The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-11-05 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

OPENING OF THE FIRST ROYAL EXCIIANGE.—The
original Exchange built by Sit' Robert Gresham was not
opened in -the first instance with any formalities. The
building had been thrown open for the merchants -to
transact business, and several shops had been occupied
two or three years before Queen Elizabeth named and
opened it in form. The 23d January, 1570, was the day
appointed for the ceremony, and as it was of importance to
make as goodly a show as possible on the occasion, we
read in " Stowe's Chronicle " that Sir Thomas " went
twice in one day round about the upper pawne, and be-
sought those few shoppe-keepers then present that they
would furnish and adorne with wares and wax lights aS
many shoupes as they either coulde or would ; and they
shall have all those shopper so furnished rent-free that
yeere, which other wages at that time was forty shillings
a shop by the yeere." It was a great day for the city.and
for him, when the royal Elizabeth fulfilled her promise.
That due importance and eclat might be given to her pro.
gress, even trim its commencement, we learn from the
accounts of the churchwardens of Sr. Margret's West-
minster, that fourpence was paid to the bell. ringers "
ringing when the Queen's Majesty went to the Burse and
back again." Other parishes, this being regarae.d as no
every-day occurrence, were no doubt equally regardless of
expense, and the whole of her progress was, in all proba-
bility, rendered as triumphant as its commencement.
The trusty Liitorianjust named thus describes it :—" The
Queen's Majesty, attended with her nobility, came from
her hose in the Strand, called Somerset House, and en-
tered the city by Temple-bar, through Fie:l-street,
Cheap, and so by the north side of the Burse, to Sir Tho-
___

mas aresham's house inßisTopsgate-:treet, where she
dined. After dinner, her Majesty returning through
Corn hill, entered the Burse on the south side, and after
r(that she had viewed every part thereof above the ground.
.especially the pawn, which was richly furnished with all
sorts of the finest wares in the city, she caused the brire,
by hera:d and trumpet, to be proclaimed "fhe Royal Ex-
;change, and so to be called from thenceforth, and not
otherwi,e.' " During the proclamation, leaden medal•
lions, commemorative of the event, were distributed
!among the populace. One of these medallions, now in
the collection of Mr. C. R. Smith, has the royal arms of
England with the legend " Regina Vbiqve Honorata•
The second Exchange, it was expected, would have been
opened by Charles 11., who had laid the first stone, but
either business or pleasure prevented the thoughtless mo
narch from keeping his promise, therefore the only cere-
mony that took place is thus briefly noticed by Stowe :
" September 28th, 1669. was the day the Exchange, new
built, was opened for the merchants again to meet in,
when was expected the King, but he did not come. But
the Lord Mayor, Sir William Turner, came, and walked
twice about it, and congratulated the merchants upol
their Change again."
VALIDITY OF THE INDICTMENT ON THE LATE STATE

TRIALS.—Mr. Justice Coltman observes, that,

"in nit

times an indictment contained one single count only;"
and that, " now it has become usual to insert many
counts." It has become usual—it should rather be said
necessary;, but why ? Because of the rigid precision which
the law, in spite of the subtle and complicated character
of its modern mode of administration, has long thoueht
fit to require for the protection of the subject, in the
statement of an offence chart d against an individual.
Unless that degree of generality in framing criminal
charges, which has been so severely reprobated, in the
present instance, by Lord Denman, and which led the
'judges unanimously to condemn the sixth and seventh
counts, shall be henceforth permitted, justice must, so to
speak, be allowed to have many strings to her tow ; other-
wise the very great distinctueSs and rarticularity vyhich
constitute the legal notion of certainty, are only a trap
and a snare for her. There is a twofold necessity for al-
lowing the reasonable multiplication of counts: one, to
meet the difficulty often arising out of the adjustment of
the statement in the charge to the evidence which is to
support it; and the other, to obviate the difficulty, in
many cases, of framing the charge with per'ect legal cer-
tainty and precision. Look for a striking illustration at
the sixth and seventh counts of this very indictment. Few
practical lawyers, we venture to think, would have pro-
nounced them insufficient, brim e hearing those numert,us
astute and able arguments which have led the judges to
that conclusion ; and what if these had been the only
counts, or one of them the sole count? Of course, jus-
tice would have been defeated. Now the rule, custom, or
practice—call it what you wil—which has been annulled by
the House of Lords, was admirably adapted to meet, in
combination with the allowance of several counts, the
practical and perhaps inevitab:e difficulties which beset
the attempt to bring criminals to justice; to prevent any
injurious consequences from either defective or unproved
counts; and we think we may truly state, that no single
instance was adduced during the argument, of actual mis-
chief or injury occasioned to defendants by the operation
of this rule—we believe we may safely defy anyone now
to produce such a case. It is certainly possible for an
anxious straining ingenuity to imagine such cases; and
where is the rule of law, which, in the infirmity of human
institutions, cannot be shown capable of cwcasioning pos-
sible mischief and injustice? One important distinction
has not, we venture to think, been kept constantly in
view by the House of Lords in arriving at their recent de-
cision; we mean the distinction between defective counts
and unproved counts. It vveis principally in the former
case that the annulled rule operated so advantageously for
the interests of justice. Let us suppose a case. A man
is charged with an offence ; and the indictment contains
three counts, which we will call A, B, C—each differently
describine the same offence. He is proved in court to
have actually done an act to which the law annexes a pu-
nishment, and a general verdict and judgment, awarding
the correct kind of punishment, are given and entered. If
it afterwards become necessary to " make up" the record
- e. to enter the proceedings in due and full form—it
misht appear that count A wa.g essentially ciefective, as
containing no "offence" at all. But what did that signify
—or wnat would it have signified if count B had also been
bad—provided count C was a good one, and warranted
the punishment which had been inflicted ? The only
consequence was, that the indictment was a little longer
than it turns out that it needed to have been. Though
several hooks had been used in order to give an additional
chance of catching the fish, that was not regretted, when,
the fish having been caught, it turned ont that two out of
the three had riot been strongenough ; and that, had they
alone been use-1, the fish must have e taped.—Blackwood.