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

the witnesses, and send them to the gra d jury." To
what grand jury ? Why, of course to the grand jury at
the assizes, or to the grand jury at the sessions ; and the
foreman or other member of the grand jury so empanelled
shall swear such witnesses. Now it was conten ied that
the words " grand jury so empanelled " meant any grand
jury in Ireland. How could that be so ? What grand
jury could be meant but the grand jury at sessions or
assizes ? It was true there were general words in the
introductory portion, but those words were limited by
the words of the 56th seition, in which there was no
mention made of the Court of Queen's Bench. Where
was a proviso that no foreman of any grand jury should
examine a witness whose name was not indorsed on the
back of the indictment by the clerk of the Crown, or the
clerk of the peace, respectively. And, however general
the words might be in the introductory portion of the Act,
here was a new and entire provision, pointingout the mode
and the object to be attained in a clear and specific manner.
He would advert to an answer which had been given by
"the court below. In order to extend the provisions of
the words " clerk of the Crown at the assizes," and
"clerk of the peace at the quarter sessions," to all
officers of that character, it seemed to have been thought
by some of the judges that because such a construction
was given to ancient statutes, such a construction should
also be given to modern statutes, and they referred to the
statute circumspicite agatis, but that statute was set
aside in the case of Wilson v. Nadley, 7th East, p. 127.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he did not think the
judges below had relied on the ancient meaning of the
statutes. Mr. Justice Perrin distinctly, and in words,
threw such a doctrine overboard.
Mr. KELLY said he was glad to be relieved from ar-
guing that, but it was in his recollection that Chief
Justice Pennefather referred to it. If it were the in-
tention of the Legislature that in all cases of indictment
throughout Ireland the grand jury shou!d administer the
oath instead of the Court of Queen's Bench, it
would have been very easy for the Act of Parlia-
ment to say so. Upon these grounds he submitted
that this statute did not apply to the Court of Queen's
Bench, in Dublin, at all ; but he submitted, at all Events,
with confidence, that it was of the very essence of those
criminal proceedingi under, and according to this new
Act of Parliament, that whether the witnesses were sworn
in by the grand jury or in open court, it should be
certified that they were sworn, and it should appear
on the back of the bill that the Act of Parliament was
complied with in this respect. It was necessary that
the Act of Parliament should be strictly complied with.
It was not complied with in this respect, and on this
ground also he submitted that the judgment should be
reversed. With regard to the remaining points in this
case, which had been: so fully gone through by his
Learned Friend, Mr. Peacock, and first, with regard to
the point of repugnance in the finding of the jury,
it would appear from this finding that eight persons,
leaving out the deceased, were indicted for a conspiracy
with each other to do certain unlawful acts ; seven per-
-sons were found guilty of that conspiracy, and of the
whole of that conspiracy, in the largest and most em-
phatic language which could be used in finding persons
guilty of the entire offences charged against them ; seven
were found guilty of conspiring with each other and the
eighth : then came the finding that the eighth person
was not guilty of the whole premises ; that was, not
guilty of conspiring with them ; so that upon the
record there w.is this repugnance, that seven persons
were fcnnd gu lty of conspiring with each other and with
the eighth, and the eighth was not found guilty of con-
spiring the others. (The Learned Gentleman then
went on to argue the point respecting the continuances,
but their Lordships seemed to take a different view from
him upon the point.) He would next contend that
the Court below should have pronounced judg-
ment on the points upon which the defendants
were found not guilt)'. This was necessary in order to
secure the defendants from another indictment. There
could be no doubt that this was not a complete and per-
fect judgment, and he contended that their Lordships
could not amend it. Then, with regard to the recogni-
sances, which were fully entered into by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Peacock, he would contend that the
judgment was bad, because the time at which the
recognisances were to be entered was uncertain. It was
uncertain whether they were to be entered into at the
beginning or the termination of the sentence. He sub-
mitted that, on this ground likewise, the judgment was-
hed: There was but•bne more point which he would
advert to, and, having-already occupied so much of their
Lordships' time, he should not feel justified in doing
so, did he not feel a confident opinion that the
point was of the highest importance to all the
defendants. He -meant the objection with regard
to the challenge of the array. It was required by Act
of Parliament that the juries in Ireland should be selected
in the particular form prescribed by Act of Parliament,
and it was of the highest importance that juries should
be fairly and impartially selected, in order to give
security to the subject. But their Lordships were
aware, and from the facts brought forward,
it was perfectly manifest, that the Act of Parliamen t
had not been complied with here, and that those parties
had been tried by a jury in whom there could be no
manner of confidence, they not being chosen or selected as
the law required. It was evident that a jury-list
from which the special jury and the jury panels were
made out had been fabricated by some persons unknown
for an unlawful and injurious purpose, and that
from this list so fabricated the jury had been
chosen which tried the defendants. It might he that
any stranger who was badly disposed towards the
defendants had forged and fabricated the list from
beginning to end, and it was complained that this
was to the injury and damage at least of one of
the defendants. Their Lordships would not permit the
provisions of an important Act of Parliament under
which the jurors were chosen, who were to try a
man, it might be for his life, to be violated, but
they would require it to be strictly complied with.
He submitted to their Lordships upon this ground, as
upon all the other grounds mentioned in the course of
the argument, that the defendants not having had that
to which every British subject was entitled, in every
trial civil or criminal—thatis, not having had a fair trial
by law—were entitled to claim the benefit of the error
upon the record, and to submit to their Lordships that
this judgment ought to be reversed. Those were the
grounds upon which they submitted, that this judgment
was erroneous, and they submitted with all confidence to
their Lordships, that upon all, or some of them, the
judgment must be reversed.—(The Learned Counsel
concluded his address at four o'clock, and this closed .the
case for the traversers.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether Counsel
for the Ciown were ready to proceed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) said that the
Attorney-General for England had left the House, but
he would be ready to proceed, if necessary, in a few
minutes.

After a short consultation between their Lordship,
they adjourned until six o'clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle has reprinted
from the Scotsman the "Tollowing letter of Sir Robert
Peel, written many years ago, when the Premier was
Secretary of State for the Home Department :
" Dec. 24, 1825.
" Sir,—l am directed by Mr. Secretary Peel to acknow-
ledge receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, containing an
account of the fraudulent, proceedings of a person of the
name of John Caldwell, late acting manager of the concern
of John Caldwell and Company, manufacturers in Paisley,
who, it appears, has embarked at Liverpool for New York,
and whose letters, addressed as you describe, you wish to
obtain an order from the Secretary of State for being stopped
at the General Post-office. And I am in reply to acquaint
you, that Mr. Peel never gives such orders, except in cases of
flagrant crime, nor to such an extent as to affect innocent
persons. He cannot, therefore, comply with your request,
because it does not appear that John Caldwell stands charged
with any criminal offence ; nor do George Caldwell, or his
mother, the persons mentioned in your letter whose corre-
spondence you wish to be detained, appear implicated in John
Caldwell's frauds. I am," &c.
This letter, we think, marks very properly the limits
within which the Home-:office ought to act—and ought
at once to silence those who pretend to have believed
that post letters were inviolable. The Scotsman proceeds
to ask of what flagrant crime was M. Mazzini accused ?
This question we are not in a condition to answer, but
that a very flagrant crime has been committed by
persons with whom Mr. Mazzini was in communication
is certain, namely, an invasion ea friendly country from
a British port ; the corpus &hal is established beyond
all.doubt, and though Mr. Mazzini was doubtless guilt-
less of a participation in it—or he would not be now at
large—such participation is probably the flagrant crime
of which he was accused by the foreign ministers.
GLOBE.—We observe that the case of the unpaid
Danish claimants is once more to be brought under the
consideration of the House of Commons to-morrow, by
Mr. Christie. If anything could aggravate the hard-
ship of a thirty-seven years' denial of justice, it is the
conduct of a number of members of the Tory party,
who, having always supported these claims against the
late Government, kept away from the division, or voted
against them, when they were brought forward last year
by Mr. Hawes. Mr. Creswell's annual motions used to
be annually carried by considerable majorities, in which
Tory Members always greatly predominated ; but when,
the Tories having come into power, the Danish
claimants, full of hope, once again brought
their case before the House of Commons, they were
beaten, to their great surprise, by fifteen votes, and only
fifteen members of the whole Tory party voted in the
minority which supported Mr. Hawes. Many may have
been away by accident—we understand that the division
took place on that occasion very much earlier in the even-
ing than had been generally expected; but, on the other
hand, ten Tory members who had previously supported the
claims then voted against them, and among the ten were
five members of the Government—Sir E. Knatchbull,
Captain Boldero, Sir Frederick Trench, Mr. G. W.
Hope, and the Hon. Charles Hope. Should not the love
of their own salaries, so strikingly evinced, have led
these gentlemen to think a little more seriously of the
important pecuniary interests with which they have
played for purposes of party ?

SPEECH of the EMPEROR QfBRAZIL
Most August and Worthy Representatives of the
Nation, _ _ _

It is with the greatest satisfaction that I have Come to
open the third session of the present legislation, and to
announce to you the marriage of my greatly beloved
sister, the Imperial Princess, with his Royal High-
ness the Prince of the Two Sicilies, the Count
d'Aquila ; a most happy alliance, which proves an addi-
tional pledge for the continuance of my imperial dynasty,
and fulfils the most ardent desires of my heart.
The empire is at peace with all foreign countries, and
I shall not cease to employ all the means in my power to
preserve it, without compromising the national dignity.
lam sorry to communicate to you that the civil war
in the province of St. Pedro do Rio Grande do Sul is not
yet finally extinct, but in all the others tranquillity pre-
vails, and to render it more consolidated in those of St.
Foul() and Minas Geraes, I have deemed it expedient to