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

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 8, 1844.

pledged to uphold. But since the proliatiilitit4 are
miteh greater, that for that tatise tO enter tied tom=
petitois of its own party in a race against one com-
petitor representing its opponent, would be to.make
the latter the favourite and the winner, the policy of
the Liberals withdrawing one of their nominees seems
to us-clear and-indisputable." This brings us home to
the prelitnitiarY. question of pretensions.
_lt is an in-
` ;ndispensable-duty,--to look these fully_

and fairly in the face. , ,
Mr. WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD (whose address to
the 'electors of Birmingham we have perused with
great pleas,ure,, ,from, the manly and succinct sim-
plicity of its expositions) has been calledson by a
large and influential body of his townsmen to become
a candidate for the responsible trust so ably and
honourably discharged by his respected father. tHe
is stated to possess great capacity, extensive commer-
cial experience, and to have highly improved his oppor-
tunities of acquiring an accurate knowledge of those
enlightened principles, on which the system of our
general trade should be established; and of all matters
immediately connected with the local and municipal
interests' of his native town. He has responded to
the 'call made upon him in a manner fully to justify
the favourable views predicated of his qualifications
fora post to which he brings the hereditary prestige
of his late father's tried services and known convic-
tions. We cannot imagine a better title to the confi-
dence of the constituency, or more reasonable grounds
for their extending it to him, than have been submitted
on the part of Mr. WILLIAM ScromerrELD.
Mr. jOSEPH SWAGE has been the consistent
advocate, undoubtedly, of very important principles,
in relation to a re-organization of the scheme on
which the electiye suffrage is at present limited to
certain classes of the community, the vast majority of
which possess it in right of their contributing indi-
vidually, in some proportion, to the expenies of the
State, as inferred from their paying, at least,
a given amount of annual rent, or a rental
to any excess above that amount. This may
be called an organic electoral or franchise
question, on which serious differences of opinion
prevail, both within the town of Birmingham
and in most other parts of the empire. Mr. STURGE'S
claims, if not rested upon, would be mainly referred
to, his advocacy of the "complete suffrage" plan : and
this being a vexata gucestio, even among the town cbn-
.stituency themselves—and still more between the
constituency and those townsmen who are not
on the register at all, it is evident there
would . be • a most serious division of opinion
in the Liberal camp as to which of the two banners
the voters would range themselves under, The com-
mon standard of Liberal opinions, the advance of
which alone it is at this time • all-essential to sec Are,
would be either deserted or left in jeopardy by the in-
terest attaching to the conflicting colours of two 'corn-
petitors, at a time when union only can enable the
le Liberal cause to make successful head against
it the Conservative forces. Mr. STURGE we are persuaded,
it is too disinterested and consistent an advocate of the
e liberal views lie has always espoused to consent to
put to hazard, in this struggle, in detail as ii;Vvere,
3 the, general fortunes of a campaign to the ultimate
5 success of which the aspect of affairs is becoming,
though slowly, yet visibly, more favourable.
On the Conservative side Mr. RICHARD SPOONER
5 is a formidable opponent. It is of no use for the Li-
berals of Birmingham to shut. their eyes to this fact.
His private character and commercial reputationst4nd
justly high among people of all parties ; , and forour oiwn
'parts, did we not feel , the paramount necessity of
securing a clear triumph to the Liberal party on this
momentous occasion—a triumph to which no means
are so calculated to contribute as an united rally
Of their forces round Mr. WILLIAM SCHOLRFIELD
we might have desired to see Mr. SPOONIR returned,
from our respect for his clear and masterly ie.
teotion of the fallacies, the wickedness, and OD
fatal tendencies of Sir ROBERT l'Eues currency
sures, and monetary blunders, as supplied in thi
evidence this gentleman has publicly given on those
subjects. But our conviction is, that it is requi4ite
for the character and influence of Birmingham, sine
.the successful march of that great cause of improved
liberal, and enlightened institutions with which She
is so nobly identified to all posterity, that she should,
of the present candidates (Or her reputation, rettrr
with honour the son of her deceased, upright,
faithful servant.

Intelligence from Lisbon, to the 2d inst., has 1
received. It is of the same gloomy character. '

estimates for the year had been published, showing
'deficit of 232 cantos; and, from a financial exposit 01
which accompanies them, it appears the Crovernmen
are, compelled to resort to a loin of 4,000 contel
provide for pressing payments. This loan is to b
redeemed within twenty-three years, and the interes
is to be 5 per cent. A. general disposition preraile<
against the payment of taxes, :as they could not bi
legally collected 'without a decree of the Cortes.

The Madrid journals, especially those under the n
.fluence of Government, still, abound with rumour o
conspiracies, which are said, to be in active• p, e
paration at Sarragossa, Barcelona, and the capital
It is, suipected,, however, that reports are raised a
political purposes, with, a view of terrifying ID
. _

timid, and strengthening the supporters of the o
vernment in case'of a general election, or some fr sl
inroad upon the Constitution.
It was generally believed at Barcelona that h
Ministers had resolved to dissolve the Cortes forth
with: The Madrid Gazette of the '3oth- ult. con
tains a royal decree, dated. Barcelona, JUIVZS 26,, an
flouncing that the, claims Raising, from contracts ifol
advancing money to the Government shall be con.
verted into tithes of the con'solidated public debts if
Three per Cents., at the rate of 35 per cent., or at
1,000 rest's of nominal value for every 350 real* ttat
the Treasury shall have received on the said clam

The • interest granted upon. some 'of the said c 1 r
shall be reckoned to the present month of Jijr
and that interest shall be added' to their respecti
!capitals.

. , .
With ..:the exception .of the • speech made. by
Gpizor, -in, the Chamber of Pq4ties on FrkliY; 'ci-
-lative to the disputes between France and Morocco,
the intelligence in the Paris papers possessei ^ver.
little interest. . Previous to. the arrival of the:lViniite.
.for Foreign Affairs, ,M. Jl4lAualazi Put.some qUestibn
-to Marshal -Soma, relative to the late- occurrencearox
'the
,MerOeco. frontier, the line of pOlicy 'Which 11u.
Government. intended to pnrsue, and at the Same
time' warned them against trusting to the mediation
of England,. which supported the pietenaions both of
Anp-EL-KADER and the Emperor .of Morocco. 41.
SouLi tepliedin very: general terms,-announcing that
France` net 'require the mediation of Englem(l.
Ori M: GuizoT:taking his beat, the Marquis DE 4a.A.-
110CIIRJACQUELIN referred to the, statements of Sir
Ronsar FEEL -.and Lord Jour( RUSSELL relative to

, .
Morneen,!and-tisked -for some explanations on a shb-
.
jc,et So intimately connected with' the honour andiin-
terests of France.. The.,answers! of M. GuizorvOere
Very•satisfaCtOmiy,;.: and they explain the intentions
the 'French Goveimment, both towards the Ern.pez
Tor. of Moithcco and Ano-SL7KADER; we subjoin
here the Main points of his speech , :7 -
' There • was nOthing in the conduct 'or . intentions 'of the
'Goterninetie that he was .not quite'-ready to explain. :No
national .cause of. War existed between. France and Moro,cco.
A-litranger--f,Abthel-dC.ader—had come and thrown- himself
between-the two bountries, and, when driven from the &ter-
ritory. of Algeria,, had/ established • himself on the frontiefs of.
Morocco,
,where he recruited his adherents from the popula-
tion .of thatcountry, persuading" them by his influence to
take part with him.. As soon as this, fact was apparent,
Francehad demanded the expulsion "6f Alid-el-Kider ;, but
the Emperor had been resisted in his endeavours by national
and religious fanaticism, and lie found himself unable to give
France satisfaction. A new circumstance, presented itself—
Abd- el-Kader raised a' question of territory, and it was as-
serted that the French territory ought to extend only:to the
Tafna. This was ,evidently an error; for, from time in:me-
' morial, the territory between the Tafna and the frontier of
Morocco had formed part of Algeria. This was so true, that
all the maps placed there the ,position of the camps.of the
Tarks, when they came to levy their tribute. In consequence,
the Government had maintained theright ofFrance. A.nother
' face then took place—under the influence of Abci-el-Rader, an
invasion'.of his partisans and of the Morocco people took place
into the French-territory. This temerity was energetically
repressed by the French Generals, and thisrepression afforded
them' an opportunity to give 'evident proofs of prudence, and
moderation. The lesson was as severe ad merited, but Ge-
neral Lainoricale and General Bedpan not wishing, without
the intervention oldie Goverunuent, to engage. France in a
war with Morocco,- stopped on the limits of that country.
The invasion having been repeated, Marshal Bugeaud had
thought it adviseahle to enter the Morocco territory, and had
diSpersed Abd-el-Kader's partisans,: and seized on Ouchda.
'ln this conjuncture, he gave the same-proof of wisdom as the
other generals 'had exhibited antecedently, and had with-
drawn after two days' occupation. • The King's Government
'had no design on Morocco—it had not any intention of en-
larging_ their territory in '.Africa, being well convinced that
the territory of Algeria was sufficient. The ChaMber Might
remember that ho was one of those who regarded the con-
quest and occupation of Algeria as an immense circumstance

Air the rutuFe welfh 4France; bitt still he thought it would
be madness to nourish ideas• of conquest and territorial
tig4raiiditenient, Wheii they still find Algeria to organise and
occupy them. All that Irance wanted troth th Eiritieter Of
Morocco was to keep peace with her; but, for that, it was
indispensable that Abd-el-Kader should not remain on the
frontier, always ready to light up war. What the Govern-
' ment had a right to demand, and was now demanding, from
the Emperor, vas the disbanding of the corps formed on the
frontier of .Morocco; this recal and punishment of the officers
who acted contrary to •hisorders. What they asked, besides,
was that Abd-el •Kader, if Morocco was still willing to give him
an asYrum, should be sent to the coasts of the Atlantic—that
he should,in fact,be treated by the Government of Morocco as
the French Government always acted towards foreign refugees.
Such wa& the policy of the Government relative to Morocco,
and such were theobjects which measures had been taken to ob-
tain satisfaction for. Morocco would be given clearly to un-
derstand that the present state of her relations with France
cannot continue. All the necessary measures had been taken
by sea and by land to arrive at that result ; reinforcements
had been or should be sent to Marshal Bugead ; naval forces
had been placed under the command of one of the Princes ;
and he did not hesitate to declare, to the honour of that
Prince, that the Cabinet had recommended that choice to his
Majesty, having full confidence that in this circumstance the
Prince would display, . as much prudence as valour. Without
this double conviction the Cabinet would not have given that
recommendation to the King. They well knew the respon-
sibility of confiding to a Prince a command in the army or
navy, they knew that they had to assume the responsibility
of the persons so employed. But in this circumstance they
felt that their political instructions would be as exactly ob-
served as those relative to the fleet, and on that account they
had confided to the Noble Prince the mission in question.
The instructions given were in conformity with what he had
just stated to the Chamber. There was nothing secret in
them—nothing that could not be avowed to their allies and
to the Chamber. Without any doubt, England had a right
to watch that none of her interests were compromised in this
affair. The French Government had informed her of their
general intentions, telling the whole truth, and proving that
they had no other object than to obtain justice. Such were
the precise facts, as they related to the political intentions of
the Government, to the instructions given to the Prince de
Joinville, and to their intercourse with England respecting
the affairs of Morocco."
These sentiments were loudly cheered, and the
Chamber immediately proceeded to the order of the
day—the budget of the war department—which was
adopted without a division. The sum of 20,000,000
francs was voted for the fortifications of Paris. In
the Chamber of Peers the absurd clause introduced
into the Orleans and Bordeaux Railway Bill, for-
bidding Members of Parliament to be administrators
or contractorsy was unanimously rejected.
The Journal des Debats gives the following story,
communicated by a correspondent at Akaroa, New
Zealand, dated January 28 :
" Probably before my letter arrives in France you will
have learnt that the Mahouris, a tribe of Zealanders, have
killed thirty English of this colony; but you perhaps will
not know that the bodies of these unfortunate men were
eaten. This is but too true. We had been out on a hunt-
ing party for a. week, when one evening we arrived among
the friendly tribe of the Terauparaa, or Mahouris, and
found them regaling themselves with human flesh. We all
conceived• that they were eating some captives or slaves of
their own nation. As 'I understand the language, I could
not resist expressing my indignation, and threatening them
with chastisement from the crew of the corvette. The savages
were alarmed, and endeavoured to appease me, by saying,
' They are hot men of Mahouri that we are eating, but some -•
Yea, yes,' for it is thus they call the English. They then
showed us the heads of their victims, and among them I re-
cognisid that of Captain Wakefield, one of the distinguished
inhabitants-of Port Nicholas, who had entertained us at his
own house, when we went to the town to procure provisions.
I was seized with horror at this sight. My companions
blamed me for having risked irritating the cannibals, as we
were only five against two hundred. But they gave us con -
fidence by saying, Oh, the Oui, oui (for so the:3, distinguish
us) are good people, but the Yes, yes are very wicked.' They
then related that they had killed the English because they
wished to' establish themselves in a bay which they had not
purchased, and which the Mahouris are unwilling to give up.
We then retired with our hearts full of horror and disgust.'
THE BOURSE—SATURDAY, JULY 6.

First Highest Lowest Last
Price. Price. Price. Price._
French Five perCsnts...... 122 20 .• 122 20 .. 122 15 .. 122 15
Tour-and-a-Half...• 113 25 •• 113 25 .• 113 25 .. 113 25
Pour per Cents. ..... 108 .. 108 • • 106 • • 108
Three per Cents••••• 8"1 85 . • 81 90 81 65 .• 81 90
Bank et France. ... .......3015 ..3017.50 •• 3015 .4017 50
Lanitte Bank, I,ooof. Sharesll2o .. 1120 . • 1120 ..1120
b,ooof. SharessoBo' ..5080 ..5080 ..5080
Belgian Fi vee,11803410: ....
...... 11001 .. 1031 .. lon .. 103
Belgian. Bank-- ...... 575 .. 680 •• 675 .. 680
.. 1051 .. 1051 .. 1051
' 1842 ........ logi .. 1081 •• 1081 .. 1081
Spanish Threes, ex div. 33} .. an •. 331 .. 331
Neapolitin•••••••••••• . .. 91 90 .. 99 05 .. 91 90 .. 99
Boman ... ;.• . • ... ••• .. 104} .. 1041 •• 1041 .. 1041
RAILWAY SHARES.
Versailles; R•B•• •• • • • • •• • • 380 .• 382 50 • • 360 .. 382 50
L.B• • •• •• •• • • •• 247 SO • • 2bo •• 247 50 .. 247 50
Rotten ............ a. :.....1000 —lOOO ..1000 ..1000
Rouen to Haire..........., 767 50 .. 767 80 .. 767 50 .. 767 50
Orleans ••••-•• .• •. • ....... 997 50 .. 997 .. 995 .. 995
e Strasburg to-8aie...........
240 240 .. 240 .. 240
Avignon to Marseilles— —•• 766 25 .. 766 25 •• 766 25 • 766 25
24882 7 505
'..
6- RAILWAY 'SHARPS FOR THE ACCOUNT, 15TH JULY.
e Versailles,
11L..1313::......................
238502 50 .... 328502 10 ..
.. 3....
285802 50
Rouen• . . 1000 —lOOO .. 997 50 .. 997 50
Rouen to Havre......:.."... 767 50 768 75 .. 763 75 .. 763 75
Orleans
Strasburg to Bale-- •• .. 940 •• 240 .. 238 75 .. 238 75
Avignon to'llarsellies— •• •• 768 76 768 75 .. 768 75 • • 768 75
1

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

A Cabinet Council was held this afternoon at the
Foreign-office, Downing-street, the summonses for
which were issued on Saturday. All the Ministers
were expected to be present.
THIS LATE ATTEMPTED MURDER.—The unfor-
le
tunate Mr. Smith, who was on Saturday so severely
a wounded by a pistol ball fired by the lion. William
n Tuchet, has gone on, up to one o'clock this
t day, rather favourably, certainly without the
:o manifestation of any unfavourable symptoms yet.
e The bill has not been at; present extracted, in con-
it sequence of its being lodged too near the spine ; he
cannot be pronounced out of danger.

THE STATE TRIALS.

(FOURTH DAY.)

WRIT OP Eluton,

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAV.)

THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
Their Lordships met this morning at ten o'clock, when
Mr.. KELLY resumed lia_arguments for the plaintiffs.
The Learned Counsel said—ln resuming his argument
he had now to Submit to their Lordships upon thii
writ of error, that upon an indictment for several diffe-
rent and distinct misdemeanours, if one count in the
indictment were bad the judgment must be reversed,
and that the Opposite proposition which must be con-
tended for by the Crown, that on a writ of error for
several misdemeanours, with one judgment and one
• sentence, if one count were good the judgment must be
affirmed, was unsound in law, unreasonable, and unjust ;
because it must in such cases, at least in many cases of
such a character, be a presumption contrary to the
:kifoiiiiiiiith,-O-p-Posedlei all legal principles, and wholly
unsupported by authority. It was a doctrine of which
some loose and vague notions might have entered into
and prevailed in the minds of even the most learned
jedges, by reason of the doctrine being sound and right
as applied to motions in arrest of judgment in criminal
cases ; but when the rule came to be applied to the case
of writs of error, it was found in reason and justice al-
together inapplicable, and -it would lead, in a
variety of cases, which might be imagined, to
the most - frightful degree of injustice. It
would be • found to amount to this, that if, in a
civil case, coining before the Court of Error, where there
was one judgment upon several counts of a general cha-
racter, the court were reasonably satisfied that with
respect to one of the bad counts the jury could not add
one shilling to the damages, yet, as it was not their pro-
vince to assess the damages, if one count were bad the
whole judgment must be reversed and the venire de tovo
entered. In a case precisely the same in principle,
where there was one judgment for several different and
distinct misdemeanors, where the court must feel satisfied,
in point of fact, that one general sentence might have
been pronounced in respect of those several misde-
meanors, they having no power by law to apportion or
divide or modify the sentence, nevertheless that which
in a civil case they would be bound to do with reference
to damages they could not do in a criminal case, though
satisfied that the parties before them are suffering punish-
ment for several offences, of all but one of which they
had been illegally convicted. This was a proposition so
strikingly unjust and unreasonable in itself, that he felt
satisfied that when he should have called their Lord-
ships' attention to the consequences which in a great
many cases must result if this were declared by their
tOrdships' House to be law, and when he should have
.shown that there was no authority whatsoever to be
found in'support of such a proposition, he felt confident
that their Lordships would not in that case for
the first time establish a doctrine which, though
perfectly sound and reasonable and just when applied to,
motions in arrest of judgment in criminal cases, would
be unreasonable, unjust, and contrary to every principle
of their law, if applied to cases of conviction for several
misdemeanours. It was only necessary to look prac.•
tically at what actually happened, and what might
happen again upon an indictment for several
-different---misderaeanours -all included in the several
counts of one indictnient to see the impassibility-
of applying this principle, which arose in motions in
arrest of judgment to cases of writs of error, after con-
viction, without at once reversing and overturning every
principle of law, and what was perhaps of far more
importance every principle of natural justice, he would
submit one or two cases that might be applied as tests
to the soundness of this proposition. First, how-
ever, let it be considered • what was the actual
practice ; whether it was in fact the practice to indict
several persons under one indictment for several misde-
meanours, and . if these persons were convicted not of
one, but really of several misdemeanours, committed in
succession, whether it must not be the practice in all
criminal courts to impose a much severer punishment on
those-eonvieted-efeeveral-offences, than if they had been
convicted only of one? And this was especially necetsary
in cases of political conspiracy. If the case were of
some one misdemeanour which was undoubtedly felo-
nious—although, if strictly examined, the legal principle
of the proposition could not be maintained even in a case
of fabg—still, they found that it was the practice. to
indict "the same persons in a prosecution for several mis-
demeanours, and if a person were convicted of one mis-
demeanour only punishment would be light and venial.
If two or mere successive and different misdemeanours
were Proved, then the punishment would be proportion-
ately aggravated. Where persons were guilty of three
misdemeanours of different characters and degrees, and
there was one offence of a very insignificant character,
but.the sentence -in respect of the whole-of the offences
was -very heavy and severe, yet if ,the court of error
found the party Illegally convicted of the graver of-
fences, but lawfully convicted of the lighter one,
it would commit a perversion and misapplication of
a sound legal principle; if it did not reverse that
judgment. Would their Lordships affirm that
under the law of this country a heavy punishment
and a. heavy sentence might be imposed upon persons
illegally convicted of those offences in which a heavy
punishment was awarded ? In troubling their Lordships
with some illustrations of 'this principle, he would refer
to two or three cases by 'no means imaginary, or beyond,
the. bounds of possibility; by which they would not' only
see enough' to prove that the doctrine would be produc-
tive of most grievous injustice, but would give rise to a
system of absurdity and falsehood in the very judges,
the high ministers of justice themselves, if they hap-
pened to' sit as judges in a court of error in a prosecution
of this kind. Take the simple case of a nnmber of per-
sons indicted fOr two conspiracies. Two men, needy
and hungry, may agree to go into the next baker's shop
and steal a loaf to satisfy the.cravings of their appetites.
That is a-conspiracy to comniit a felony, and they might
be indicted for it. But the, same persons next day may
have conspired to break open a house by night, and rob
and murder the inhabitants. They would be indicted
under one indictment, on,two counts for these two several
conspiracies. They may be convicted, and a motion May
be made in the court. Where they were tried in arrest of
judgment. It might be argued that both the counts were
bad, and.the court might be of opinion that they were both
good, and proceed to passisentence upon them. Were they
to suppose ; that any court,in .this country would pass
exactly the same sentence on the
.two poor and hungry
Men ivho:took a loaf from the biker's shop, as they would
on those convicted of a conspiracy to break open a house
and rob and murder? It would be. 'an insult to any in-
dividual of ordinary judgment, to entertain such a Iwo-
'position: :Imone case there would be the mosflement
sentence which the lawpermitted, while the very heaviest
that could-be Passed would be inflicted on the other. If
judgment'were passed for the severest sentence,. and a
writ of error- was brought-,before this House, and this
Rouse _should . hold that the, count charging the conspi-
ritcy,to rob and murder was bad in' law, and could not
he maintainedi, but that the count for the conspiracy to
take the loaf wasa good one, upon the .dOctrine contended
ter "by-the ,Crown -this high Court of Error must.affirm
that.judginent, by sending the parties back to the prison
from whence they came, and must inflict.upon them the
severest sentence which- the law allowed, though every
member of the court shOtild feel that the parties were
illegally convicted of the only crime in respect to which
such a sentence could be passed,
,while the days' or
weeks' imprisOntnent they might have suffered under
their sentence might be an ample punishment for the
offence of which they had been legally convicted ; yet
•they were to be told by the law officers of the Crown,
that in such as that the subject was without remedy.
Lord CAMPBELL said, looking to what was merely
possible, there might be two counts in the indictment,
and the Court below might think the bad count a good
one, and the good count a bad one, and might give
sentence on the bad count;„if it then came to a court of
error would thatjudgment be Supported ?
Mr. KELLY said he was about to put that case, and
Under circumstances which would startle every one if it
pouldbeapplied for a moment. He was not suggestingim-
possible or even improbable cases ; 'let them look back
but for-a few years to the history- of their own times, and
see'if cases had not actually, occurred which parties
had been indicted for a great 'many misdemeanours of
such- varied character that a conviction on one might be
followed by a fine of a shilling, sand a conviction on all
by the heaviest sentence the Court could pronounce.
They were here on a case of political conspiracy charged
against a number of persons having one ultimate object,
which was in itself perfectly lawful, it being to effect a
change in a particular Act of Parliament. The
qnestion was the character of the means they
agreed on to effect that object. He would
not illustrate the case by anything that ,had •oc-
curred in this very cause, because he would rather re-
frain from going out• of the record. But I let
their Lordships look back to what had occurred twci or'
three years -since when- a contest raged throughout this
country for the purpose of obtaining what was denotni-
nated—the People's Charter, when it was desired to
obtain what was called the. ,fiie.pointa -of the Charter.
How different he would ask were the means resorted to
to oGtain that object? The prosecution.: of Mr. ,Fergus
O'Connor, who was tried before ,Mr. Baron Rolfe, ,Torus
as many different degrees,of guilt as it was pos-
sible to conceive. The collecting of persons in public-
housesi•up to the proceedings of Frost and his associates
to commit murder and treason. Now if that proceeding
had taken place in the North' of England instead of
Wales,,according to the principlei laid dOwn on the other
side, they.must have been tried altogether. There must
then have been a 'conviction upon several counts for
severs° mi4.esi;gr-mrs...L.Was_ he driven to ask the
question whether upon an indictment like that where a
trivial offence' was charged in the first count, andlthe
other counts increasing the offence in a mostmaterial:de-
gree—increasine• till it came to murder—was it to be said
that they,were LI to be found guilty on the last count,
whereas some-of them would only have been guilty of
theieffenee charged in the first count? Supposing that
the Court 'of Queen's Bench, on the case coming before
there, had held that 'the ten counts were good in law,
could any one doubt that the Court would pass a severer
sentence for 'the offences contained in the ten counts,
tliati if the COurt had held that the nine bountli,were
bad, and, the first only good? He would suppose that
nine counts were bad.. Had the subject his Writ of error,
or was he altogether without remedy ? here were men
suffering the severest sentence of the law—they are ad-
Vised that they were illegally convicted;, yet' the law
affords them no redress—they bring- a writ of erronin
that' House, and upon that writ of error the Lord Chief
Justice of England, who. should have heard the argu-
ments, and come to the conclusion that the counts were
good, and had participated in the judgment on the par-
ties, on the ground that they had been guilty of ten
crimes instead of one et that Noble Lord could sit in
that House on a writ'of error from his own judgment.
Then, upon the writ of error in that House, the vali-
dity-of the Whole ,ten counts, is argued, and upon re-con•
sideration the Lord Chief Justice, and the other mem-

hers df the Queen's Ifench, may be of opinion that
their former judgment was incotrect. Their Lordships
might be also of blaiiiion that nine of the counts were
bad, and that consettuenilk the parties before the House
had been illegally convicted at nine grave chargesi while
in fact- they had only been guilty, tif one very Minor'
efreffeer- In what situation; he would ask, •tirO`e iheit
Lordshilesi if the lave was what was contended for on the
other side ? Was lie to lie told that theparties might
apply for a free pardon Why was a Court of Error
allowed in that House, but for the purpose of correcting
the errors of other tribunals ? In political conspiracies,
where hundreds of men joined together to effect a certain
object—the repeal of an Act of Parliament, or so on—.
some might attempt to effect that object by lawful means,
others might attempt to effect it by unlawful means, and
others by the most criminal means. They would then
be led to this conclusion, that in prosecutions of this
nature, where parties suffering the sentence of the court
had been illegally 'convicted of a greater offence, but had
been legally convicted of a minor offence, the Court of
Error must lay aside every principle of justice, and
affirm the sentence, because it must assume that
that sentence had been passed for that for
which, in fact, it had never been passed. The
injustice and the absurdity of such a course of pro-
ceeding must be manifests But he would suppose ano-
ther case, not a case of political conspiracy. Suppose a
man indicted at-the court of quarter session for two
libels, the first altogether a libel in law, yet one of so
trivial a nature, that if it had stood alone no one would
have thought of prOsecuting it ; the other an accusation
of some horrible offence, such as incest. Suppose him to
be tried, convicted, and sentenced. He moves an arrest
Of judgment on the ground that the count charging the
graver libel is bad in law. The Court holds that both
are good, and as they would only have passed a lenient
sentence on the first count they do their duty. and
pass a heavy sentence, because he has- been convicted
upon both. The case is brought by writ of error before
the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's
bench held that the first count is bad and the second
good, then this doctrine of presumption would prevail
and the Court would refuse to reverse the judgment, be-
cause they would say that it was to be presumed that the
Court below had passed sentence for the offence which
was well laid, and for no other. The Court, therefore,
would affirm the judgment in accordance with this doc-
trine of presumption. A writ of error would then be
brought before that House, and both counts are again
argued. Their Lordships, including the Lord Chief
Justice, who had heard the case, argued before, and also
the other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, who
had joined in that decision, are of opinion upon graver
deliberation, that the Queen's Bench was wrong, that
the second count was bad, and the first good, it would
be the duty of the court of error to reverse the judg-
nient. But if this doctrine of presumption were to pre-
vail they must affirm it, and they would have this ab-
surdity—the Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the
judgment; because they presumed that the court had
passed judgment only on the second count which they
considered good, and. the House of Lords affirmed it,
because they considered - that rentence had been
passed not on the second count which they considered
bad, but on.the first, and the unhappy defendant who
was thus passed from court to court, having expressly
heard the judge say, " You have this sentence passed
upon you because you have been convicted of two
offences," would be told by the first court of error "You
arepunished for one offence only," and when 'be came
to that House he would also be told that he was pu-
nished only for one offence, but that offence a different
one from that which he had been told he was punished
for by the. Court of Queen's Bench. What a spectacle
would thus be presented before the enlightened people
of this country, who are so justly proud of their laws
and institutions, and who looked up with such respect
to their Lordships' House, as the purest, most just, and
most independent tribunal in the world. This defendant
might see seated' in that House the chairman of the
quarter sessions who had sentenced him, the' Lord Chief
Justice, before whom the writ of error had been first
brought ; and when he had proved to the satis-
faction of their Lordships, that he was suffering
a grievous sentence for two offences, with respect to one
of which he had been illegally convicted, he could not
appeal to the Noble-Lord who had sentenced him, and
who -told him that he had been sentenced upon two
counts-i÷he :Could not appeal to the chief Jtestice of the
Queen's_ Bench, who told him that he was suffering the
punishment-for the graver offence ; but that House, act-
ing upon this doctrinesaf presumption, told him that he
was suffering, and must suffer this heavy punishment for
that other offence, of which, if he had been alone con-
victed in the first place, he would not have suffered one-
half of the imprisonment which he had suffered before
claming to that Muse. And if, after that 'decision, those
who for the future framed indictments for conspiracy
were not more careful, these cases would be of constant
occurrence. Was it possible that their-Lordships, sitting
as a Court of Error, when they found that a person had
been convicted illegally of nine out of ten offences, and
had been sentenced to an imprisonment for years, and
a fine amounting to half his fortune, not for the offence
of which he had- been legally convicted, but of that of
which be had been illegally convicted—were their
Lordships bound by this principle of presumptive act, so
contrary to truth and justice, as to say "You must suffer
this punishment, and you must pay this fine, although if
you had been brought up for judgment for the offence
of which you had been legally convicted, you would
have had' no such punishment inflicted upon you." If
they felt themselves compelled to • affirm this doctrine—
if there was an. Act of Parliament which gave them nu
discretion— if there was a solemn decision of that House
on the point OR a writ of error, undoubtedly their Lord-
ships must be bound by that decision; and the defend-
ants must submit. But he trusted if such were the case,
that even the short remainder of the session would not
be allowed to pass away without -the -introduction of a
Bill to alter the law. But there was no authority—no
Act of Parliament—no decision of that house, or
of a court of law, laying down that a -writ of error
brought up on several misdemeartors,-if there were one
good count that would be sufficient, :and_ the sentence
would be affirmed. If there were such, it ,had eluded
the search` of himself and friends. In cases in which
motions were made in arrest of judgment in civil actions,
where general damages had been given, .the court was
compelled to arrest the judgment if one count was bad.
As in a civil case it was impossible for the court to say
how much the damages'the jury awarded upon the count
which was bad, and. how much -upon that which was,
good, the court would reverse the judgment altogether,
and send hack the case -to another_ jury, that they might
apportion the damages•' and their Lordships would find
that this principle of law, which was perfectly sound
when applied 'to civil cases was equally' applicable
to criminal cases for several offences with one sen-
tence upon a writ of error. • In- civil cases the
court could not determine how much of the
sum the jury awarded upon a:count that was bad,
where there was-a conviction for two misdemeanors with
one sentence for two years' imprisonment, and a fine of
2,0001., the Court of Error had no power to determine
how much of the two years' imprisonment the Court
below awarded upon =the count that was bad, and how
much upon the count that was good, -nor- how much of
the fine was awarded on the bad count,- nor how much on
the good count. The- punishment was discretionary, and
it might be that upon the count which was good a pu-
nishment of a month's imprisonment, and -a fine of 1001.
might be awarded, whilst upon the other count that was
bad, a punishment of twenty-three months' imprisonment
and a fine of 1,900 L might have been awarded, and the
Court not only had no power to determine in what pro-
portions the punishment was awarded, but they had no
power to apportion it themselves; because they did not
sit there for that purpose, and, therefore,
_upon a writ of
error for several misdemeanors, where one discretionary
sentence was imposed, the Court-of Error was precisely
in the same situation as either the Court below, or the
Court of Error above, in the -case of a verdict by a
jury on several counts. giving one sum as damages, and
therefore the Court had no power- except "to reverse
the judgment altogether. In the cases to which be had
referred, the cases for example of " Peaker v. Oldham,"
and " Grant v. Aschare," the judges-reversed the judg-
ment in toto,,because they declared themselves unable to
apportion the damages, and therefore the cases were
sent back for another trial. But the -judges were found
to have made some such observations` as those—" but it
was otherwise in criminal cases, because,"iand he prayed
their Lerdships to attend to the reason given, because it
would determine the principle on which they acted—
" because," they said, " the court:there could apportion
judgment—the court there could pronounce what it
thought fit, if there was one'good count in the indict-
ment: Lord Mansfield said, "We must reverse the
judgment altogether, because we. cannot apportion the
damages, which would be to assume the -functions of a
jury; but it is otherwise in a criminal case, if we find
even one good count; and why, Because We aro the jury
there, and we impose the punishment. Provided there
be one good count in the indictment we need not reverse
the judgment, because we have if in our power to award
punishment, and we will award it according to what is
just and right, on one count, provided it be good." They
found the judges-,using such expressions where the
general principle of, the law was adverted to, and no
doubt it was perfectly sound doctrine upon motion on
arrest of„ judgment, for there -the -court had it in its
power to apportion the punishment Recording as the
counts were good or bad; but upon a writ of error
the Court -of Error was in - a different situation.
If their LOrdships, in all cases' where there had been a
prosecution for misdemeanour, though there might be a
hundred counts, were in a situation to say that although
there was a general count the party -had been convicted
of hilt one offence, then the doctrine applied as well, in
point of reason and justice, to writs of error as to motions
in arrest. The court of error might say, -" Although we
know this, all these are charged 'as several offences, yet,
by universal and invariable practice, a party cannot be
convicted of more than one offence -; therefore, we will
not, upon the substantial justice of the case, and, although
the offences are laid as several, in point of form, yet, as
we know there can be but one -offence in point of sub-
stance and truth, we will not refuse judgment if we find
one count good and valid in law:" But the fact or truth
of the case was otherwiSe, and rendered the doctrine
altogether inapplicble to writs of error. It was custo-
mary in all kinds of criminal proceedings for misdemea-
nour ; but in cases of conspiracy it Was usual to include
two, three, or more, of the distinct and several
offences in one indictment One of their Lordships,
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, would remember a very im-
patent case which had been tried before them within
the Her'Week. In that ease,-though there was a great-
multiplicity of counts, three perfectly distinct coriepira-
cies were charged under one indictment.- One was a
conspiracy to defraud a man of property by procuring a
foreign legislature to pass.' an Act to annul a con-
tract ; another was to turn a man out property of which
Ahe was lessee, and which, if ever it existed; could not
have been formed till two years after the first was com-
plete ; the third was to destroy a man's credit as a neer-
,chailt; Now, if it had happened that, instead of the
charges being groUndleas they hail,heenssiell pjoverd,'f-
there would have been a conviction on the whole ,