The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

nictVap.

The prices of Wheaten Bread in the metropolis are frcm
8d to Sid; of Household ditto, 6d to 7id per 41b loaf.

ZZIDE
Raw Hides, at per stone of 141bs—Best steers and heifers,
5s 6d to 5s led ; middling hides, 4s 10d to 5s 4d ; inferior ditto,
4s 4d to 4s Bd. Sheep and Calf Skins, at per skin—Market
Calf, 6s 6d to 856,1; shearlings, 10d to Is 3d ; and Lamb skins,
Is 3d to 2s each.

- 1iK11.7 r.I.II2METS.
Sdimirton,F4lrm4rto lay, 31 lOs to 47; use-
fulC4olitrB:.e
finMeeaudpolwandl
ditto,4l lOs to 41 15s;
Clover Hay, 5/ to 61' 103; Oat Straw, 11 12s to 1/ 14s;
Wheat Straw, 1/ 14s to 1/ 16s per load. Supply bit moderate,
and trade rather dull.

CIIMBERLAND.—Coarsti Meadow Hay 31 15s to 4145; use-
ful ditto, 41 6s to 4/ 123; fine Upland ditto, 4114 s to 5/ ;
Clover -Hay, 51 to 6/ 6§ ; Oat Straw, 1/14s to 11168; Wheat
Straw, 1/ 16s to 1/ 18s per load. A fair average supply, and
a steady demand;
WiumcirArisr...—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ lOs to 41; use-
ful ditto, 41 4s to 4/ 8s; fine Upland ditto, 41 lOs to 4/15s;
Clover .Hay, 51 to Cl. 10s; Oat Straw, 11 12s to I/ 14s ;
Wheat Straw, 11 14s to 1/ 16s per load. Roth Hay and
Straw moved off slowly, at barely late rates. The quotations
of neiv Meadow Hay varied from 31 to 12s per load.
. ,

WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.—FRIDAY.
We have a fair arrival of Wheat to this gay's market; the
Jade was exceedingly flat,,tuid all.descriptions must be noted
la. per quarter lower. Barley in request, at former rates.
Oats,'Beans, and tihe lling remain unaltered in value.
Per qr. of 601 b. to the bushel.
EXTRA. Navy.
—to 5'3 54 to 55
~ White — GO 57 bS
.Red 55 52 53
White — 56 51 54
fled. 51 52 53
White - 56 54 55
Red —5 i 54
White — 57 54 56
lied — 55 51 54
. White 57 54 55
Par guar c r imperial.
Barley, Norfolk an:4 Suffolk
Yorkshite and Unto:ll.4llre — 34 :0 33
Gricding
Forel — 32 39 31
kyr qr. f 631 b. to th:. budel.
Ceans, Small fn., 8 36 37
Tielss • — 87 31 36
Foreign
Oats, Potato a;.d Pola'd ............. , . •"
Mealinr....... Ild to 13d., Fe. ...........—d to —d" St"?.
S'v.lling.... .......... ...... .••••••••••••• 163. to 27S W. I.er Load.
Malt
Rapeseed
........ ..... ...........
Os. —I. ........... Lst t.

:'heat Suffolk, Essex, and Rent.....,..,
Ditto ditto .....
Norfolk ................ ...
.....
Ditto ditto ..................
Lincolnshire and Cambridge...
Ditto ditto ............
YeTkstiirc ditt0...................
Ditto
.........
Forolg, ....................
Ditto ditt0............

.M.L.-(THIS DAY.)
Ann Skidmore, and two young women, her daughters, were
charged before Mr. Trail! with robbing a young country girl,
named Files, under circumstances of great aggravation.
It appeared that the elder prisoner met' with the com-
plainant, a girl seventeen years of age, at Manchester, and
gave her_ such a flourishing account of " Lunnon," and the
little difficulty of getting plenty of work, as to induce her to
quit hpr native place. They arrived in town on donday last,
and the prisoner, under threat of' " ripping her up," took
forcible possession of the poor girl's bundle, containing some
articles of dress, and then left her, desiring her to get back to
Manchester as well as she could. Since then the complainant
has been wandering about the streets, and sleeping in the
union workhouses of a night, not having the means of getting
home. The prisoners were taken into custody at Peckham
the preceding night, being seen there by the complainant,
applying to get a night's lodging in the workhouse.
Tfic prisoners, who denied the charge, were committed
for fourteen days, and the complainant was ordered to be
passed to Manchester, and recommended never to leave home,

The Earl and Countess of- Granville «ill shortly leave
Bruton-street, for the Duke of Devonshire's marine villa, at
Kemptown, for the improvement of his Lordship's health.

THE STATE TRIALS

(THIRD DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY

WRIT OF ERROR.

THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

Their Lordships met at half-past ten o'clock this morn-
ing, to bear the further arguments of Counsel in this
case. Counsel having been called in,
The .Loan CuascELLon (addressing Sir Thomas
Wilde) said he hoped he bore in mind that the Judges
would have to go on circuit on Wednesday, and if the
case was not concluded so as to enable them to give
judgment before then, the case could not be determined
until next session.
Sir Tuossaa WILDE said that he fully bore in mind
the importance of having the- opinion of the Learned
Judges, and with that view he had compressed his ar-
gument as much as possible. But it would be impos-
sible for them to omit anything which they considered
material to the interests of their clients.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he only mentioned it
that Counsel might be aware of the circumstances. He
was only anxious to bring the case to a conclusion, in
order that whatever the judgment might be, the part'e
might have the benefit of it ; but they Could not do that
which was impossible—they could not hear or detern,ine
this case in the absence of the Judges, and if the argu-
ments were not concluded before Wednesday they must
be suspended, in order that the Learned Judges might
hear them.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said they were there to present
the defendants' case to their Lordships with all that pro-
perly belonged to it,'and if they omitted anything that
was material, they would not being doing justice to the
parties or to their Lordships, for the decision would not
be regarded with confidenee; They had as much as
possible shortened their arguments, but they could not
omit anything which they considered material. lie
hoped their Lordships would devise some expedient.
The Loh CHANCELLOR said they could not possibly
put off the circuits, because the effect of that would be
that a number of prisoners now in gaol would be
set at liberty at the commencement of the circuits. He
thought it his duty to state this for his (Sir T. Wilde',)
consideration, and having done •so he had stated all that
was necessary.
Mr. HILL then resumed his argument, and said, he
felt that he laboured under a great disadvantage in ad-
dressing their Lordships, because he knew how difficult
it was to argue an important case with an impres-
sion on one's mind that necessary matter must be
omitted in endeavouring to compress arguments which
•would perhaps be prejudicial to the interests of his
clients. Their Lordships would recollect that when he
was interrupted yesterday he cited the case of the King
v. Burridge, in 2d Lord Raymond's Reports, p. 1,364,
and also in the Bth vol. of the " Modern Reports," p.
245. This and other cases showed that a party had an
undbubted right of challenging the array. They esta-
blished the principle, that the Courts would not prevent
the defendant farm exercising his right of challenging
the array. He did . net anticipate that the right to
challenge the array in cases of special juries would. be
denied: In Ireland there was a case which was a great
authority on that point which had been argued in the
Exchequer Chamber before a writ of error, and which
admitted clearly the right to challenge the array in
cases of special Juries. It was the case of Newland v.
King, 1 Hudson and Brooke's Reports. p. 164. In that
case the challenge was on account of the unindifferency-
of the sheriffs ; but the case of the King v. Edmunds
was in that case brought prominently before the Court,
and the doctrine laid down in the King v. Edmunds wa's
limited to-this point, that there could be no challenge of
the array on the ground of the. unindifferency of the
Master of the Crown-office. The right to challenge the
array was the rule. This. was the exception. Now he
would ask what ground was there here why the
challenge of , the array should not have a useful effect
when such ob;ection was made to the array itself? In
the case of the " Queen v. Fitzpatrick," which had been
tried in ono-of the Irish circuits in the year 1838, and
which was to be found in 1 Crawford and Dicks, p. 73,
there was a'cliallenge of the array, on the ground of
vices-in-Malting up the sheriff's book. The Chief Jus-
tice in that case expressed an opinion against the validity
of the, challenge; but reserved the point. As, however,
the defendant was acquitted, the point was not raised.
In 1839, in the case of .the " Queen v. Conradine," 1
Crawford and Dix, p. 56, there was also a challenge of
the array on the same ground. The presiding judge ex-
pressed an opinion against the validity of the challenge.
I.3nt in both cases the opinion. was grounded upon a
reason, the force of which he confessed he could hot see,
viz., that the provisions of the Jury Act, 3d and 4th
William IV., were directory and not imperative. Before
the statute of the 3d and 4th William IV., the sheriff in
Ireland was as unshackled as he had been in England
before the Revolution. There was no interposition be-
tween him and the jury until -they earns into the box.
The sheriff had an unlimited discretion to arrange the
panel from any of the inhabitants of the county he
pleased, subject only to the challenge of the array. After
the Act came into operation it became his duty to ars
range the panel from the jury book, and to confine him-
self to the names found there. Ile submitted that these
directions were imperative. But admitting, for the sake
of arguthent, that they were merely.directory—,
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Whatever is directory is
imperative.. The question is, if it-is essential.
Mr. HlLL—Exactly so, my Lord. I was merely
adopting the language which has been used in discussing
this question.
The Loun.) CHANCELLOR-Whatever is directed to be
done by an Act of Parliament is imperative. Whether
it is essential to the validity of the act is another
question.' .
Mr. HILL would adopt his Lordship's term, that the
provisions were essential, and use the tern in the
strictest sense. But be was now arguing the.point as if
they were not essential. The question v. as simply this
—had the sheriff, in making the array, acted as a statutable
officer, under the Act of Parliament, or according to his
common law rights and duties. If he acted as a sta.
tutable officer, he was bound to obey the provisions of
the Act. It could not be said. that this part was merely
directory, and not to be obeyed. It was the duty of a
public officer, above all others, to attend to every part of
the Act of Parliament ; and when the sheriff arrayed
the panel, under the provisions of William IV., the jury
book must be the foundation of that panel. He there-
fore submitted that he was limited in the selection of
the panel by the statute. If the book used was not the
book provided by the statute a fortiori—if it was: tainted
by fraud—how could it be considered that he had exer-
cised the powers confided in-him by the common law ?
It was charged in the challenge that those names had
been omitted by fraud, and the charge was admitted by
the demurrer. They had a right to presume
that, nine-tenths of the names had been omitted
from the. book ; and although they might , con-
sider the sheriff was acting as a common-law offiCer, was
it not a crime in the sheriff to take a boOk from, it might
be some stranger, in which the greater portion of the
names qualified were omitted, and to limit his list by the
liSt in the book—a list prepared with the fraudulent
intent to injure, the parties. He would suppose the case
to have occurred before the 3d and 4th of William IV.
Supposing that a party had represented himself as act-
ing under 'a stattite,:and- by colour of lasv, and by that
had prevailed upon the sheriff to act upon a list made up
by fraud, the sheriff might have acted bona fide,SbUt still
he had acted in such a manner as to taint the panel with
a vice, and the panel was therefore bad. Now he sub-
mitted that the statute 'was not merely directory, but
that its provisiens, as regarded the present matter, were
essential, and all must be observed, or the whole was bad.
If their Lordships looked to the 11th section of the Act
they would find ,that it enacted that the sheriff should
not, in answer to a writ of venire facies, return the
names of any persons not in the book of jurors for the
then current year. All parties, the sheriff; the coroner,
the heritor, and the clerk of the peace, must refer to that
book -* in a subsequent statute, however, it was passed,
as it 'had been found that owing to the provisions not
being understood, in many counties there was not a
good jury-book ; and that statute gave power to act
on the jury-book of the previous year, and that if there
was no good jury-book then resort might be had to the
state of things as they existed before the 3d and 4th of
William IV. If it was necessary for his case,
-which it
was not, the- presumption would be that the officers had.
done their duty, but it was immaterial to consider that
view Of the case. • -
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What was tholast Act to
which you referred, Mr. Hill ?
Mr. HILL—The 4th and sth of Will. IV., chap. 48,
which was an Act to amend the electing of jurors in Ire-
land. hiS argument was this, if it-was necessary
to prove 'the provisions of the Act, or if it was essential,
he had proved it but he might have added the proof he
had already. given. .This. very section provided that if
the names of persons, whose names were not on the
jury book, fohnd their way into the panel, and no (Net-.
tion was taken till after the trial, the trial should not be
set aside on that ground. It was impossible that the
Legislature, should have expressed their will to Confine
the sheriff to the jury-bock in stronger terms. It was
evidently: intended,, by those who framed this challenge,
that where the name was not on the jury-book, the trial
should be considered: as bad.
The LOAD CHANCELLOR observed that.there could be
no doubt that the names were to be taken out of the
jury-book.
Mr. HILL considered such to be the case, but that was
not the opinion .of the Judges in Ireland. As the list
was to be taken from the book, it was necessary to-Con-
sider what the book was. • They said that, ;owing to the
circumstances 'he had stated-to the House, the present
Was not the book. Now the jury-book was the mere
copy of a list given by the clerk of the peace to the
sheriff, and the recorder was to make up the book from
the collector of cos.?.
The LORD CHANcELLOR—Won't it go to this length,
Mr. Hill ? The names are' to be returned by the clerk
of the peace from the collector of cess, and then they are.
handed to the recorder: Now supposing that the cess
collector had fraudulently 'omitted a name, or that one
less was handed ()Ver to the recorder, j-ou must go the
length Of shying that would vitiate the book and support
a challenge to the array.
Mr. HILL -.apprehended that it would. He thought
that the great portion of the miscarriage had arisen in
at.

the precent :case from raising the wrong issue. The
question here was simply this—Was there a document,
hick was a valid, honest document, furnishing the-source
from which the-panel waS 'dram' ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—There are two 'questions
which you lia;,e raised • you are abandoning one. You
contend that if by accident one name is omitted, that will
vitiate the list ; but you allege upon the second that the
names were omitted fraudulently, and with a view to
prejudice your client.
Air. HILL said he supposed he was not fortunate
enough to express himself clearly. Yesterday he intended
most expressly to state that neither the record, nor he
individually, raised that question at all. He was not

called upon to speculate as to how much of disobedience
to an Act of Parliament would be endured ; but he con-
fined himself to the allegations upon the record, which
Were that the party was prejudiced by it, and that the
list was tainted wit}► fraud. It was here made a part of
the challenge, that it was to the damage of Mr. Steele.
It was stated that the effect was to injure Mr. Steele,
and it was stated that the means were a fraudulent omis-
sion of certain names from the panel.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—YOU have a right to put
extreme cases on both sides.
Mr. HILL availed himself of that right in inquiring
into the nature, extent, and operation of a challenge to
an array. Suppose all the names were omitted but one,
there would be something then which called for redress;
and the remedy, he apprehended, was the challenge to
the array. Even if the limitation of the panel were
honest; it. was unsupported by law ; if it were dishonest,
he did not see how any question could arise. He would
suppose that in this case tee challenge would produce
the greatest inconvenience. Was that a good reason for
denying to the subject this ancient and most beneficial
remedy ? Was it not a far better reason for amending
the Act of Parliament, and preventing it from producing
consequences which were never contemplated by the
Legislature ? Let the. Act be amended. As a predeces-
so-r of one of the Learned Judges had sad, " Parliament
was always at hand to rectify mistakes." But incon-
venience, as applied to this particular case, there was
absolutely none. lie made no other imputation upon the
Recorder except that a great default had be..n com-
mitted through his not carefully superintending the list,
and the only question before their Lordships was, what
had been the effect of that default ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—You can say nothing as to
the effect of the default, because we have not the facts
upon the record.
Ma'am'. said he was in the region of actualities.
The effect was that there had been a miscarriage; it was
the effect in which he was interested, and not the cause.
He would now call their. Lordships' attention to the
judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of the
'Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland on the important
'point of the challenge to the array, as set forth in the
Appendix, p. 119._
,The Lord Chief Justice commenced
his judgment by seating the array es it was set forth,
and considering the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
lie says that the Recorder is a judicial officer, and that
some other officers connected with the subject are mi-
nisterial. Bat the Chief Justice did not distinguish as
to whether the Recorder was acting judicially in the
particular point that was under consideration, or whe-
ther he was not. For he could not consider that some
ambiguous expressions which fell from the Chief Justice,
that he would consider the record, after he had adju•
dicated on each name, and when that portion of his
duty had arrived which he is to cause to be
done by Others, as acting judicially. He could not be
acting judicially in causing persons to assemble
these names together, to put them into a list, put
them into a proper form, and have them written out
in a clerkly hand, and deliver them to the Clerk of the
Peace. There was nothing very judicial is this part of
his duty, and it was this- very part of the duty of the
Recorder to which this challenge applied. The Chief
Justice goes on to say, that in the statute no farther
peoceeding appears in any part of it to limit Or control
the powers therein mentioned to have been provided, ex-
cept as specified in the Act, and then describes the mode
of proceeding. " A party may oppose the claim of a
person desiring to be admitted as a juror, and it is for
the Recorder-Lee:elusively and finally, to make an adjudi-
cation whether he is to be admitted or rejected." Ad-
mitted or rejected to what ? Not to the jury-box, but
to the jury list. What was the course of proceeding in
the case of votes for aldermen fur the city of Londen ?
Was the wardmote at which the votes were adjudicated
conclusive of the matt r. Might not the question have
to come before the Queen's Bench ? One Learned
Judge present must recollect a case in which a long and
expensive litigation was carried on for the purpose of
ascertaining the validity of certain votes, some of which
had been allowed and some had been disallowed by the
Recorder, acting as assessor to the Lord Mayor of Lon-
don at a wardmote in the City. In 999 cases out of a
thousand the wardmote might do all that was requisite,
but the thousandth case might arise. The Chief Jus-
tice then went on to say that the Recorder is elected by
the Legislature to decide cases of this description : " It
is a high and, important privilege with which hp is so
invested, and with it is in a great measure connected
the flow and fountain of justice, and the purity of the
administration of justice." Then the more important
the duty, the more important it became that they should
not shut out any means of examining whether it was
correctly or incorrectly performed ; and when the par-
tici chiefly iuterestecl in the matter, namely, the parties
in the suit, were not. present, how could this be done ?
After stating that the Recorder's decision is final and
beyond appeal, the Chief Justice states that " another
duty is imposed on him, that is, that he shall make or
cause to be made a new list, arranging the persons
according to rank and property ; and the Act directs,
that in the newly-arranged lists, he shall include all per-
sons who, on a previous revision, have substantiated
their claims before him." But he would ask was there
anything very judicial in this duty ? The Chief Jus-
tice then proceeds as follows—" There is no imputation
in this challenge, that the omission which was said to
have taken place on the part of the Recorder; was the
consequence of improper conduct malversation, or eels
ruption—none was imputed to him. But it was said the
Act required he should make out the new lists according
to rank and property, classing the persons according to
such order required by the Act, and that he should do so
with respect to all whose claims should be allowed. I do
not know how far this is to be carried, but if I understand
the argument right, they push it to that extent. Here
were two duties imposed on the Recorder: First, he is
to revise the lists delivered to him by the collector, and
he then is to make a new list according to rank and pro-
perty ; and he was equally bound to have made no
omission, but to have included in the classification of
rank and property, every individual, just as much as
he was bound by the Act to have allowed or disallowed
his claim generally to -be received as a juror.
Now how far is that to be carried ? Suppose the Re-
corder had included every person whose claim had been
allowed, but Suppose he had omitted to class
them according to rank and property; are all
subsequent • proceedings to be avoided, and to
be the subject of a challenge to the array, because he has
omitted to follow the directions of the statute in
this one instance? Suppose he did make a classification
according to rank and property, and-suppose he admitted
all those persons entitled, will it be contended that he
has made a wrong classification, because, by the judg-
ment he has come to, he has put men worth 2,000/. at the
bottom of the list, and put at the top men not worth so
many hundreds. Unquestionably he would have de-
viated from the directions of the statute, but is that a
reason why all those proceedings should be null and
void, and why, if a trial took place, it should be in the
power of either of the parties to show that. part of the
Act had been deviated from, and that, therefore, the
jury panel in that particular case was good for nothing?
If the argument be correct, the consequences must go
that length, and I cannot help thinking that such a decision
would be most injurious and dangerous to the community."
One of their Lordships had said, that one extreme, may
certainly be looked at ; but they had also had the kind-
nesS toe say, that the other extreme may be looked at
also. Surely, it was not the mode to arrive at a just
Conclusion—to take an extreme case on either side ; but
this remark must be made, that the state of facts upon
which the Learned Judge hypothetically argued had no
relatiOn to the state of facts in the present case.

might be an interesting legal speculation, but which
might as well be made in the next case that came before
him as in the present. The Learned Chief Justice said,
that this was a judicial act which could as well be per-
formed by an inexperienced clerk as by ' the most
learned judge.. The Learned Judge did not
say what was to be the consequence, if there
was no list, or a mutilated list, or a list
tainted with fraud from 13:ginning to end. The
Learned Chief Justice went on to say—" I do not mean
to question whether the , special jury panel may not be
challenged : several cases were cited, in which it was so
decided :—I do not mean to controvert that, the more so
as it seems not to have been pressed on the other side.
But I observe that in those cases a protest was made, up=
holding their right, and nothing was done to remove it.
It is not because the challenge was to the array of the
special jury, but because the Recorder has not followed
out the directions of the Act of Parliament, and that
some person unknown has bad the opportunity
of making an alteration in the lists so returned,
the sixty persons whose names had been allowed
'by the. Recorder do nut now stand upon the list."
Ile seuned to allow by that, that there did exist a right
of challenge ; but Mr. Justice Crampton, in his ju4-
ment, gave it as his opinion that no such right existed.
Thus there seemed to be some doubt about the matter
in Ireland ; he trusted there would be none in their
Lordships' minds. The Chief Justice went on to say
that ",the Ilecorder was not answerable for that ; no
blame was imputed to him in the way of anything cor-
rupt or fraudulent." But • were there no cases of mis • ,

chief arising, except what arose from fraud ? Might it
not be produced flOlll want of care or caution ? The
consequences of such want of care or caution might be
worse than where there was corruption or fraud, though
the parties might not be so much to blame. Then the
Chief Justice went on to say, " There is no averment in
the challenge that. he 'did not make out the lists accord-
ing to the Act ;" and he says that " the Recorder is not
an officer of the Court.' lie had to. deal with this
point before by anticipation, when he called
their Lordships' attention to the great legal fact
that a challenge to the array was a remedy before those
Acts werepassed ; whether the Recorder was or was not
.an officer of the court,. was of no consequence, because
it' was not a contest in personam, but in rem, a mere en-
quiry into a document over which the Recorder had
control for a certain time ; whether the Recorder was an
officer .of the. court or not was immaterial, because, the
court by allowing the challenge had the power to get rid
of the evil done,. whether by the Recorder or by any
other person. The .Learned . Judge then asked the
question," who is lo try his .(t he Recorder's) indifferency
tie is not here or :represented by counsel.' This ques-
tion arose from an entire mistake as to the issue. There
the challenge to the 'array was for indifferency—was the
sheriff represented .? who ever heard of counsel for a
sheriff in a challenge to the array. ? He ap-
pealed to their Lordships' experience. The sheriff
Was no party to the issue; and a challenge to the array
rose on issue, in law or in fact, between the parties. He
did not wonder therefore that the' mind of the Chief
Justice came to an erroneous conclusion, because there

was no surer means of arrivincr at a wrong conclusion
than a mistake of the issue. Ihe Learned Chief Justice

then commented on a proposition made by counsel for
the defendant., to put back the names for the purposes of
that trial to avoid all; question, and that the array should
be as it would have been if those names had formed part.
of the hat. It was impossible for the defendants to give
a clearer proof that they did not resortto this challenge
for the object of delay, but that they were desirous of
obtaining a jury in, which.the lacy would Iwo just con-

fidence. The Learned Chief Justice remarked that that
offer was not accepted. This fact appears in
the judgment of the court below, that -:such
an offer was made, and :refused on the part of the
Crown. Far be it from hire to presume for one moment
that this offer was rejected fOt any improper purpose ;he
merely used it in order to show the bona fides with'
which the challenge was made. It also appeared from
the judgment that this was brought before the Court in e
a summary manner. The parties did not wait till the
proper time arose for making the challenge, which could
only be done when the jury appeared in the box. The
Court were of opinion that they bad no powt r of inter*
fering, that they could not interfere in that way, whether
they could so interfere was not now the question, but the
less power they had of interfering summarily, the mere
reason there was why they should hive allowed the (Awl'
lenge. It was said as a reason why the challenge should
be overruled, that this was a general list not applicable
to this particular case, but to all cases 'occurring in the-
current year. Be that so. If it were a list made til)
with fraud against all the suitors of the case, or a class of
the suitors of the Court, whose suits might come if
during the year, instead of being a weak reason, he shoull
have thought it a strong reason for allowing the chai-
lenge to the array, for, be it recollected, the mode it
which the party might avail himself of the defect in tlo
panel must be by challenge. But it did not
all Mow from there being a challenge to the array in thi
ease, that there • would be a chal'enge in any othet
But; with the greatest possible humility to their Lord
ships, he must be permitted to protest against the sup-
position that their Lordships would entertain such ,t
question. Their Lordships would not entertain.such s
motive as inconvenience for one moment. If info'
venience arose to the course of public justice from their
having their challenge allowed, let the Legislature frid
the remedy, but let it not, on any account, he done at tie •
expense of justice. He (Mr. Bill) did not think himself
justified in detaining the Right Hon. House by con-
meriting on the judgments of the two puisne judges, vsl6
agreed in opinion with the Chief Justice, but he woad
call attention to the judgment of the fourth judge.
namely that of Mr. Justice Perrin, who was .of
opinion that this challenge ought to have been
allowed. The judgment of that learned and etai-
neat person appeared to him (Mr. Hill) to ad-
vance arguments which were well worth the-
serious consideratioa of that Right Hon. House. That
Learned Judge seemed to consider that the words which
he (Mr. Hill).`in a former part of his argument had cited
of the Lord Chief Justice, might either; bear a different
construction, or the reporter might be wrong. Mr.
Justice Perrin then called the attention of the Court to
the nature of the allegation made. He said the Re-
corder knew no more of the error committed than he
himself did, and therefore there was not, a shadow of
ground to suppose but that he had been imposed upon-
Yes; he was unfortunate enough to allow somebody to
impose upon him, and what, was the result of that? It
appeared in the judgment of Mr. Justice Perrin, who
appeared to him (Mr. Hill) to address himself very
closely and logically to the real question.. What was
the result of the matter? That the general list of the
Recorder was; by some means or another, an inaccurate
list. The Recorder, then, was a merely ministerial
officer on that occasion, and was no more unswerable for
that error than the Learned Judge himself. Then he
went on to declare what the nature of the allegation W's
to which he (Mr. Hill) had already called the attention . •
of their Lordships. An error had been made in that
part of the proceedings, which was of the most important.'
character to the interests of the parties accused. Why
should it not be corrected ? What possible reason could
exist that the error should ,not ba corrected ? Wbat 111,;
-monstrous Act of Parliament must • that be which de';;
prived an officer of the power of correcting his own
ministerial error? But it was said the challenge was 11
novel one, and founded on an Act of Parliament dee
very recent date. He (Mr, Hill) could not suppose for
one moment that because an Act •of Parliament had been
in existence only ten years, it was to be set aside because..;
of some point of form. The real question was, not what
was involved or not involved in form, but what was the
principle of the Act, and had that principle been re-
' spected and complied with? Mr. Justice Perrin han'
strongly and eloquently laid it down that he could not
see any objection to this ministerial
.error :in the jury.
list being corrected ; and he (kr..Hill), had every con-
fidence that that Right Ilonotnable House mould take
precisely the same view of the questions But he Mir.
Hill) would not weaken the, effect which. he was sure.
Mr. Justice Perrin's judgment must -have made upon
the minds of their Lordships, by• adding anything. '
to what had fallen from that eminent person on the sub-
ject of challenge, hut, proceed very briefly to notice
another point which struck him as being most important.
Their Lordships had heard much 'argument upon. the
effect which would be produced if only one count in an
indictment was good, or rather if there was an indict-. ,
ment with one good count in it, containing also counts
which were held to be bad. He would not urge that
point ; but would implore that Right Hon. House not to .
decide as to any supposed practice. Practice, it should.
be recollected, was at all times a mode of administering
the law to be watched with the greatest care and anxiety'
What was the memorable answer of Chief Justice Pratt
in the great case respecting the useof general warrants?
The practice, from the time of the Revolution down t° •
the period of the action, was vouched to show the
.right'
of the Secretary of State to the use of general warrant'
The submission of all parties who had been made•tt,
subject of those general warrants was strongly arguetit
Court. Their Lordships would recollect what was tfi'e
answer of Lord Camden. He said, "It is the subinly
siou of poverty to power." And that observation
11
phatically applied to the present case. He (Mr. T;
had made inquiry as to what was the cost to the Parties
in this case of the volume which lay upon their Lord.
ships' table. He spoke of no other expenses, such as
procuring copies of various documents, paying fees, &c.;
but he merely alluded to the printing of this volume, and
the expense of that alone was 4001. Was that an answer
to the ebservation that difficulties arose in the way of
writs of error in criminal cases? Their Lordships knew
that that item, heavy as it was, sunk into insignificance,
compared with the many other items that would be
found in the bill of costs to be brought against these de"
fendants. It was a question of poverty, and not a slues"
tion of the parties being convinced by their law advisers
that they had no remedy. In many cases parties were
punished, and the punishment was at an end before it
was possible to ascertain whether they had been rightly •
or wrongly convicted. How frequently did• cases arise
in which points of law were submitted to the considers-
tion of the twelve judges, and this proved that there was
no real remedy upon writs of error in such cases.

Lord CAMPBELL—We will suppose that an indictment
for murder contains several counts, which is frequently
the case. How is the verdict entered ? Is the verdict
of guilty entered on all counts ? lam supposing that
the judgment, for some purpose or another, is formally
drawn up. I remember on the Oxford Circuit a case of
this kind, Miss Blandy's case, but I do not recollect
whether on the several counts in the indictment verdicts
were entered. Strictly speaking, if there is only one
felony upon which evidence is give),, a verdict of guilty
can only be entered upon one count.
Mr. Hu.e----That a verdict of guilty should be entered
on only ()tie count is our argument.
Lord CAMPBELL—The judgments were always
extremely short, there being no fee to be paid for theta
according to their length.
Mr. flux—He was arguing to their Lordships that
where there was a large question of property involved,
the case was a difficult one. Persons engaged in such
cases had generally property to carry them on. Butt
how did this apply to criminal cases? He trusted their
Lordships would pause before they gave effect-, to the
doctrine that indictments might be drawn with a degree
of looseness in the use of terms which had been adopted
in the present case. This was a matter whibh had been
brought for the first time under the consideration of
their Lordships, and he trusted that this system would
receive a final check by the judgMent which it awaited at
the Lordships' hands. When he looked at the record,
he found great difficulty in addressing his mind to the
subject, owing to the immense quantity of words contained
in the various counts of the indictment The first count
occupied 50 pages of a large and closely printed book.
He could not liken it to the three grains of wheat in the
'bushel of chaff, not that the illustration would fail in
consequence of the deficiency of chaff, but of the ab-
sence of the three grains of wheat. His Learned Friend
had addressed their Lordships upon the sixth count. In e'
late case which had occurred in the Court of Queell's
Bench, the Court had directed that vituperative adverbs
should be disregarded. And, probably, the Learned Judges
in that Court would place vituperative adjectives on the
same footing. What was there in this count which de-
signated an offence ? Looking to the whole of this
transaction, without having the mind disturbed by what
Bentham called " dislogestic words," the whole count
was deficient. It was merely an assertion that certain
persons assembled large meetings, which they must stir
pose to be peaceable, because, bad there been ground for
a charge of a breach of the peace against them, the op'
portunity of still further extending that immense indict'
meet would not have been lost sight of. He foiled
throughout the whole of this indictment a Frenchitied
form of expression. It Was impossible to read this in-
dictment without being struck with the wonderful Os;
logy between the language in these indictments, and
that used during the time of the French Revolution, in
the indictments, if they might be so called, of those days*
lie could almost suppose that those who had drawn uP
ttis indictment had placed the llfoniteur of those days
Wore them. The defendants were charged with a de-
monstration of physical force. Was that English or wee
it French? This reminded him of a person who was in-
dieted in France before the tribunal constituted by the
National Convention,for having usedcertain manceuvres.
Another person was charged for attempting to denatu-,
ralise, by sowing lucerne instead of wheat. In early times
theie was a disposition to use figurative language and
expressions in drawing up cases of indictment. Black'
stone stated that constructive treason included a eha1:,17,,
of attempting to accrouch on the Sovereign power.
accrouch on the Sovereign power, translated in English'
was a usurpation of the prerogative of the Crown. The
tree of treason, however, was ultimately pruned to real
sonable dimensions. They were accustomed to sPlr_„,.
to the custom of their ancestors ; but he wished tee!,
would always appeal to proper occasions. He cline
have wished that in all cases of past statutes such justice
and wisdom had been shown as had been exfo
bited in the statute of treason of Henry
thatll`
Third. By that statute it was enacted .
an overt act must be proved to constitute treason'
What had been the 'consequence whenever in bad
attempts bad been made to enlarge the construction of
the statute of treason? Although those attempts might 3n
those times have been legalised by statute, yet as 6r:AO
as those bad times had passed away those statutes ha
He been swept away, and that venerable statute had ru_,
maimed the corpus juris of the law of treason. trust"
hat
their Lordships would do for the law of conspiracy w.„6,
their ancestors had done for the law of treason. mof
trusted their Lordships would so construe the .112,7:11„.
conspiracy that no man should be subjected to sutle,ols "
the penalties inflicted by the law of conspiracy Nrlim