d.
20 1 13 7 34 2 7 6 50 4 1 2
25 1 17 0 40 2 15 5 54 5 1 0
30 2 1 5 45 3 6 0 60 6 5 10
The Court of Director- horised by the Deed
to lend money on the s, policies in this Associt
Y JAMES BROOKE,

i are aut
:urity of
HENI

of Settlement
iation.

Secretary.

IMPERIAL AUSTRIAN LOAN of 30,000,000
FLORINS, authorised by his Majesty the EMPEROR of
AUSTRIA.
On the 2d of SEPTEMBER, 1844, there will take place at
VIENNA, the DISTRIBUTION of 700 GAINS, amounting to
70,1701. sterling. There being only 700 Bonds in all, each Bond must
obtain one of the above 700 Gains,.the highest of which are 23,0001.,
5,0001., 1,5001., 1,0001., &c. &c., and the lowest 501. each.
A few Bonds can be had for 1251. each, or with the deduction of
the 501., which they must at least obtain, for 751. Halves and fifths

proportion, being a considerable reduction from the former price.
LOAN of the GRAND DUKE of BADEN of 5,000,000 FLORINS,
NEGOTIATED in the YEAR 1841.
The SEVENTH DISIPRIBUTION will take place at Carlsruhe,
publicly and irrevocably on the Ist of AUGUST, 1844, when 400
Gains will be obtained. One tl.3in of 35,000 florins, 10,000, 5,000,
3,000, &e. The lowest Gains being 65 florins each ; and 12 florins
are equal to 11. sterling. -
Price of a share, 10s. ' • Eleven for 5/. ; Twenty-three for 10/., &c.
For full particulars and Bonds of the above loans apply to Messrs.
J. A. Schwarzschild, Bankers, Frankfort-on-Maine, or, to save
postage, all applications by letter can be addressed, Mr. A 3chwszzs-
child, Plough-court, Lombard-street, London.

SILVER SUPERSEDED, and those corrosive
and injurious metals called Nickel and German Silver sup-
planted by the introduction of a new and perfectly matchless ALBATA
PLATE.

-----
C. WATSON, 41 and 42, BARBICAN, and 16, NORTON-FOL-
GATE, aided by a person of science in the amalgamation of metals,
has succeeded in bringing to public notice the most beautiful article
ever yet offered ; possessing all the richness of Silver in appearance
—with all its durability and hardness—with its perfect sweetness in
use—undergoing, as it el GNI , a chemical process, by which all that is
nauseous In mixed metals is entirely extracted--resisting all acids—
slay be cleaned as silver, and is manufactured into every article for
the Table and Sideboard.

Fiddle. Threaded. Ring's.
Table Spoons and Forks, per doz 16s. 6d. .. 30s. Od. .• 355. Od.
Dessert ditto, per doz... • ..• 12s. fid. • • Ms. 04. • • 28s. Od.
Tea Spoons, per doz. ...... ls. fid. • • 12s. fid. .. 13s. 64.
Sugar Tongs, each
Salt and Mustard Spoons, each
Communion Services, &c.
_

C. Watson begs the Public will understand that this metal is peen-
iarly his own, and that Silver is not more different from Gold, than
his metal is from all others ; on its intrinsic merit alone heiwishes it
to be tested, and from the daily increasing eulogtums he `receives, he
s convinced that nothing cai preveat its becoming an article of uni-
versal wear.
C. Watson's handsomely Illustrated Catalogue and Price Carrent
:s just published, and families who regard economy and elegance,
should possess themselves of this useful book, which may be had
gratis, and post free, from the above address.
Ivory Table-knives, Ils. per dozen, Dessert, 9s. ; Carvers, 3s. 6d.
per pair.

TABLE. DESSERT. CASTERS.
doz. doz. pair.
31-in. handsome balance handle ..• • 183. Od. 14s. Od. 6s. Gd.
1-in balance handle, largest and best
made.. ••• • • . 20s. Od. 16s. Od. 7s. 6d.
Ditto with Watson's Albata Plate
handles, equal to silver ••••• • • • • • 225. 6d. 18e. Od. Bs. 6d.
Forks half the above price.

Paper Tea-trays, 355. the Set of Three; very richly ornamento
SOs. the Set of Throe.
A Five Quart London made Bronze Tea-urn 355. up to 51.
A Set of Six London made Dish Covers 18s. 6d. ; Imperial Raised
Patent, 355. 6d. the Set 01 Six.
WATSON'S, 41 and 42, BARBICAN, and 16, NORTON FOLGATE.
These houses have for Fifty Tears ranked pre-eminent for their
tlery, which is always exchanged, if not approved.
Bend for his Catalogue.

MAGNIFICENT DAMASK TABLE
CLOTHS, 5 yards long, each lss. Od.
Dinner Napkins to match, yard square, the dozen los. 6d.
Irish Cambric Handkerchiefs, equal to the finest Fsbnch,
per dozen l2s. 6d.
Common Lawn Handkerchiefs, ls 6,1 per dozen ; very good,
. . .
per dozen
Undressed Irish Linen Sheetings, very superior, per pair l2s. rid.
Ditto, nearly 3 yards wide, without a scam, per pair lss. Od.
Common Linen Sheetings, from 3s. Pd. per pair ; and very
strong, for servants' use, per pair
Irish Linen., stout and free from dress, the piece of 26 yards,
for 21s. Od.
Ditto, excellent quality, 26 yards for 255.; and very fine, 26
yards for .3os. Od.
Yard-wide Irish, of the purest flax and finest texture, 26
yards for ... 425. Od.
The Directors of the NATIONAL LINEN COMPANY, in
riving publicity to the prices they are selling their MANUFAC-
TURES at, and feeling confident, from the increased facility of
communication from their factories, they can Obi' unprecedented
advantages to Ladies requiring household linens, &c., will forward
;pods to families residing either in town or country, for approval
previous to the payment, and any article sent not giving the most
unqualified approbation can be returned. 'I he Company are also
bleachers of long cloths, calicoes, counterpanes, rnuslins, dimities,
&c. They respectfully sol.cit inquiries of the numerous families,
both in town and country, who have patronised their establishment,
and who can testify not only to the advantageous prices, but to the
sur
rr.isorityteosefst manufactureschoenirtaininga 1
ateaocp
full artincud *the various goods for
sale, with lists of prices, can be had at the warehouses, or by post.
Retail entrance, 105, Fleet-street, corner of Farringdon-street, bottom
I of Ludgate-hill.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT
The various buildings that honour the City
Have often been chosen as themes for a ditty;
Nor shall " The New Houses of Parliament" go
Without a few verses from M OSES—IsTo, no !
We'll show the good reader, before we are done,
How they bear on the houses of MOSES and SON.
While the" Houses of Parliament" shortly will stand,
As the principal Court in Britannia's land,
The Houses of MOSES and SON are displayed,
A s the principal mart in Britannia's trade.
To the good of the public they both are devoted,
And both with the people are equally noted.
Our Houses are open to grant a" RE-Daass,"
Nay, all must a striking resemblance confess.
Of course we are not at a loss to decide
Which Houses de serve to be viewed as the pride.
The good that the public derive ev'ry day
Must oertainly give to ova Houses the sway.
With regard to the wonderful architect's skill,
We've little or nothing to mention. But still,
We doubt when the " Parliament Houses" are done,
If they rival the Houses of MOSES and SON.
anew( MADE.

Z s. d.
Tweed Taglion isT from 0 8 6
Ditto, superior quality, with silk collars, cuffs, and facings.... 0 16 0
Cashmerette coats in a variety of shapes, handsomely trimmed I 0 0
An immense stock of Holland and lean blouses ....... from 0 3 6
Splendid summer vests from 0 2 6
An endless variety of cashmere and Persian vests, splendid
patterns .3s. to 8 6
Washing satin vests, warranted
Cloth trousers. from 0 9 0
Single milled does from 0 11 6
A great variety of summer trousers from • 7 0
Dress Coats edged. from 1 0 0
i Frock ditt0.........................•.... 000000000000000000000000 ...•

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION,
LONGBOTTOM'S PHYSIOSCOPE exhibits the human face
with its varied expressions, on a gigantic scale, curiously contrasted
with the living man. Tho OPAQUE MICROSCOPE magnifies ef-
fectively a succession of WORKS of the FINE ARTS ; also casts of
INSCRIPTIONS, taken by Miss Wilson from the WALLS of the
TOWER of LONDON; cut by. Lord Guilford Dudley and other State
Prisoners. Arrangements have been made for 1)r. RYAN to deliver
VARIED LECTURES on the evenings of Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday; and Professor BACHHOFFNER on Tuesday and Thursday
evenings. These Lectures, as well as tke Morning Lectures, will
abound in interesting experiments. ARMSTRONG'S HYDRO-
ELECTRIC MACHINE. DIVING BELL and DIVER. NEW
DISSOLVING VIEWS, &c. &c. The Music is conducted by T.
Wallis, Mus. Dee. _ _ _ .

PAR COURRIER EXTRAORDINAIRE,
LA. SUITE DU "JUIF ERRANT."

LE COURRIER DE - L'EUROPE (Bohain's
French Newspaper) will publish, every Saturday, two
chapters more than any other London journal of the WANDERING
JEW, by the Author of "Le Mysteries do Paris.",
Le Courrier de l'Europe, during five years, has presented to the
English reader a complete resume of the news of the week, and
textually all the best articles on politics, and literature, romance, and
poems, &c., published in the Parisian newspapers.
Subscriptions, 6s. 6d. per quarter, received at the office, 10, Wel-
lington• street ; by Joseph Thomas, 1, Finch-lane, Cornhill ; and all
newsmen. Single Numbers, 6d. each. Those containing the com-
mencement of " Le Juif Errant" may still be obtained as above.

The Fourth Edition, with important additions, price Bs. 6d.
ATREATISE on INDIGESTION; illus-
trating the Symptoms, Causes, Varieties, and Treatment of
the prevailing Disorders of the Stomach and Liver, with Observations
on some painful Complaints originating in them, especially Nervous
Affections, and showing the debilitating Effects of Carbonate of Soda.
By T. J. GRAHAM, M.D., &c.
" We sincerely recommended it, and have long been convinced
that such a work was imperatively called for."—London Medical
Journal.

" It is evidently the result of close attention to, and much expe-
rience in the subject. Mr. Abernethy spoke highly of it."—British
Magazine.

fondon: Published by Simpkin and Co., Paternoster-row ; and
Hatcharda, 187, Piccadilly.
Of whom may may be had, by the same Author, Eighth Edition,

price l(e.,
2. MODERN DOMESTIC MEDICINE ; a comprehensive Medical
Guide for the Clergy, Families and Invalids, with a copious Collec-
tion of Prescriptions, &c. &c.
" It is altogether deserving of permanent popularity."—London
Weekly Review.
3. On the DISEASES of FEMALES ; a Treatise in which the
subject is fully considered, With Cases, and a Medical Glossary.
Third edition, price Hs.
" It is an admirable performance, and should find a place in every
family establishment."—Bath Herald.
" It contains a mass of information invaluable to those for whom it
is intended, and surpasses, in value any other book of its character."
—Blackwood's Lady's Magazine.

THE PHYSIOLOGY OF THE PASSIONS.
" How to live happiest, how avoid the pains,
The diappointments, and disgust of those
Who would in pleasure all their hours employ."
Elegant pocket edition (20 engravings) price is., by post Is. 6d.
N CHASTITY—its Abuses and Diseases—On
Marriage—On Infelicitous and Unproductive Unions—On Ma-
rital Eligibility and Unfitness—Law of Divorce.
By R. J. CULVERWELL, M.D., Member of the Royal College e

Surgeons.
" Not it vain such laUours have we tried,
If ought this book, the fickle health confirm.
To you, ye Delicate ! I write for you,
I tame my youth to philosophic cares,
And grew still paler by the midnight lamps."

Art of Health.

Sherwood, 23, Paternoster-row; Carvalho, 147, Fleet-street
Hannay, 63, Oxford-street; Mann, 39, Cornkill ; and the Author, 2
Arundel-street, Strand.
At home, daily, till Two, evenings, Seven till Nine.

LAMERT ON DEBILITY, NERVOUSNESS, AND ALL
DISORDERS ARISING FROM EXCESS, &c.
" He who in pleasure's downy arms
Ne'er lost his health or yeuthfir Ichareas,
A hero lives, and justly can
Exclaim, in me behold a man I"
Justlaublished (in a sealed envelope), Tenth Edition, price is. 6d.,
or sent by post, free, to any address, 3s. 6d.,
SELF-PRESERVATION : a Popular Essay en
those concealed disorders originating in youthful excesses,
and terminating In Nervous Debility, Local and Constitutional
Weakness, and all those Sinking., Anxieties, and Tremors, which
afflict the Weak, the Bedentary, and the Delicate, With Practical
Observations on Marriage, and on the Anatomy, Physiology, and
Diseases of the Reproductive Organs, with plain Directions for
their perfect Restoration.
nx SAMUEL LAMERT, Consulting Surgeon
9, BEDFORD-STREET, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LONDON,
Matriculated Member of the University of Edinburgh, Honorary
Member of the London Hospita 1 Medical Society, licentiate of
Apothecary's Hall, London,&c.
" The various positions of Lover, Husband, and Parent, the
in-
herent privileges of mankind, are frequently marred and prevented
through the follies and frailties of early indiscretions. To such,
among others, this Essay addresses itself ; and by its perusal many
questions may be satisfactorily adjusted that admit of no appeal even
to the most confidential friend."—Staffbrd Gazette.
"The design of this work will be tolerably obvious from its title,
and we cordially recommend the author and his book to all who are
snaring from nervous debility and general weakness."—Wakefield
Journal.
Published by the Author, and sold In London by S. Gilbert, 51 and
52, Paternoster-row; Starie, 23, Tichbome.street, Quadrant, Regent
street; Hannay and Co., 63, Oxford-street; Noble, 114, Chancery_
lane; Gordon, 146, Leadenhall-street ; and by all Booksellers.
At home every day till Three, and from Five till Ei ht.

THE STATE TRIALS•
(FIFTH DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 9.

'THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for Ireland (in continua-
tion from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday), said—
The;challenger stated that fifty-nine names were omitted
which ought to have been returned ; and he then went
on to state that from the said paper writing a certain
book, purporting to be the jurors' book for the year 1844
was made up, from which the special jury list was made
out. It was not denied in the challenge that a general
list was made up by the Recorder—that it was delivered
by him to the clerk of the peace—that the clerk of the
peace made up, in pursuance of the Act of Pdrliament,
a book from the general list, which he delivered to the
sheriff, and that the sheriff from that made up the special
jury list; yet it was now contended that this omission
invalidated the jurors' book, though the omission might
have either occurred through mistake on the part of the
Recorder's registrar, or at the dictation of one of the
defendants, or any other person unconnected with the
Croivn. He certainly thought their Lordships would
come to the conclusion that it would be impossible for
him, on the part of the Crown, to take issue on an aver-
ment of that kind, and that he should be guilty
.of a
breach of his duty to the Crown if he had joined issue
upon it, and, notwithstanding all the obloquy which he
had been suffering in consequence of it in Ireland, he
was the more strengthened in the opinion that he had
acted properly, because his Learned Friend the'Attorney-
General was of opinion that he ought not to have done
so. He begged to call their Lordship,i'_attention to sec-
tions 35 and 36 of the Act of Parliamerii,,which would
show in what cases names which were omitted might be
inserted. In the 35th section of the Act there was a
specific provision to meet the particular case of fraud,
and' penalties were provided if it was proved that the
collectors had fraudulently omitted any names, and in
that particular case the book was to be corrected, if there
was either a wilful insertion or omission of names, which
ought not to have been inserted or emitted. The 36th
section stated the penalties which should be suffered by
persons who were found guilty in this respect, and it
gave power to the justices before whom such conviction
took place, to certify to the clerk of the peace that such
wrong omission or insertion had occurred, and the clerk
of the peace was to make a list in which such wrong
insertion or omission was to be cured. Thus their Lord-
ships would see that the Act of Parliament had specifi-
cally provided for those cases where there was a wilful
insertion or omission of the names, and the means of
amending such insertion or omission was pointed out ;
yet it was said that he should have made the amendment
_ _

in the list in defiance of the Act of Parliament, which
specified those particular cases in which the Act of Par-
liament provided that amendments were to be made.
Lord CAMPBELL—Had you consented, with the con-
sent and privity of the traversers, that such a course
shouldbe adopted, could the traversers have assigned for
error that the Act of Parliament had not been properly
complied with?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) apprehended
that in that case the jurors' book would not be a good
jurors' book, and if the parties challenged that they were
tried by names not in the jurors book, his consent would
not be a good plea to the challenge. He submitted that
it was really the object of the Legislature to take
away the challenge to the array, and to preclude
the sheriff from exercising any control over the list.
The next point to which he should call the attention of
their Lordships was that of the pleas in abatement.
Their Lordships would understand, from the manner in
which the record was made up, that all these pleas in
abatement exactly corresponded with each other, without
the slightest difference. They all sought to raise this
question, that the witnesses before the grand jury ought
to have been sworn under the provisions of the 58th of
George 111., that is to say, they ought to have been
swore in open court, and that, not having been so sworn,
the proceedings were altogether illegal. Now, he con-
tended that all these pleas were both insufficient
and informal. Both in England and in Ireland it was
necessary that pleas in abatement should be verified.
Now there was no allegation that the names •f the wit-
nesses who were sworn were unknown to the plaintiffs in
error. He then cited from Comyn an opinion of Lord
Holt on this point, where that learned authority stated
that a matter could never be assigned as error which the
party might have pleaded in abatement, as it must be
taken for his own folly that he had omitted to do so.
The whole object of the assignment of errors in fact was
to amend the plea in abatement. For this purpose only
one error in fact could be assigned though as many
errors in law might be assigned as a party
pleased. As only one error in fact could be assigned,
they could not allow that to be assigned as an error in
fact at two periods of the same proceedings, which they
would not allow to be assigned as error twice over. He
submitted that on the principle laid down in the authori-
ties already cited, they could not assign an error in fact
and use it as a plea of abatement also. It could be
proved by the Journals of the House of Lords, that their
Lordships, on a writ of error, would not investigate
matters of fact in error, and would not, therefore, re-
verse a judgment on a matter of fact ascertained.
Lord CAMPBELL—I believe if you look at the books
you will find that in nullo est erratum admits the fact,
and if you wish to traverse it, you must deny the fact.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland)—He would
apply himself to that point. Upon an assignment of
error, the Court of Queen's Bench could not have denied
any of the facts in dispute.
Lord CAMPBELI.—Do you say that if the record were
brought by writ of error to the superior court, that court
could not review the judgment of the court below, and
overrule the error assigned in fact ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland)—l respectfully
submit that to your Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It comes here as a question
of law.

oTt
of h George
swear
eno
arb
rgj object
ti
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) thought be
was justified in asserting, that if this matter came on
upon a writ of error in England, it could not stand
for one moment. It was stated in Teesdale's
case that at Durham it had been the uniform practice
for the foreman of the grand jury to swear the witnesses.
The practice was. so stated by Sir Gregory Lewin ; and
if it were not justified by the common law, it never
could have passed without objection. Before the 56th
of the grand juries in Ireland of their finding a bill of in-
dictmentwllithoUtB7:xamining witnesses for the crown.
a practice had prevailed in many
of that Bill wars to make it compulsory
tmlses. in open court previous to the finding
of the bill of indictment. Their Lordships would ob-
serve that all the pleas in abatement admitted that the
witnesses should have been sworn under the Act of 1816
—the Act to empower the foreman of any grand jury in.
Ireland to administer oaths to witnesses in Ireland.
The Act of 1816 was admitted to extend to every grand
jury in Ireland. The mischief to be remedied was,
that the informations were laid before the grand jury,
and no witnesses were examined viva voce, the object
g ro
being to substitute viva voce examinations for written
testimony; and, as one of the Learned Counsel had ad-
verted to the practice in the House of Lords, he sub-
mitted that the swearing of witnesses whilst the pro-
ceedings were going on led to some confusion, and that
the oath so administered was not so impressive as when
adminstered by those who had to receive the testimony.
Persons sworn in court might not be examined for two
or three days, and certainly the impressiveness of an
oath, might lose its force in that interval, which used to
occur before the Act of 1838. That Act was an im-
portant general remedial measure. The preamble stated
that the practice of swearing witnesses in court was at-
tended with great delay and inconvenience. Since that
time, in all the commissions that had been issued, and
tried in the Recorder's Court in Dublin, the witnesses
were sworn by the grand jury. How, then, would the
case be, if, as represented for the appellants, the Act
and found the bills
charged
by the Recorder,
did not extend to Commissions in which the judges of
the superior courts were incle.ded ? It frequently hap-
phbweya
danstehrdi
etettnithrieeamcdtee,necessary
sttheah juryrayt tthh e examinedaht
taawtdlhloetbeenjudgesh came into court. Now,
witnesses,ew
itnesses should be re-sworn
in open Court before the Judges, and the whole of the
proceedings gone over again ? Yet, if this objection
such would be the case ; and every man
who
s was wrongly transported. It was a cu-
rious
werecmanm good,hiosasdinieen convicted and transported under these
coincidence that the first judge who charged a
a jury under the Act was Baron Wolfe, whose
name was on this bill.
Lord CAMPBELL—Had he the Act before him at the
time ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) did not know.
But he thought that when a judge instructed a jury on
the construction of an Act 01. Parliament, he would
have made himself acquainted with that Act. In the
In
enacting part of the Bill it was enacted, that "In
all
cases
s for
which
grand jury, and that the clerk
of the crown at assizes,
and the clerk of the peace at sessions, should endorse the
names of the witnesses on the back of the bill. Mr.
theirshould con come before
the witnesses
might be sworn by the foreman or other members of the : before grand juries
in Ireland
Kelly laid great stress upon this point. The Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to refer to
cases on the subject, in the 2d Institute, pages 393, 394,
and 426. He did not think it was
- necessary he should
trouble their Lordships with any further ob-
servations on the assignment in error, except with
respect to Mr. Steele s assignment of error in fact,
and that he ventured to say could not be sustained
for the reasons he bad already mentioned. He admitted
that all the witnesses had been sworn, but that the officer
not having put his initials on the bill, the whole was in-
valid; now he submitted that it was not. He would now
shortly call the attention of their Lordships to the in-
dictment in the present case. He thought he bad some
grounds to complain of some of the Learned Counsel who
appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, one of them
having adverted to matters that were not within the
I record. Whoever had instructed the Learned Counsel

to make the statement he did had instructed him
to state that which was not true. Having
said thus much he would proceed with his
arguments notwithstanding the language that had been
used by one of the Counsel for the plaintiffs in error, who
in speaking of the vituperative language of some parts of
the indictment, seemed to hare made use of it himself,
because he said that nothing but confidence in a political
jury could have induced this indictment to be framed as
it had been. Nothing in his opinion could have justified
counsel in making such observations. The fifth count of
the ; indictment appeared to be the first to which an
objcption had been made, and the reason probably
there was no allusion made to the earlier counts
was! that the fifth and subsequent counts were embodied
in a different way. By the fifth count the defendants
were found guilty of unlawfully and maliciously conspir-
ing to create discontent and 'disaffection among the sub-
jects of the Queen and to the Government. Now the
first case on the subject was the case of the King
v. Redhead Yorke," reported in the State Trials.
The', Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted
from the 9th volume of Carrington and Payne's Reports,
page 275, the case of the " Queen v.'Vincent." Vincent
had been one of the associates of Frost, who had been
found guilty of high treason. Frost had not been tried
upon the indictment for conspiracy, but Vincent had
been tried. The first count on which he had been in-
dicted charged him with conspiring to excite discontent
and 'disaffection amongst the liege subjects of her Ma-
jesty against the Constitution, and of endeavouring by
assembling a large number of persona to excite peril and
alarm in the mind of her Majesty's liege subjects, and by
exciting such peril and alarm to procure a change in the
Constitution. In that case the j ury had found Vincent guilty.
He had procured a copy of the indictment from the so-
licitor of the Treasury. The indictment had been tried
on the 26th of March, 1840, and the indictments in that
case were identical with the present. One of the
Learned Counsel who had addressed them on the present
occasion for the plaintiffs in error, and who had par-
ticularly directed their Lordships' attention to that
count in the indictment, had been one of the
counsel for the Crown when Vincent was
tried. But what was discontent and disaffection
in 1840, when the Learned Gentleman was in office, be-
came legitimate opposition in 1844. However, the case
of the " Queen v. Vincent" was a precedent for them.
The case of the " King v. Hunt" furnished a similar
precedent; and there was another precedent in the case
of Law v. Allan," reported in the 2d Lynch, page
796. That was a precedent for an indictment for
general conspiracy. In that indictment it was al-
leged that Law had conspired to seduce men from their
allegiance, without stating when or by what means.
The Learned Gentleman then quoted the case of the
" King v. De Berenger," as a precedent for the present
indictment. The same observations applied to the 6th
and,7th counts of the indictment. The Learned Gentle-
man on the other side had put the case of a mob who
met to intimidate another mob which sought to procure
changes in the law and in the Constitution. But a mob
meeting for this purpose was not a mob meeting for the
purpose of producing changes in the law by intimidation
and the demonstration of physical force.
Lord BROUGHAM—That would not be an answer to

the case put by Mr. Kelly. He put the case of an
Orange mob coming down to intimidate the Houses of
Parliament, and then he supposed a loyal mob coming
down and saying that they would prevent the Orange
mob from intimidating the Houses of Parliament, in
order that the Act of Emancipation, or any other Act,
might be passed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland)—That would
be a mob going down to intimidate the Orange mob, but
it would not be a mob met for the purpose of procuring
changes in the Constitution.
Lord BROUGHAM—Yes, it would, for they came down
to intimidate the - Orange mob, in order to procure the
Emancipation Act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) apprehended
that a mob coming down to free Parliament from the
pressure of another mob, would not be a mob convened
to procure alteration and changes in the Constitution.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—But would it be a mob
unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously convened?
Lord BROUGHAM—Aye, aye, that is another question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland)—When their
Lordships came to examine the count they would find
it did not apply to such meetings. There was nothing
dissimilar in it from the count in the case of Feargus
O'Connor, which had been tried before Mr. Baron Rolfe,
in which the judgment was arrested on the count in
which he was found guilty, because the count was with-
out a venue. _ _

Lord DENMAN said there were two counts in that case
on which the defendant was convicted. One of those
counts they considered too general, but they gave no
judgment, as the party was not brought up for judg-
ment. They also thought that the venue count was not
good.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland)—The Learned
Gentleman on the other side alluded to the words, the

demonstration of great physical force, and said, that they
meant nothing. He would refer their Lordships, on this
point, to the language used by Lord Chief Justice Tindal.
He then read the judgment of Chief Justice Tindal, and
proceeded to. say, that though the large meetings might
be for a more innocent purpose than high treason, yet
the holding those meetings certainly amounted to an
aggravated misdemeanour, as it was impossible to say
to what consequences they might not lead. It had been
alleged as an objection to this count, that it was not
stated who were the parties who were to be in-
timidated ; but he contended that this was not
necessary ; in the case of a conspiracy to defraud
generally, it was not necessary to state who were to be
defrauded. He next proceeded to the counts which
charged a conspiracy to bring the tribunals of the
country into hatred and contempt. He could con-
ceive no more grave offence than thus endeavouring
to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the case of the riot at the theatre in Dublin, in which
. _

a bottle was thrown at Lord Wellesley, it was decided
that though the parties had a right to express their ap-
probation, yet what was right in the individual, was
illegal when there was a pre-combination for that pur-
pose. In the case of the officers in the East India
Company's service, reported in 4th Burrow, the
parties were all indicted for a conspiracy. Lord Mans-
field held that, although each individual had a right to
say " I will throw up my commission because batty has
been refused," yet an agreement to that effect constituted
a conspiracy. The Learned Counsel then went on to
show that the indietnients in these cases were
similar to the count for endeavouring to procure a
change in the law by a demonstration of phy-
sical force. and read the count for that purpose.
His Learned Friend had so ably argued that part of the
case that he would not trouble their Lordships by ar-
guing it at greater length. As to the extreme cases
which had been put by the other side, such as the con-
spiring to steal a loaf of bread on one day, and conspiring
to fire a house on the next, he would only say, that no
judge would allow two such offences to be in-
cluded under one conspiracy. As to the ques-
tion of good and bad counts, there was no analogy in
civil and criminal cases. In civil cases there could be a
venire de novo ; but that could not apply to criminal
cases. The court of assize could not make up its record
with such a distinction between good and bad counts.
They could not enter up a judgment non obstante vere-
dicto ; neither could they enter a verdict of acquittal.
It was no matter how many counts there were in the in-
dictment, the question was whether the party was guilty
of the offence charged in the indictment, and was there
a finding to warrant the judgment ? If the arguments
on the other side were to prevail, it would strike at the
full scope of criminal justice. He trusted their
Lordships would not come to any conclusion that
would do anything to alter the whole mode in which the
criminal business of the country was transacted. There
was another point to which he would slightly ad-
vert, and that was the point raised upon the first
count of • the indictment. It was not necessary
that they should all be pronounced guilty, there was
nothing inconsistent in saying that some might be guilty
of the whole and some in part, and if that was without
the issue it puts an end to the objection. As to the dis-
continuance point their Lordships had received no answer
of any entries that had been made in accordance with
the ancient custom.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the Hon. Gentle-
man the Attorney-General for Ireland had any point
on which he wished to remark, their Lordships would
hear it when they re-assembled in an hour and a half.
The further hearing was then adjourned till half-
' past six.

Their Lordships then re-assembled at a few minutes
after seven o'clock.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (for Ireland) resumed. He
then proceeded to cite authorities in support of the pro-
position which he had laid down previous to the adjourn-
ment, and also re-stated his argument in reference to
repugnancy. On these grounds he submitted that suf-
ficient cause had not been shown for reversing the judg-
ment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland.
The Learned Counsel closed the case for the Crown at
half-past seven.
Sir T. WILDE, before proceeding to address their
Lordships apologised for not appearing in his wig, re-
questing that he might be excused from wearing it on
the ground that it produced headache.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, himself and the Learned
Judges felt the same inconvenience. This permission
must not be taken as a precedent, and what the Learned
Counsel curtailed in the wig was not to be added to
the argument.—(Laughter.)
Sir T. WILDE then proceeded with his reply on behalf
of the defendants. He said, some of his Learned
Friends on the opposite side had remarked upon the
State trials and the circumstances which had attended
some of them., He could not help thinking, that if the
present judgmbnt were affirmed, it must be referred to a
period two hundred years back. The indictment charged
the defendants with certain political conspiracies in
terms as generAl as any which could be found. The
charge was one which might be made at almost any
time against a political opponent. It was spread over
nine or ten counts, supported by the speeches of diffe-

rent persons, and the contents of newspapers. A charge
of that nature could at any time be brought against a
political opponent. But not only was this case brought
forward in a form suited to the worst of times and the
worst of places, but if their Lordships yielded to
the arguments on the other side, the challenge of the
jury was entirely gone in Ireland. His Learned Friends,
who appeared on behalf of the Crown, had supported
their case by more positive assertions than he had ever
before heard in a case of that nature. Every difficulty
was removed by a statement that so and so was the
settled practice, the constant usage, and this statement
was accompanied by an absolute inability to produce a
single precedent. Ile had before stated, that this was
the first case in which counts so generally framed had
been brought before the House of Lords. It was im-
possible to produce an instance irrwhich the court had
ever given judgment upon an entire record, without ex-
amining what counts were good. The judgment
was always entered upon a good count, and
the difficulty in doing so was altogether ima-
ginary on the part of his Learned Friends. Cases in
point had recently occurred. Now, his Learned Friends
had first to meet the general charge that this indictment
did not contain, at least in some of its counts, a suffi-
ciently distinct legal charge. He was free to admit, that
acts which individuals might innocently do separately
were made criminal by combination. Such was the case
where the agreement was calculated to oppress a par-
ticular person. If the officers of the East •India Com-
pany entered into a confederacy to embarrass and
injure the Company by all resigning at one time,
he admitted that though each might lawfully
have resigned •at his discretion, a confederacy to
resign m ould be illegal. So also he admitted
that if a certain number of persons combined not to
deal with a particular tradesman, that would be an
offence in law. He would not ask the Counsel for the
Crown to say, whether there was any such conspiracy
in these counts. It had been said that there were cer-
tain articles in a literary work which were calculated to
disturb the public peace. He admitted that there were
several matters charged which might tend to disturb the
public peace. But he asked, were these rightly charged
in the indictment, or rightly found in the verdict ? Take
the count which charged with conspiring to stir up
hatred and jealousy between the subjects of the Crown,
and dissatisfaction and hatred towards the Government.
What could be more general than this ? every
Opposition to the Government was accused by
those in power of the same offence. But how
was a man to know of what he was accused under a
count like this? If this could hold good, any man taking
part in politics might be entangled—no man could be
safe from the charge of conspiracy. Looking at the
nature of the evidence by which such charges were sup-
ported, their Lordships were to look to the terms in
which thd charge was stated in the indictment, and
whether it was: enough to enable the accused to know
what he was called on to answer. There was scarcely
any political discussion that would not be liable to the same
imputation of stirring up hatred and ill-will between dif-
ferent classes of her Majesty's subjects. Why should
it be made a matter of conspiracy for men-to join in
endeavouring to obtain a repeal of the Act of Union or
of any other Act ? He hoped that these words were too
vague to be tolerated by their Lordships. Now with
respect to the meetings to intimidate—Mr. Justice
Burton stated that they were the more dangerous be-
cause they were so peaceable. They were as quiet as
Quakers, and quite as dangerous. The only object of
those meetings was to show the concurrence of mind of
great numbers in one common object. It was ad-
mitted that there was no alarm, no intimidation?
Had not those persons a right to ask what
is the intimidation with which you charge
us ? There were no arms, no violence, no dis-
order, no intimidation. But was it a legal charge to
say that men conspired to intimidate, when they took
every precaution that there should be no intimidation?
He submitted that this charge was so vague that no
subject of a free country ought to be put upon his trial
for it. The callirig of large meetings to show the extent
of public opinion on the corn-laws, the Reform Bill, or
any other, was not liable to such a charge. He thus dis-
posed of the sixth count. The seventh count charged
them with conspiring to effect the repeal of the union by
a great demonstration of physical force. That demon-
stration was to be found in the large meetings, which
gave none of the alarm which intimidation implied. It
did not even shake the nerves of the Government. The
object—the avowed object of those who called the
meetings—was to demonstrate what numbers were de-
sirous of the repeal, and that object was perfectly legal.
It was not asserted in the indictment that the -object was
illegal. The next count (the eighth) was that they ,
conspired to set aside the authority of the courts of law
in Ireland. How had the defendants done this? They bad
done no more to bring the courts of law into contempt,
or to set aside their authority, than to recommend arbi-
tration, instead of an appeal to the expensive and un-
certain law courts. But he would admit that such
legal object might be sought by illegal means. But then
you should show the illegal means—you should prove
that they were resorted to, or were intended to be resorted
to. It was quite competent to any man, or body of
men, to point out the inefficiency of the existing courts,
and to suggest a substitute for them. That might be
done in unbecoming language, and in an illegal manner,
but no such thing was charged in this count. The next
count charged the defendants with conspiring to assume
and usurp the prerogative of the Crown, in the establish-
ment of courts for the administration of the law. All
that he would say of that clause was, that it was so
vague and general, that it was unnecessary for him to
occupy their Lordships by one word more than calling
their attention to it. He submitted that these counts
were substantially bad. He owned that he had heard
with surprise the Learned Attorney-General for Ireland
say that their Lordships were to take their law from
the Courts below. He had always thought that the Courts
below were to take their law from their Lordships.
When a course of proceeding has arisen in the courts
below, and which came before their Lordships, it was
new to him to hear that their Lordships were to take
heir law from the courts below. Considerable looseness

had been allowed to creep into indictments for con-
spiracy of a private nature ; it was now sought to allow
it to creep into indictments for political conspiracies.
This might lead to very serious consequences. There
was extreme danger in allowing a loose practice
to creep into a law under the idea that it must be
correct, because it had not been appealed from,
when they must recollect the enormous expense
parties were put to before they could obtain
the benefit of their Lordships' opinion—a great luxury,
he admitted, when they did get it, but a very high priced
one, and out of the reach of those who could not afford
to spend hundreds of pounds to obtain it. He then
called their attention to the third count. His Learned
Friends had stated that if the indictments were not gene-
ral it would lead to many criminals escaping. But he
referred them, for the very form of the process of setting,
aside a verdict, to Hales Pleas of the Crown, ch. 29, in

the case of Van; who was indicted for murder, pre•
cured the first verdict to be set aside, was tried de
novo, and was hanged. Lord Hale considering that it
was a hard case, as he ought to have been able to plead
his former trial. In this case would be found the regu-
lar forms of the judgment and the discharge of the pri-
soner, by reason of the defect in the indictment. The
jury is bound to decide upon every point of the indict-
ment, and if they found the accused guilty of only one
part, they were bound to acquit him of the rest. With
respect to the third count, what was the meaning of the
finding? Nothing could be more precise or distinct
than this, that the finding convicted the defendants on
all the matters charged against them on the premises,
and not only of the whole matter, but in the manner
and form in which the ;premises were charged. The
matter charged was a conspiracy with a certain number
of persons. But an acquittal of A for conspiracy
with B, did not prevent A from being afterwards
indicted for conspiring with C, D, E, or F, or any num-
ber of letters. And here Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of conspiring with Mr.
J. O'Connell, Mr. Steele, Mr. Ray, Mr. Gray, and Mr.
Tierney. Now if Ais acquitted on a charge of conspir-
ing with B, they must acquit B of conspiring with A;
one man could not be guilty of conspiring with himself.
So if Mr. D. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy are
charged with conspiring with Mr. Steele, Mr. Ray, Mr.
Gray, and Mr. Tierney, and these last are acquitted of
conspiring with the former, that finding negatives the
verdict of guilty against Mr. D. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy ; the record showed the finding to be re-
pugnant. The subject of the challenge was a fearful
point. It was a fearful point to hear his Learned Friend
say that the Act of Parliament had taken away the right
of challenge to the array.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It does not take away the
right.
Sir T. WILDE said it did not, but he bad understood
his Learned Friend to say so. However, he would not
further discuss it, although the argument went a long
way to take it away. The Attorney-General had read
the challenge in a curious way. He had read certain
parts, and then commented upon them so long that their
Lordships had lost the connexion between the parts
which he had read and the parts which followed. Sir
W. Follett had said that the Recorder could not adjudi-
cate upon the jury list, but he had altogether omitted to
state that the Recorder had to adjudicate upon the quali-
fications of the persons who are to be placed upon that
list; so that he had, in fact, to adjudicate upon the list.
Having made the list, that list was delivered over to
form the jurors' book, and from that jurors' book
the panel was arranged, so that the Recorder
did, in fact, select those persons who were to
serve on the special jury. The Recorders' list
was the foundation of the jury book—the jury book
was the foundation of the jury list. Now the challenge
averred that the Recorder did not make out and deliver
his list according to the terms of the statute, and he ap-
prehended that the challengers had done their duty in
se stating. The Attorney-General complained that the
challenger did not go on to aver that he had delivered
another list furnished him by some person unknown. It
averred, however, that the list had been fraudulently
made to the prejudice of the defendants. His Learned
Friends on the other side had endeavoured to keep that