The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-30 00:00:00

:ors :

" The period having arrived, when, in conformity
with the terms of the deed of settlement, the half-
yearly general meeting of the Proprietors is appointed
to be held, the Directors have much pleasure in meet-
ing you to submit their report on the state of the
concern, and to declare a dividend out of the profits
for the half-year ending 31st March, 1844.
"The PrOprietors are generally aware that the.deed
of the Company regulates that the statement of
accounts is to be made annually only, an arrange-
ment consequent upon part of the operations of the
Company being carried on at such distant points as
to create a considerable difficulty in procuring, with
accuracy, sufficiently detailed information to enable
the Directors to submit half-yearly statements to the
Proprietors. The Directors are, however, enabled to
state that the receipts for the past half-year have con-
tinued steadily to increase with the extended opera-
tions of the Company, and have been sufficient to
enable them, not only to meet every arrangement of
the Company affecting the trading profits, but also to
provide, by anticipation, for tl-•;?, repairs of the Com-
paps:k_vessc, pulAte.recommend ilie:up):01 dividend
of 3i Per centefor the six months ending 81st March

last
" The Company's vessels are insured for 292,0001.,
and one half-year's premium thereon has been appro-
priated out of the profits of the last half-year.
" The undivided profits of the concern will amount
to about 581., after providing 18,0001. for the divi-
dend now recommended, and also reserving 8,0001.
for anticipated repairs.
" The Directors are enabled to state that the Com-
pany's vessels are in a satisfactory condition, and effi-
cient for the respective services in which they are en-
gaged ;—by continuing to act upon the principle,
when the vessels are under periodical repair of the
hulls and machinery, of adopting every improvement
which has stood the test of experience, which the Di-
rectors consider the wisest economy in the end, they
expect that the establishment of the Company afloat
will continue to give to the Government the same
satisfaction in the performance of the Mail Service
which has hitherto obtained for it the approval of this
high authority.
"In the last report made to the Proprietors, 29th
Nov., 1843, the Directors communicated to them
that they had tendered to her Majesty's Government,
and the East India Company, for an improved plan of
operation in the Indian Seas, in order to expedite the
conveyance of the mails and public dispatches. A
lengthened negotiation has since been carried on by
the Managing Directors on this subject, and it is still
under the consideration of her Majesty's Government
and the Court of Directors of the Honourable East
India Company. -
" It is understood that her Majesty's Government
have it in contemplation, not only to increase the
facilities of mail communication by the establshment
under contract of a monthly line to and from Madras,
Ceylon, and Calcutta, but also that other extensions
will ultimately be adopted by the Government in the
Eastern Hemisphere.
" The arrangements alluded to are calculated to be
beneficial to this establishment, and the Directors
have reason to hope that the Company's vessels will
be employed under contract by her Majesty's Go-
vernment for the contemplated service.
" In order that the Directors should be in a posi-
tion to give an unquestionable pledge on behalf of the
Company, of their ability to carry out the services
referred to, or any portion of them, with satisfaction
to her Majesty's Government and the East India
Company, they recommended an issue to the Pro-
prietors in England and Ireland, of 3,000 Scrip Cer-
titficates, to represent 3,000 Shares, of 401. each, being
an additional subscription of 150,0001. The Pro-
prietors responded to this call by applying for 5,671
Shares, representing 283,5501. but it not having been
considered necessary to extend the issue of Shares
beyond the number proposed in their circular of the
20th February, 1844, namely 3,000, the Directors
were obliged to decline receiving the additional sub-
scriptions thus tendered.
" One thousand Scrip Certificates for the same ob-
ject were also appropriated for such of
,the Proprie-
tors in India as might desire to avail of the privi-
lege of subscribing at par for the proposed additional
capital ; but the result cannot be known until the ar-
rival of the July mail.
With the view of providing the additional vessels
which this contemplated extension of, the Company's
operations will call for, the Directors considered it de-
sirable to treat for the purchase of the ." Precursor"
steam-ship, of 1,800 tons, and 520 horse power, which
vessel has been purchased, subject to the examination
and approval of the Surveyors of the Admiralty, and
other competent parties, as to her hull and machinery.
" The well-known steam-ship the " Great
Western," of 1,320 tons, N. M., and 400 horses'
power, being also offered for sale, the Directors
thought it advisable to purchase that vessel, as she
was offered on moderate terms, completely refitted
with new boilers, &c. &c. This vessel will undergo
the same rigid examination of the hull and michinery,
and when approved of as efficient for the mail contract
service, will become the property of this Company.
" It having been intimated to the agent of this
Company in Egypt that, in the event of proper fa-
cilities being provided by the Directors for the con-
veyance of her Majesty's mails and dispatches on the
Nile, this service would be transferred to the Com-
pany ; no time was lost in contracting for a very
superior iron steam-vessel for the purpose referred to,
and it is expected she will be sent out in the course of
next Autumn ; this measure was the more called for,
as, in addition to the foregoing reason, the extension
of the passengers' intercourse between England and
India demanded an increase of facilities for the river
Nile transit, the existing means being insufficient for
the purpose.
"Several complaints, some of them well founded,
have reached the Directors, from Indian passengers,
who have expressed theniselves dissatisfied with the
arrangement of the Egyptian Transit Company,' for
travellers. The managers of that Company, who have
the exclusive charge of the transit across the desert,
have promised to remedy the evils complained of, and
there is reason to believe they are proceeding to do so
satisfactorily ; the Directors are, however, determined
not to relax their exertions in endeavouring to obtain
better arrangements for the convenience of the public
on this portion of the route to India, than have hi-
therto been provided for them.
"The Directors cannot conclude without stating an,
additional circumstance calculated to increase the
confidence of the Proprietor's in the undertaking,
namely, that they have lately been enabled to reduce
the rates of insurance on the Company's floating pro-
perty in Europe, from 61. to five guineas per cent.
" The points now submitted to the Proprietors
embrace the principal objects of interest connected
with the Company's operations for the last half-year,
and the Directors hope that the feeling of gratifica-
tion which they experience in being enabled to make
this satisfactory report will be participated in by the
Proprietory at large.
" By order of the Court of Directors,
" JAMES ALLAN, Secretary."
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously car-
ried—
"lst. That the Report:now read be received,
adopted, and circulated amongst the Proprietors.
" 2d. That a dividend of 3f per cent. for the six
months ending 3d March,. 1844, recommended in the
Report now read, be payable on and after the 20th
June, 1844, between the hours of twelve and three
o'clock on each day, to such Proprietors as are duly
qualified to receive the same.
A vote of thanks and confidence was then moved
to the Chairman and Directors, which was carried
unanimously, and the meeting adjourned.

COURT or BANKRUPTCY.—We are given to under-
stand, from undoubted authority, that Mr. Sergeant Goul-
burn, from Exeter, succeeds the late Mr. Merivale in Lon-
don; and that Mr. Bere proceeds from Leeds to Exeter; and
that Mr. Sergeant Lawes (the Chief Registrar in London)
goes to Leeds.
DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT ISLlNGTON.—Yesterday
morning, at a few minutes before two o'clock, a fire of a very
alarming nature broke out in the premises belonging to Mr.
Callaway, grocer and tea-dealer, carrying on business at No.
44, Hedge-row, Islington green. An instant alarm was raised,
which brought a number of the N division of police to the
spot, who, after considerable difficulty, succeeded in arousing
the whole of the inmates (six in number), but so rapid had been
the progress of the fire in the interim, that all escape by the
lower portion of the premises was cut off. After some time
the residents were taken out of the back of the building, and
thereby escaped a horrible death. A copious supply of water
was instantly procured, and by dint of great exertions the
flames were entirely extinguished by half- past two o'clock,
not, however, until the building, together with the stock in
trade and furniture was, for the most part, consumed. For-
tunately, Mr. Callaway's loss is covered by an insurance in
the Sun fire-office. The origin of the fire could not be learned.

DUBLIN' MAY 27.—Their Lordships having fixed this
morning for hearing the arguments of counsel retained by
the traversers on the motion in arrest of judgment, the Court
I resented a crowded appearance. At half-past ten o'clock
Judge Crampton took his seat on the bench, and proceeded to
Lear a few short motions of course. The other judges came
into Court shortly afterwards.
The CHIEF JUSTICE intimated to the Counsel for the tra-
versers that the Court did not intend permitting the motion
in arrest of judgment to be argued by more than twa coun-
sel, the Crown to have the privilege of an equal number of
advocates.
Sir C. O'Loomor stated that he had received instructions
to make the motion on behalf of Mr. O'Connell only.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The grounds of objection, as I un-
derstand them, are common t) all the traversers, and the
Court have resolved not to hear more than two counsel.
Mr. (MAGIAN said that in all probability he might wish
to address the Court on behalf of Mr. Duffy.
Mr. CLOSE observed that if the counsel who argued the
question omitted anything that he considered important, he
should certainly claim the right of being heard.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—We cannot stop the entire business
of the county. This case has already occupied the attention
of the Court too long. More than two counsel on behalf of
the traversers cannot, therefore, be re-heard.
Sir C. O'LoatinErt, Counsel for Mr. O'Connell, having
stated that if rightly informed by his senior Counsel, he con-
sidered each of the traversers were entitled to be heard by
counsel, proceeded with the motion. In this case it was in-
tended to rely upon two objections in arrest of judgment—
the first arising upon the caption, and the second arising
upon the indictment, or perhaps, more strictly speaking,
upon the proceedings of the jury. In-the-first place, he con-
tended that the caption was bad in form, and that judgment
should be arrested upon that ground ; and, in the second
place, that the traversers had not been found guilty of any
indictable offence, for that the parts of the indictment upon
which they have been found guilty are bad in point of law.
With respect to the point upon the caption, he did not in-
tend to dwell upon it at any length. The ground upon which
he said the caption was bad was of a technical nature. It
was stated in the caption that the indictment was found upon
the oath and affirmation of twelve good and lawful men, then
and there sworn, affirmed, and charged, and that it was
not stated who were sworn and who were affirmed. In the
case of the King v. Dan, Ist Moody's Crown Cases, a similar
case arose, and the Court held the indictment bad upon that
ground. The statute allowing Quakers to affirm in place of
taking oaths is the 3d and 4th William IV., cap. 49. • The
recent statute, 6th and 7th Victoria, cap. 85, sec. 3, only ap-
plies to cases where written documents are to be set out, or
where facts are to be stated. At all events it did not apply to
this case, for the Crown had adopted the old form, and having
adopted it, they were subjected to all the incidents attending
it. He would now come to the other objections. The indict-
ment contained eleven counts. The first count contained five
charges; the second count was the same as the first count,
omitting the overt acts; the third count was the same as the
second, omitting the words " unlawfully, maliciously, and
seditiously" before the words to meet and assemble ; the
fourth was the same as the third, omitting the third charge ;
the fifth was the same as the third, omitting the third,
fourth, and fifth charges ; the sixth, with the exception of
stating the intention of the traversers, was to obtain a repeal
of the Union; the eighth contained the fifth charge of the
third count; the ninth was the same as the eighth, omitting
however the intent, and inserting a new charge of usurping
the prerogative of the Crown. The teeth was the same as the
ninth, omitting the charge of the usurpation ; and the
eleventh was an entirely different count from all the rest.
His first objection was that the five first counts were bad
from duplicity. In support of this view he read from Ist
Chitty's Criminal Law, p. 227, where it was laid down that
in civil cases, and a fortiori in criminal cases, the pleadings
ought not to be double, as, if the contrary were the case, the
greatest possible embarrassment might arise. Crawhurn's
case, reported in the State Trials, vol. 'l3, p. 234, and the
King v. Carthew, also confirmed this view. In civil cases it
was the general rule that pleadings must not be double, and
the same rule applied to indictments ; so that though several
offences might be joined in the same indictment (provided
they were of the same nature), yet several offences could not
be joined in the same count. "The rules and principles of
pleading with respect to the structure of a declaration are
applicable to an indictment."-Ist Chitty Criminal Law, 167.
" An indictment must not be double, by which it is to be
understood that the defendant cannot be charged with having
committed two or more distinct offences in any one count of
the indictment ; for every count should be single, entire, and
confined to one single point of issue, and if a variety of issues
were to be understood, it would embarrass the defendant, the
jury, and the Court."-2 Gabbett, 234. " The defendant
must not be charged with having committed two or more
offences in any one count of the indictment ; for instance,
one count cannot charge a defendant with having committed
a murder, a robbery, or the like."—Archbold's Pl. p. 51 (Bth
edition.) "It is essential to the formal validity of an in-
strument, that it contains a direct, positive, single, and defi-
nite charge."—lst Starkie's Criminal Pleaaings, 242. And
the reason of this was obvious, as the prisoner would be
greatly embarrassed in his defence, if it was permitted to
multiply offences in a single count. If they be separate
counts, the Court could put the Crown to its election, if any
embarrassment was likely to be caused to a traverser by the
number of counts; but if the charges were in the same
count, the Court had no such 'power; and if two offences
might be charged in the same count, why might not thirty,
or fifty? Where was the limit to be drawn? Where it was
objected that the words, " the jurors of our Lord the King
further present," should be prefixed to every overt act, and in
the case of " the King v. Trobridge," Chief-Justice Holt said,
" As to the words Juratores ulterius prxsentant, that is never
proper when the treason is the same. I find, indeed, there
had been two distinct treasons, the one for compassing the
death of the King, and the other for levying war against
him. In that case they must bring in each by ulterius
prae-
sentant, because they are separate offences, though com-
prised in one bill, and they are in law two indictments. And
so it was in the case you mention of the cottages. It is one
offence to erect a cottage, and another offence to continue a
cottage so erected ; and they are to have several punish-
ments ; and because they joined them both together in one
count, that count was held to be nought ; for by law a count
for erecting a cottage ought to conclude contra formam sta-
tuti, and the jury ought to begin again, et ulterius prmsen-
tent quod, the cottage was continued against the form of the
statute, because they are several offences."—Crawburn's
case, 13 State Trial, 2 So
upon an information ainst a
ferryman for taking more than the usual rate from divers
persons for the passage of themselves and their cattle, Chief
Justice Holt said, " In every information a single offence
ought to be laid, because every extortion from every parti-
cular person is a separate and distinct offence, and, therefore,
they ought not to be accumulated under a general charge,
because each offence requires a separate and distinct punish-
ment, according to the quantity of the offence ; but-it is not
possible for the Court to proportion the fine and other
punishment to it, unless it is singly and certainly laid."—
King v. Roberts, Carthew 226. If a count be bad for du-
plicity the question then arises, does the final count charge
the defendant with one conspiracy or with several. The
final count charges the defendants with a conspiracy to do
five distinct acts, but does not refer them to any common
design. The Crown will say that the defendants, at the time I
they conspired, might have contemplated all the five acts and
objects stated in the count. Even if they had they would
still be in point of law five distinct conspiracies, and as such
should be charged in separate counts. For a conspiracy,
though it may have several immediate objects, can only have
one ultimate object. When more than one ultimate object is
entertained by conspirators there ceases to be a single con-
spiracy : there are, in point of fact, several conspiracies.
Thus at the same time parties may conspire to obtain by
false pretences the goods of A, with intent to cheat A, to
publish libels of B, with intent to injure B, and to threaten
to accuse C of a crime, with intent to extort money from C ;
but then they were several conspiracies, as the acts to be
done were various, and the objects to be accomplished widely
different; on the other hand, if the parties conspired to do
various acts with one common design, there was but one con-
spiracy, as though the acts were several, the design was com-
mon. In the present case the defendants were charged with
conspiracy to do a variety of acts, but these acts were not re-
ferred to any particular object, and not only was there an
absence, but there was also substantially a negation of any,
common design, as the intended result of the traversers con-
spiring, for in an indictment whatever is not affirmed must
be taken as not to exist. Moreover, the verdict showed that
there were at least three conspiracies charged in this count.
One which included all the traversers, one which included all
but Mr. Tierney, and one which included Mr. O'Connell, Mr.
Duffy, and Mr. Barrett alone ; for if there was but one con-
spiracy, all should be acquitted but O'Connell, Duffy, and
Barrett. It was quite true that a party might be convicted
of only a part of the charge laid in the indictment, though
the indictment consisted of a single count, and might be ac-
quitted of all the rest. But that was only when a charge
was in its nature divisible, and the authorities show a con-
spiracy is not divisible, and that a party to be convicted of
a conspiracy should be proved cognizant of all the ob-
jects of the conspiracy. " To support an indictment for a
conspiracy, you must prove that all the defendants were
cognisant of the object of the conspiracy • * 4'. A con-
trary doctrine would be extremely dangerous."—Lord El-
lenborough, King v. Pollman, 2d Campbell, 234. As, then,
some of the traversers had been found guilty
.of part of the
first count only, there should be several conspiracies charged
in it. The next case referred to in support of his proposition
was the Queen v. O'Connor, reported by a short-hand writer,
and revised by Sergeant Murphy as being strictly correct..
He then proceeded to contend that none of the counts in the
indictment disclosed any legal or indictable offence. He
cited the cases of the King v. Turner, 12th East, 228, and the
King v. Richardson, Ist Moody, wherein it was held and
ruled, that the commission of any unlawful act did not show
an agreement to do an indictable offence. Sir Colman then
went on to state that there should be a malum prohibitum
to justify an indictment. A conspiracy should be an agree-
ment to commit an indictable offence, and the indictment
must contain, or be a narrative of, the offence. An indict-
ment for a conspiracy must show, first, who are the parties
accused, and must aver that they have done something which
is an indictable offence.—Hawkins, 226, 227. If the object
stated be not indictable, then means which are indictable
must be stated.-7th Adolphus. The gist of conspiracy was
the crime, which should be either known by a certain tech-
nical name, and so described ; but if not known to the law,
should be set forth in the indictment by a great narrative
of all the facts forming and constituting the crime. After
tl
citing a variety of authorities, and arguing the point
with
great ability, the Learned Counsel contended that
repeal meetings were not illegal means of accomplishing
the traversers' intentions, even if the " intent" had been pro-
perly charged in the indictment, which he denied.. Be
jud -
sides, the charges were so vague and general, that g-
ment should not be passed. The pleader who had framed
the indictment should not have contented himself by merely
stating that the acts charged were unlawful, but he should
have set out all facts, in order to enable the jury and the
Court to form their opinion. He also cbjected that the
manner and means by which "discontent, excitement, dis-
affection, contempt, and opposition" was accomplished,
should have been stated; and also that it should have been
alleged in what such opposition consisted. With respect to
the count relating to the Arbitration Courts, he contended
that to the charge which it contained of bringing the law and
the administration of justice into disrepute, was not an il-

legal, and therefore not an indictable, offence. The courts of
justice might require reformation, and surely no one would
hold or assert that any number of persons deserved punish-
ment for endeavouring by agitation or otherwise to effect
that reformation. The Learned Counsel then went through
the remaining counts of the indictment, and in reference to
the last, which charged the traversers with intimidating the
Legislature, he contended that there was no precedent on re-
cord for such a proceeding. Threatening the House of Com-
mons was not an indictable offence at common law; it was
an offence punishable by the House, which could bring the
offender to the bar, and punish him summarily for breach of
privilege. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel arraigned the
indictment as unsound and unconstitutional, and as calculated
to carry the law of conspiracy even farther than it was ever
attempted by Lord Ellenborough, the highest prerogative
judge that ever sat en the English bench.
1!r. FITZGIBBON wished to know if their Lordships in-
tended to limit the number of counsel to two ?

The CHIEF JUSTICE (greatly excited)—Yes.
Mr. FrrzGinnoN—Well, then, my Lord, I contend that
every one of the eight traversers has a right to be heard by
counsel, and insist on showing the Court why the judgment
should be arrested.
The ArroaNET-GENERAL said, in the course of last week
be had asked Sir William_ Eollett, the
_Attorney-General for
England, what would, be the course there, and the answer he
received was, that only two counsel would be heard.
Mr. FITZGIBBON said, be had no ,doubt that Sir William
said so, but that did not make it law, or abrogate the right to
which the traversers were entitled.

The CHIEF Jusncvi—For my own part I am determined
to adhere to the rule. .

Judge PERRIN—The strict rule of the Court is against you.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON expressed himself to the same effect.
And the Court rose.
Mr. ArDonough will be heard on the same side in the
morning.

DUBLIN, TUESDAY EVENING.
The Judges having taken their seats at eleven o'clock,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and said—ln this case
it was not necessary for him to trespass upon their
Lordships at any great length; for, notwithstanding the
time occupied in the discussion •of that motion, the in-
genuity and the labour which was displayed in sup-
port of it—with great respect to his Learned Friend,
Sir Colman O'Loghlen—he might be allowed to say
that many of the propositions which had been.
laid down, the observations made, and the authori-
ties he cited, were, in his humble judgment, wholly
inapplicable to the motion before the Court. That
'was a motion for their Lordships to take the
strong step of arresting the judgment, upon the ground
that no indictable offence was declared upon the face
of the indictment. When that motion was first an-
nounced he owned he felt somewhat curious to know
what were the grounds upon which their Lordships
would be called upon to arrest the judgment, and he
was still more surprised at some of the arguments offered
in support of the motion. He did not mean to dispute
this proposition—that, looking at the indictment, if the
Court saw—notwithstanding the verdict of the jury—
that no crime had been committed, it would be not only
the right, but the duty of the Court, not to pronounce
judgment upon that record. Therefore he should not
not question the right of the parties as to the time of
making that motion. The two main grounds relied
upon were—first, the caption; and, secondly, the in-
dictment itself. With respect to the first, he thought
he should not be obliged to occupy much time in
disproving it. He did not think the Learned
'Counsel trusted very much to that ground, as
the only authority he cited in favour of it
was the "Queen v. Dan," in Moody's Crown Cases,
page 224. With respect to that case, what was said of
the Learned Judge on the subject was extra judicial ,• in
point of fact no such application was made to the Judge
as that anything should be set aside, or judgment stayed,
by reason of any objection as to the form of indictment;
but there was a plea autrefois acquit, on the reality of
which the Judge wished to consult his learned brethren.
He (the Solicitor-General) then read the decision of the
'Court in that case, which was to the effect that judg-
ment should be given upon the indictment. Now he
thought this was sufficient to dispose of the au-
thority of the Queen v. Dan ; it .really did not
mr ub
be
nef
ot
ut
nahnde
ductpahosene
ctoahnt all.
evioc at tohnN.
aenxTdt ,h
aewithffi rm indictment reatsi respect t
otfow
tta
shh
ee
si
janui ddri
oc
trt
os-
who tried the case, and their names were given; but the
question raised was, which of the jurors were sworn, or
which of them affirmed, or whether any of them were
sworn at all. He maintained that this was the proper
form of proceeding, according to the rules and practice
of the Court. Their Lordships would find in 9. Carring-
ton and Payne, page 78, at Worcester Assizes, shortly,
after the passing of the act authorising Quakers and Mo-
ravians to be affirmed, Josiah King was called.

CHIEF JUSTICE—What is the name of that case?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—It was not & case. This
circumstance occurred at the opening of the Worcester
Assizes. Josiah King was called upon the grand jury,
and he being one of the Society of Friends, or Quakers,
Baron Alderson directed that all indictments should
commence—" The jurors for our Lady the Queen upon
their oath and affirmation present and say" so and so—
the very form pursued in this case. He next referred to
" Dixon's Quarter Sessions,"page 179, in which the form
of an indictment where a Quaker or Moravian were on
the jury was set out, and in this instance they (the
Crown) had adopted that form in the composition of the
record—or rather the officer had adopted it in the record.
Judge PERRIN—There was a motion in Court on the
subject.
The .SOLICITOR-GENERAL--There was, and on that
motion it was declared that it was not necessary to name
the jurors in the caption. Their Lordships, in order to
receive the objection, must alter the rules and mode of
practice of Court. If it is to be received, they must
say which juror was sworn and which affirmed. The
regular form of the rules of the Court must be entirely
altered if their Lordships wanted to let in the objection.
It was never intended by the Legislature to have it
exactly stated on every record what the man was who
acted as a juror. To comply with this part of the motion
they should put upon the record who was a Quaker, or
Moravian—a thing never intended to be done. He next
came to the indictment itself, and he doubted not that
the objections would be found wholly untenable. Cer-
tainly the case had been argued with great ingenuity—
with great care and ability—and if any objection could
be found to the indictment, it would have been discovered
by the Learned Counsel who argued the case. The first
ground of objection was to the first count in the indict-
ment, and that was the ground. of duplicity. He (the
solicitor-General) did not dispute the proposition ad-
vanced, that two sevelial icrimes committed at different
times could not be included in a single count against two
individuals—they could not mix up a number ofchargesin
the same count, and to do this was what the Learned
Counsel called "duplicity." He did not question the
ofsound-
ness h
ttheism thatprop a countositiont laidighmusht
containdon,one but
chargehe
ai
shouldi
remind d
overt acts to prove it. He read an extract from Ist
Chitty on Criminal Law, page 169, which showed the
general rule. The passage was to the effect that one
count of an indictment could not mix up several
offences, but it might set forth one offence and several
overt acts to establish it. That opinion had been
followed by Lord Kenyon and Lord Ellenborongh,
and was considered the established practice of the
Court. If their Lordships received the objection made
on this point, they would be called upon to frame an
indictment which would entirely alter the rules of the
Court. Sir Colman O'Loghlen cited page 53 of Archbold's
Criminal Law, to show that an indictment could not be
double, and that a count could not contain two several
charges against two persons. This stood to reason; as
because each charge might bear a different punishment,
but in a further passage Archbold said that such an ob-
jection could not be a subject for arresting the judgment,
but might be used on an application for a writ of error.
That very authority Sir Colman O'Loghlen cited him-
self, but he omitted the latter passage. The Learned
Solicitor having replied to all the objections advanced
in support of the motion, concluded by expressing his
opinion that those objections were wholly untenable.
Mr. APDONOUGH next spoke in support of the motion,
and when he concluded, the Court adjourned until to-
morrow morning. "
The Attorney-General will close ,for the Crown to-
morrow morning. Should the Court refuse thimotion,
the sentence will not be passed, it
Thursday.
is thought, until

REPEAL ASSOCIATION.
The Association held the usual weekly meeting on Monday
at the Conciliation Hall.
It being generally understood that Mr. this would
would be
would in all proba-
bilityu be the last occasion onwhich
present previous to the passing of the sentence, the hall was
densely crowded. At one o'clock the Hon. Gentleman en-
tered, and was received with enthusiastic cheering. When
the applause had subsided, be
chair.
that Sir Samuel Brad-
street, Bart., should take the
The SECIMTARY then read the minutes of the last day's
proceedings. After some business had been gone through,
Air. O'CoNxer.i, again rose, and said he had to move that
an address to the people of Irelar4d, on the present position of
he public cause, be prepared for circulation against the pass-
Lig of the sentence. That sentence might, or might not be
carried into effect immediately. They intended appealing to the
House of Lords, and it was onlyjust that the execution should
be deferred until the result of that appeal was known. The
past, however, gave them little to hope from the leniency
of the Court of Queen's Bench.--(Hear, hear.) In any
event it was right that the people should be perfectly pre-
pared, and not be suffered to allow their feelings to over-
come their resolution to be peaceable. They would play the
game of the enemy by violating the Jaw—they should be
made to understand that, and, moreover, that nothing would
be more desirable to certain parties that an opportunity of
turning out the military and police on the unarmed people.
He was sure that tranquillity would be maintained. The
Catholic clergy had taken up the cause—they were the best
peace officers they could have.—(Cheers.) The magnificent
contributions which he had that day handed in were evidence
that they were heart and soul in the cause. The Hon. Gen-
tleman continued to address the meeting at considerable
length. He showed that Ireland was in a worse condition
row than at the time of the union—that the testimony of all
travellers was, that there was more destitution in Ireland (a
country so blessed by nature), than in any other on the face
of the earth, and attributed all the evils of Ireland to the
want of a domestic legislature. He again implored of the
people to maintain peace and tranquillity, and concluded by
saying that shortenmg his life was not the way to length en

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
It appears that Mr. Villiers has been trying for some weeks
to get a day for bringing on his motion on the corn-laws, and
has not yet succeeded. Up to this time two days in the
week, Tuesdays and Thursdays, have been allowed for
motions, but after next Thursday it has been arranged that
only Tuesday is to be so appropriated. Another arrange-
ment of the House prevents a Member from giving notice of
a motion for any motion-day later than the fourth after the
day on which the notice is given. Thus, while Tuesdays
and Thursdays were both open to Members, a notice could
be given for either day a fortnight before ; but not sooner.
Under the new arrangement a Tuesday may be selected four
weeks before. On the first day on which a motion-day be-
comes open for notices, all Members who are anxious to-
bring forward particular motions go "down to try for the
day ; they give their names to the clerk at the table, who
puts all the names, folded up, into a box, and according to
the order in which the names are drawn out the precedence
of Members on the day competed for is settled. Thus the
assignment of Tuesdays to different motions is an affair of
lottery. Mr. Villiers has tried his luck in this lottery now
three or four times, and has not yet drawn a prize. Lord
Harry Vane is first on Tuesday, the 4th of June, with a
notice of a resolution on the coal duties. Tuesday, the 11th
of June, fortune, which seems not to object in this way to
smile on Mr. Borthwick, has secured for a repetition of his
motion on the Anatomy Act, which caused the House to be
counted out last week; and if it has not the same effect
again, Mr. Ward will probably, after the motion has been dis-
posed of, introduce his important motion for a Committee of
the whole House on the revenues of the Irish Church. Mr.H att
has carried away Tuesday, the 18th of June, for the soap
duties. We are glad to find that Mr. Villiers has intimated
his intention of trusting no longer to the chapter of accidents ;
but of taking a Government day for his motion, by bringing
it forward as an amendment on an order of the day for going
into Committee of Supply. We have entered into this ex-
planation of the arrangements of the House of Commons, as
to motions, because the public eo not understand how these
things are managed, and may sometimes blame a Member
who has undertaken the conduct of an important question for
delays which are quitt-Jnond. his control. We must say
that the Government seem to gain very dispropor-
tionately by the arrangements of the House. From Whit-
suntide to the end of the session the Government is to have
three nights in the week for its business. From the begin-
ning of the session till Whitsuntide,they have had two nights
in every week. Have they shown such determination
to get their Bills forward—have they made such
good use of the time which has been hitherto
granted them, -as to deserve now the indulgence of
an additional day in each week from the House? Will it be
found, when we approach the usual time for bringing the
session to a close, that any material progress has been made
with important Government measures, even with three nights
a week? On the contrary, will it not be, as It always is,
that the Government will theme ask for the additional assist-
ance of morning sittings, that a number of important mea-
sures which have been continually put off, with various ex- '
cuses, will be hurried through in a very thin House, without
the possibility of adequate discussion, and that a number of
other important measures which the Government have pro-
mised to pass, and which the House has given them every
facility for passing, will be at the last moment relinquished?
The business of the Government is not found to be materially
accelerated by the great proportion of days in the week con-
ceded to it by the House ; while the opportunities of acting on
public opinion, and bringing public opinion to bear on the Go-
vernment through such motions as that of Mr. Villiers, are most
unreasonably diminished. And what is the return made by the
Government to the House for the liberality shown by the
House to the Government? Wednesday is appropriated to
Bills introduced by individual Members ; and on Wednesday
the general rule is, that there is no House, or, if a House is
made, that it is not kept. The Bills, however important
they may be—take, for instance, Lord Worsley's Inclosure
Bill—are no concern of the Government; all the retainers of
the Government are absolved from attendance. and it is -
thrown upon the individual Member promoting the Bill to
make and keep a House. How often again, during the pre-
sent session, has it happened on Tuesdays and Thursdays
that a House has not been made, or has been counted out in
obstruction of an important motion? Lord Palmerston's
motion on negotiations relative to the Slave Trade, which had
been long looked for with so much interest, and which the
chances of the notice-lottery had so often compelled him to
postpone, was at last prevented from coming on by no House
being made. None of the officials were in the House that
day at four o'clock. The House has been counted
out on Mr. Ricardo's motion on Commercial Treaties, on a
motion of Mr. Ewart's on the present state of our Taxation,
on Mr. Christie's motion on the Universities, and, perhaps,
on some other occasions; but these instances are enough for
our purpose. It may be said that it is more the fault of the
House than of the Government, that there should be so often
fewer than 40 Members out of 658 to be found in it. Fault
of the House it most assuredly is ; but from a House so con-
stituted, of which dolts and fashionable idlers form so large a
proportion, what is to be expected? It does not say much
either, we are sorry to be compelled to add, for the attend-
ance of Liberal Members of Parliament. The game of party
is at present dull, and those who would be the most fre-
quently seen and heard of, if success seemed near, are now,
many of them, generally in the country, or away at dinner.
But there is still great ground for complaint that the Go-
vernment, to which the House concedes so much, should in
any way assist to thwart the motions of Members opposed to
them.—Chronicle.