The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-27 00:00:00

THE STA'rE TRIALS.

DUBLIN, FRIDAY.
(Continued from The S'on of Seturtla,,Y.)
lifter the
Cnier JUSTICE SCkti‘ (lint it Wn Utinecessary for him,
most able end , i diet-ete judgment given by his re-
:Peel lee and reenreted he. :hien, who preceded him, to make
duty. to in delivering his judgment. It was his
.0 ly to the public . and to all who were interested in that trial,
;:ndeavour to compress what he bad to say within as nar-
,ompase as peesilAe. I-k was the more inclined to pur-
ee (1 compass
Course ttpnn the principle according to which he
"4,1 hithertn conducted himself during the discussion
of th t
In:11 motion It weuld, he presumed, have been ob-
d-''-e 0S- the bar and ethers who had attended the
t,J,.39issien of that metien, t hat he had, as far as possible, ele-
'weed from all, itit f•;. in the case. He had hitherto
tiwoß ofsers-acjtie eomment, preferring from mo-
or "clicaese and upon peesonal grounds, to leave to his
or :en upon the bench the consideration. or the correction
fallen- Yhunputed error or mistake into which he might have
e,,_ the charge delivered to the jury, as the organ and
le head of the court. If the error or mistake had been
.2.tamitted it was fit that it should be corrected ; and if the
ryies Were entitled to have it, and no one ought to be, and
trusted no one would be, more happy than he would to have
",18errOra or mistakes rectified and justice done according to
tight Thus it was he had adopted the course he bad hitherto
l'eitrslled during the progress of that motion, and except as
de,,n,s.tener he had taken no part. Those concerned in it should
Zaire thejustice to confess that they had not been inter-
iuettitel, and this was the only commentary he made or in
e to
the
geeeral Oki
make upon that part of the case. With regard to
ect and the conclusion that was to be enme te
upon this sub'ect he f It that he was bound conscientiotely,
elltnetitjn the discharge' ofehis duty, to give his opinion andjud-
e,,,CPon this subject, and he did therefore say without
t;,„lelication that he concurred altogether in the view' tiiikdcee
lc;:lie brother Burton, mid in the judgment which he hae pi• Now, it was conceded, that if a proper case were
tri e °lit, the Court would entertain a motion for a new
'1 a misdemeanour case : in a case of felony it was not
40, and
tAA uPon a trial at bar. The Attorney-General had con-
Ced that proposition, and that very eminent and censtitu-
laid lawyer, Mr. Erskine, afterwards Lord Erskine, thus
doWn the rule:—" The attainment of substantial justice
rt,aL3 so decidedly the ruling principle upon which the Court
41ed, that in civil cases judgeshad sometimes refused to grant
rnew trial even where the verdict was against the law, if
the whole they saw that substantial justice had been
int e* difortiori, in criminal:cases, where the Crown had no
oxeerest but the attaining of solid justice, the Court would
jeriTe,i,se this power for the purpose of attaining it, and their
ninet necessarily be co-extensive with this great
thee, I.crtl Renvoli, the presiding judge, said that "he
thateht the rule was correct ly stated by defeudant's counsel,.
ecee in greeting a new trial the Court would either grant or
of bus •8e a new triel as either would tend to the advancement
Rith ThuWthie great and eminent judge concurred.
ree -13 great and emineet lawyer in the ruse of law with
eti4T,1,.1.t? the greeting. of a new trial. Agreeing and con-
brio • g the principle so laid down, and applying- that
ere the present case under consideration, which was
the Tin:cation for a new trial in a conspiracy case, in which
heiiVeodants had been convicted, Lord Kenyon and all the
were of opinion tint the rule for a new trial should
tsall'ierfl?• et'd- He •ne'xt•cime to the consideration. of the parti-
thew ,"ojevte upon which a new trial was applied. for, and he
to ~e; Pate ever briefly possible many of them, in reference
these all the Court. hail already concurred. The first of
of in point of order was the alleged mis-trial in consequence
f
4()C' having been sworn as John Rigby,. instead o
tell:I-Jason Rigby. lie could not add anything to the oh-
teele'rlions Yalichhad been made upon that futile objection—
red „the circumstances he said most futile; and he concur-
are, ""ogether under the circumstances of the case, there
to erroend what enever for the parties then complaining
thalli for nr obtain a new trial. The second ground was
Ticit,ll An alleged error having been committed in cense-
oati„e Of an order made by the Court upon the 13th of
elline:r3' 1844, extending the length of the trial into the en-
the vacation. It was of to both upon the ground of
aantaoe, Jurisdiction
of the language of the rule, and also for the
epe in the Court to make an order at all
tee' the subject. II is Lordship then observed, having read
tllateutiml of the Attorney-General upon the subject,
Vere,rt"e objection urged by the counsel for the tra-
It'ores waS a futile oljection ; the order made complied in
ae:,;,,„aild he would say in common sense with the Act, and
Net : no rdason to entertain a doubt that the Court were
'ol.llallie making the vacation a part of the term. But he
'Pee u•IY with respect to any such mistakes they were
tetlit the record, and the traversers would have an oppor-
tiee of aPPealing to a higher tribunal. The next objec-
tear ':•48 taken on account of the venue ; he need not
the /4) the eases which established without controversy
Otis that that if there be evidence of one overt act
suitcoMinitted within any specified locality, that was
the, re sufficient tai lay the venue satisfactorily. For
,eerver'sulle he would all no more on this point to the °h-
em „I:41s that had Caren from his learned brethren who
tten,"
also concurred with all of them in
e s, there
was nothing in the objection on account of
egi,e4arat ion of the jur.y, which had been acquiesced in and
jigs to by the counsel for the traversers. The next point
(ti ° omission of certain names on the jury list, and, as
411 th,,14, Learned Chief Justice) viewed the case now, after
pelt -4ainuelits laid before the Court and the observations
tile subject, lie must say he saw no reason whatever
peen'uting fraud to any one on either side. The subject
twice before the Court—first, on the motion on the
,alluary to quash the proceedings, and, second, on the
Ehate`,l °f the plea inabate:nent, and he found nothing now
,7lieh.a'er,Urgeil to induce him to alter the judgment of the
re,`"iirered then on that point. The nest subject was
11'tion of evidence that was contended to be inadmis-
" tli 'Llis was especially a very material question. Now,
the e first
Retet P ace, he had very grat doubts as to the truth of
b4veee luau, that it was
contrary,nt brought home personally.to the
eee '1.3: on the it was his opinion that it had
on the
so. The document contended
een ille rally admitted was what had been called a ,
tortktli It e te • • e e as no ballad nor anything like a ballad. It pur-
lee,ll:(; 011,th. e face of it to, be a history of certain pretended
it At "eel or enacted at Mullaglimast. Now, let them
LAO- lie„„` nature of the meeting held there. It had been
-,der Mr• O'Connell and the Repeal Association, and
alitli.Ority the document in question hail been.
Os Leta Rua extensively circulated throughout the meeting.
erit3. proceeded to express. his concurrence with
o in their views of the emuounds upon
"f."ter• trial was sought, such as therm nomer of a,
lbwt of the term; the omission of names
IN "le jer
list, &c., in referencetete which the Court
)tplrlie ne"w"
speao)neurreittifiehrse
Cr
ratm pie was the reception
C pton and Burton had
e,iterla.etels,leilnsttli‘ltiliferSo.p. • that they were evidence, not
opinion
and Duffy, but all the traver-
t%ltl'esetielillgecel.'istils-ithjatherr both in that opinion, and would
grounds of concurrence. It was perfectly plain
e leablication of seditious and inflamma:ory documents
act,
.and done in the furtherance of common
s not in the nature of a confession, as the letter
aerrettit case, nor of a narrative;eeb and the publication by
im in the furtherance of
tthiterenieri
ande:ritilernit
la tur
yen(' that qusstion, like all
~44,1111,,11T,a's left toltlhn-ea'upry.l) This publication being of that
;41liiee'a,,' was by everyyjheiv laid down on the subject clearly
le 8-we RgaillSt N. O'Connell. He did not mean to say
t';',,,,eateeeen°ll,lnsive evidence against the traversers. Mr.
tt might have brought evidence that he never nt-
e„le, meeting or made a speech, or one of that descrip-
k)l3:4(l`!ae had Crouget forward no such proof, nor made
t ..It, to th t aS the agent of Mr.
th a
at e Published his speech in acne wspaper, and making
74.,e11:it17:;11e'tenorts.aAeirthe ai,ent of Mr. O'Connell, that state-
-I—eereeFlule evidence against Mr. O'Connell and all the
O'Connell'b was the leading member of the
Ziertill"a, the cha'inevi of the committee which issued the
tet111i.ele()1',111-l!1*pea..1 wardens, one of whose rules was, that cer-
(le, ',illy ..r14,21; lE., the Pilot p
ossible should be as ex-
,eeiene„el till ated by them as p. To this document Mr..
eee,lllLeritsti)geitheeddheeisdirme as Secretary, and thereby became
tjobat—and this was a most material
and of Plisiect ion had been made at the time to the recep-
ailniadels eiaenee, all the traversers' counsel had spoken
uo 01 j.Ttion It had been said, indeed, that Mr.
1113' 11-.4
e?of, ,hated o UeCted to its admissibilitv, but that had
)Ae..tsisifni,
_to the analogy between the newspapersird tt,end thee.
4,11;1+ htr the letter was held to be in I
tvidt at the
.1 as a principle. that an objection Ymust be
silerteee
lc trial,
.and in a tangible form, because additional
Throe wir,ght then be given, or, in the case. of a charge, thed
cyßq ki:i(!-iht retract, qualify, or explain what he had said.
sQeL4' ?Ile was applicable in misdemeanours as in civil
tie'r,lfl Rey all and Maiming, Nigh's Parliamentary Reports,
'l4-I*-ea:ciest Page 29; Lord Tenterden overruled the objec-
Olee ' e it had not- been sufficiently specific. The Chief
au(heci ' at
„ inuell length, adverted to the speech of Mr.
Jeeekaity ee"' Plade at the trial to show that he adopted the
e. tile newepepers, and that at that period no oh-
e4,„ast 4"„ urged against the newspapers being evidence
the
_Lae traverser& He, therefore, utterly protested
I iloorwieo nrse now adopted of reserving such an objection
sne,!l", ,`-` after the trial, and the judgment in the. House of
go a already- referred to, was an au!hority agamet
te„lurther el• practice. He (the Chief Justice) would not
t 47 eliser,„ lieto this (*llse. He meant to say nothing about
Derrsioti,,t`t-itionsi or arguments which had been made upon
1110,1ly e Matter of the charge. He might have done so
Herat' he,()!leistently with the station and situation which he
itftetiell
t,l'il,t.svae more gratifying to himself that the censer
Ite le le, Lula cenduct in delivering that charge should be
al‘,44l,ll,;lrueil Brethren, to whom it had been submitted.
‘4111:e-t1.:481ort,t'b'e uo remarks' upon the course adopted in the
° imition • hut would only say, with regard to
to ‘,-`4 tit'll Place 'ie that respect, that he entirely eon-
tie" ith decision which his Learned Brethren had conic
Ti:tte,,4°Cl2,',ant to the nature of the charge. The Chief Jus-
thre
err'
e•nit,4red into a review of the case of the Rev. Mr.
eee„:ereltet.'` col into
in opinion with Judge Burton as to
TOIL° mon `lB Caße not being disturbed: This being the
114 e 41 tion for a new trial must be refused generally.
taybeeo en
,rt1110(-GENicewi. here rose and said, after what
bntintentiol,gested by two members of the Court it is not
NtWithr to call for judgment upon the Rev. Mr. Tierney;
tb
" the GsPect to the other traversers I have to request
ge
vase 11-rt will fix to-morow for the giving of sentence
"
Ith
jaTlir
ef4renee- °ll--Do you mean to enter a nolle prosequi
.4,A.,„1„0_, to ?
I.,eat of tit,l,'Er-GErstuAL—l was Snot aware until the
ler „,e" npo„ ,° Court had been given that the Court was
fur t le subject of his case, and it be
_.sufficiente
- Jed star
may bgtlieut b that i do not intend to call up. Mr. Tierney
Jude filtered 4t as to the precise manner in which this
'With ge on the record, I have not yet decided.
that l'e4Peet toPT°ll—As this is the course to be pursued
the eriir, this particular traverser, I have to observe
'Theo he Jrettlesritaiieveueerrssi with that of my brother Burton and
enfer,fusing the application of a new
•"eat as` Knixeyee,
;eoashi:"oula b eetleErtea.—l do not mean that any jiulg-
With e hanging over Mr. Tierney, ; but, I must
Juditt W4Y thr:ference to the state of the record generally,
7,ll4geertk„......p_roceeding should be entered.
1•„'let thAT-rm;4`l2r,---1 am satisfied.
the Other d ..3-1111gErtir.,-..Then your Lordships will di-
kratee,e
of efendants to attend in the morning to abide
Reeeeß.tbe Court.
4t • re°laa 1-14-e Q.C., in the absence of the traversers'
it juigni e ' said it w
110,„ ern • b,, as their intention to move in arrest
Leril ffieTary CZ.:'tba Preliminary to that, they considered
4(16 3 itki, •OpOStea amended conformably to the
of444ontiv,,a
onatehteacken place, and a notice to that effect
.4
rown.
{anent. e— I nis will not stop your motion in arrest
• leeTe
, ea_ iiirea,--.Th
postea Minot be first set right.
L That i stop your motion.
• itettewje eg&tlgetiiofil
Leso
f‘tNl n°:
h_em.
eosenennn. 'lllien
siatat3ht,eesfyt
ahjrg
oeue
gd ltpostedey t shouldservednobtei
nefier sod
net
neiits
alree4'e 4bßar(l here looked at the notice, and said that.
Itnill'ir(lhei3POZ4oef:Pane(al Gout would discuss questions
.Ir. 1, 11 4 Poltea r le first matter in the notice was to
pecect
ohreference to the Separation of the jury.
48
kerVed that th
(1. j ge cNtille a prob., • e mo ion for amending the
ltAmp.m -I!nary application
Theld twice will •
tee ~,seteenuoe-er, not hear the same matters
a- pireelissiee ENEAL slid he did not apprehend that
p ei arreste noti
4 IllCe Would take much time, or the
of
Judgment, and therefore he required

that the.traversers should be in attendance in the morning
and the arguments proceeded with at once.
Mr. linturELL said they only looked for their strict rights.
The Court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock.
SATURDAY, MAY 25.

At the sitting of the Court this morning Mr. Whiteside
applied to have certain amendments made in the postea, by
inserting thereon that the jury had been allowed to separate
from day to day during the trial, and also by altering the
words so as to-be strictly in accordance with the findings of
the jurl upon the several issues sent before them.
JusticeCRAMPTON asked what was the object of the motion.

Mr. 'WHITESIDE said the object was to have the fact set
forth according to ;the truth, and so as to have it put in a
train for argument before another tribunal.
The krronNET-GENEnAL objected to the 'motion, and re-
fen ed to the assent of Mr. Moore, Queen's Counsel, Counsel
for the traversers, as to the separation of the jury, and also
to the circumstance that the matter had been fully argued
nu the new trial motion, when the Court had unanimously
decided the point against them. With respect to the amend-
ment of the record by an alteration on the postea as to the
findings of the jury, he contended that the course followed
by the Crown was strictly in accordance with the practice in
all the cases.
Mr. CLOSE followed on behalf of the traversers. Ile had
no objection to any form of expression on the record which
would set forth the facts according to the truth ; but he did
not-wish to have placed there words which would hereafter
preclude his clients from .having the question argued on a
writ of error. With respect to the consent said to have been
given by Mr. Moore to the separation of the jury; he under-
stood it to have been given after the Court had made the
order on the subject.
Justice PERRIN said that the consent was either a compact
or a fraud, and, if the former, no advantage sht,uld be after-
wards taken of the circumstance.

Mr. FITZGIBBON said, that if-a
compact had been entered
into they would not wish to violate it, and for this reason he
would send for Mr. Moore to ascertain the fact. . .

---
111r2MooRE, Queen's Counsel, having come into Court,
said, in reply to Judge Perrin, that his recollection of the
circumstance was, that the consent was entered into with
the approval of the Counsel for the other traverscrs; but
certainly was not so made with the intention of leading the
Crown into error. _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was about to reply; but •
The CHIEF Jusncn said the motion could not be granted
by the Court, without violating the contract entered into be-
tween the parties. As to altering the postea as it then stood,
with respect to the finding of the jury, they would not assist
the party—first, because of the lateness of the application;
and, secondly, because the traversers had used it on the mo-
tion for a new trial.

Justice CRAMPTON, having read from the report of the trial
what had occurred as to the separation of the jury, exptessed
his.concurrence in the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice.

Justice PtRRIN thought there was no error on the postea
as to the finding of the jury, and as to that part of the mo-
tion respecting the separation of the jury, he understood it
to be withdrawn, because it must have been made under a
wrong impression of how the matter stood.
Sir C. °TOOMBS said he was as Counsel on behalf of the
traverscrs to move in arrest of judgment, and, not anticipa-
ting that the motion for amending the postea could be con-
cluded at that hour (two o'clock), he was not at that moment
prepared to go on with his argument, but would respectfully
ask a postponement until Monday.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to any further delay,
in a proceeding which had already occupied so much of the
public time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE asked—Would there be any objection
to furnish the Crown with the points intended to be re-
lied on ?

Sir C. OTOGITLEN said the traversers did not intend to rely
on any matter already argued.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—The Court would not permit them
to do so.

Sir C. O'LOGIILEN.—The objections would arise in the shape
of a general demurrer lo the indictment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested against being con-
sidered a party to any further postponement in the argument
on an indictment found so far back as the month of Novem-
ber last. If the counsel for the traversers did not go on till
Monday, it would be difficult for his Learned Friend, the So-
licitor-General, in the hurry of sending for books of reference
to the library, to see the bearings of the authorities quoted
at the other side.
After a further discussion between counsel.

Sir C. OTOGIILEN said the objections he intended to urge
were these—first, a technical one as to the caption of the in-
dictment; secondly, that the first five counts were bad for
duplicity; and, thirdly, that all the counts were too general
and vague. He would undertake to furnish the Crown in
the course of the evening with a list of the authorities in sup-
port of his views, reserving to himself the right of adding any
which, before Monday, he might become acquainted with.
But all he was then in possession of should be slated in the list.
This arrangement having been assented to, the Court
shortly afterwards adjourned.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—We long ago informed our readers of the proba-
bility that Judge Crampton and one of his brethren would
prove inclined to allow a new trial in the case of the Rev. Mr.
Tierney. Such turns out to be the case. The speech which
was the only evidence of conspiracy against that traverser,
was one," said Judge Perrin, "no doubt of a highly repre-
hensible character ; it was rash, and such as ought not to have
been expected from a gentleman of his profession and calling."
" It was," said Judge Crampton, " what he should say was a
seditious speech—it was of a very violent and inflammatory
nature, and proved that he was aware of the effects produced
by the monster meetings—effects likely to excite to hatred in
the great mass of the people against those whom he called
the Saxon race ;" but both agreed in considering the evi-
dence of conspiracy as insufficient. If a nolle prosequi were
entered as to him, Judge Crampton was prepared to
refuse the motion for a new trial ; but if that were not done,
he would, he said, at the risk of any public inconvenience, do
justice to the individual, and grant him a new trial, though
it should have the effect of awarding a new trial to all. The
only other exception to unanimity regarded a more impor-
tant culprit. Judge Perrin alone was prepared to grant a
new trial to the monster-agitator himself, Mr. O'Connell.
His grounds are not very satisfactory to the unprofessional eyes
of those who have a bias in favour of what are called
the merits of the case. Judge Perrin had no doubt
whatever of Mr. O'Connell's criminality. He had no doubt
that the verdict was right both in fact and law—in
the facts which it decided, and in the law upon
which it was based. So far all is natural and conceive-
able. We often have the most entire moral conviction of the
guilt of a prisoner, upon evidence which is yet insufficient to
support an adverse verdict. But Judge Perrin had farther
made up his mind that there was plenty of proof—plenty, of
legitimate, admissible, conclusive proof—against the chief
conspirator. " He thought there was ample evidence, inde-
pendent of the objectionable parts, to warrant and sustain the
verdict." But then came the difficulty. Though there was
a sufficiency of good evidence laid before the jury, yet with
it there was some bad—some at least which, though good
for one purpose, was yet bad for another, to which the jury
might have applied it, or might be thought to have been en-
couraged to apply it. And as the jury (though they
had plenty of good evidence before them) might, per-
haps, have based their verdict on this fraction of
bad, Judge Perrin was for giving Mr. O'Connell a fresh
start. And now, finally, what is the supposable para-
logism—what is this illegitimate reasoning of which the mere
possibility is to be held sufficient to quash a confessedly
honest and right verdict? The judge apprehends that the
jury may have concluded that certain seditious speeches
were7spoken by Mr. O'Connell, because they were reported
as his in his own papers the Nation and the Freeman, and
because in his presence and out of his presence they were re-
ferred to by counsel on both sides of the question as his, and
neither he nor anybody else dreamt upon the trial of
questioning either the fact that they were his or the evidence
of their being so. It is certainly, therefore, not inconceivable
that they may have drawn such a conclusion, unless they
were very specially indeed cautioned against it. Nor should
we presume to meddle with the legal conclusion which might
be authoritatively deduced from that possibility. Law we
know is law, and laymen must keep their fingers off it if
they would not burn them. But, as friends of common sense,
we heartily rejoice that for once law and reason run together,
and that the Court does not insist upon our swallowing
Judge Perrin's most indigestible deduction. That a verdict
should be set aside because in the course of the trial certain
notorious facts not necessary for its support had been at-
tempted to be proved by evidence of the most conclusive
kind, but not applicable, in the eye of the law, to that exact
purpose, is a proposition which, if it were law, would inspire
some distaste for English jurisprudence. We are happy to be
relieved from the painful obligation of so considering it. On
the case of Mr. Tierney, then, the Court is equally divided.
On that of Mr. O'Connell they refuse a new trial, dissen-
tients Perrin. On all the rest the Judges are unanimous.
The legal result is (as an equal division affirms what has
gone on before), that the traversers' motion is rejected
in toto. We hear, however, that by the time the Chief
Justice had finished delivering his opinion, a new motion in
arrest of judgment was announced; that this, however, is
likely to be speedily disposed of, and that judgment may be
expected in the Course of the present week. We think all this
intrinsically probable. The experience of the past trial lads
us to suppose that they cannot possibly have much more
to say for themselves, but that, if they have anything what-
ever, they will most certainly say it. They had, indeed, the
grace to strike off from their late list of objections, or at least
to omit to argue some, of which Judge Crampton observes,
that " they were of such a nature as he had never heard of
before; and of which, for the credit of the Court and its
practitioners, he trusted he might never hear again."
But those which remained to be disposed of were not all
of a very creditable cast. Let us look at a few of the
answers given to them by the judge most friendly to
the traversers. In answer to the second objection,
what Judge Perrin "principally rested on was, that Mr.
Rigby was sworn (as juror) with the express assent and con-
sent, and in some degree at the united instance and desire, of the
counsel on both sides, and with a full knowledge of the facts."
In answer to the third, he observed, that when the extension
of the trial (now objected to) was formally applied for, " the
attention of the defendants counsel was invited to it, and
they declined to argue the subject or object." In answer to the
fourth, "he rested upon tlae deliberate assent and continued
acquiescence of the traversers and their counsel throughout the
trial, and making no objection till after the verdict was
found." There cannot be much more to be said when ob-
jections are raised capable of being met by such answers as
these. It is like beginning to pay in sixpences. Desperate
as they may be, they must be near the end of their cash in
band ; and we may fairly indulge some hope that rumour is
not far wrong, and that this wearisome affair will reach what
is at least something like a conclusion about Tuesday next.
CHRONICLE.—Most of the grounds upon which the ap-
plication was placed are of a nature which renders them
unfit for discussion in the columns of a newspaper. There is
amongst them, however, one, the merits of which may, as
we think, be justly appreciated by any person of ordinary
capacity, and as that one formed the roost prominent subject of
the judicial difference,and as it related to the case of th e principal
defendant, and constituted the principal ground upon which
lie relied for the success of his application, we shall take the
liberty of making a few observations upon the subject. In
the course of the trial, and for the purpose of proving that
Mr. O'Connell upon certain occasions attended certain meet-
ings, and gave utterance to certain opinions, copies were put
in of the Dublin Pilot and of the Freeman's Journal, contain-
ing what professed to be statements of the attendance of
Mr. O'Connell at these meetings, and reports of the speeches
which he was said to have there delivered. No other evi-
dence whatever was given, either of the speeches or attend-
ances, except the mere production of the newspapers them-
selves, and the question as to this point upon the motion was,
whether these newspapers had been properly received as
evidence of the truth of the statements therein contained,
of Mr. O'Connell's having attended the meetings, and given
utterance to the sentiments in question. If Mr. O'Connell
had been the sole defendant upon the trial, and was there
upon a direct and substantive charge of having spoken the
speeches and attended the meetings in the manner which the
newspapers professed to record, no person having the slightest
acquaintance with subjects of that nature could be so igno-
rant as to think that the charge could be proved by the
production of the papers ; and no counsel in the empirewould
so affront the good sense of any judge as to tender such do-
cuments for such a purpose. It was, however, contended, in
the present case, " upon the other side," that as the papers
in question were published by Barrett and Gray, who were
themselves upor, their trial for having conspired with Mr.

O'Connell, and as the papers were evidence respectively
against the respective publishers, they were evidence against
the co-conspirator of the publishers as acts done in further-
ance of the common object by Gray and Barrett; and
therefore, being acts which, according to the law of evi-
dence relating to conspiracy, may be given in evidence
against Mr. O'Connell, although he had not personally par-
ticipated in the publication of the reports, and may, as a
.matter of fact, be absolutely ignorant of their existence. It
seems to be universally acknowledged, and we believe it
to be an undeniable fact, that such evidence was never be-
fore admitted for the purpose for which this evidence was
adduced upon the recent occasion; and the exposition which
the three judges of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench have
given, of the grounds of their judgment in favour of its ad-
missibility, appears to us to show very clearly that the de-
cision is as wrong as it is novel. The Chief Justice, adopting
the words of Mr. Phillipps (Treatise in Evidence, ch. 5, sec. 4),
observes that the " act of the publication being done by one
conspirator, in furtherance of the common design, was to be
considered as done by him in the character of agent to his
co-conspirators; and, therefore, that if Mr. Barrett
published a statement of Mr. O'Connell's speeches and
proceedings at public meetings, ho published it as the
agent of Mr. O'Connell." Now, in the very place where the
Chief Justice found the first part of his doctrine, he must
have also found that an exception was made in regard to
such declarations or statements as consisted in relations of
antecedent events. The conclusion, therefore, which the
Chief Justice drew from one part of the text, was actually
prohibited by another, and that which his Lordship has de-
duced as a consequence from the rule, is declared by his own
authority to be an exception to it. As this matter is all
within the department of Sir James Graham, we recom-
mend the Right Honourable Baronet to step from his own
chamber in the Home-office to that of Mr. Samuel
March Phillipps, and to ask that learned and able person
whether what one of the several conspirators may have stated
in the form of a narration of a past occurrence, can be given
in evidence against any other individual of the same party?
In answer to this question, we presume that Mr. Phillipps
will give the same information to Sir James Graham that he
has already given to the rest of the world in the 4th section
of the sth chapter of his " Treatise upon the Law of Evi-
dence." The published accounts of the judgment of Mr.
Justice Burton represent him as concurring in the judgment
of the Chief Justice, upon the same grounds and upon the
same authority, and making the same omission of any re-
ference to the exception which we have already men-
tioned, and which, in fact, altogether governs the present
case. In regard to Mr. Justice Burton, it is, however,
extremely singular that, in support of his own and the
Chief Justice's view, of the admissibility of such papers for
such a purpose, he actually refers to the case of the "King v.
Hardy," which is the very authority upon which Mr. Phil-
lipps relies for their exclusion. But the extravagance to
which Mr. Justice Crampton has carried this novel doctrine
is perfectly romantic, and absolutely soars into the sublime
of the absurd. He says, "that even though every speech
and every fact stated in the newdspapers werefalse, they were
as much evidence against Mr. O'Connell as if he had written
every line of
,them." This is one of those daring flights of
imagination before which criticism falls prostrate in utter
and impotent amazement.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S
BALL AT APSLEY HOUSE.
A magnificent ball, in celebration of her Majesty's birth-
day, was given by the Duke of Wellington on Friday night
at Apsley-house. The fete was in every respect worthy of
the occasion; at the lowest computation 900 of our high
aristocracy were assembled.
For the ball it was said that 1,000 cards of invitation were
issued, in which were included the officers of the different
household regiments. At about a quarter to ten o'clock the
carriages began to set down visitors, and it was nearly half-
past one before all the company hadarrived. Owing to the
park-gates having been allowed to remain open all night, and
the admirable arrangements of the police under Superinten-
dent Baker, not the slightest confusion arose.
• The Waterloo gallery and five noble saloons were thrown
open for the ball, and most brilliantly illuminated. In every
disposable part the choicest flowers and exotics were placed,
imparting a delicious fragrance. The gallery, adorned with
its invaluable collection of paintings, and embellished with
its gorgeous decorations, presented a splendid scene at half-
past eleven, it being crowded by a rare galaxy of beauty and
rank. It was there that the dance was formed, a band of
22 performers occupying the orchestra at the south end. At
the opposite extremity sat their Royal Highnesses the Duke
and Duchess of Cambridge, with the Noble Duke, surrounded
by some of the principal guests.
There were present—Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and
Duchess of Cambridge, attended by Baron Knesebeck and
Baroness Ahlefeldt ; his Serene Highness Prince Edward of
Saxe-Weimar, and the following foreign Ministers :—His Ex-
cellency the French Ambassador and Countess de St. Aulaire,
his Excellency the Turkish Ambassador, his Excellency Prince
Castelcicala, his Excellency the Russian Minister and Baro-
ness Brunnow and Mademoiselle Olga Lechner, his Excellency
Baron Nieumann, his Excellency M. Dedel, Countess Revent-
low, his Excellency Count Pollon, his Excellency Baron Hu-
gel, his Excellency the Belgian Minister and Madame Van
de Weyer, his Excellency the Portuguese Minister and Ba-
roness Moncorvo, his Excellency M. Fortique, his Excellency
the American Minister and Miss Everett, his Excellency the
Brazilian Minister and Marchioness de Lisboa, his Excellency
Baron de Cetto, his Excellency the Swedish Minister and
Countess Bjornstjerna, his Excellency the Mexican Minister
and Madame Murphy, his Excellency M. Moreno, Baron
Koller, Baron Bjornstjerna, Count Jarnac, Count de Noailles,
Baron de Tbile, Baron Brockdorff, Baron Scheppingk, M.
Sartorius, Baron Brenner, M. de Berg, Baron Lionel Roths-
child, M. de Koudriaffsky, Marquis and Marchioness Ran-
celli, Count Rosen, M. Lomonossoff, &c.
The subjoined is a list of the general company :
Dukes—Richmond, Leeds, Roxburgh, Beaufort, Norfolk,
Leinster, Buccleuch, Montrose.
Duchesses—Sutherland, Beaufort, Roxburgh, Norfolk,
Leinster, Buccleuch, Montrose.
Marquises—Salisbury, Normanby, Kildare, Ailesbury,
Camden,' Lorne, limey, Anglesey, Douro, Worcester, Head-
fort, Downshire, Winchester, Ormonde.
Marchionesses—Ailesbury, Londonderry, Douro, Clanri-
carde, Wellesley, Downshire, Ormonde, Westmeath.
Earls--Aylesford, Winchilsea, Dunmore, Aberdeen, Craven,
Sefton, Wilton, Bruce, Rosebery, Clarendon, Morley, Lincoln,
Cawdor, Howe, Malmesbury, Hillsborough, Haddington, De-
lawarr, Wicklow, Morton, Normanton, Altamont, Falmouth,
Powis, Auckland, Mansfield, Dartmouth, Dalhousie, Bes-
borough, Devon, Eldon, Brownlow, Kinnoul, March.
Countesses—Wilton, Jersey, Dunmore, Clanwilliam, Rose-
bery, Craven, Sefton, Clarendon, Verulam, Morley, Glengall,
Hillsborough, Radnor, Tankerville, Malmesbury, Haddington,
Delawarr, Wicklow, Morton, Euston, Powys, Minto, Dowager
Mansfield, Ashburnbam, Dartmouth, Guilford,Eldon, Bridge-
water, Brownlow, Kinnoul, Grosvenor, Manvers, March.
Viscounts—Strangford, Cranley, Sydney, Canning, Love-
son, Fielding, Folkestone, Loftus, Jocelyn, Lewisham' North-
land, Palmerston, Clive, Barrington, Stopford, Alford, In-
gestre, Curzon, Combermere, Emlyn, Hawarden, Marsham.
Viscountesses—Beresford, Adare, Folkestone, Jocelyn,
Ashbrooke, Palmerston, Barrington, Forbes, Howick, Emlyn,
Hawarden, Gage.
Lords—Fitzroy Somerset, Cremorne, Claud Hamilton, Ed-
ward Howard, Brougham, Elphinstone, Harry Lennox,
Sondes, Foley, Redesdale, De Ros, A. Lennox, Heytesburyt
G. Paget, Colchester, Manners, Aylmer, Colville, Prudhoe,
Edwin Hill, Templemore, Feversham, Ernest Bruce, Dela-
mere, Thomas Cecil, Marcus Hill, Henniker, Monteagle.
Ladies—Brougham, De Ros, Fitzroy Somerset, Sarah
Ingestre, Cremorne, Aylmer, Wenlock, Sondes, Colchester,
Dowager Manners, Prudhoe, Colville, Ernest Bruce,
Granville Somerset, A. Grosvenor, John Somerset, Clemen-
tina Villiers, Elizabeth Palk, Lucy Vaughan, Georgina
Curzon, Georgina Codrington, Caroline Lennox, Duff Gorden,
Dowager Rendlesham, Adelaide Paget, Eleanor Ashburnham,
Eleanor Balfour, Caroline Duncombe, Pierrepoint (2), Harriet
and Kathleen Ponsonby, Caroline Townley, Charlotte Her-
bert Cust (2), Mary Howard, Mildred Hope, Harriet Clive,
Elizabeth Leveson Gower, Anne and Louisa Primrose,
Georgiana Kerr, Emily Marsham, Jane Fitzgerald, Charles
Somerset, Templemore, Elizabeth De Burgh, Mary Hood,
Feversham, Alexandrina Vane, Graham, Mary Fielding,
Caroline Lascelles, Frances Hope, Louisa Cavendish, H.
Douglas, Shelley, Pelly, Catherine Cavendish, Augusta
Cotton, Caroline Murray, G. Seymour, Sarah Saville,
Marianne Alford, Finch (2), Jane Grimston, Elliot (2),
Ellen Douglas, Louisa Fitzroy, H. Howard, Mary Agar,
Mary and Olivia Taylour, Augusta Somerset, Jemima Eliot,
Fuller, Emily Hardinge, Caroline Wood, Dowager Clinton,
Braybrook, Harriet Corry, Charlotte Egerton, Georgiana
Bathurst, Dowager Floyd, Jane Charteris, Charlotte
Fletcher, Wheatley, Freemantle, G. Egerton, Hunter, Dela-
mere, Isabella Blachford, Frances Cole, Domvile, Louisa
Churchill, Sophia Cecil, H. Campbell, Cockerell, Mary
Stanley, Isabella Hope, Farquhar, W. James, Ouseley, Mac-
donald, Willoughby Gordon, Elizabeth Steele, John Scott,
Langford, Bowater, Campbell, Marcus Hill, Kirkland,
B. Johnstone, James Stuart, Gore, Elizabeth Fielding,
Elizabeth S. Stanhope, Ann Charteris, Alice Peel, Arabella
Arden, Mary Ross, Maria West, Selina Kerr, Shaw Stuart,
Henniker, Emily Drummond, Caroline Sandford, Harriet
Paget, Rosa Greville, Read, Pakenham, Mary S. West, Ha-
milton, Monteagle.
Lord Chief Baron Pollock.
Hon. Messrs.—Somerset, 11. Cholmendeley, General Upton,
G. Dawson, F. Leveson, Finch, Colonel R. Trevor, Jocelyn,
Captain Maude, C. E. Law, C. C. Cavendish, S. Ponsonby,
Cadogan, R. Curzon, F. Charteris, Colonel Fitzgibbon, A.
Liddell, 11. Liddell, M. West, Spencer, 0. Duncombe, 11.
Pierrepoint, Colonel Gordon, S. Lyttelton, S. Herbert, Gor-
den, Barrington, G. Cavendish, Captain Rous, R. Wellesley,
S. Bourne, Addington, Chichester, R. H. Clive, C. S. Rice.
Hon. Mesdames—Norton, Maude, Wyndham, Herbert,
Montague, Dawson, Law, Vero Fane, Liddell, Rous.
Hon. Misses—Smythe, Copley, Maynard (2), Duncombe
(2), Hood (2), De Ros, Miller, F. Somerset (2), Mitford,
Foley, Stuart, Thelluson (2), J. Somerset, Eliot, Hamilton,
LaWley, A'Court, Barrington, Liddell, Neville, Flower, Gage.
Sirs—F. Trench, G. Murray, J. C. Hobhouse, J. V. 13.
Johnstone, H. Wheatley, E. Bowater, W. Gordon, H.
Hardinge, W. James, W. Cotton, H. H. Campbell, J. Mac-
donald, J. Shelley, J. Kirkland, R. H. Inglis, H. Seymour,
H. Douglas, A. Dalrymple, W. C. Codrington, P. G. Egerton,
G. Clerk, C. Hunter, E. Codrington, W. INT. Wynn, C. Dom-
vile, C. R. Cockerell, F. Head, A. Barnard, J. Williams, J.
R. Reid, Pelly, C. Dalbiac, G. Hamilton.
Colonels—Bennett, T. Wood, Wood, North, B. Drummond,
Montague, H. Baillie, Bouverie, Lascelles.
Captains—F. Seymour, Wood, A'Court, Vivian, Meynell,
Percival, Martyn.
Messieurs—Tomline, M.P., Clark, Parnther, H. Baring,
M.P., Verachoyle, V. Fane, Liddell, Graham, Peel, Brown •
rigg, C. Fane, Bonham, Drummond, W. Egerton, Dundas
Greville, Sandford, Mildmay, C. Drummond, Grenfell, Leslie,
Cole, Kerrison, Bentinck, G. Repton, M.P., Boyce, F. Gre-
ville, E. Tennent, Bankes, M.P., Estcourt, M.P., Stanhope,
Escott, A. Montgomery, Stanley, Greene, Ross, Newdegate,
M.P., J. Townley, G. Hope, Talbot, Vaughan, Neville, M.P.,
A. Capel, Beauclerk, Herbert F. Dawson, Cavendish, Town-
ey, A. Hope, M.P., H. Twiss, Russell Ellice, H. Russell,
Ccrnewall, T. Egerton, M.P., Cox.
Me idames--Verschryle, Balfour, A. Capel, Beauclerk, Cun-
life, Mills, Dawson Darner, H. Twiss, Fellowes,tH. Russell,
Cecil Fane, Russell Ellice, Drummond, Morier, Brownrigg,
Boyce, H. Baillie, Wilbraham Egerton, Smith, Dundas, Mar-
tyn, Cox, Thesiger, Percy, Emerson Tennent, Bankes, Law•
rence, H. Baring, Boyce, Lane Fox, Gurwood, Greene.
Misses—Codrington (2), Mills (2), Clerk (2), Law (2),
Rice Trevor (2), Fremantle (2), Hamilton, Meade, Fitzgib-
bon (2), S. Stewart, 'Johnstone, Kirkland, Paget (2), Las-
celles, Copley, Stan-hope, Balfour, Bowater, E. Balfour,
Wheatley (2), Ross, West (2), Farquhar, Gore, Fielding,
Ouseley, Campbell, Steele, Duff Gordon (2), A'Court, Har-
dinge (2), Beauclerk, Crewe, Darner, Drummond (2), S.
Bourne, Seymour (2), Fellowes, Mactavish, Morler (2),
Brownrigg, Dashwood, Tilney Long, Drummond, Wellesley,
H. Baillie, Addington, Legh, W. Egerton, Blachford, Smith
(2), Pierrepoint, Greville, Cox, Percy, Clive, Stanley, G. Sey-
mour, Domvile, Kerr, Cole, Escott, Montgomery, Gurwood,
Estcourt, Greene, Pakenham.

ATRANASIAN CREED.—Patson Paten was so averse
to the Atbanasian Creed, that he never would read it.
Archbishop Seeker having been informed of his recu-
saucy, sent the Archdeacon to know the reason :—" I
do not believe it," said the priest. " But your metropo-
litan does," replied the Archdeacon. "It may be so,"
replied Mr. Paten, " and he can well afford it ; he be-
lieves at the rate of seven thousand pounds a year, and I
only at fifty."