The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-05 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1844

adverse to the case of the plaintiffs in error. He
' would only say that, if the judgment in that case was '
right, it would establish this strange proposition, that
there was no remedy for an acknowledged wrong of
great magnitude. The only part of the case on which
he would address any observations to the House was,
as to the effect to be given to the opinion of the
learned judges, who thought that the first, second,
third, and seventh counts of the indictment were to be
rejected; the two last because they were bad in them-
selves, the others because the findings and the enter-
ing upon the findings were erroneous, and that a
judgment and sentence of the court, which was " for
his offences aforesaid" could not be impugned. A
court of law could not be affected by a consideration
of the nature of the counts which it was called on to
reject. The question they had to consider was, whe-.
ther there was error in the record, and if they read
the record as any other document, and only gave
to the words found there the construction they
would receive if used in any other instrument,
could it be for a moment doubted that, on the intend-
ments stated in the indictments in the several counts,
the jury had found a verdict of guilty upon all, and
that the defendants, for the offences aforesaid, were
subject to punishment ? Had not the court below
passed sentence for the offences in the sixth and
seventh count, as well as for the offences charged in
the others ? It was so found in the record, and were
they to say that the court had not passed sentence
upon all the counts ? He considered that the only
answer given, namely, that the court only passed sen-
tence upon the good counts, was unsatisfactory.
They could not look to the record to ascertain cer-
tain proceedings not mentioned in it. Some of the
arguments that had been used, supposed the court
below to be right in all particulars. In his opiniorl the
reverse was the fact ; there was manifest error
on the' record, and it was not competent
for a court of error to inquire into the causes of that
error. Supposing there was a charge in a count of
a malignant libel, and that count was proved to be bad,
was it to be said that the party was to be punished
equally, as if the count was good? Now, the judg-
ment of the House was to be governed by the cases
that had taken place ; and with respect to them seve-
ral had been referred to. Two classes of cases had
been cited, the second of which he considered only
to be applicable to the present case ; the first were
utterly inapplicable. The Noble and Learned Lord
then adverted to the cases of the " Queen v.
Rhodes" and the " Queen. v. Ingram," for the pur•
pose of showing that the court in those •• -
had arrested the judgment on the ground thd
cif the counts being proved to he bad, t • • a., -
could not apportion the punisTiihent. " Young /4.4..
King" had been relied upon on the part of the Cieewn.
He had carefully examined that case, and; hes
did- not consider that the decision pronounced
in it had any bearing whatever on the
present. It had been said, that in the " King, v.
Mason," a misdemeanour was charged on two counts,
and therefore the.judgment was sustained. Now that
was not the fact ; and in the "King v. Fuller," it Was
clearly laid down that judgment could not
be passed if there was any good count. Frotn
all these authorities, it appeared that the rule
in criminal cases, on a motion in arrest of judgment
was, that the court having ascertained, before it pro-
nounced
judgment, what counts were good and_
what bad, awarded the punishMent, as it thought
right, upon the offences contained in the good
counts. It appeared to him that a court of
error was in precisely the same predicament.
It had no more jurisdiction over the quantum of pu-
nishment, and no better means of referring one por-
tion of it to one count, or another to another, than *a
civil court had with respect to damages in an action.
In both cases the judgment proceeded on an indict-
ment which was found to be defective, and having
come to one result upon the whole, which the su-
perior jurisdiction could not apportion, the same
necessity existed in the one case as in the
other, of holding the whole to be bad. It
had been urged that much inconvenience would arise
from adopting this rule. He felt satisfied that the
inconvenience which would arise from the opposite I
course would be far greater, and would in many
cases be productive of great injustice. The only
inconvenience was, that the prosecutor would be com-
pelled to be careful as to the counts upon which he
rested his case; whilst the rejection of
the rule would deprive the defendants of the benefit of
a writ of error. The rule contended for by the de-
fendants was founded on principle, and necessary for
the purposes of justice; and it was in perfect analogy
with the decisions in civil and criminal cases. The
opinion which he had then expressed he formed early
in the argument. He had carefully attended to all
that had been urged at the bar by the
majority of the judges against it, and he
had not found any reason for altering his view.
Lord CAMPBELL then proceeded to read his judg-
ment. He said it was now his duty to state to their
Lordships the opinion which, after great considera-
tion, he had formed upon the questions of law raised
by this record, and to these, ofcourse, he should strictly
confine himself. In the first place, he had no doubt
that there were various good counts in the indictment.
A conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose, or to
effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means, was, by
the common law of England, an indictable offence ;
and if several persons deliberately plotted mischief to
an individual or to the State, they were liable to
punishment, although they might have done no act
in execution of their purpose. Where they had
actually done what they intended to do, it
might be more proper to prosecute them for
illegal acts ; but in point of law, they remained liable
for the offence of entering into a conspiracy. The first
five counts in this indictment clearly charged the de-
fendants with having conspired together to dicta' un-
lawful:purposes. The fifth count was strongly objected
to. He considered that any person who deliberately
attempted to promote feelings of and hosti-
lity between different classes of her Majesty's stab-t,jects, to make the English hated by the Irish; or'
the Irish by the English, was guilty of a most
culpable proceeding, and that, if several combined to
do so, they committed a misdemeanour, for which tiler
might be indicted and punished. lie was likewise
clearly of opinion that the plea in abatement was bad
in form, if not in substance, for -not averring that
there were nut other witnesses duly sworn, on whose
evidence the indictment niight have baen supported,
and for not showing that" the witnesses who were
examined could not, on account of their religious
profession, have been lawfully eXainined without being
sworn in. He thought :!the Court of Queerra
Bench was fully authorised :to continue the trial- in
the vacation, and that the ;bider for that purpose,
though conditional, was quite sufficient. In his opi
nion, the rule of the common law requiring the con-
tinuance of the order did not apply. The question
raised by the writ of error, coram nobis, was more
doubtful. The assignment of error in respect to the
witnesses not having been sworn in court, was free
from defects fatal to the plea in abatement. lie
had no difficulty in over-ruling Mr. Steele's
point, that there was no statement written -on
the indictment of the names of the witnesses sworn;
He was at first much struck with the objection to the
validity of the judgment by reason of the form of the
recognisance into Which the defendant was required to
enter, and he was by ncemea.ns free from doubt upon
it then, although he was not prepared to say that it
would be a sufficient ground for reversal. It must be
taken to be part of the sentence pronounced upon the
defendant for the offences of which he had been found
guilty, and it could not be separated from
the finding. The recognisances imposed in this
case might lead to perpetual imprisonment.
Magna Charta provided that no fine should be im-
posed upon any party which it was out of his power
to pay. The effect of the sentence, in this case,
would be, that if the required recognisances were not
found, the party would remain in prison for the rest
of his lifer He felt still more- difficulty when he
came to the next part of the case—probably the most
important part of it, as it was not merely a technical
question, but one which affected the administration of
justice—he meant the constitution of the jury by
whom the defendants were tried. The only question
here was, whether the challenge to the array was a
remedy which the law allowed. (The Noble
and Learned Lord here read that portion
of the plea of the defendants which applied
to this part of their case.) Now, he was
clearly of opinion that the defendants ought not to
have been tried by a jury constituted in the manner
described in the case of the plaintiffs in error. It
was there described not merely as a casual
omission of names, but the averment was that the
names had been-fraudulently omitted. He conceived
that under such circumstances the panel ought to
have been quashed. No other remedy was suggested.
His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had
suggested no remedy. If the jury list was found to be
defective, the jury list of the former year
ought to have been brought into operation as though
no list had been formed for the current year. He
confessed that he should not have been inclined to ad-
vise their Lordships to reverse the judgment merely
upon this ground upon his own sole opinion, but since
writing his judgment he had listened to the
argu-
mentsof his Noble and Learned Friend the Chief
Justice of the Queen's Bench, and also those of Mr.
Justice
Coltman. The jury were unanimous in the
opinion that the finding of the jurymen on the 2d,lst, and 3d
counts of the indictment were contrary
to law. His opinionoff
nces wass that the punishment must
be taken as Navin
ebeencharged
ei n
bad respect of
the supposedcounts.
According to the plain use of language and the com-
mon sense of mankind, the defendants were being
punished on charges which did not amount to crimes,
and for crimes of which they had not been con-
victed. With respect to the bad counts, it was said
that it was a rule of law if there were any good counts,
a bad count would not vitiate the judgment. It
would be strange if such were the universal rule.
Such might very well be the case where only one corpus

dilicti was charged in an indictment consisting
of more than one count in utile per inutile non
vitiatur ; but where the separate counts of an indict-
ment charged distinct offences, they must be consi-
dered as separate indictments, and, as had been shown
in the case of Feargus O'Connor, where the court
had arrested the judgment upon one count as
soon as it was discovered to be bad. They
were told that they were to presume that the
court below knew what counts were bad,
and what were good, and passed judgment upon those
counts only which were good. Such an opi-
nion would be contrary to the whole spirit of our law,
which supposed judges to be fallible, and provided a
machinery by bills of exceptions, writs of error, and
other expedients, for the correction of any errors into
which they might fall ; and it would be contrary to
fact, for all the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench
in Ireland had held the sixth and seventh counts to
be unexceptionable. lie would suppose a case,
in which there were two counts, A and B,
A being a good count, and B a bad one, the court
below held B, which charged a grave offence, to be
good, and A, which charged a light offence, to be
bad, and passed sentence on the count B, would it
be held that a court of error, finding the count B to
be bad, would be bound to subject a man to that
severe punishment, because A, charging a lighter
offence, was good ? This doctrine was attempted to
be upheld on authority, and by the general
opinion of the profession. The dictum of
Lord Mansfield referred solely to motions in
arrest of judgment, and not to writs of error. It had
no application at all to the present case; and in the
cases of the " King and Mason," and the " King and
Young," the point had not been raised. The case in
" Russell and Bligh" amounted to nothing, as the
Court had no power to consider any thing but the
point reserved; and in the " King and Powell" it was
decided that misdemeanour and offence must be con-
sidered as a novum collectinum, and as both counts
were held good, there could be no doubt that the judg-
ment was correct. In indictments for perjury, if
one assignment were good, that would support
a verdict, because perjury was but one offence, and
one good assignment was sufficient to support it,
how many bad ones soever there might be in the
indictment. It was said that this indictment ought
to be supported on the ground of expediency. He
could not see what inconvenience could possibly
arise from taking a verdict upon such count, and
passing sentence only upon those counts which were
good. lie understood that Mr. Baron Rolfe had
Vesed sentence in an indictment for murder in which
'cffe'count was bad, but in such a case no practical
difficulty would arise, as where one felony was proved
it; was sufficknt to support a verdict of guilty, and
lejeuld nevir. be , worth the while of a person con
`v of felony OU otie goorcOube-to sue out a writ
of error. Bat in cores of misdemeannr ittviwas very
different, for actor ding to the present loo4sygtem of
drawing up indict Ants, a pleader having drawn one
good count, might go on draWing- other counts,
each' increasing in vagueness and ambiguity, until he
involved the patty indicted in such perplexity, that
there would be the greatest difficulty in ascertaining
of what he was accused. There could be no difficulty
in taking a verdict Of acquittal, or entering a nolli
prosequi on the counts that were bad, and passing
judgment only on those that were good.'
It had been said by the learned judges, with the ex-
ception of Justice Patteson, on the good counts only,
and not on the three bad ones ; and yet, those counts
contained the most serious charges, includinc, that of
creating discontent in the army. Now, could their
Lordships concur in the incredible fiction,
that the judges, having the general verdict,
so far neglected their duty as to overlook
those grave charges ? He would remind their
Lordships that they were not bound by the opi-
nion of the majority of the judges. The appeal was
not from the Irish to the English judges, but to that
Chamber, in the exercise of one of its most important
functions, which he hoped their Lordships would
long continue to exercise for the benefit of the coun-
try and the protection of its liberties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question thus
—ls it your Lordships' pleasure that the judgment
be reversed ?

Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell said,
" Content."

Lord Brougham and two or three Tory Peers (lay
Lords) said "Not Content."
The LORD CHANCELLOR was about to put the ques-
tion again, in the usual form, previous to taking the
numbers or dividing, when—
Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose, but on the suggestion of
the Lord Chancellor, he sat down, put on his
hat, and addressed the House from his seat.
He said that he did not think it desirable that their
Lordships should divide, as there was a majority of the
law lordi in the House in favour of the appeal. He
humbly recommended those of their Lordships who
were not law lords—and who, not having heard the
whole case, were not so well qualified to judge of the
question—to abstain from voting. It was far better
that the character of the House, as a court of appeal,
should be maintained, and that their decision should
be against the opinion of the majority of the judges—
even though in this case it should produce great

inconvenience—than that those Lords who had not
heard the case should, by their interference, reverse
the judgment of those members to whom e deci-
sion of such cases was usually committed by the prac-
tice of the House.

, Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred in the opinion
of the majority of the judges in Ireland and England.
But he also agreed with the Noble Lord who had just
spoken, that it was more advisable that those of their
Lordships who had not heard the case, should not
vote. He deeply lamented the division to which the
Hotiseivotild come ; but he would now only say, that.
when he differed from the majority of the judges on-
the queStion' of Presbyterian Marriages in Ireland, he
did so upon- the authority of Lord Stowell and other
leditent persons.
Lord CAMPBELL had voted' with his Noble 'Friend
on the question of Presbyterian Marriages, and for the
same reason. He would now only say that the dis-
tinction between lay Lords.and law Lords was not
knoWn to the Constitution, but that it was the rule of
all courts of law that no judge should decide a case
which he had not heard.

The Duke of CLEVELAND was understood to say
that he had paid great attention to the case, und that
he thought he had a right to vote upon it.
The 'Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that if any
other lay -Veer voted, he would vote also, although
he=thought it would be calamitous for the character
of the House, as a judicial body, if the established
rule in such cases were departed from.
- After a few words from Lord VERULAM, the whole
of the lay -Peers withdrew.
The question was again put, and Lords Cottenham,
Denman, and Campbell having voted for the reversal
of thei judgrinent, and Lord Brougham against it,
The :LORD CHANCELLOR said—My Lords, THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.

before said, it was unwise to press and strain too much
upon the well-known and proverbial loyalty of the Irish
people, more especially as it had ever been in time of
war and danger that their rights had been partly con-
ceded to them. In conclusion, he stated that he felt sa-
tisfied in his own mind that the day was not far distant
when the mighty shadow of a corning event would be
lost in the bright reality of an Irish Parliament.
Several contributions from different parts of England
and Ireland having been handed in,
Mr. R. D. BROWSE rose and stated that he appeared
there as the representative of Mr. W. S. O'Brien, from
whom he would read a letter addressed to the Secretary
of the Association. After the Hon. Gentleman had con-
cluded reading the letter of Mr. O'Brien, he proceeded
to compliment the Chairman upon the speech with which
lie had opened the day's proceedings. He next dwelt
upon foreign affairs—upon the French fleet and army
located on the north coast of Africa, and then touched
upon the intended visit of her Majesty to Ireland. The
first, indeed, deeply affected the interests of Ireland.
With respect to the other, there were perspective con-
siderations as to the demeanour of the Irish people upon
that occasion when the eyes of the world would be upon
them, but it sank into insignifance when compared
with the former topic. A French fleet was now sweep-
ing through the Mediterranean. Now, it was a melan-
choly fact that the political aphorism. " That England's
weakness was Ireland's opportunity"—(Loud cheers)—
was only too true.—(Renewed cheering.) With one so-
litary exception, Ireland had never gained a concession
except by the arms of France—(Applause)—by the
arms of America—(Great cheering)—or by some intes-
tinal tumult. The present time was the hour of Eng-
land's weakness.—(" No, no," and cries of" Hear, hear.")
The Learned Member then proceeded at great length to
consider the present state of the Mediterranean, which in
his opinion was most perilous to the interests of Eng-
land. He praised the Prince de Joinville and the French
navy. Suppose the armies of England were occupied in
the Oregon territory, or in Canada, where the French
habitans sympathise with their European ancestors—or
on the heights of Caubul, contending with the stardy
Affghans—or in suppressing monster meetings in Ire-
land—or, what is still more formidable, in stifling the
cries of the hungry artisans of England for bread, who
are beginning to feel that it is as well to die by the
sword as by famine. If England's army was thus en-
gaged what was to prevent the Prince de Joinville, who
had already seized upon one of the pillars of Hercules,
from ascertaining whether Calpe's boasted rock was in-
, deed inaccessible. Whom would England have to sup-
port her in such a contest ?—(Hear, hear.) Would the
Russians tender their assistance ? Would Mehemet

Ali feel grateful to England for her past conduct ?
Would the Pope coincide with the people of England
against Catholic France ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Would the Sultan join his forces to those of England
while an avalanche was in the act of gathering in the
North which; . 44411e(Fdown and crush the minarets
of Constantity.(t. eiiftriCiA(English had applied the
term cowards: ta:lorefraiktitt..navy of France. The noble
spirit,of cfAclrleapeci into life at the word in the youth-
ful sec of the .Prince de Joinville, who had an-
swereilat with the thunder of his cannons against Tan-
giers.—(Loud and long-continued applause.) The con-
duct of England had been marked by weakness and
indecision, and reminded him of a story which he had
heard of 'a man who said to an assailant of his, " You
have called me a rascal and a liar. You have kicked
me too, but beware! If you insult me again, you will
rouse the British lion within me."—(Applause and laugh-
ter.) Now, he came to the royal visit to this country,
the people of -Ireland were attached to the person of
their Sovereign; they would even be ambitious to shed
their blood in the defence of the glory of her empire, if
justice were done to Ireland.—(Cheers.) They would
welcome their Sovereign in their hearts, but he would
say, it was an ill-tinied visit.—(Hear.) If O'Connell
was liberated it wotild'he an ill-timed visit, because he
would not, nor would the people of Ireland take it as a
boon; injustice had been done them, and they (lid nct
come crouching either before a Sovereign or a Minister.
—(hear.) But if she came this year, he for one would
not shout in her train; and while O'Connell was in pri-
son, let it be recollected that Ireland was a house of
mourning, and no idle and ostentatious pageant should
intrude upon the soil.—(Cheers.) But if she came to
Ireland, he trusted she would take advantage of the op-
portunity and learn the real condition of their country;
that she would not take Dublin as what it might appear
then for the moment, but that she would inquire and
hear of its deserted Custom-house—its deserted Hall
of Trade—its deserted shops—its deserted streets in
ordinary. circumstances—(Rear, hear)—the houses of its
nobility uninhabited—the houses of its gentry crumbling
to ruins—its. Exchange a mockery—its Bank a monopoly,
and its Castle the seat of their Government—a despotism.
—(Hear, hear.) Let her Majesty travel to the interior
of the country, and see the almost naked peasant—a
hapless, shoeless human being and her subject, the
proud Victoria.—(ifear, hear.) Let her see its spacious
harbours—let her behold its rapid, its liquid streams,
capable of turning a great portion of the manufactories of
England and floating the armada, rolling on in their
majestic course through millions of acres of uncultivated
land.—(Hear.) Let her at last contemplate her peace-
able, intelligent, sober, and loyal people ; and when she
went back to her Ministry, let her exclaim, " Is a country
so circumstanced to be in such a condition ? Are a
people so blessed by Providence to be reduced to such
a state of ineffable misery, of dangerous despair ?"
Mr. D. O'CoNNELL, jun., read a communication from
a private source in London, bearing date Saturday even-
ing, and detailing some particulars connected with the
consultation of the Judges on the writ of error question,
who, it was stated, had assembled on that morning at
the residence of Sir N. C. Tindal, the Lord Chief Justice
of the Court of Common Pleas, to consider in private,
and interpret the law bearing on the most material points
urged in objection on the part of the traversers.
Other speeches were delivered by General Cloney, the
Rev. Mr. O'Neil, and other gentlemen, who handed in
contributions to the national treasury from various parts

of Ireland.
Mr. D. O'CONNELL again rose to bring forward his
weekly bulletin from the Richmond Bridewell. He first
announced that the traversers were in excellent health
and spirits. He then proceeded to read as follows :-
6' The decision of the judges to be waited for with the
utmost indifference, the eleven questions referred to
the English judges being so framed as to exclude the
consideration of the .great merits. of the case of the
traversers. In particular, no question arises upon the
charge of the Chief Justice, a charge that nobody has
been found, either in or out of the Houses of Parlia-
ment, to defend ; yet the traversers are deprived of any
advantage from the illegality of that charge. The
traversers are aLo deprived of any benefit from the
Irish judges having admitted newspapers -as evidence
of the facts therein contained against the traversers. It
is quite manifest that this evidence would not have
been received by the Court of Queen's Bench in Eng-
land, yet the traversers are deprived of any benefit
arising from the illegality of that evidence. The
eleven questions submitted to the judge 4 are framed in
the most unfavourable way for the traversers, and can
be met:and .answered negatively on technial reasons,
totally independent. of, and unconnected with the merits:
tinder
those circumstances, it would lie quite idle to
expect
anything favourable from the decision of- the
English judg...s. Let the people, therefore, throughout
Ireland, receive with the utmost tranquillity, and a ith-
out the slightest irritation the announcement of an un-
favourable deci,ion by 'the judges." Such, I know,
would be my father's opinion and advice, if he 'were
present. My father is thoroughly convinced that the
tranquillity of the country will be unimpaired, and that
the remainder of the imprisonment will pass away with the
same tranquil forbearance on the part of the people that
has marked the three preceding months. .In the present
state of the political world there is no need of impatience
perseverance, that is, perseverance accom-
panied tranquillity, will insure, beyond a
doubt,P—atniel
lail9
.'by
Ilil
the repeal of the union. My father is very
anxious that the gentlemen engaged in the late registry
in the city of Dublin should be sensible of his deep
gratitude to them for their patriotic and disinterested
exertions, and in particular Counsellors Mackey and
Burke, who deserve the thanks of the Association, for
their legal acumen and patriotic exertions. These gen-
tlemen have set a most laudable example to other
patriotic barristers and attorneys. It is most desirable
to follow up the exertions for registry in the city of
Dublin, and in particular to apply to the Protestant
operatives and tradesmen to procure them to join in the
repeal registration. The Protestant operatives and trades-
men have the same, if not a deeper interest in the repeal
of the union than the Catholics, and it is quite certain
that no candidate will get the support of the Liberal in-
terest at the next election buta repealer, no matter what his
religion may be—that is utterly immaterial to the pub-
lic. My father thinks that there would be no objection
at all to vote for the present Members if they declared
themselves Repealers, as they assuredly ought, if they
consult the material interests of their constituents.
Everything must be done to procure the registration to
be universal throughout the counties at the next session;
but this subject is so powerfully taken up by that inesti-
mable patriot, Smith O'Brien, that any details had better
be reserved for his return to town. Peace and perseve-
rance—tranquil perseverance! It is manifest that politi-
cal events are thickening into such consistency as will
render it impossible that Ireland shall not peaceably ob-
tain justice. Hurra for Repeal !
Mr. R. D. BROWNE explained to the meeting that he had
penned a letter to the Nation newspaper, in consequence
of some strictures which appeared in that journal ; but
after an interview with Mr. O'Connell, he considered it
the more prudent course, for unanimity sake, not to have
it published.
Mr. M'NEvn.r then read a report on the subject of the
attendance of Irish Members in Parliament.
The report was adopted.
Mr. GORDON rose up, and in rather an abrupt and
excited manner, gave notice of the following motion,
which he expressed his intention of moving on that day
fortnight ;—" That in the event of a war with France, to
,
resolve that an extraordinary. general meeting of this
Association be called
exclusively for the purpose of
taking into consideration the propriety of reviving the
volunteer organisation of 1779 and 1782, by means of
which the people of Ireland protected their country from
the foreign foe, in circumstances similar to those which
now threaten the security. of the three nations, as well as
the general peace of the world ; and under which they
also wrung from the oppressors and Anti-Irish Ministe-
rial factions of those periods, freedom of trade and legis-
lative independence."
When Mr. Gordon had finished reading his notice, and
was about addressing the meeting, he was interrupted by
Mr. R. D. BitowNE, who called upon the Chairman not
to receive that proposition.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," " Order, order," and some slight excitement.) It
is not safe to receive such a document.—(Great cheer-
ing.) That motion would be manifestly illegal, and Mr.
O'Connell had stated that any such attempt would ex-
pose the Association to danger.—(Loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN expressed his determination not to
receive the notice, as he conceived it WAS of an illegal
character.

Mr. GORDON, amid some confusion, claimed the right

to speak, and urged that his notice of motion was per-
fectly just and legitimate.
Mr. R.D. BROWNE protested against Mr. Gordon speak-
ing
in reference to the notice, which could not be received.
Town-councillor REILLY interrupted the discussion by
handing in several sums of money.
Mr. GORDON again essayed to address the Chair, when
Mr. R. D. BROWNE declared that if such vague, un-
digested motions were entertained in that meeting, he
would take up his hat and leave the place. The lion.
i 1 ember then read a letter from the parish priest of
Claremorris, one of Mr. Browne's constituents.
The rent for the week was announced to be 7351.
Mr. M. Blake was then called to the Chair, and a vote
of thanks having been passed to Mr. O'Hea, the meeting
separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ADMIRALTY COURT, Sept. 4.
The first Surrogates' Court during the vacation was
held this day at Doctors' Commons, fur the purpose of
hearing applications, several of which were upon the list,
but none of them possessed much general interest.

her husband worked." When they got into her room,
the man ordered her to open her boxes and drawers, and
to give him up all the papers therein, as he said they no
doubt would throiv some light on the robberies which
her husband had committed on his employers. She then
proceeded to unlock her drawers, in which there was a
green purse containing 12/. 10s., and the .moment he
saw it he took possession of it, saying that it was part
of the produce of the robbery. and he afterwards took
six silver spoons and a small jewel-case containing
two
.gold wedding-rings and other articles of jevr-
ellery, adding that he had no doubt they were also pur-
chased with part of the stolen money. During these
proceedings the nurse and the other female lodger
were down stairs, not interfering, under the supposition
that the " gentlemen" were either tax-gatherers or pub-
lic officers; and as she (complainant) believed all along
they were the latter, she did not oppose them in any
way, although she was so much terrified that she could
scarcely move. When he had ransacks the place he
then asked her upon her oath if she had exhibited every-
thing to him, and on her reply in° in the affirmative he
then said that she must he careful of what she said, for
that she would have to make the same statement again
before their superiors. Having placed the money,
spoons, and jewel-case in his pocket, he then inquired
for a sheet of writing-paper, saying that he should
write a letter to the inspector oft a Tower-street station-
house, where her husband was locked up, requesting
that every indulgence might be granted to him consis-
tent with his safe custody, and he then proposed that
she should take the note to the station-house, adding,
that probably the inspector would liberate him until
the day of examination arrived. He then called the
prisoner Cooper, saying that he would accompany her
to Tower street, and when she said that she was afraid
she would not be able to go so far, his remark was that
Cooper would assist her there, that she should lean upon
his arm, and that the sooner it was done the sooner
would her husband be released from the station-house.
She agreed to this arrangement, and having thrown on
her bonnet and shawl, she and Cooper, who bad the letter,
left the house together, leaving the tall man behind, who
said that he should wait until their return. When she and
Cooper got to the end of Agnes-street, Waterloo-road,
they proceeded on towards the Hero of Waterloo Tavern,
and when they got near that house, Cooper said there
was an officer waiting there for him, and desired her to
wait at a little distance until he came out. Cooper then
left her, and having waited for some time for his return,
and finding he did not come back, she hastened off to
her house, found the street door wide open, and the tall
man gone. The complainant added, that she then sus-
pected it was all a plan laid to rob the house, and her
suspicions were verified on her husband shortly after-
wards retarning home from his employer's premises.
In reply to Mr. TRAILL, the complainant said that she
Should know the tall man who ransacked her drawers,
but that Jackson was not the man.

Sarah Cowper confirmed the greater portion of the
complainant's evidence, and as she was the person who
opened the door for the men who robbed the house, and
had a full opportunity of distinguishing their persons
and features, said that she could speak positively to the
identity of Cooper as being one of them.
Sergeant Langley, of the detective police, stated that
having received information of the robbery, together
with a description of the men who committed it, he took
the prisoners into custody, walking together in the West-
Minster-road. Jackson gave a fictitious name and
address, and seeing a wedding-ring on one of his fingers
he tried to get it off, suipectlng it to have been stolen
from Mrs. Brundall, but he failed in the attempt, and he
was therefore desirous that the complainant should now
examine the ring on Jackson's finger, and state whether
it was hers Or not.

Jackson said he had broken the ring in attempting to
take it off his finger, and that he threw it away on going
to the station-house.

The prisoners, who said they would reserve their
defence, were remanded until Wednesday. •

WANDSTV 01? TH.

On Tuesday James Dawes, waggoner to the Earl of
Lovelace, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Surrey,
and John Clements, carman to Mr. Collins, a distiller at
Byfleet, Surrey, was brought before Mr. Clive for re-ex-
atniriath,n, the former charged with stealing a bundle of
hay, the property of the above-mentioned nobleman, and
the latter with receiving the same, knov%lng it to be
stolen.

The facts, as detailed at the first examination, were as
follows :—On Friday morning last, at about half past
five o'clock, police-constable Gardiner, 279 V, was on
diity in the High-street, Wandsworth, when he observed
the two prisoners behind a waggon loaded with hay.
The constable saw Dawes draw bundle of hay fr3m
under the waggon, and give it to Clements, who put it
into his cart. The constable afterwards went to Cle-
ments, and told him that he had been doing wrong in
taking the.hay, when the latter said that it was no busi-
ness of his, and drove off. The policeman caught hold
of the reins, and was dragged upwards of half a mile
befbre another constable came to his assistance, when he
took the prisoner into custody, and afterwards went back
and, apprehended Dawes.
The defence made by the prisoners was, that it was no
robbery, and that they were merely exchanging fodder
=Dawes giving hay for clover.
The prisoners, for whom the sitting magistrate (Mr.
Clive) refused bail, were remanded until Tuesday next.
After the prisoners had been placed in the dock yes-
terday,
Mr. Cluvx asked if there was any one in attendance
from the Earl of Lovelace ?

Mr. William Kaye, his Lordship's steward, stepped
forward.

Mr. CLIVE—I have received a letter from Lord Love-
lade. I suppose you are aware of its contents ? Mr.
Kaye—l believe I am. His Lordship won't prosecute
his waggoner. He has had him for many years, and
believes him to be an honest servant. The practice of
exchanging fodder on the road is one that frequently
occurs, and I should allow it.

Mr. CLlVE—Whatever your opinion may be, I think
a decided case of felony has been made out; but if your
master will not prosecute, why the men must be dis-
charged. Mr. Kaye said that the prisoners had acted as
they had done believing that they had a right to do so.
Mr. CLIVE called police-constable Gardiner, 279 V,
and asked him if, when the prisoners were taken into
custody, they attempted to set up their act as a matter
of right.
The constable replied, certainly not ; and it was not
until they had been brought to that Court that they said
they were only exchanging hay for clover.
Mr. Kaye submitted, that it was a known practice for
waggoners and carters who were acquainted with each
other to exchange fodder, whilst on their journey, and
the prisoner Dawes had his authority to exchange fodder
if he thought fit to do so.

Mr. CravE—There is no evidence here of exchange•,
and there is no proof that Clements was possessed of any
clover, and it is my belief that this defence was con-
cocted between the parties after they were in custody.
Robberies of this kind are exceedingly numerous, and it
requires the utmost vigilance on the part of the police
to detect them. I have been led to make these remarks
in consequence of the receipt of a letter from 14,,rd
Lovelace, in which his Lordship thinks the police are to
blame ; but I will read the substance of the communi-
cation. (The worthy Magistrate then read portions of
the letter, which were to the effect that Lord Lovelace
considered his servant had been most unjustly treated in
being committed to prison on a frivolous charge of steal-
ing hay, when the practice on the road of exchanging
fodder was generally known, and allowed by the masters.
He considered his servant had done nothing more than
he would have done in the steward's presence ; but
owing to the officious meddling of the police he had been
treated as a criminal, and his (Lord Lovelace's) property
had been jeopardized by being intrusted to a little boy.
The letter•proceeded to state that he trusted the magis-
trate would feel it right to order the release of his ser-
vant, and make him some reparation for having been
confined among felons: If that was not done, he should
take legal advice as to the best means of exposing the
oppression under which an innocent man had been de-
prived of his liberty, and respectable bail refused.)
Mr. Cravu said he had distinctly understood the lad's
age to be sixteen who was intrusted with his Lordship's
team, and that he had himself stated that he was fully
capable of managing it; but that did not matter. It had
nothing to do with the charge.
Mr. Kaye—My opinion is that the police should have
found some one more competent to take the team home.
Mr. CLIVE-It does not matter about your opinion.
If his Lordship thinks it necessary to take proceedings
against the police, they will be prepared to meet the
chatlge._ _ __ _

Mr. Kaye—His Lordship will expect compliance with
the tmns of his note.

Mr. CLIVE—It is not becoming in you to threat(-n in
a court of justice. I told you before, the police will be
prepared to meet any charge, and I repeat that they
were justified in what they did.
Mr. CLIVE afterwards read a letter from Mr. Collins,
the master of the other prisoner, in which that person
regretted that his servant should have got into trouble,
and blamed him for not having taken sufficient food fur
his horses from home. The Magistrate thought this
letter proved that no exchange touk place, or was in-
tended; for it was pretty evident that Clements had no
clover, or any other kind of fodder, to give in exchange
for hay. The prisoners were then discharged.

.PORT'ENTOUS LAUNCH AT
GREENOCK.
It is pretty generally known, that for some time
past a schooner has been building at this port, intended
I.as a sort of floating battery, to enable the ministers of
the Free Secession to carry on their war against the
Church, among the sounds and shores of the West
Highlands. By the brusque and fiery zealots with
whom this enterprise originated, every conceivable
effort has been exhausted, in order to invest it with
an interest and consequentiality, not dissimilar to what
attached .50 years ago to the London Missionary ves-
sel called the Duff, a name, by the way, which this
Hebridean privateer might not unsuitably emulate, in
compliment to that exploit, whereby a certain Calcutta
officer in the same service has recently made free with
the site for " the Orphan Refuge," belonging of right
to the Establishment he has deserted. Enthusiasm
has been wrought up to the highest pitch in favour of
the Gree,nock galley. Even during the sacramental
week just ended, the nee ministers v.ho had come to
assist at the communion were repeatedly observed at
the building-yard, inspecting its progress. Yesterday
was the day fixed upon for the launch, for which pre-
parations of no ordinary kind bad been proudly ar-
ranged.
All sorts of gay Erastian flags were be-
dizening the merry masts. Horrid worldly guns were
ever and anon piercing the peaceful air. The free
mantuamake:s and other f, ee ladies were s-en
and trailing from all quarters. A finer day for the
occasion could not possibly have been desired ; the
assembled concourse of sympathising seamstresses and
of truants, both from the counter and the kitchen,