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

GREENLAND FISHERY.

PETERHEAD, JULY 4.—The Mary, arrived here from
Greenland, left the ice 27th ultimo, reports the Jean, of
Peterhead, with 700 seals ; Constantia, of Hull, with
2,100 seals ; Anna, of Hull, 1,800 seals ; Hebe, of Hull,
500 seals.

ACCIDENT BY FIREARMS.—On Monday a frightful
accident, from the use of firearms, occurred to a lad, named
William Haycock, aged 15 years, the son of a master baker
residing in Pomeroy-street, Old Kent-road. It appears that
having procured a small pocket pistol, he had loaded it with
swan shot, when not being able to fix the percussion cap he
got a stone, and incautiously began to knock it on, when the
pistol suddenly went off, and the whole of its contents lodged
in his thigh, lacerating his flesh in a frightful manner. He
was conveyed to Guy's Hospital, where he was immediately-
attended to by Messrs. Cocks and Callaway, the surgeons,
who extracted a considerable number of shot, but in conse-
quence of the severe nature of the wound considerable doubts'
are entertained of his recovery.

FATAL ACCIDENT AT WATERLOO-BRIDGE.—Monday
evening, Mr. Higgs held an inquest at the Green Dragon,
Villiers-street, Strand, on the body of Albert Walker, aged
five years. William James Myers, a waterman, who plies
at Waterloo-bridge stairs, said that on Saturday afternoon,
between three and four o'clock, he was on the floating pier,
near Somerset House, when a boy came to him and told
him a child was in the water near the north-west stairs of
the bridge. He went to the spot, and getting into the boat
of another waterman, and assisted by the latter, he found
the body within twelve feet of the stairs. It was alive when
got out of the water, and they rowed to the Savoy, and got
ashore and took the child to Mr. Scott, a surgeon, living
close by. Mr. Scott looked at the child, and exclaimed—
"Be off with you—take it to Charing Cross Hospital." The
witness added " The child was alive when under Dr. Scott's
roof, and he might have saved it in ten minutes." It died
whilst the witness was taking it to the hospital. The wit.
ness added that he was "an experienced practitioner" in
these matters, having since the year '9B picked up in the
Thames forty-four persons whose lives were saved, and ten
bodies that were lifeless. Mr. Golding, house-surgeon, of
Charing-cross Hospital, said the child was brought in dead,
a little after four o'clock, and that for upwards of an hour
every means were tried without effect to restore animation.
He was of opinion that the child had been dead twenty
minutes or half an hour when he was brought to the hos-
pital. The first witness said that the child's heart beat
when it was taken to Mr. Scott's. Mr. Golding (in answer
to a juror)—lf there was pulsation of the heart when the
child was at Mr. Scott's, it might have been revived; but
whether it would have lived ultimately, I cannot say. It
was proved by another child that deceased was playing on
the steps of the stairs, and accidentally slipped into the
water. The jury here sent the beadle for Dr. Scott, who de-
clined coming, but sent Mr. Pine, a medical man, wko was
in his shop when the witness Myers brought-in the child.
Mr. Pine said the child was dead when brought to the shop,
and that Dr. Scott having at hand no convenience to restore
animation, advised Myers to take the child to the hospital,
whither witness accompanied it. Dr. Scott examined the
child, and Myers was drunk. Myers denied that he was
drunk, and swore that Dr. Scott did not examine the body.
Verdict, "Accidentally drowned."
At the Liverpool Police-court, the other day, one
man was fined 9s. 6d., and another 55., for smoking in
the street, opposite warehouses stowed with cotton.
NEWLY-INVENTED SPECTACLES, TELESCOPES,
OPERA GLASSES, MICROSCOPE'S, &c.—Messrs. S. and
B. Solomons, Opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Picca-
dilly, have succeeded in effecting a most scientific im-
provement in Spectacle and Telescope Lenses, &c., of
the greatest transparent power. The extraordinary
advantage derived from this invention is that vision
becomes preserved and strengthened and very aged per:
sons are enabled to employ their sight either by day or
candle light at the most minute occupation, and can see
with those Lenses of a much less magnifying power, nor
will they require the frequent changes to further helps
as the Spectacles now in common use. Also newly-in-
vented Achromatic Waiscoat• pocket Telescopes and
Opera Glasses which are invaluable at the sea-side and
on the race-course, as well as at the theatre, &c.—Every
kind of Telescope for Shooting, Sea purposes, and upon
stand for astronomical observations with the celebrated
Lenses of the most clear transparent brilliancy ; the
powers are so great and the Lenses so bright and bril-
liant that minute objects at an extraordinary distance
are brought completely under the eyes.—Sportsmen,
Tourists, and sea-side visitors will indeed here have a
great treat. Their invisible Voice Conductor gives im-
mediate relief to old standing extreme cases of deafness.
Caution.—Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians and
Aurists, :are not in any way connected with a person
of the same name in their immediate neighbourhood,
nor in any part of the country. To prevent mistakes, be
cautious, and observe.—Only to be had at 39, Albe-
marie-street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel.

THE LYCEUM.
A dramatic version of Boz's popular tale" Martin Chuzzle-
wit,"was I.cought out for the first time on Monday at this
amusing little theatre, and was received throughout with
considerable applause. The drama is, we understand, from
the pen of Mr. E. Stirling, and the main incidents of the
story have been put together with no ordinary skill. The
characters, too, for the most part, were sustained with great
ability :—Mr. Frank Matthews as Pecksniff, with his hair
standing up in three separate " Brutus's," was the engraving
animated for the occasion. Tom Pinch's bald head sur-
rounded by the fringe of hair was perfection. This same Tom
was delicately acted by Meadows, but there is no Opportu-
nity of realising the Tom Pinch of the book. Mr. Keeley is
Mrs. Gamp, and his sentimentality is capital; Mrs. Keeley
is the boy Bailey, and dashes through it with hilarious flip-
pancy. The ruffian Jonas is played by Mr. Emery, who dis-
plays a great deal of talent of somewhat a coarse kind, and
has evidently studied the varieties of the character as a surly
brute and as a sanguinary murderer. Mr. Wigan, being a
clever actor of fops, shines forth as Tig ; Miss Fortescue is
gentle and amiable as Mary; while Mr. Vining has nothing
but walking gentleman's work to do in young Martin. We
must not forget a meritorious performer named Turner, who
-lays Nadget, with an excellent conception of the sneaking
Thirities of the spy, while he has a tendency to push the
-4ies into caricature. There are no great deviations
-. but the scenes in America are omitted. The
' of the piece is the view of London-bridge
fromecc e n
thetric i...
story,
grand stage effeci:
,er, and a lighter that glides along
the water, and receives gos. ids frTer.aercivramneam. Thisged. scene, with
wharf, with a built th.:ani
all the attendant bustle, is very .- •

WILL OF THE LATE THOMAS
CAMPBELL.

We have been favoured with a copy of the will of this dis-
tinguis'ied poet, which we subjoin. The persdnal property,
we mid trstand, has been sworn under 2,0001., and will pro-
bably not realise more than 1,5001.
"This is the last will and testament of me, Thomas Camp.
bell, LL.D., now resident at No. 8, Victoria-square, in the
county of Middlesex.
" Whereas, under and by virtue of the will of Archibald
hfacarthur Stewart, late of Ascog, deceased, my only son,
Thomas Telford Campbell, will, upon my decease, be entitled
to a certain sum of money, which I deem a competent provi-
sion for him : I do not, therefore, intend to make any provi-
sion for him by this my will.
" I give and bequeath the silver bowl, presented to me by
the students of Glasgow when I was Rector of that Uniyar-
sity, and the copy of the portrait of her Majesty Queen Vie,-
toria, which was sent to me by the Queen herself (and which
two articles I reckon the jewels of my property), ilud also all
and every my manuscripts and copyrights of my composi-
tions, whether in prose or verse, and the vignettes which
have illustrated my poems, and also all and every my b)oks,
prints, pictures, furniture, plate, money, personal estate, and
effects whatsoever and wheresoever whereof I may die pos-
sessed, after and subject to the payment of my just debts,
funeral and testamentary expenses, which I do direct to be,
paid as soon as conveniently may be after my decease, unto
my niece, Mary Campbell, the daughter of my deceased
brother, Alexander Campbell, late of Glasgow, for her own
sole and separate use and benefit.
"And I do hereby, appoint my staunch and inestimable
friend, Dr. William Beattie, of No. 6, Park-square, Regent's-
park, in the said county of Middlesex, and William Moxon,
of the Middle Temple, Esq., to be executors of this my
and also to act as guardians to my said son ; and I revoke
all former and other wills and testamentary dispositions by
me at any time heretofore made, and declare this only to be
my last will and testament. In witness whereof I have here-
unto set my hand, the seventh day of November, 1842.
" TnomAs CAMPBELL.

" Signed, published, and declared by the testator, Thomas
Campbell, as and for his last will and testament, in the pre-
sence of us, present at the same time, who in presence
and at his request have subscribed our names as witnesseQ,
" EDWARD CLIFFORD, 9, Ranelagh-grove; Pimlico.
"HENRY 1110XON, 67, Ebury-street, Eaton-square."

THE WAVERLEY BALL.—On Monday this 13,111 took
place at Willis's Rooms, and there were between 1,200 and
1,300 personages of rank and fashion present. We need
only observe that it was the most superb public :ball
ever given in this metropolis.
DRUNKENNESS AND DEATH AT FAIRLOP
On Sunday evening, Harriet Milwood, a middle-aged female,
who with her husband kept a large toy stall at Fairlop fair,
and who had been in the habit of going to different fairs to
follow the same occupation. drank to such excess as to be-
come much intoxicated. Her husband and herself had, in
consequence, some words, when the latter declared she would
stop on the ground no longer, and managed to get into a light
cart for the purpose of going home. When about to ;hive
away, her husband, who had suffered much from her condu et
during the evening, exclaimed with much fervour, " I
you may break your neck before you get home." The
wretched woman took no notice of the observation, nor did
she make any reply, but she had not driven away more than
two hundred yards when she tumbled out of the vehicle, and
falling with considerable force on her head, actually broke her
neck, and in a few moments was a corpse. Her body was
removed first to a booth on the ground, and afterwards to a
public-house in Barking side, to await a coroner's inquest.

FROST, WILLIAMS, AND_ JONES.—We have seen a
letter, dated Van Diemen's Land, Feb. 14, and addressed to
a party in this city, in which the writer, who has frequent
opportunities of hearing of these exiles, says they are all well
in health and spirits, and owing to recent alterations in' the
convict system are now at liberty in the colony, and are cilia-
sequently free to dispose of their labour as they please.---,
Bath Journal.

THE CONVICT DALMAS.—It is expected that the
removal of the convict will take place in the course of the
week to Bedlam, ail order to that effect being daily expectedat
Horsemonger-lane. Since the arrival of the reprieve nu.
Thursday last the convict has been exceedingly cheerful, but;
has abstained from making the slightest allusion to the
dreadful crime of which he stands convicted. His daughters
have for the present discontinued their visits, and we believe,
through the influence of the reverend chaplain, and the kind-
ness of some friends, have been placed in respectable situa-
tions. The conduct of these young women has been praise-
worthy in the extreme, and has gained for them the pity and
esteem of all those with whom they have come in contact
since the occurrence which threw them in an unprotected state:
upon the world.
DEPLORABLE Lois OF LIFE AT BEAUFORT.—It
appears that the subterranean fire noticed in our two last
papers, continues to burn with unabated fury in the moun-
tain near Beaufort Works, and we have this week the melan-
choly duty of recording a loss of life occasioned by its effects.
The combustion of the Black Band and coal produced a quan-
tity of noxious vapour, principally composed of carbonic acid
gas, the destructive properties of which are so often the
occasion of death to parties incautiously descending into old
wells or brewers' vats ; and, as we stated last week, some of
the men and women working in the levels beneath the burn-
ing mass were then carried out insensible, and with difficulty'
were recovered from the effects of inhaling the gas. But:
on Monday last, results still more serious were ex-
perienced under the following circumstances :—About
half-past five o'clock on that morning, a master miner, named
William Tippen, went into his level for the purpose of com-
mencing the week's operation, and in half an hour was fol-
lowed by David Prosser and his two sons. Between ten and
eleven o'clock other miners went in and found the four ins-
fortunate individuals lying on the ground quite dead, and the'
party who brought out their bodies were nearly suffocated in
the attempt. The surgeon of the works was in immediate
attendance, but found that life had fled some hours before.
The whole of the men employed in the Beaufort mines have
since abandoned their work, and traces of the gaseous exha-
lations from the fire are said to be perceptible even at;
Nantyglo underground works—distant a mile and a half.
The bodies of the four unfortunate men were interred on:
"Wednesday afternoon, at the Calvinistic Methodist burying
ground, atGwaingoch. There were not less than 3,000 per-
sons present on the melancholy occasion.— Silurian.
Loss OF LIFE THROUGH BOAT-RACING.-011 Mon-
day an inquiry took place before Mr. Carter, at the George,
Bankside, as to the death of William Brag, aged 34, who was
drowned through the enormous swell caused by the racing
and number of steamers now on the river. Mr. Smyth ob-
served that it was actually dangerous for merchants and
lightermen now on board their craft, in consequence of the
swell the steamers caused by their rapid speed and close ap-
proach to the shore. He did not wonder this man had been
drowned, for, having, after the immersion, gone on board the
barge, he found the stern lifted at least three feet in the air.
The men could not work, and accidents were of daily occur-
rence. He had himself seen at least three tons of water
thrown into a barge by some of those steamers passing, and
he thought that some opinion should be expressed in their
verdict as to the conduct of the parties. The following
special verdict was then returned :—" That the deceased was
accidentally drowned by falling into the river, the jury being
of opinion that it was caused by the great swell caused by the
passage of the steam-boats."
MILITARY DISCIPLINE.—On Thursday week,
three privates, named Walker, Watson, and Young, belong-
ing to the first battalion of the Scots Fusilier Guards, at
present quartered in the Tower, were tried by a district
Court-martial on the charge of having, early en the morning
of Tuesday, the 18th ult. (the anniversary of the ever-me-
morable battle of Waterloo), suddenly absented themselves
whilst doing duty on the main guard of the Royal Mint, St.
Katharine's dock, and remaining absent until apprehended,
nearly sixteen hours afterwards. They pleaded guilty, and
were re-conducted to their place of confinement, the Spur-
gate guard-house. Next day (Friday) another private,
named Anderson, was also tried by a district Court-martial
for having been found intoxicated whilst doing duty as
sentry on the morning in question, whereby the others ef-
fected their escape. lie also confessed the charge, and Was
sent back to the guard-house. The finding of the court-
martial in both cases having been transmitted to his Grace
the Duke of Wellington, Commander-in-Chief, was subse-
quently approved by his Grace, and on Saturday forenoon
last the guilty parties were brought from their place of con-
finement to hear the sentence of the Courts-martial read
over to them, on parade, by Lieutenant-Colonel Drummond,
the officer commanding the Ist battalion of Scots Fusilier
Guards, which was as follows :—" Walker, 12 months' ;
Watson and Young, 18 months' ; and Anderson (the sentry),
two years' imprisonment." The prisoners, who are all young
men, were shortly afterwards handcuffed, and sent off, under
a military escort, to Coldbath-fields House of Correction.
On Saturday forenoon another private, named Brown, who
had been tried by a general Court-martial for absentinghim-
self from his barracks and striking a corporal whilst heading
a scout party in search of him at one of the fairs lately held.
in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, was also brought
from his place of confinement to hear his sentence read over
to him by Lieutenant-Colonel Drummond, which was, that
he be transported beyond the seas for the period of seven
years.

- -
A STntorGE FANcir.—The following ludicrous.
circumstance took place in Falkirk last week. The parents
of a child about six years of age, on ordering him to bed,
were not a little nonplused by his answering, ' I'm no gaga
to my bed the night, for I dreamed the 'streen that I was to
sit on a stick and sleep like a hen." Persuasions and threats
were all in vain, on a stick he would be; and, willing to
gratify what appeared to be a momentary notion, the parents,
in want of a proper bank, proposed that the back of a chair
should serve for his roost during the night. No sooner said
than done, the child denuded himself of his clothes, hung
them on the chair back, mounted his roost, and, in a few
minutes, to the surprise of all, was fast asleep. He was al-
lowed to remain thus for some time, and, on being awakened,
it was only by working on his fears that he was ultimately
induced to relinquish the back for a more comfortable nest.—
Edinburgh Evening Post.
BRISTOL, JULY B.—The Bristol and Gloucester
line of railway (37k miles in length) was opened through-
out this morning, and the event was marked with the usual
demonstrations of rejoicing. On Saturday the directors and
their friends made an excursion on the line in a special train.
By the opening of this line the inconvenience which has been
hitherto experienced from the disseverance of the chain.
of ,railway between the west and the north of England is
obviated.
STEAM.—" Talk about your northern steam-boats,"
said a Mississippi fireman the other day, "you haint had a
biler burst for five years. Don't require no spunk to navi-
gate them waters, any fool can do it ; but it takes a man,
stranger, to ride one of these here aligator boats head on to
a sawyer, high pressure and the valve soldered down, 600
passengers on board, and every soul endangered."—Hodifax
paPer.

THE STATE TRIALS.

(FIFTH DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 9.

THE QIIEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The House presented an unusual appearance. The
woolsacks were deserted, and the clerks' table was re-
moved from the upper part of the House down to the
bar. The Lord Chancellor's chair was placed at the
head of the table, around which the Judges were seated,
instead of their usual seats upon the lower woolsacks.
All the Peers in the House took their seats close to the
bar. This arrangement was made to relieve the Attor-
ney-General from the necessity of so much exertion as
he had yesterday to make. The Right Hon. Gentleman
was accommodated with a seat, and spoke in a feeble
tone, and leaning over the bar.
Prayers having been read, this case was called on, when

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed his arguments on
behalf of the Crown. He last night called the attention
of their Lordships to the objections taken to the record ;
he would now proceed to the other part of the objections,
and first, with regard to the challenge ; their Lordships
were aware that the technical points argued before them
were points of form with respect to the making-up of the
record in that House, and not involving anything that
took place in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland ;
but the points he was now going to argue were argued
in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and judgment
given on them in favour of the Crown. Now he would
first call their Lordships' attention to the challenge of
the array, but perhaps it would be better before doing so
to advert to the challenge itself, because he was satisfied
when it was read all their Lordships would come to the
conclusion that it was impossible for the Crown to take
any issue upon it, and that the only course left open to
them was to demur to the judgment. Their Lordships
were aware that, according to the challenge, it was an
array of special jurors, and the forms and terms in
which the special jury was to be struck was pro-
vided by the statute, the panel must be
struck by the Sheriffs. Upon this challenge
'Their Lordships would find, in the first place, no allega-
tion that any person was returned that was not duly
qualified to serve as a juror—there was no allegation
that the panel returned by the sheriff was not a fair
one —and there was no allegation that any of the jury
did not stand indifferent between the parties—and there
was no charge that the parties making the challenge
were prejudiced by the array, and certainly there was
no averment that any act of impropriety had been done
by the sheriff, or that the Crown had interfered with the
return to the indictment. In Coke upon Lyttleton, 156
B, the doctrine of challenge to the array was laid down;
and it was there stated, that the challenge might be
either for a principal cause of challenge of the array, or
a challenge by favour. The principal cause of challenge
respected partiality in the officer returning the array,
and if it were established, the array was quashed as a
matter of course. In a challenge_ by favour, the array
was not quashed as a matter of course, but the matter
was tried. The grounds of the principal challenge
were, that the sheriff or other officer returning the
array were of kindred or affinity to the plaintiff or de-
fendant. Secondly, one of the jurymen were returned
sit the nomination of the plaintiff or defendant ; or if he
returned any one more favourable to the one than to the
other, or if the plaintiff or defendant had an action of
battery or debt against the sheriff, or the sheriff had an
action against them ; or if the sheriff were under distress
at the suit of either party, or for cause of an indiffer-
ency ; or, lastly, if he did not return hundreders when
imedeeelers ought to be returned. In a challenge by
favour, the challenge must show all the circumstances of
The case. If the plaintiff or defendant's daughter were
of affinity to the sheriff's son, that would be a good
ground of challenge for favour. The consequence of
quashing an array would be that a new process would
issue to another officer, different to the one whose fault
had caused the array to be quashed, who would return a
fresh panel. 'Their Lordships would find that the doc-
trine of challenges to the array laid down in Chitty's
" Criminal J aw," page 526 ; Viner's " Abridgment,"
article "Trials ;" and. Bacon's "Abridgment," title,
".Juries." The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
quote a case in which a sheriff had delivered in an array
fir the grand jury, and had sent it by a messenger. The
plaintiff got hold of the messenger, and had induced him
to alter the panel, by inserting certain names. At this
lime the old sheriff was removed, and a new one ap-
pointed. The array was challenged, and the former
-sheriff came into Court and disavowed the panel. The
bench decided that it might be a good ground of chal-
lenge of the persons wh.ec names were inserted, but was
not a good ground of challenge in the array. He would not
read the challenge in this instance, but their Lordships
would perceive that there was no statement of any de-
fault, partiality, or misconduct on the part of the sheriff
who returned ti:e array. Although the allegations of
the challenge were not made out, yet he understood that
it proceeded upon this principle—that if, in making up
the juror's book, under the statuteof 1 WilliamlV., there
should happen to be any omission of any name, it
mattered not whether the omission was one name or of
twenty, but if there happened to be the omission of the
name of any person entitled to serve on juries, that
-could be a good ground of challenge to the array. He
contended that there was no ground of challenge to the
array in the case of this jury only ; but it would
go to any other jury. In fact, the allegation went
to show that no jury could be returned. It
had nothing to do with the officer ; but in fact it went
to this, that no trial, civil or criminal, could take
place in the year during which the mistake took place.
It was said if there were no jurors' book they could take
the book of the year before. But surely they would not
contend that there was not a regular jurors' book for
1844, because some of the names were omitted. Why,
the same was most likely the case with the book of
1843. It was exceedingly improbable that all the names
were in that book. The fact was that the challenge of
the array was not the proper remedy for the iejury
which the defendants alleged they had suffered. His
Learned Friend Mr. Hill alluded to a proposition which
had been made on the part of the defendants to show the
bona fides of the challenge, but his Learned Friend the

Attorney-General for Irelnd, would be guilty of a neg-
lect of his duty if he consented to anything of the kind,
for if he had done so, it would prevent the jury from
being a good jury. (The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then referred to the provisions of the Act of Parliament
under which the general list of jurors was made out.)
'The challenge began by stating that the collectors of
grand jury cess delivered twenty lists to the Recorder,
and it went on to state that the Recorder had duly made
out a list, but had not caused to be made out from the
several lists one general list containing the names of
all the persons whose qualifications had been so ar-
ranged according to rank and property, nor had
the Recorder causd such to be fairly copied in the same
order. Nobody had said that the Recorder had not
made out a general list—that it was not delivered to the
ch rice of the peace, and to the sheriff by the clerks of
the peace. Nor was it denied that the sheriff had not
anade out the jury-liss from it. But what was denied
was, that a list was made out with all the names
arransed according to rank and property. There was
nu desial that the Recorder had made out a general list,
though not a general list containing all the names
arranged according to rank and property. This was
what he would call a negative pregnant. The challenge
went on:—" And the said Daniel O'Connell says that
said paper writing, purporting to be such general list as
aforesaid, did not contain the names of all the persons
whose qualifications had been allowed upon the correct-
ing. allowing, and signing of said list as aforesaid by
the Recorder, but omitted the names of divers, to wit,
filly-nine persons, whose qualifications to be on the said
lists respectively had been so allowed as afore-
raid by the said Recorder, which said several
peraons whose names were so omitted are as follow."
That was the challenge of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, but he
begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact,
that the challenges of all the other defendants were dif-
ferent, for it was added, " for the purpose, and with the
intent of prejudicing the said so and so." What was the
tneaning of the allegation that " a certain paper writing
was made out by some person, or persons unknown?"
What was the effect of it ? What was its bearing on the
case ? There was no allegation in the challenge that the
Recorder had not made out a general list—that it was
not delivered to the clerks of the peace—that it was not
delivered to the sheriff. There was no allegation that
in that list so made up, and so returned, there was the
omission of a single name. But there was an allegation
that there was an omission of names from a certain paper
writing, made up by some person, or persons, unknown.
It was easy to see why the challenge was made up in that
way. They had not referred to the general list made out
by the Recorder and the other officers, because they
found it would be hard to do so without alleging fraud
against some one of the officers. In a subsequent part of
the challenge, it was said that the challenger was not
aware of or privy to the omission of the names from the
paper writing ; but there was no allegation that he was
not aware of or privy to the omission of the names from
the general list. The challenge then went on to say,
The said D. O'Connell further says, that the said
several persons whose names were so omitted from the
raid fraudulent paper writing, purporting to be the ge-
neral list as aforesaid, were, at the time of the said re-
turn of the collector's lists and at the time of the
raid special sessions, and still are, severally resident
within the county of the said city of Dublin, and
sere at the said several times and now are duly quali-
fied to be, and should and ought to have been, placed
upon the said general list." On this allegation he called
their Lordships' attention to this fact, that it did not ap-
pear that the names so omitted from the general list,
-were qualified to be placed on the special jurors' list.
'They were qualified to be placed on the general list,
but there was no allegation that they were qualified to
I,e on the special jurors' list. The challenge then went
1141 to say, " and the said Daniel O'Connell further says,
shat from the said fraudulent paper writing, purporting
to be such general list as aforesaid, a certain book,
purporting to be the jurors' book of the said county of
the city of Dublin for the current calendar year, to
'nit, for the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-
four, was made up and framed." He would ask
by whom was it made up, by whom was it framed ?
'There was no averment that the book was not made up
by the challenger himself ; it was not stated by whom
it was made up, or under what circumstances ; it was
slot averred that the challenger himself was not privy to
and a contenting party to the framing it. He also re-
anindecl them that the jurors' book could not be made
up by the Recorder, as it was made up by the clerk of the
peace. The challenger then went on to say, " from the
said book so purporting to be the jurors' book of the
isaid county of the city for the said current year
was made up the special jurors' list for the said current
year, to wit, for the year one thousand eight hundred
and forty-four." Again, he would ask by whom ?
Was that done with the consent of the challenger ?
there was not a word to say that it was not. " And the

I said Daniel O'Connell saitb, that the said several per-
sons whose names were so omitted from the said frau-
dulent paper writing purporting to be such general list,
were also omitted from the said book purporting to
be the said jurors' book, and from said list pur-
porting to be the said special jurors' list." Here
again, there was no allegation that the names were
not omitted from the jurors' book ; it was only alleged
that they were omitted from another paper which was
not a document within the Act of Parliament. The
challenge again proceeded, to say :—" And the said
Daniel O'Connell further saith, that the said several
persons so omitted as aforesaid had been duly ad-
judged and allowed by the said Recorder at said special
sessions to be the persons having the qualification
qualifying and entitling them and each of them respec-
tively to be upon the jurors' book, and also to be upon
the special jurors' list, for the current year, to wit, the
year one thousand eight hundred and forty-four." Now,
he contended, that there was no power in the Recorder
to allow any such thing. He read the 26th section of the
Act to bear him out in this assertion, that the Recorder
had nothing to do with judging whether these persons
were qualified to be on the jury-list at all. The next
allegation was, that the said Daniel O'Connell further
saith, that the panel made to try the issue in this case
was arrayed and constructed from the special jurors'
list, for 1844, " to the manifest wrong and injury of the
said Daniel O'Connell." Again, in this allegation
it was not denied that the special jury-list was re-
gularly made up by the Sheriff, and though it was sated
it was to the manifest wrong and injury of the chal-
lenger, yet there was no affirmation that it was made
without his privity and knowledge, or that he was not
the party by whom it was done. These were the
grounds on which the challenge was to be set aside and
quashed. This was the whole of the challenge ;it was
quite unnecessary to enter here on a discussion upon the
Act of Parliament, because there did not arise any point
on the challenge which could vitiate the array. Bat
with regard to the course taken by the Crown, of demur-
ring to the challenge instead of joining issue upon it, he
contended that the Attorney-General for Ireland had no
other course open to him, and would have committed a
gross violation of duty if he had not done so. He had
pursued the same course himself in a challenge made
on the special commission. Ile should now pro-
ceed to the enactments of the Act of Parliament.
The omission of a name could not render the whole array
illegal There was a penalty upon the collectors if they
die[ not make out the list right, or inserted any names
improperly. Names might be omitted by the collectors
of the grand jury cess ; the book might be made up and
the jurors impanelled with that omission; but then there
was a provision in the Act by which a party might get
his name inserted. An omission could not have the
effect of invalidating the jury list. This point had been
vice brought before the judges in Ireland. The first
case was that of "The Queen v. Fitzpatrick," in Craw-
ford and Dick's Reports, vol. 3, p. 513. The second case
was that of " The Queen v. Conroy." A prisoner was
indicted for murder upon four counts. There was a
challenge to the array, and Mr. Justice Holy well, in
giving judgment, said that the effect of allowing one de-
fect to vitiate the whole indictment, would
be that the whole fabric of the adminis-
tration of justice would fall to the ground.
The coroner was a general and not a particular officer.
The array in the case of the coroner might be challenged,
but it could not be challenged in the case of a particular
officer. If there were any fault in the Crown-office,
application should be made to the Court. He trusted
that from the authorities which he had cited he had
shown to their Lordships that there was no ground for
challenging the array on the ground of the
omission of names. He would not trouble their Lord-
ships further on that point. He would next come to the
plea in abatement, that the traversers ought not to have
been called on to answer the indictment, because the
witnesses examined before the grand jury had not been
sworn in court. It was impossible to contend that such
a plea could have been allowed by the court. The Act
does not say that the jurors should be "sworn," but that
they should be "sworn or affirmed" in court. But there
was another ground on which the plea was bad. It does
not state the names of those witnesses, nor that they
were unknown to the defendants. He held it an essen-
tial point in pleading that these things should be stated.
But the fact that four witnesses were examined before
the grand jury was not a ground of objection
to the indictment ; for it was a non-constat
that other witnesses were not examined.

Lord BROUGHAM—The grand jury might find from
their own knowledge.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Or they might examine
one of their own body, upon his oath as a juror. (The
Learned Attorney-General then cited cases in support
of that view, from Carrington and Marshall, and also
from Lewin's report ; but it was impossible in the gal-
lery to guess even their purport.) There was now an
important matter to which he wished to call their Lord-
ships' attention. It was the assignment of errors in fact
in an appeal to the House of Lords. That was She first
time he had heard of errors in fact asigned in that
House. He submitted that their Lordships' House, as
a house of appeal, could not deal with errors in fact. He
would first read the plea. (The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man then read the pleas from pages 80 and 82 of the appeal.)
A fortiori the defendants had pleaded an abatement in
the course of the suit, and the authorities upon that sub-
ject were to be found in " Comyn's Digest." He trusted
that their Lordships would hold that the judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench on this subject was correct.
In " Comyn's Digest," in page 597, there was the case
of " Roe v. Sir John Moore,' and the point there de-
cided was that error in fact was not assignable in the
Exchequer Chamber. That case was brought before
the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of " Castledyne
v. Mundy," in 4th Barnewall and Adolphus, p. 97, and
the point was also raised in the " King v. Wood," in
" Chitty's Reports." In that case the ground of error
was the separation of the jury before they had given
their verdict. There was an application for a new trial,
and afterwards a writ of error was brought into the
Court of Queen's Bench, and that court gave judgment
against the parties who brought the writ of error.
There was then a writ of error to the House of Lords,
and one error assigned was the fact, and the ques-
tion put to the judges was, whether the error
was such as to enable the House to take
into consideration the error of fact ; and the
judges gave it as their opinion that it was not. The
judges decided that Parliament could not decide the
question.
Lord CAMPBELL—Was it decided that in a case of
coram nobis there was no remedy by writ of error ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was.

Lord CAMPBELL thought it monstrous that the subject
should have no remedy if the Court of Appeal decided
against him by writ of error. If there was an assign-
ment of error coram nobis it was upon the record.
Lord BROUGHAM—Was not what was assigned for
error more ministerial than anything else ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not aware of any other
authority upon the subject, and he merely mentioned
these cases for the purpose of calling the attention of
their Lordships to them. Now with regard to the con-
struction to be placed upon the Act of Parliament, he
would, in the first peace call their Lordship's attention to
the Act 56, Geo. 111. cap. 87. The enactments of that
Act were intended to apply to all indictments; its object
being to prevent grand juries in Ireland from returning
Bills without examining witnesses. Then came the Act
of the Ist and 23 Victoria, cap. 37, and he wished to di-
rect their Lordships' attention to the preamble of this
Act, more particularly after what had fallen from the
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas that morning
in giving judgment, before their Lordships. There could
be no doubt but that the proper way to construe an Act
of Parliament was to look at the preamble and enact-
ments, and collect from them the intentions of the Legis-
lature. Now the preamble said that after the pissing of
that Act was, no bill should be returned to a grand jury
unless the witnesses had been sworn; and it went on to
say, " Whereas the viva voce examination of witnesses
was very salutary, and whereas great delay had arisen
from swearing them in court, for the re-
medy thereof, this Act had been made."
And it then w ent on to enact that in all cases of bills of
indictment sent up to grand juries in Ireland, before such
bill should be sent up the clerk of the Crown at assizes
or the clerk of the peace at quarter sessions, shall be en-
dorse upon the back of the indictment the names of wit-
nesses, and the grand jury were authorised to examine
such persons upon oath, to he administered by the fore-
man or one of the jury. The enacting part went on,
after reciting that the oath so administered was to be in
lieu of the oath required by the Act of Geo. 111., to
enact " that no foreman or juryman shouldexamine any
witness whose name was nut so entered. The clerk of
the Crown had in this case endorsed on the back of the
indictment the names of the witnesses, and the question
was if when the clerk of the Crown of the Court of
Queen's Bench in Dublin had endorsed the names of the
witnesses on the back of the indictment, and those wit-
nesses had been sworn and examined before the grand
jury, if the provisions of the law had not been complied
with? lie would refer their Lordships to the case of
" Doe and Brandy," 7 Barnewall and Cresswell, p. 643,
as to the manner in which Acts of Parliaments were to be
construed. It was there laid down that to construe
an Act of Parliament, it was necessary to take the con-
struction, not only of the preamble, but of the whole
Act ; and when a clause was more extensive than the
preamble, they would put the more extended interpreta-
tion upon it, if necessary, to give the Act effect. Now
here they found that the object was the substitution of
this Bill for the Acts of the 56th George 111. The pro-
viso at the end said nothing about the clerk of the Crown
at the assizes, or the clerk of the peace at quarter ses-
sions ; but it simply said, " the clerk of the peace or the
clerk of the Crown." The object of the Legislature was
to substitute one mode of swearing for another, and it
was intended to apply to all indictments. There was
another view to be taken of the case, which was, that,
according to strict legal meaning, the Clerk of the Crown
in the Queen's Bench Dublin, was in fact the clerk of
the assize. In the case of the " King and the Justices
of Middlesex," 3d Barnewall and Adolphus, p. 300, in a
case in which the Sheriffs of Middlesex applied for com-
pensation for the loss of gaol fees, under an Act of Par-
liament which stated that such compensation should be
assessed by the justices at quarter sessions, subject to
the award of the judges of the assize, the justices refused
to award compensation. on the ground that there were
na judges of assize in Middlesex, and no judges of as-
size, properly so called. The question then arose,
whether the Court of Queen's Bench was not
the assizes for the county of Middlesex, and whether the
Judges of that Court were not the judges of assize.
Lord Tenterden, in giving judgment, said that the
Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench and of .the Court
of Common Pleas were the judges of assize, for the
County of Middlesex within the meaning of tti6-,Act of
Parliament. Then, if that were the case, and the-Court
of Queen's Bench was the proper Court of Assize, then
the provisions of the Act had been literally complied
with. They found, therefore, the intention of the Le-
gislature, coinciding with the strict legal meaning of the
words, and he thought their Lordships would de-
cide that the assizes yi ere; in legal parlance, in

that instance, sitting in the Court of Queen's Bc one h.
There were a great number of other cases, which show ed
that the Court of Queen's Bench was a court of w size.
He would only make a few observations upon what had
been said with regard to the counts of the indictment,
as his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ire-
land, would deal more at large upon that point. Ile
would contend that it was immaterial even if there were
bad 0-tints in the indictment ; but be was prepared. to
argue that all the counts in this indictment were good
and valid counts. He would contend that the offence
was but one, though it was laid in different ways. He
would first call the attention of their Lordships to that,
count which charged the defendants with con-
spiring to bring into contempt the tribunals eqs-
blished for the administration of the law in Ire-
land, and to diminish the confidence of her ma-
jesty's liege subjects in them. The Hon. Gentleman
then referred to a case in page 678 of the 6th volume of
Term Reports, and to other cases, to show that there
was a distinction between an indictment for a conspi-
racy, and an indictment against an individual. He
asked, was, or was not, the charge laid in the eighth count,
namely, the conspiracy to bring into contempt the tri-
bunals of the country, an indictable offence? His Ron.
Friend said, that reform might be made in the law, that
persons might league together to make those re-
firms—to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts for instance.
He (the Attorney-General) did not dispute that, but he
said it was an indictable offence for parties to conspire
and confederate to bring into contempt the tribunals of
the country as by law established. He begged on this
point to refer their Lordships to the observations ma de
by Mr. Justice Buller, in the case of the King v. Wat-
son, 3d Term Reports, p. 196. His Learned Friend,
put the case of a number of persons meeting
together, and agreeing to write down the Court
of Star Chamber, and he then put the case of the
abuses which prevailed in the Court of Queen's Bench
and the Court of Common Pleas, amongst the judges of
the land, in the time of the Stuarts, and he read a pas-
sage from a work of the Right Hon. Gentleman in the
other House, in which he, in strong terms of vitupera-
tion, attacked the courts of justice of that time. But he
(the Attorney-General) would contend that, with re-
gard to the Court of Star Chamber, and with re-
gard to those bad times, it was net a mode of
trying what persons were justified in doing at present.
His Learned Friend might just as well have said that
they were now indebted for the liberties they enjoyed to
the army of the Prince of Orange. and to the employ-
ment of that army by the gentry of England against the
King. If the abuses that prevailed were put down by
force of arms, yet it was a means beyond the law ; and
I though we may feel that men were then justified in re-
sorting to them, transgressing. the law and going beyond
it, for the purpose of redressing their grievances, yet it
did not follow that at the present day parties
were at liberty to take the same means of
bringing the constituted authorities of the coun-
try into contempt. Suppose a conspiracy was
formed, of which the overt acts were publications of
a nature that would bring the Constitution into con-
tempt, would not that be an offence. This count of the
indictment charged a conspiracy to bring into hatred and
contempt the administration of justice. That count
could be proved if it should be established that the
parties had poured fourth a succession of libels having
that intention; beyond all doubt this would be an indis-
putable offence. But his Learned Friend said if persons
did honestly believe that the Court of Queen's Bench now
was in the same bad state as in the time which had been
mentioned, they were entitled to meet together, and
combine, in order to write it down. This
he wholly denied, and when his Learned Friend
said that if they honestly believed such to be the case
they had a right to meet for that purpose, let them ob-
serve what it would lend to. Where was the distinction
to be drawn ? In the same way, parties might honestly
believe that it would be for the benefit of the public to
conspire in the same manner against the Houses of Lords
and Commons ; for the same reasons they would be jus-
tified in writing them down. In the attempt to reform
the institutions of the country, persons were not jus-
tified in meeting together to conspire to bring into
hatred and contempt, above all with respect to an
authority which could not be brought into disrepute
ithout sapping the foundations of the Constitution.
Were their Lordships prepared to say that this was no
crime, or that any number of persons might meet to-
gether for the purpose of writing down the tribunals of
the country, and bringing them into contempt and dis-
repute ?
Lord CAMPBELL—You should take the whole of the
count which lays the charge of bringing the tribunals
of the country into disrepute, for the purpose of having
others substituted for them. That is certainly much
like what we call law reform.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the count did not state
certain of the tribunals of the country, but the tribunals.
Lord CAMPBELL—That others may be constituted ; it
may be that those others are to be constituted by Act
of Parliament.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the statement in
the count was that parties unlawfully conspired, for the
purpose of inducing her Majesty's subjects to withdraw
their business from the tribunals of the country. It was
not that these tribunals were to be swept away and others
substituted. The existing tribunals in Ireland are to
remain ; but the conspiracy was to shake their founda-
tions, by bringing them into disrepute, and withdrawing
their business from them.

Lord CAmPBELL—The courts are to remain ; but
a concurrent jurisdiction is to be given to new ones, and
there is an incitement to the people to leave the old ones
and come to the new.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not for him to
argue with his Lordship ; but he supposed, if the exist-
ing tribunals were to continue, they were, at the same
time, to be brought into disrepute and contempt.

. _
Lord BnoucirAm said it would have made the count
quite clear, if it bad said these new tribunals were to
have been constituted by other means than by Act of
Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued. There was only
other count to which he wished to call their attention.
It was the sixth, which charged the meeting in large
numbers, and, by demonstrations of great physi-
cal force, to make changes in the law. It
was objected that the count did not distinctly state
who was to be intimidated, or how the intimidation was
to be effected. He submitted that that was not Reces-
sary. The allegation was that the parties codtpired
together to cause a large number of persons to meet toge-
ther. with a view of procuring a change in the law. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the case of The Queen
v. Eccles. In that case certain persons conspired toge-
ther by divers indirect means to prevent a certain person
from carrying on the business of a tailor. The Court was
of opinion that it was not necessary that the means
should be set out. In the case of the King v. Gill, Ist
Barnewall and Alderson, the parties were charged with
combining and conspiring together, by divers means,
unlawfully to obtain possession of large sums of
money. Lord Tenterden said that the indictment was
sufficient, as the gist of the offence was the conspiracy.
The Learned Counsel mentioned another case, in which
certain persons were indicted for a conspiracy to de-
fraud divers of her Majesty's subjects. The Court of
Queen's Bench were of opinion that the count was good
without stating who the persons to be defrauded were.
So with regard to the persons to be intimidated. Here
was a conspiracy to collect together great
masses of the people, with a view to pro-
cure a change in the law ; and the inti-
midation was used against all persons and all bodies who
might oppose and resist a change in the law. It was not
necessary that the count should state against whom the
intimidation was to be directed.

Lord CAMPBELL—It is said, on the other side, that
the intimidation might be that of a highwayman, or of
persons seeking to intimidate the Legislature.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that would not apply
to a count which referred to an attempt to change the law,
Lord BROUGHAM—Mr. Kelly argued in this way.
There is a body of people coming down to prevent the
Legislature from doing what it is minded to do. Then
would very loyal people take part with the Legislature, and
preserve to them free liberty of action, by intimidating
the intimidators.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not suppose for
a moment that their Lordships would adopt that view.
He would now leave this case after referring to the form
of the recognisances. His Learned Friend said that if a
person remained six years in prison, he might then
come out of prison without entering into recognisances.
The object of recognisance was, that the person so
imprisoned, should not be let out of prison until he
had entered into recognisance to keep the peace—no
matter what length of time he had been imprisoned.
He would not trouble the House by further reference to
precedents. He submitted that he had shown that this
eppeal in error must be rejected.
Mr. Justice GURNEY suggested that the Attorney-
General had said nothing about the indorsement.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there were other
points upon which his Learned Friend, the Attorney-
General for Ireland, would presently address their Lord-
ships. With respect to the indorsement, he would only
say that there was only one error assigned on that point,
and that was by Mr. Steele. The indictment could not
be affected by that, for the indictment was found before
the endorsement could'be made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—There is no time fixed at
all for the endorsement. _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—COrtaillly not. The error
in fact admitted that the witnesses were all sworn
properly before the grand jury, and that the Bill
was founded upon that evidence. In conclusion, he sub-
mitted that he had shown to their Lordships that the
verdict was not at variance with the indictment—that it
did not find the defendants guilty of more offences than
they were charged with—that there were no grounds for
the challenge of the array—and that there was no ground
for impeaching the judgment of the court below, because
the witnesses were sworn by the grand jury. lie sub-
mitted that their Lordships must decide tirzt there were
no grounds whatever for reversing the judgment of the
court below. The Iron. and Learned Gentleman, who
was heard for the last few minutes with great difficulty,
then withdrew, apparently much exhausted.
The Lord Chancellor and the Judges then retired for
a short time.

On the return of their Lordships,
Mr T. B. C. SMITH (the Attorney-General for Ire-
land) then proceeded to address their Lordships. He
appeared also on the part of the Crown, and he thought
it would not be consistent with his duty to occupy their
Lordships at any great length, as the case had been so
fully argued by his Learned Friend the Attorney-General.
He would endeavour to compress his observations into
as narrow a compass as possible. Now he would first
apply himself to the challenge of the array, and he
thought that when their Lordships came to consider the
challenge it would be found to be unsupported either by
substance or form. There was no default or misconduct
attributed to the sheriff. The challenge was only to the
array empannelled by that officer. Now by the 9th
section of the Jury Act, to which their Lord-
ships had been rekrred, the clerk of the peace
having made out the jurors' book, was to de-