The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-08 00:00:00

those who had been found guilty of it would be found
guilty of but one conspiracy, and it would then be
autrefois conviction. If it was but one offence
there was upon the same record conviction
and acquittal ; so that if the party was indicted for that
one offence, if he be indicted over again on that offence,
what was he to do ? Was he to plead autrefois convict,
or autrefois acquit ? That was the only way the matter
could be met ; it would be a conviction of part of one
offence, and an acquittal of another. He hoped
if that was so, it would be defined, for he could not
see what part of a conspiracy was. It was either one
offence, or none at all : it could not be split into parts.
A conspiracy to rob a garden and burn a house must
be two offences, if he was found guilty of the one and
acquitted of the other. Upon evidence being given of
conspiracy, it must be with respect to one of several
unlawful acts ; the party charged with the several might
be convicted, but if that was so, he must be convicted,
not of part, but of the whole crime, because the conspir-
acy was the crime, but it must be well described.
They could not split an offence into parts ; and where a party
was convicted of two offences, the indictment was wrong.
They might subdivide a charge of this kind into a
great many parts and convict on one or more of any one
of those parts ; but directly they had convicted two or
more of any one charge, the count was quite suffi-
cient. They could only convict persons of one offence
under one charge. Upon an indictment for burglary, a man
might be found guilty of burglary or larceny, but only for
one offence. Ten men might be indicted for stealing ten
horses, and a great variety of evidence affecting various per-
sons might be tendered—the whole ten might be convicted of
stealing the ten horses. There were a hundred different con-
ceivable convictions under that one count, but still there
could be but one conviction. The conviction must be fur one
offence. . .

The LORD CHANcELLott—Take the case of two parties, A
and B, indicted for stealing two horses, A for stealing one,
and B for stealing another.
Mr. KELLY—That could not be ; the law would not :allow
it. The cha, must be for one offence.

rge
Lord CAMPBELL said there was no doubt that one'count
might be drawn.
Mr. BELLY—Yes; but the practice was against it. The
conviction must be under separate counts, each setting forth a
separate offence. There is an indictment here of one charge
for one conspiracy; under that the whole eight might be con-
victed of all the acts ; but they could not split up the charge
of one offence into a great many offences. In order to warrant
this finding, there ought to have been three separate counts.
If these findings did not imply three several convictions, in
what language could they be stated? He would venture to
say that if his Learned Friends were to sit down to frame an
indictment for every conspiracy to be found against these
seven, eight, and three individuals, they would adopt the very
language here held. Again, therefore, a difficulty presented
itself. Now, the defendants could plead autrefois convict, or
autretbis acquit. A man must either be convicted or ac-
quitted of the offence ; he denied that it was the language of
the law to talk of a part of an offence. The charge here was
for a conspiracy, and they must be either convicted or ac-
quitted ; they could not divide one offence into two or
more parts. On this finding they ought to have been
at once acquitted or convicted of the same charge. It will
result, therefore, when these counts and the finding are
carefully considered, that the grand jury having presented
but one offence, one conspiracy to do several unlawful acts,
certain of these defendants have been convicted of three con-
spiracies, which might have been at different times and
different places, that might have been committed at intervals
of a month from each other, and in which the parties to one
offence might be totally ignorant of another. Certain of
the defendants had in fact been found guilty
of two more offences than that presented by the
grand jury. They pleaded to one offence, and three
offences were found against them. The petty jury were
sworn to try one issue, and they had found no less than three
issues against the defendants. Where would any precedents
be found like this? In all the cases of conspiracy that had
been tried of late years, he should be surprised if they could
find one.

Lord CAmPßELL—Assuming that the jury had found them
guilty of more than was charged by the indictment, was any-
thing to be found in the books as to the effect of that finding?
Mr. KELLY—No; becausehe supposed the books presented
no precedent for such a fact.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—In your case, Mr. Kelly, the first
finding is the whole ; yet you say " as to the residue," now
there is no residue. _ _ • _ _ _

—Lord BRouollAm--And they say " the remainder of the
residue." What do they mean by that?
Mr. KELLY said that the fact was, the jury had found three
offences where only one was charged, and the Court sen-
tenced the defendants according to that finding. How
then could their Lordships say that the first finding
included all the others ? How could they reject
any one of the other averments of the verdict ? Per-
haps they might reject that part of the finding against
Mr. John O'Connell, for which he had already suffered
two months' imprisonment. He had referred to the direction
of the Judge, which he must say was the ver reverse of the
direction of Mr. Baron Rolfe, in the case of Mr.F. O'Connor. In
the present Ease, the Judge charged directly for the finding of
three conspiracies. The jury found accordingly, and sen-
tence was passed accordingly. Could their Lordships say,
that in a trial at bar before the four judges, under such cir-
cumstances, the first finding alone was of any importance ?
The LORD CmiNcELLoß—The judgment was given on
the evidence.
Lord CampnEtt—The Court could only look to the record,
and apportion the sentence according to the number and
amount of the conspiracies charged.
The LORD CHA_NrcELLon—That would have nothing to do
with the punishment. It does not practically import that,
because found guilty on three counts, they would be punished
for three conspiracies. But that does not signify much now.
The question before us is not one of punishment, but one
of error ; and if there is error, even though on your
own sid, all we have to do is to reverse the
sentence. If there is error, however technical it may be,
you must have the benefit of it. It will not do to say the
parties have suffered much. All you have to do is to show
error.

Mr. KELLY was obliged to his Lordship, and felt a strong
conviction that he had done so, and could further do so—for
it was clear that the traversers had been found guilty of a
greater number of offences than the grand jury had directed
them to be put upon their trial for. Here a man was con-
victed of two conspiracies as to which he had never been put
upon his trial—as to which he had never pleaded—as to
which the jury had no power to give an opinion. With re-
spect to the findings, they could not return one and reject
another. They must stand together, or they must fall toge-
ther. Each taken respectively was good as a count—all
taken together were good as counts—but on thew the parties
were brought in guilty of too much.
The LORD CHA-NCELLOR—YOII are now arrived, Mr. Kelly,
at a very important part of your argument; and as we
agreed to sit only until half-past three, and it is now that
time, we will adjourn the further hearing of the case until ten
o'clock on Monday morning.—Adjourned accordingly.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.

GLOBE: Sir Robert Peel is fortunate in escaping from a
storm which was fast gathering, and threatened to burst
upon his head at a moment when he would be ill-prepared
to meet the explosion. The Bill of Lord Powis, for preserv-
ing the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor from being rolled
into one, and which the Lords were prepared to pass, maigre
the Duke of Wellington's endeavours to reduce the insurgents
to submission, is disposed of—strangled at the moment
when it seemed certain of a safe passage to the other House
of Parliament. The " manoeuvre," as the Duke of Newcastle
appropriately designated the Duke of Wellington's mode of
extinguishing the measure has succeeded. The " State trick"
has been successfully played off, and the Premier is restored
to that composure of face and feeling which has, of late, been
seriously disturbed, and was threatened to be yet' further
ruffled, if not incurably demolished. When all hope was
gone of inducing the Lords to reverse their vote in favour of
the Bill ; and there seemed no means of escape from the
mischiefs it would inflict on the Government in the House of
Commons—where Cabinet Ministers were fettered by pre-
vious pledges and promises, from which they could
not escape, to support the measure—a ray of light
penetrated through the thick darkness. Could it not be
shown that the royal consent was essential, in order
to allow the Bill to be discusssed in Parliament ? True ; the
objection, if taken at all, ought to have been taken on the
introduction of.the Bill. But, then, who would have thought
that the Peers would contumaciously refuse to obey the high
behest of the Great Duke, whose province it is to enforce
order and discipline among them? Better late than never.
The Bill must be kept out of the Commons, or the Cabinet,
sorely pressed from without, would exhibit the symptoms of
internal dissension, which are the certain precursors of dis-
solution. A Committee was appointed to search for prece-
dents. The journals were examined with lord-like diligence.
No precedent of such a Bill having been introduced without
the content of the Sovereign, first obtained and communi-
cated, could be found. So far the "manoeuvre" wrought
well. Another step, and all was safe. The danger threat-
ened by the Bill to the official existence of the Cabinet would
be averted. The session would then close without the
dreaded debate and division on this most embarrassing mea-
sure, to oppose which, with all the means at his disposal, the
Premier had pledged himself. The Select Committee, to
whom the second search was intrusted, dispatched the deli-
cate business intrusted to it with a rapidity truly gratifying
Lord Wharncliffe, a Cabinet Minister, was Chairman of
the Committee. This may account for the expedition with
which the Committee brought its labours to a close, and
might have, some effect on the result of the inquiry. Be
this as it may, certain is it, that the Noble President of the
Cceincil, as chairman of the Committee, last evening " re-
ported, from the Select Committee appointed to inquire as to
the necessity of the royal consent beinggiven to the above Bill,
that such consentwas necessary, and that it had been the cus-
tom of the House to receive such consent at various stages of the
Bill." The Bill was therefore withdrawn from their Lordships'
further consideration. Whether the Noble Lord who intro-
duced the Bill, and the Peers who enabled him to carry its
second reading, will consider the " manoeuvre" which has de-
feated this pet project for preserving one of the two Welsh
bishoprics from extinction, as worthy treatment from the Go-
vernment of which they have hitherto been supporters ; or
whether there will be a schism among the Lords who occupy
seats on the Ministerial side of the Woolsack, as threatening
as that which exists among the Conservatives in the Com-
mons, we take not upon ourselves to predict. Mr. Glad-
stone, however, preserves his place in the Cabinet,
which he would have lost by voting consistently
with his known and avowed approval of the Bill. Mr.
Goulbourn is saved from the necessity of flying in the
face of his constituents, and being subjected to a fate
similar to that which befel his chief when he was re-
jected from being representative in Parliament for the same
University, for conceding Catholic Emancipation, which he
had, during his previous life, opposed and denounced. The
Ministerial barque has again got into smooth water; and,
though sadly shaken by recent storms, if no sudden squall
bursts upon it, may weather the session. The crew which
man it have had several narrow escapes, by getting off the
Welsh rocks; that which has just occurred, though it has
excited less sensation out of doors than the deliverance from
foundering on the West India quicksands, did not cause less
apprehensions to those best acquainted with the dangers of
the navigation.
STANDARD.—Lord Campbell's Libel Law Amendment
Bill was last night rejected in the House of Lords by a ma-
jority of 33 to 3. The Bill was supported in argument by
the Noble Mover .and Lord Brougham, and opposed by the
Lord Chancellor and Lord Denman. Strong as
are, and ever have been, our opinions upon the
subject of the libel laws, and sincerely grateful
as we are to Lord Campbell for his Libel Law
Amendment Bill of last year, we cannot regret the
failure of the present measure, which was a Bill to en-
able parties charged with seditious libels, to produce evi-
dence in support of their seditious allegations. It seems
to us, -that in treating seditious libels as having any-
thing in common with what may be called personal
libels, a great error is committed. In personal libels the
gist of the offence is the making that public in print which it
would not be so injurious to communicate privately,
and, therefore, it Is very proper to allow proof of the
truth to justify the publication by showing that the
truth has been told, and told without malice, and
solely from a good motive. But sedition, excitement
to crime, is never innocent; and even if mixed up