The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

ittning At

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1844.

A vast number of Bills received the Royal Assent
in the House of Lords, a very significant symptom of
the speedy termination of the Session.
The Earl of MINTO gave notice that he would ask
Lord HADDINGTON this evening whether it was the
intention of the Government to send a naval force to
the coast of Morocco to protect the interests of British
subjects.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice for
Monday of a motion relative to the war pending in
the West of Africa.

.Fhe Earl of RADNOR, after adverting at consider..
able length to the obnoxious and anti-English prac-
tice of opening letters at the Post-office, moved for a
Select Committee to inquire into the system of open-
ing letters at the Post-office.

The Duke of WELtiNGTON fully admitted that the
quntion had assumed a shape which required inquiry.
After defending the practice to a certain extent, and
exhibiting a number of bugbears to justify it, he
moved as an amendment a Secret Committee, to be
composed of the following Members—Earl Somers,
the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord
Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and
the Bishop of London.
We regret to find from a few remarks made by
lord. NOUMANBY, that the practice was not confined
:to the Tories, and that the power had been
exercised in Ireland against suspected Ribbonmen.
It is a detestable power, and whether exercised by
W higs or Tories, will be universally denounced. We
have never heard one disinterested man say a word in
supi ant of such an un-English practice. Party feel-
ing not mixed up in the question. Tories, Whig

An amendment was proposed by Mr. BORTHWICK,
the discussion on which, or rather on the general
principle of the Bill, occupied the House the re-
mainder of the night.

The Bill was then committed pro forma. The
House immediately resumed, and adjourned at a
Quarter past Two.

In moving last night, in the Hotise of Lords, for
the appointment of a Secret Committee to inquire
nto the practice of detaining and opening letters at
he General Post-office, the Earl of RADNOR justly
remarked that when the Home Secretary of State
thought that the public safety required an examina-
tion of private letters, he ought to open them on his
own responsibility. If the law were to be violated
with the object of securing the safety of the State by
seizing upon correspondence, then, added the Noble
Earl, " the Minister ought to violate the law on his
own responsibility, and having done so, he ought to
come down to Parliament and boldly say he had done
so, because there had been a public necessity for it,
aid call on Parliament:to protect him from the conse-
quences. Those who urged the necessity of opening
letters in order to secure the safety of the State, sup-
posed the case of correspondence, the seizure and
examination of which might prevent rebellion or dis-
turbance at home; but such a necessity for the inter-
ference of the Home Secretary could never have
been anticipated with respect to the letters of
foreigners. It appeared to him that this detention and
examination of the letters of foreigners was a breach
of the laws of hospitality which was revolting to the
public mind." This is well put by the Noble Lord.
The law on the subject of opening private corre-
spondence at the Post-office, which was never in-
tended to be other than a dead letter, except in ex-
treme cases of necessity, which the Legislature has
no right to anticipate, should at once be abrogated;
and the Secretary of State—as Lord RADNOR sug-
gests—should open suspicious letters on his own respon-
sibility, plead the imperative emergency of the case,
and claim the protection of Parliament for the con-
sequences of his act. Rarely, if ever, it is to be
hoped, will he be compelled to have recourse to this
step ; but while the law exists as at pre-
sent it arms him with sufficient power to
have recourse to such an obnoxious stretch of au-
thority, which, in the hands of a suspicious, unscru-
lous, tyrannical Minister—and such have existed, and
may exist again—could not fail to be attended with
the most injurious aad demoralising consequences.
As regards the Committee, to which the Duke of
WELLINGTON unhesitatingly acceded, on the plea that
there was no alternative, we must honestly confess that
we are very doubtful whether any really good results
will follow from it—first, from] the absolute se-
crecy which is to be attached to all its proceedings,
and secondly, from the nature of the inquiry
which it is proposed to enter into. Another
curious feature in the business, which we do not pro
fess at all to understand, is, that the Lords' Com
mittee are to have the benefit of the advice and assis

ance of two law Peers, while lawyers are rigidly ex.

eluded from the Committee of the House of Commons.
Surely there is some inconsistency here ! What is
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the
aid of a lawyer is considered necessary in the one
Committee, we should have thought, as a matter of
course, that it would have been considered equally
necessary in the other. The whole affair, we suspect,
will end, like many others of the same sort,
in smoke ; little or nothing more will be heard
of the proceedings of either conclave ; but, meanwhile,
a substantial good has already been effected, for public
attention has been strongly fixed on the subject,
public indignation and astonishment everywhere ex-

cited, and the consequence will be, that no private
letters will ever henceforth be opened at the Post-

office, whether with or without the warrant of a
Home Secretary, unless
.the necessity of the case
be made so apparent to Parliament, that no rea-

sonable man can possibly object to it. The most
remarkable feature in the whole affair, and not
the most creditable to our vacillating Government,

has been the high, authoritative ground which

,hey took on the first mooting of the question by
_ _ _ _

Mr. DUNCOMBE, and the readiness with which they

immediately afterwards abandoned that ground. In
the first instance, they were strongly opposed to any-
thing in the shape of inquiry, and would give no

explanation at all ; yet, not three nights afterwards,
they were unanimously in favour of inquiry, with a
_ _

_ . .
view to afford the fullest: explanation ! The truth

is thky have been influenced, in this as in every
other case, by sheer motives of expediency ; and have
granted the Committee, as they will be pretty sure
to grant a repeal of the corn-laws, the instant it suits

their views of expediency. to do so. As for acting
upon principle, and the convictions of their own un-

derstanding, such a thing never once enters into their

calculation.

IThe whole " talk" of the House of Commons, this
semion, has not afforded us so much amusement as a
lachrymose and vituperative little attack made, on
Tuesday night last, by Mr. ARTHUR RoEnucic, on
the conduct "of the daily press of this country,"
touching the Post-office exploits of Sir JAMES
GRAHAM. When serpents cast their skins, accord-
ing to a popular superstition, they assume with their
new cuticle all the vigour and sprightliness of renas-
cent youth. Whether Mr. ROEBUCK has experienced,
in his own person, the genial influences
of some such vivifying process on throwing
by his gown of "stuff," and involving .himself in
one of silk, we do not undertake to determine. But,
under some conscientious conviction of such a fact
only, could-" he," Mr. ARTHUR ROEBUCK, whose
freaks we have watched for these last fourteen years,
" assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he fully
sympathised in the feelings he had expressed." The
association of " ROEBUCK. and sympathy" would be
too extravagant—tgo ludicrously monstrous—for the
heading, even, of a Bath electioneering placard. It
would not impose on the credulity of a Bath chair-
man. " Sympathy"—and for-a political superior too
—from the splenetic, querrulous, cavilling de-
nouncer of all parties, and all partisans, by turns !

and Radicals, if we except the Government hacks,
are unanimous in the opinion that the Post-office
should be sacred. Extreme cases may occur. In
times of danger, and more particularly when rebel-
lion prevails, the Habeas Corpus Act may be
suspended, but that can be done only by Act of
Parliament. Let the same rule apply to opening
letters. Nothing but the safety of the State can
justify it, and the permission should not be given
without a ;specific Act of Parliament, which would
put every man on his guard. In that case no man
or woman would write to a friend, but in the belief
that their correspondence might be known to the
Grahamites, and that every family communication
might be read by the underlings of office. We agree,
however, with that consistent and honest lawyer and
statesman, Lord CAMPBELL, that in every instance it
would be better to put an end to this obnoxious
power.
The Earl of RADNOR withdrew his motion. The
Committee was appointed, and ordered to meet on

-From the waspish, petulant aspirant after
impracticable honours and hopeless elevation ! Why
we could more readily credit a rumour that the Duke
of YORK'S bronze statue, from the somewhat more
majestic isolation of its position, had heaved a sigh ()f
"natural sympathy" (for his Royal Highness's sur-
viving creditors), than that Mr. ROEBUCK has any
such graceful weakness in his moral or physical com-
position. If he ever had it, we should say "it
withered all"—like OPIIELIA'S flowers—when the
common catastrophe of extinction overtook the re-
nown of his friend, M. PAPINEAU, and the insurrec-
tionary efforts of Lower Canada. But Mr. ROEBUCK
proceeded to say that " advantage had been taken of
this incident"—(the whole subject matter of Sir
JAMES GRAHAM'S inculpation—the fact of opening the
letters—the mooted question whethef one or more
warrants were requisite for his authority to do so,
all are compressed into this convenient " incident")—
advantage has been taken, he says, " to call down
public indignation upon an officer who has done
nothing more than tread in the footsteps of his
predecessors." (Exemplary Sir JAMES ! He would
not even break open sealed letters except under
warranty of precedents !) " This opinion has been
aided and created out of doors, by all the vile arts
which attach to the daily press in this country."
What means this ? That the " daily press" has
no sympathy with Mr. ROEBUCK ? We trust it has
not. Mr. ROEBUCK, as the Morning Chronicle well
observes, " is, in his small way, as unpopular as Sir
JAMES GRAHAM ;" and, after these marked advances
on the part of the " sympathising" silk gown, we
should not be astonished to see them figuring together
as partners, in a political " Polka dance," for the re-
mainder of the session!
Mr. ROEBUCK passes from the imputation of " vile
arts" to the daily press, to the declaration " that a
fouler instrument of calumny cannot be found." No?
Not in the wholesale, unmeasured, unfeeling, insolent
invectives against distant Lieutenant-Governors of
colonies, and absent military commanders, and de-
eoac,Pd cavil and profoookma A Ltlavaitica, wItAl wrucn
the House of Commons has been occasionally
nauseated, for wearisome hours together, in endless
arraignments, night after night, of all that has been
said or done, written, directed, or transacted, by the
Government of the day at home, and its representa-
tives abroad ? With such remarkable instances of
individual slander on record, does Mr. ROEBUCK ven-
ture to talk of "all the foulness of the calumny of the
public press having been heaped on the Right Hon.
Baronet ?" Come, come, Mr. ROEBUCK ! You are
troubled, we felt; either with a short memory, or a
bashful unconsciousness—" teinporis acti."
But since we, for our parts, cannot give to Mr. ROE-
BUCK credit for any such mere " prejudices"—(more
important principles pass by that designation, in his
system of ethics, than simple emotions)—as "sym-
pathy" for any human being:in existence,—save one
—we must suppose his " sympathy" is for the conduct
of Sir JAMES GRAHAM. He would " tread in the
footsteps" of Sir JAMES'S predecessors. We wish
him joy of his prepossessions. We have often ob-
served, that on questions wherein the personal rights
and liberty of the subject have been found
in collision with corporate or peculiar claims,
or with the accidents of industrial occupa-
tion (such as those of female and infant
labour in factories, or such as those wherein,
for example, the " privilege-of-Parliament" pre-
tensions have been urged to their highest flight ;)
Mr. ROEBUCK—with an inconsistency peculiarly,
graceful in the noisy advocate of democratic institu-
tions and the working classes—has taken a part
utterly opposed to the popular—to the generous view
of the great majority of the community. Perhaps a
vulgar love of paradox—perhaps the simple fact that
" a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind"—may
prompt his vote on such questions, or questions of
that class, and may incite him to the rescue of the
Home Secretary on this occasion. It is not worth
while examining how this may be. But we have
just one grain of curiosity touching another topic,
personal to this busy declaimer and silent barrister.
What are the past distinctions, the present ser-
vices, or the existing position of Mr. ROEBUCK
(saving always the rights of that most fussy
and obtrusive Aof dignities, identified with an acci-
dental M.P.)—on which the Learned Gentleman
deems himself at liberty to hold such disrespect-
ful, such abusive, language of the " daily press of this
country ?" We never heard him even suspected of
any such superiority in. position, in services, in dis-
tinctions. His ill-breeding in all this, being the
Learned Gentleman's misfortune, we don't insist
upon. If he cannot help that, however, he is not,
therefore, at liberty to advert to the press in terms of
insult and contumely, for having discharged what it
has conceived to be its duty, on a great public quo*.
tion. Does Mr. ROEBUCK imagine that the official
conduct of members of the Government is not public
property, and, therefore, a legitimate subject for the
discussion of the public press ? Or has he such a
freehold, whether in fee-simple, or in (imaginary)
expectancy and remainder, in the ministerial reputa-
tion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that, like that other hero
of a farce, who over-estimated his own prowess, he
will not allow even the boots of his mightiness to be
challenged ?
Really, Mr. ROEBUCK has no excuse for his over-
weening folly. A man so infirm in temper, so un-
genial in temperament—without poetry, without
sentiment, without the power of attaching others, or
appreciating in others the softer or more generous pur-
poses in which he is careful to show himself deficient;
such a man might surely learn to be practical, con-
sistent, temperate, in his public deportment. His
idiosyncracy, and the crude, harsh, utilitarian cha-
racter of his philosophy—(such as it is)—suggest
no excuse for these escapades of peevish
imprudence, and atrabilious resentment. 'We
have one word more for our parting. In
the true King CAMBYSES vein he thus concluded :
—"/ will not do honour to one more than another of
these detestable channels of public information by—
naming them r Horresco referens. Their doom,
then, is fixed ! For ourselves, we shall endeavour to
live on, notwithstanding. We have taken a part—
perhaps no inactive one—i n the general delinquencies of
our unhappy brethren. What we might have gained,
first in our own good opinion, secondly in that of the
public, had we been selected, by name, as an excep-
tion to this fearful sentence, we cannot tell ; but it
would have been little, indeed, if we may judge by
the terrible constancy with which we support
ourselves under our actual calamity. Mr.
ROEBUCK will not "honour" one journal more
than another by naming any one of them.
An overwhelming avalanche of silent destruction!
An awful but voiceless ruin ! And yet—(such is the
indomitable levity of these " detestable" natures)—
that the Chronicle replies to these " words of power"
with this irreverent exclamation—" Heaven help the
poor irritated little gentleman !" We shall only add,
of the distinction thus barbarously withheld from us
and our brethren, that we can imagine no dose so in-
finitesimal—so utterly imperceptible to the highest
microscopic power—in the homeopathy of political
depreciation, as—the " honour" of Mr. ROEBUCK'S
nomination.

_
Thursday.
In the Commons,Mr.CHRISTIE presented a petition
from CHARLES HENRY RUSSELL, the plaintiff in cer-
tain actions against noblemen and gentlemen for gam-
bling, and gave notice that he would this day move
that the petitioner, according to his request, be heard
at the bar of the House.

Mr. SHELL gave notice of a motion for this day,
relative to the French possessions in Africa.
In answer to a question from Mr. WALLACE, Mr.
GLADSTONE said it was the firm determination of the
Government to go on with the Railways Bill.
Mr. P. M. STEWART asked Sir ROBERT PEEL,
whether the report was correct, that Government,
after having carried the Bank Charter Bill, intended
to interfere with the banking and currency of Scot-
land and Ireland. Sir ROBERT PEEL gave an answer
which would lead to the belief that he is about to make
an inroad upon the Scotch and Irish banks.

Mr. HUME denounced the practice of opening
letters at the Post-office, and said, if the House had
appointed him on the Committee, he would have
declined to attend it. He would have nothing to do
with Secret Committees.

The Bank Charter Bill, after some conversation
and several attempts at amendments, was read a third
time, and passed.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM' moved that the House resolve
itself into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment
Bill.

On a division the amendment was negatived by a
majority of 180.

Madrid journals of the 27th ult. have been received,
but they are filled chiefly with rumours. It is re-
ported that an extensive conspiracy has been dis-
covered, that the Marquis DE VILLUMA will retire
from the Ministry, that the Royal Family of Naples
is expected at Barcelona, and that the Cortes are to
be dissolved forthwith.

The Three per Cents, were done at 284 at GO days,
and the Five per Cents. at 20i at 30 days.

Several of the Paris journals continue their attacks
on the demand made by the KING for pensions to his
sons and daughters, but we find nothing in the articles
deserving particular notice. The excitement is dying
away and probably little more will be heard of the
affair till some motion is made in the Chambers for a
provision to the Duke DE NEMOURS as Regent. In
the Chamber of Deputies the discussion on the Paris
and Strasburgh Railway Bill was brought to a close
on Tuesday. M. ARAGO moved an additional article
for limiting to one-tenth of the whole the number
of foreign-made locomotives to be used on the line,
with a view to encourage home manufactures, but
the motion was rejected by a large majority, 191 to
62. The sum voted for carrying the works is
88,700,000 f. The line is to run from Paris by
Essernay, Chalons, and Nancy, with branch lines to
Rheims and Metz.

No authentic accounts have been received from
Morocco later than the 27th ult., when the French

troops retained their positin. The follov,ving curious
details respecting the Enperor of Moi tocco, in a
letter from Tangiers, apper in the Ake rie, a paper
published at Algiers :
" The Emperor is suspectel of having poisomed his prede-
cessor and cousin Solyman, aid lie is now constantly afraid
of a similar death himself. 'Except his son,' says the letter,
' nobody can approach him. t is he who serves him at table,
and always first tastes his food. For a length of time this
duty devolved on Sidi-Mahonmed, the Sultan's eldest son ;
at present it is the task of duley -Ali, his younger brother.
Both of these sons are born the same mother, called in the
country Rhamouna, and sfe is an Englishwoman. Sidi-
Mohammed, the heir-presunptive to the throne, is a man of
about thirty-five years of ace ; his blue eyes and fair beard
betray his half British origu. Abder Rhaman, who is about
sixty, is strong and active, and of a cruel and brutal charac-
ter. Sidi-Moharnmed replaces his father in all difficult cir-
cumstances. At the conflict of May 30th, at Lalla-Magrania,
it was he, it is said, who ,ommanded the Morocco troops.
He, besides, for a length )f time kept up relations with
Abd-el-Kader, whom he enc•uraged in his struggle against the
French. The people of Morocco state that, without him, the
ex-Emir would have given in years ago. The correspondence
between the Khalifa and tie future Sultan has always been
exceedingly active.'"
The trial of CADOT aid ROUSSELET, for the murder
of M. CA DOT, the banker at Pointoise, was brought
to a close on Wednesday, when the son was acquitted,
and the other convicted of murder, but, according to
the verdict of th 3 jury, under extenuating circum-
stances. He was condemned to the galleys for life.

THE BOURSE--WEDNESDAY, JULY 3.

First Highest Lowest

Price. Price. Price. Price.
French Five per Cmts .. 122 20 • • 122 35 .. 122 20 .. 122 25
Four-and-a-lialf..• • 113 23 • • 113 25 .• 113 25 .. 113 25
Four per Cents.
Three per Cents.• •
Bank of France.• .• • ..... • • 3015 ..3013 ••3015 ..3015
Belgian Bank.
Belgian Fives, 1840 ••• • .. 1051 .. 1051 .. 1054 .. 1051
1842 .• •••• •• 1681 .. 108( .. 108# .. 108(
Threes • 78 90 • • 78 90 .. 78 90 .. 78 90
Spanish Threes, ex div 33 .. 334 •,33 .. 33f
Passive ...... ••• • • • 54 •• 5f .• 5# .. 54
Portuguese Five per Cents • • 46; • • 46; • . 46; • • 46;
Dutch Two-and-a-Half ....• 61+ .. 61+ .. 61+ • • 611
Neapolitan. 98 60 98 90 .. 98 60 98 90
Roman 104; .. .. 104; .. 194 f
RAILWAY SHARES.
Versailles, ........250 250 .. 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75
Rouen • • • • • • • .1005 ..1005 ..1002 50 ..1002 50
Rouen to Havre— •• •• •• •• •• 770 .• 772 50 .. 770 772 50
Orleans .lOOO ..1003 75 ..1000 ..1002 50
Strasburg,to Bale• ...... ... 246 25 .. 246 25 .. 241 25 .. 242 50
Avignon to Marseilles-- 775 .. 775 775 . 775

R ri.WAT SHARES FOR THE ACcouarr, taw. JULY.
St. Germain ...... .•• • • • 892 50 .. 892 50 .. 892 50 .. 892 50
Versailles, ... • • • . • • • 380 .. 380 .. 380 .. 380

•••• •• 250 .. 247 50 .. 248 75
Rouen... ......... ........1005 ..1000 ..1002 50 ..1002 50
Rouen to Havre.... ...... .. 772 50 .. 772 50 .. 763 75 .. 770

Strasburg to Bale.- • . • • 245
Avignon to Marseilles.... • • 775

.. 245 .. 240
•• 777 50 .. 775

242 50
775

THIS DAY'S NEWS.
QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Wmunt.uf and a
Special Jury.)
CURLING AND YOUNG V. COLLINS, PRYCE, WARBURTO:s7, AND

OTHERS.
-Mr. Whately, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby appeared for
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Humfrey, Mr.
Henderson, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Price for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, the well-
known ship-builders, at Limehouse, against the defendants,
shareholders in the once celebrated British and North Ame-
rican Steam-ship Company, to recover a sum of 1,744/, the
amount alleged to be due for repairs done to the British
Queen steamer, once the property of the Company alluded to,
but since sold by them to the Belgian Government. It was
stated to the Court by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs
to take such a sum from each one of the several defendants as
he might have been, by the non-payment of his calls, in-
debted to the association itself. Should counsel for the defend-
ants wisely consent to this arrangement, then the question for
the Court and jury would be merely one of liability. Counsel
for the defendants at once admitted this to be a very hand-
some offer, and would not therefore trouble the plaintiffs to
prove the various items of account, but would confine their
efforts to contesting the question of liability. Upon this evi-
dence was at once adduced to show that all the defendants
had signed the deed of partnership with the exception of
Collins, and that he (Collins), as well as the rest of the de-
fendants, were all of them shareholders in the Company. On
behalf of Warburton, witnesses were put into the box to
prove that the handwriting of Warburton to the deed was
net the handwriting of the present defendant to the action,
Peter Warburton ; and it was urged generally for the other
defendants, that they had not held themselves out to the
world as responsible parties in connexion with the British
and North American Steam-ship Company. The jury, how-
ever, found for the plaintiffs against all the defendants, for
the several amounts due and unpaid by them as shareholders
in the Company.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
,Sittings at Guildhall, before the CHIEF BARON and a

Special Jury.)
HALIFAX AND OTHERS V. VERNON.
Mr. Erle, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Bovill, were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Unthank, for
the defendants.

This was an action brought by the eminent firm of Glyn,
Halifax, and Co., bankers, to recover the sum 0f4,137/. 17s. 10d.
from the defendant, Colonel Vernon, M.P., alleged to be a
shareholder in the well-known Talacre Coal and Iron Com-
pany. The case appeared of a very intricate character, and
likely to occupy the Court ver,y many hours in its unravelling.
When our reporter left Mr. IN arwick Werton, jun., was under
cross-examination, a determined effort being made to extract
admission from him that several sums of money, subscribed
by shareholders to the Talacre Company, had, by witnesses
father, in conjunction with Alderman Thomas 'Wood, been
applied to the purposes of the St. George's Harbour Com-
pany. Many strange disclosures were expected to be made
before the conclusion of the case.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and a
Special Jury.)
YOUNG V. WILCOX.

This case, which is an action to recover for repairs of
damage done to a ship-yard and dock, was partly heard yes-
terday, and was resumed by the Court this morning. The
trial, which presents not the slightest feature of interest or
importance to the public, was likely to occupy many more
hours than those already consumed in its hearing.

THE STATE TRIALS.

(SECOND DAY.)

WRIT OF ERROR.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY
THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

MONEYAND COMMERCIAL NEWS.
CITY, QUARTER TO THREE.
The Cotton Market at Liverpool yesterday was quieter.
Sales, 5,000 bales, at steady rates, including 500 Surat, at
3d. to 34d. ; 500 Pernam, at 54d. to 611 d ; 200 Bahia, at sid.
Mannchester Shares were in
?O.—Grand Junction,
good
to 6dd
demand, Birmingham
emana anddnd, 150 b
uEt
others
ehtrieparo;ns
lcl, atau
and
ct Chester and Birkenhead,dm. to
294; Eastern Perpetual, 11. 13s. 4d.; Grand Junction, 227 ;
Ditto New, 41 ; Hull and Selby Quarter, lla ; Liverpool and
Manchester, 231 ; Ditto, 321. Shares, 384 ; Ditto Quarter
9S5h a; rNe so,
North
9e ter
; Ditto,an d BHualyl
434 ;; Midland Counties,
North Union, 974 ;
South Eastern, 354 •
, York and North Midland Half, 20g
Paris and Lyons, 21. 15s. ; Paris and Strasburg, 381.
Arrivals from Australia bring news to the 20th March
from Van Diemen's Land, where trade was rather improving,
though for a long time to come the utmost caution will be
necessary in making shipments to the Australian colonies.
Sydney is evidently suffering the most, as up to the latest dates
insolvencies continued there.
We learn from New Zealand, under, date of the 27th of
January, that Governor Fitzroy, was determined to deal
according to law with the natives concerned in the Wairau
massacre.
The Funds, owing to an anticipated good revenue return,
are again very firm, and there is a steady business doing.
Consols have touched 984 4. The Three per Cent. Reduced
Annuities 994 to a ; the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. 102*
to 4, and South Sea Annuities 984. Bank Stock has been
firm at the improvement to 198 and 199. Exchequer Bills
realised 745. to 765. premium, supporting the improvement of
yesterday. East India Bonds are 965. premium.
A rally has occurred in the value of Spanish Bonds, which
are marked 234 4 fur the Five per Cents., and 334 # for the
Three per Cents. Mexican, are 354 to ; Dutch Two-and-
a-Half per Cents, are firm at 61; and D
Russian at 112.
The Railway Shares are steady, and a moderate business
is doing. Great Western obtain 504 to 514 ; Birmingham,
1224 to 123 ; Ditto, New Thirds, 354 to ; Bristol and Glou-
cester, 16 to 4 ; Norwich and Brandon, 54 ; and South-East-
ern, 18 to 1 premium. Blackwall are 04 discount. London
and Westminster Bank Shares are 6 premium.

AHnlnSuiDtiAesY...... .
9,3%39
(From the Official List.)
Bank Stock for Account ................. ....... ...... 198 126
AT ONE O'CLOCK.
3% per Cent. Reduced Annuitici ""'"'"" logN%
India Bonds, 1,000....................„ ... .
Ditto under 1,000.................... ... ... ""'""..".'. 26
B3RpeITrISC
South Sea 5t0ck....... .............. •• ••••........
...
elint.FßUedNDucSedT
Ditto Old Annuities 99U
Consols for Open ng ..... ..........=:::•••." • 834%
Exchequer Bills, 13(o, 1301
1,0001. ........«.............. ••......"•• 74 pm.
5001.•...•.....••••.......••••• ..........." 76 pin.
Ditto Small.-- ... .. .... .. 76 pm.
Ditto AdvertiseZ . "" . "'"
.... pm.
FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Alexican Bonds, 1837, 5 per Cent. ....... ..... 36,4
Ditto for the Account. 35%
Russian Bonds, 1122, 5 per Cent ll9
Spanish Bonds, Five per Cent 1840... • 0,9 u
Ditto for the Account.... .....
......•
23`49436
Ditto, per Cent .....
" ........
""*"....„
53414
Ditto for the Acc0unt".."."."...."...."*"." 33
Dutch 2% per Cents 6l
Dutch 5 per Cent 5...........
PRICES OF SHARESTiirs DAY AT ONE.
RAILWAYS, PAID. PER SNARL
Bristol and Gloucester. . 30 ... ..... • 464
Chester and Holyhead.: ..........
5
Eastern Counties ....
.......
"*.
23 ..... .... 11
Great Western .... ... '"'"••• ........ ,‘, 126
Ditto Fifths..... """»""»•• ....... ••••••••• I',Z
. 14. •••••••••
to 223
London and Birming"l7a-m."." ....... 100 ........ .222
Ditto New Thirds ..... 2
Ditto % Shares . ..... 2
London and 81ac1Ava11......"" .....
163 ••••" 75"0, to
..
Norwich and Brandon ..........
2 ....... . IA, to
South Eastern and Dover 32% ...... 35
Ditto New . ........... „ . 4 ......... 10S%
Trent Valley .. .. „. „ ....
.........
2 ....... .. 914, to 10
York and North. Midland .........
50,;••• ..... 71
Ditto Scarboro' Branch .. 2y. •••.•• -• 1( to
to Orleans, Tours, and Bordea.u"x".. 1 .... ".
1 . 394
Paris and Orleans "' go ... ......
Paris and Rouen... .. ..»..•.•••......... 20 ... . 69U% ••• t. 3 '"'
.................. ''' ..
JOINT STOCK RAMC&
London and Westminster 2O ......... 26
MANCHESTER STOCK EXCHANGE, JULY 4.—The business
to-day is by no means extensive, but the market exhibits a
firmer appearance. Eastern Counties, Registered, 13-1 ; Lon-
don and Birmingham, 221 to 923 ; Manchester and Birming-
ham, Quarters, 3i premium ; Manchester and Leeds, Half
Shares, 44 ; South- Eastern, 34i ; Trent Valley, 8i i•
_____

DEATH OF MR. SCHOLEFIEED, MEMBER FOR 818..
MINGHAM.—We regret to announce the death of this gentle-
man, which took place at his residence in Manchester-
buildings, at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. He was attacked
by paralysis on this day se'nnight, and his recovery was at
once pronounced to be hcpeless. Few men were more
esteemed in private life than the deceased Member for Bir-
mingham, and he has left a widow and several children to
lament his loss.—Times.
WHITE SPARROWS.—About three weeics ago a lad
residing at Upway, Dorset, took a sparrow's nest, which con-
tained five young ones, four of them perfectly white, the fifth
of the natural colour ; they were secured in a cage, and so
placed that they could be fed by the parent birds, both of
which were constant in daily attendance, and evinced the
greatest anxiety and impatience until they were permitted to
administer food to their young. The four white ones have
red eyes, the other the natural colour; both the parent birds
are brown. The five, in the same cage, are in the possession
of Mr. R. Rolls, ornithologist, Weymouth.

Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the
arguments in the above case. Counsel having been
called on,
Mr. Peacoes. said that he appeared on behalf of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments
of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it
unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or
to make any observations on that part of the case which
related to the generality of the counts, but he would en-
deavour to show their Lordships that judgmedt had been
given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties
for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had
been charged against them in the indictment, and he
would submit to their Lordships that in cases where
punishment was discretionary, and where it appeared
that the court had given any part of the judgment for
offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences
badly charged in the indictment, it was a ground for
reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit
that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict
having been entered in the way it was on the third count.
He would also submit that the judgment was bad for
want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it
was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties
were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not
having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of
the indictment of which the jury had found the, parties
not guilty ; and finally, he would submit that
judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their
Lordships had no power to amend the judg-
ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be-
fore their Lordships could pass their judgment,
and that as punishment was discretionary with
the court which tried the parties, that their
Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment.
With regard to the first point, he would submit that the
parties had been found guilty of three several and dis-
tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three
distinct conspiracies under the second count, and thut
under each the parties were charged with one offence.
The case would be simplified by treating this part of it
as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be-
cause the second count was the same as the first, with
tho exception that it set out the overt acts. Their
Lordships would observe that by the second count nine
persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr.
Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to
do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw-
fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid
unknown, to raise and create discontent and diaffection
amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen,
and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of
the government and Constitution of this realm, as by
law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi-
tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also
to stir up jealousies, hatred, and between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro-
mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings
of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Ma-
jesty's subjects in the other parts of the said United
Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said
United Kingdom called England." Now he would not
contend that the jury were not justified, under this count,
in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of
the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to
their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly
guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others
guilty of a distinct and separate conspiracy. The jur)
found the parties guilty of one thing, and then the)
found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing :
they found them guilty of so much as charged them with
combining to cause others to meet, but they acquitted
them of conspiring unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi-
tiously to procure and assist them to meet.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you quite sure that is
in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement in
the case.
Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordship.,
that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77.
He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi-
due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there-
fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with
the other parties. The words of the finding were—
" And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said
first and second counts of the said indictment, respec-
tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their
oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not
guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilt)
of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr.
Tierney, but with each other and divers persons un
known. The words of this part of the finding wen
these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid
further say that the said Daniel O'Connell, John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles
Gavan Duffy, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, are, and
each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue
as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously
and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un-
lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend-
incr and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish
the confidence of her Majesty's subjects in the tribunals
duly and lawfully constituted for the administration of
justice, and further contriving, intending and devis-
ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra-
tion of great physical force, to procure and effect
changes to be made in the government, laws and
Constitution of this realm as by law established, did un-
lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire.
confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown,
to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and
procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen
to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at va
rious times and in different places within Ireland, for the
unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means
of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means
of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical
force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and
alterations in the government, laws, and Constitution
of this realm as by law established ; and further, t(
bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta-
blished in Ireland for the administration of justice, and
to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege
subjects in Ireland in the administration of the lam
therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects
to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with
and claims upon each other from the cognizance of the
said Courts by law established, and to submit the same
to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to
be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said
residue of the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in marine'
and form as therein is so above charged." So that they
were found guilty of conspirinc, on what he would call
No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con-
tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3.
Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven
without the eighth were found guilty of charge
No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind.
Then with regard to the residue of the remain-
der the jury acquitted all the defendants except
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with
regard to this third part none were found guilty of con-
spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus—
" And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said
premises in the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the
said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John
Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And
the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that
the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles
Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much
of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them
for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously. in-
tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising,
and intending to create discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others
her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army,
did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and
conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and
with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors
unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst
divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's
army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so
charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is
so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac-
quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to
conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac-
quitted except Mr. Daniel O'CoiQell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr.
Duffy. They were found guilty ofconspiring witheach other
but not with the other six. If that were an offence
punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub-
mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not
good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as
had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there
was still something behind, and of that the jury found
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:—" And
as to other the premises in the said remainder of the
said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon
their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel
O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are
not nor is any of them guilty thereof." They were not
found guilty of conspiring to cause seditious and un-
lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were :
" And further to excite discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her
said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure,
and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub-
jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici
ously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in
large numbers, at various times and at different places
within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose
of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby
caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstra-
tion of great physical force at such assemblies and
meetings, changes and alterations in the govern
went, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by
law established ; and further to bring into hatred
and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire-
land for the administration of justice, and to diminish
the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in
Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with
the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw
the adjudication of their differences with, and claims
upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said courts
by law established, and to submit the same to the judg-
ment and determination of other tribunals, to be consti.
tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our
said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the
evil example-of all others in the like case offending, and
against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crown
and dignity." While the finding was, that they did un
lawfully and seditiously combine, and conspire, to cause
divers subjects of her Majesty to meet, they were not
found uilty of causing them "unlawfully and sedi-
tiously" to meet, which are the words of the indictment,
and, therefore, they are acquitted of that part of the
charge.

Lord BeorcnAm—The words of the finding are " to
meet together in large numbers for the unlawful and se-
ditious purpose," &c.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—As I understand the objec-
tion, it is, that they are not found guilty of having con-
spired unlawfully and seditiously to meet for an unlaw-
ful and seditious object.
Mr. PEACOCK said that was the case. Daniel O'Connell,
Barrett and Duffy were found guilty of so much of the
residue of the remainder as related to the charge of
endeavouring to corrupt the army ; but they were
acquitted of something, and he contended that this was
the portion of which they were acquitted. Mr. Tierney
was acquitted of the greater portion. Five were ac-
quitted of that portion relating to the corruption of the
army, and three of the rest of the charge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Does not that mean that the
three were found guilty of all ?
Mr. PEACOCK—NO.They were acquitted of something—
of all the residue of the remainder. Now they were
charged with conspiring, unlawfully, and seditiously to
meet: they were found guilty ofconspiring to cause to meet.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—To cause them to meet for
an unlawful and seditious purpose?
Mr. PEACOCK—Yes, my Lord. The jury had pro-
fessed, however, to find them not guilty of that offence;
they had found them guilty of all the residue of the re-
mainder except that, and they must, therefore, have in-
tended to find them not guilty of something. There
was also another part of the residue of the remainder :
the parties were not only charged with conspiring with
each other, but with Mr. Tierney. It was clear that
such a conspiracy might take place ; but the death of
one of the conspirators could not acquit the others,
and yet by the verdict of the jury all were acquitted
of the charge of conspiring with Mr. Tierney. They
were found guilty of conspiring with eight persons, and
not with the ninth. Now those very parties might be
indicted to-morrow with conspiring with Mr. Tierney ;
and what had they got to defend themselves with but
the finding of the jury ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Suppose they were indicted
with conspiring with Mr. Tyrrell ?
Mr. PEACOCK—The finding of the jury would be a
good answer, but he should have to deal with that more
fully by and bye. Now although the jury had found them
not guilty of that part of the charge, the Court had given
no judgment of acquittal. The jury had also found Mr.
Tierney not guilty of certain parts of the indictment, and
the Attorney-General had entered a nolle prosequi ; but
there still remained in the indictment five persons who
had been acquitted of attempting to excite discontent
in the army ; those persons were John O'Connell,
Mr. Steele, Dr. Gray, and Mr. Ray, and the Court
in giving judgment upon them gave it for that on
which they had been found guilty, but they had given
no judgment of acquittal. He submitted that on this
finding eight persons had been found guilty of a joint
conspiracy, No. 1. Seven were found guilty of conspi-
racy with each other, but not with the eighth, to do No.
2. Three had been found guilty of conspiracy with each
other, but not with any other parties, to do No. 3. He
supposed his Learned Friend the Attorney-General
would contend that it was an offence to excite discontent
in the army. If that was so, Daniel O'Conuell, Mr.
Duffy, and Mr. Barrett had been found only guilty
of it ; and how could that be said to be any portion
of the conspiracy of the eight to do some-
thing else, that was no portion of the conspiracy
of the three to raise discontent in the army ? Unless the
Attorney-General could say that it was an offence—
unless he could do that he could not support the finding
of the jury. The jury had found the parties guilty of
three conspiracies, and the jury had given judgment
against the parties for three conspiracies, in which
they had been found guilty on the first count. Which
of the three offences was the punishment for, if it was
not for the whole ? And if it was for the whole then
Mr. O'Connell had been convicted of three offences
under one indictment that only charged him with one.
Was it to be supposed that the Court would give the
same amount of punishment to a man that was found
guilty of one conspiracy as it would upon a man who had
been found guilty of fifteen? The Court, it was true, in
cases of misdemeanour, had a discretionary punishment,
and in the exercise of that discretion they had sentenced
Mr. O'Connell to a year's imprisonment and a large fine.
Mr. John O'Connell not having been found guilty of
conspiring to cause discontent in the army, was to have
line months ; whereas Daniel O'Connell, who had been
found guilty of the same offence, was to have one year's
imprisonment and pay double the amount of fine. Why
was that ? Was it not because Mr. Daniel O'Connell
was considered by the Court to have been guilty of a
greater number of offences, though their nature was the
same, than Mr. John O'Connell ? The one had been
found guilty of simple conspiracy, the other of endea-
vouring to cause discontent in the army. Therefore he
thought their Lordships must assume that the Court of
Queen's Bench in Ireland, in apportioning the punish-
ment, had taken into consideration the finding of the
jury, and the extent to which the defendants had been
found guilty ; and he submitted that if they had
passed judgment upon the defendants for se-
veral offences for which they had never been
indicted, and which had never been presented
against them by the grand jury, their punishment had
been aggravated by the finding of the common jury upon
the first count, and that consequently judgment had
been pronounced against them for a greater number of
offences than they had been found guilty of. The jury
having acquitted some of the parties of a conspiracy, to
Cause discontent in the army, and the petty jury having
found them not guilty of that conspiracy, he appre-
hended that the conspiracy of which the others had been
found guilty was a separate and distinct conspiracy, and
that the conspiracy to cause discontent in the army was
a separate and distinct conspiracy from that of which
they were found guilty conjointly with the other five
in the first part of this finding. Suppose seven persons
were to go into one room and conspire to do
certain things. Three of them said " Let us
111 conspire to do two things." The other
four said, " No, we'll not go to the extent of
No. 1, but we'll go the extent of No. 2." In that case,
he contended, the three would not be guilty of conspir-
ing to do No. 1 and No. 2. The conspiracy, in law, de-
pended not on the act, but on the combination and agree-
ment between the parties. If seven parties agreed to do
one thing, it was perfectly distinct from an agreement
between three of them to do another thing ; it was a
listinct conspiracy and separate offence. He thought
he could not better illustrate this than by reading the
charge of Mr. Baron Rolfe to the jury who tried Mr.
Feargus O'Connor. The Learned Counsel then read an
extract from the charge. The Judge said, that in order
to convict all or three of the defbndants, they must con-
vict them of one and the same conspiracy. If they
thought that all the defendants, or any number
of them, had combined together for the purpose of
carrying the Charter, and some of them said, " I will
not use any violence, I will give no countenance to any-
thing but voluntary abstinence from labour ;" and
others said, " I will give my countenance not only to
voluntary, but also to forced abstinence ;" if they found
the parties all agreeing in one act they might convict
them all upon separate counts. So here, Mr. Daniel
O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, might have been
found guilty—assuming the evidence to be sufficient--
under separate and distinct counts, of having conspired
together to cause discontent in the army. But having
been found guilty under the first count of one joint
offence, they could not afterwards be found guilty of a
separate and distinct offence.
Lord CAMPBELL—The question is whether it was a
separate and distinct offence, or a part of the general
offence.
Mr. PEACOCK—Suppose all of them had been found
guilty
of conspiring to create discontent in the army,
except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and then Mr. Daniel
Jury. ,
O'Connell himself had been found guilty of conspiring to jMr. PEACOCK had before directed their Lordships
cause discontent in the army. Would that be a good attention to Comyn's Digest on argumentative verdict'
conspiracy ? One person could not conspire. If
Mr. Daniel O'Connell was found guilty of alone conspiring
to create discontent in the army, that finding was faulty.
With whom did he conspire ? Certainly not with the
others, who were not found guilty of conspiring with him. _
If Mr. Daniel O'Connell had alone been found guilty
of conspiring tocause discontent in the army, the finding
that the other seven were guilty of some other conspi-
racy, would not support the finding as to Mr. Daniel
O'Connell of being guilty of conspiring to cause dis-
content in the army. If that were so, then Mr. Daniel
O'Connell and the others, were found guilty of three
distinct offences. Now, the same rule, he believed, held
in every case, in civil cases as well as in criminal. If
several persons were charged in an action of trespass,
with a joint trespass, and some of them were found •
guilty of part of the trespass, but all could not be found
il jointly of part, each must then be found guilty of It was there stated that verdicts founded on argli
and inference are void. (The Learned Counsel hey,,
quoted several cases from Comyn's Digest and Rollo
Abridgement, in support of his position.) In secti°,s
93d of Comyn's Digest, it was said, " So if a verdict
repugnant, it is void." (The Learned Counsel again
quoted several cases in which verdicts had been declaredj
void on the ground of repugnancy.) He submitt'r
that in the present case the verdict was repugnant,
of
else that it required argument to show that it was
if repugnant. If it was repugnant, it was void, and il ;
was only not repugnant by reason of its bai"c'
argumentative, then it was void for being 11
argumentative verdict. If the verdict were taken merelylt
as an argument to show that these parties bad been
guilty of conspiring with each other, there was no argct"..
meat to show if theparties had entered into a conspire
with each other, or with Mr. Tyrrell, who was dea,,r.
ome other part separately. Unless their Lordships Were they guilty or not guilty of conspiring with Aid
could come to the conclusion that a conspiracy be- Tyrrell ? The verdict was uncertain, ambiguous, lee,
tweet). eight persons to do one thing, was the same as a unargumentative ; and if it was not intended to say ni,
conspiracy between other persons to do another 9iing, the
they were guilty or not guilty of conspiring Ow
Mr. Tyrrell, then it was bad, because it did not find the
he thought their Lordships would agree with him in
what he had stated. The grand jury had presented
Pleader," it was laid down that a verdict was void 1
whole matter at issue. In Comyn's Digest, tideo
ten offences, and the common jury had found .
to the whole, if it found only part of the issue and sa.,„ir
nothing as to the remainder, and the authority stated l',,
the parties guilty of fifteen. In one
charged action
for trespass in which several parties arest
with one joint offence, which is proved. against
that was " Coke upon Littleton," 227 A, in which it we'i
some of them, and not against another,hs the jurcyramtuhe
laid down that a verdict finding matter uncertain) Y ~a
acquit him. He quoted, in support ofersi
h (3d Campbell's ambiguously was insufficient, and no judgment could ),
case of Heron, Alexander, and others
given thereon. For these reasons he (Mr. Peacoca)
oras
guilty of a separate
Reports, p. 35), in which Lord Ellenborough said, that
they could not find one prisoner
_d,
ov id, either for repugnance, or ambiguity, or not End'
offence ; and the other two guilty of one offence. He
ing upon the whole matter charged, and. if the verdict
of that the rule was universally adopted in courts
was void on that count, then he submitted that the jour;
.
of justice. It was impossible to cite any case, either
meat was also void, because some portion of the punish„.
criminal or civil, in which several parties charged with
ment must have been given in consequence of the find:fill'
,me joint trespass, and the whole of them are found
the party guilty on that count, and the judgment be'''.7.
guilty of a part of the trespass, each of them is found
void as to that count, was void altogether, but theit
guilty of separate parts of the same offence. If a jury
Lordships could not say how much of the punisheue:'l,
could go into that, it might go into as many conspiracies
had been given in consequence of the finding the partite°
as it pleased ; and by ringing the changes on all the •
guilty on that count. This objection applied equalli .0"t
charges of the indictment, it might find Mr. O'Connell the sixth and all subsequent counts. The next p 01.,,
guilty of a hundred conspiracies ; whereas, when the to which lie would call the attention of their Lordship
racy, defendants have been found guilty of one joint conspi-
racy, the count is, as it were, exhausted, and the jury was, that upon the record there was a discontinuanfo
between the finding of the verdict and the sentence. The
had no right to go on finding them guilty of any more.
Mr. D. O'Connell was thus found guilty of three venire was returnable on the 15th January, and upon tll,
day " the said jurors of the said jury so empannelled as
offences; he did not mean to say that he might not have aforesaid, being duly elected, tried, and sworn to speak
not found guilty of any one of there ; he would
not go into that point, but he contended that .
the truth of the several matters in the indictment
afore
no one party ought to be found guilty of more than one Isaid specified and charged against the said Daniel
offence. Ile submitted that defendants could not be O Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thohl
; Mathew Bay, Charles Cavan Duffy, the Rev. Thowq
'Tierney, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, the trial °0
found guilty of one joint offence and then guilty of sepa- 1
rate and distinct offences. The next point was the
the issues as aforesaid by the jurors aforesaid, in the
d
arts court here before the Queen herself, is duly ev-,,i
finding on the third count, which charged all the defen- 1
tinued until and upon Wednesday the thirty-first day ii-t
dents with " unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously,
contriving, intending, and devising to
liegeiaise and create
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eigto
discontent and disaffection amongst the subjects of
hundred and forty-four ; and now at this day, that is t 0
our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said liege
say, on the said thirty-first day of Januar f°l. I
subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and
constitution of this realm as by law established, and toas appears to the Court here thatthe •
much it trl4,
I, a'
excite hatred, jealousies, and ill-will amongst different of the said issues so joined as aforesqt:Ag
classes of the said subjects, and to create discontent and 1
not,
"
nor can the said trial thereof i)e P,;e' d
0-
,
disaffection amongst divers of the said subjects, and eluded on this same day it is ordered by
amongst others her Majesty's subjects serving in her w
The LOIID CHANCELLOR.—Have you left your first
said court here, that the paid jUrors so empanelled
Majesty's army," O '
sworn to try the said issues shall have leave to withdra t
this same day from the bar of this court here, and 132,33,3 point ? the .
said jurors shall again come to the bar of t
1
Mr. FEACOCK— 1 Yes, my Lord. court here on the morrow, that is to say, on the first “

Tbe LORD CHANCELLOR—Then now enunciate your
econd.
Mr. PEACOCK proposed on this point to show that the
verdict on this count found Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett'
and Mr. Duffy, guilty of the premises, and found the
other five defendants not guilty of conspiring with the
former three. The verdict in that respect, therefore
was repugnant. The verdict was bad
on account of l':
ambiguity, and as being argumentative, finding three
persons guilty of conspiring with six others, when foul
of these others were found not guilty of conspiring al
hat
all. The rule of law was this, that if a party is once Pa
on his trial for an offence, the verdict must be such a 0.1)1
as to prevent that person from being put on his tried
again for that same offence. The verdict must be such
an answer on the judgment, that on a second trial trt
prisoner shall be able to plead either previously cowrie
or previously acquit. He cited the case of " Hunger
ford in 2d East, 518," in which the prisoner was indicted
for burglariously entering a house, and stealing to t,bi,
value of 61. The verdict found him not guilty of wi
burglary, but guilty of the stealing, and sentence e'
death was passed. The case was reserved for the COlr
v 1
sideration of the judges, who held that the finding ",;
sufficient to warrant the judgment, but said the eotr,',
should have been "not guilty of breaking open
,''
night," as that would have been more wi
tinct. It appeared to be the constant course
1
in indictments for murder, in which there was a verdieot
of guilty of manslaughter, to enter the finding as 11,
guilty of the murder and guilty of the manslaughter, '
of killing and slaying, although the charge of murder ill'
°,l
eluded the killing and slaying ; therefore, though
finding of the jury might warrant the officer in enterig
judgment, still he did not enter up the judgment so 0,
to appear distinct. Now the question was, what was the
meaning of the words—" Guilty of the premises 1
Daniel O'Connell, Duffy, and Barrett were found goittP
with other persons, to do several things. They We'„
found guilty of the premises—that was, guilty of COl.
spiring with each other. If one person was indicted D'i,
conspiring with another, and divers other persons air
known : say that A and B were indicted for conspiri
with each other, and divers others unknown, and that,
was acquitted ; A might be found guilty, but the cot'',
of that verdict would be, that A was guilty of conspiriaa
with persons unknown, not that he was guilty of CO
spiring with B and persons unknown, and therefore cube
entry of the verdict would be, that A was 0311
of conspiring with persons unknown, B °of
guilty. But the verdict here was "guilty f
the premises," that was to say, guilty
conspiring the other way. Whether it was that tP,
jury found the eight guilty of conspiring togethe"
though they found four not guilty, or whether the/
meant to find the whole eight guilty, he did not know•
The LORD CHANCELLOR—IS it an objection to the
finding that it is argumentative of the inference ft.('
the argument being clear ?
Mr. PEACOCK said it was not clear what the .1
meant here.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said this branched itself in!,
two points—one was, whether it was an objection to 01,
finding that it was argumentative if the inference iw
clear ; the next was, whether it was clear.
Mr. PEACOCK said that if it was certain what the PO
meant, he did not apprehend that it would be an objeci
Lion ; but where it was not certain, the finding was ba
Lord CAMPBELL—There is another way in which
this may be viewed. The jury are to find a true verdict,
according to the evidence. This might be to sho,
;
that A, B, and C, conspired with D upon their 0
acknowledgment, so that there would be no evidence
against D, and 1) would be acquitted of the conspiracy
with A, B, and C.
Mr. PEACOCK—That was what he wanted to shelf
their Lordships. Supposing that A and B were ills;
dieted for conspiracy together, leaving out the Ott
words, " with others unknown." Suppose that A CO,I
fessed that lie was guilty of conspiracy with B, tu'l
would be no evidence upon which to convict B, but il
would be evidence to convict A. But if there was s
h!
failure of the evidence against B in point of law, A CO
not be convicted, because it was a contradictory findill;
in the record. If A, B, and C, were charged vvitb,
joint conspiracy, A and B could not be found eibtifi
of conspiring with C in the same verdict in which tl
found not guilty of conspiring with them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Supposing that A 15 lil.
dieted for conspiracy with B and C, and that he COP;
fessed he conspired with B and C, and that the jut/
upon the trial find that C is not guilty, because tiler
no evidence against him ; and then, supposing that,
and B are guilty of the premises, and in the same fir
ing it is found that C is not guilty, would not that do,
Mr. PEACOCK submitted it would not.
gol
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The meaning of "
Guilty" in that case must be, that there was no eviden,,,
to find them guilty.
A i Mr. PEACOCK submitted it would not be sufficient
The verdict, if it was one, and on one record, mustbs of
consistent. The jury could not, upon the confessioav
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy, find them plui.
of conspiring with others. What they should find l'i'eb
that they were not guilty of conspiring with °lid
other. They were to look to the finding of the jury,,aef
they must presume that the jury meant what Pita
found, for, if there was a difference, the record
would be entered up accordinglyrand therefore it ot4l
only be on the confession of the three that they o°:'be
be found guilty of conspiring with others, when 'O,
others were not found guilty of conspiring with tbe,,,
(The Learned Gentleman then quoted " Col4,li'd
Digest," title Pleader, s. p. 23, to show that a verdict
which was repugnant was void ; and also 2d Hawklll,,
Pleas of the Crown, b. 2, p. 47, s. 8.) He would sub'
mit that if a person confessed to conspiracy with another,
but if the jury for want of evidence found that pefs°ij
not guilty, that the confession of the other woulo,
,it
void, because the record would be repugnant ; for if confessed to be guilty of conspiracy with B, and B .w 0
~
r
found not guilty, A could not be found guilty of consr,
ing with B, for there would be a repugnancy on the re
13 coi
cord. So when in an indictment A was charged 0
principal, and B as accessory, if A was acq A
uitted,
not be found guilty ; even if B confessed that was the
;„3
principal, and that he had been accessory, because Oaf)
would be a repugnancy on the record if it said that ;
was guilty as accessory to it, and yet that A was not
guilty as principal.
lii The LORD CHANCELLOR—The question is, how on
4
that be since the alteration of the law ? You have "
authority, I suppose, since the alteration of the law ?
Mr. PEACOCK apprehended that the alteration of al
law, by which accessories could be convicted without
the conviction of the principals, would not make l''„ll'',/
difference if both parties were included in the same I.a,
cord. The accessory might be convicted upon a seP
rate record, but he could not be found guilty in the sa'',
record which acquitted his principal, inasmuch as th':i
would then be a repugnancy in the record. Therefore+ i
certain parties were found guilty on their own conlessi.°ii
of a joint conspiracy with others, and those other parties
were acquitted, the verdict against those parties on theyha
own confession could not stand, because there would ""
a repugnancy on the record.
'
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Does not the princlPh:
apply here that the Court can correct any repugatolc'
if they can show clearly what the jury intended.
Mr. PEACOCK apprehended that that was an argil;
ment in his favour, because, if the repugnancy had ot)
existed in fact, the Court could not have corrected it. They
were bound to have it that the Court had entered
verdict according to the truth and finding of the C115,e, i
The Court did not take it as a minute of the jury,
~.""
they entered it according to the actual finding to dee''—e
to a court of error what that real finding was.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I believe the finding on tre
record must be presumed to be the very words of tm