The Sun. — 1844-07-06 (London, England)

THE STATE TRIALS.  (THIRD DAY.)  WRIT OF ERROR.  HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)  THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL4AND OTHERS.  Mr. KELLY (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition) said Still he would ask, would this constitute one agreement or three? Supposing that upon the same sheet of paper eight persons agree to rob a garden, three of the eight agree to murder the inhabitants of a house, and seven of the eight agreed to rob another person on the highway, would it make any difference that these three agreements were on the same sheet of paper, or entered into at the same time? Would it be one or three agreements? It was perfectly clear they were three agreements, for three different purposes. To carry this a little further, ho would suppose that three persons were indicted fur a conspiracy to compass the Queen's death, and that five persons were indicted for a conspiracy to overawe the Legislature, and that the three were found guilty of high treason, and were pardoned 'by the Queen. If it were one conspiracy the party could not be indicted over again if he had been acquitted of the charge of high treason or had received the Queen's pardon. In that case the party could not be indicted again for the conspiracy to commit treason. Suppose three of the parties had agreed together to compass the, Queen's death, and four other parties in the same room, not knowing of this pre. vious agreement between the three, agreed with them to do certain acts for the purpose of overawing • the Legislature, could it be contended in such a case where three parties had. agreed to do one thing, and those same three, with five others, had agreed to do a different thing, that it ails one and the same conspiracy? lle would bring eit to another test. Suppose the Sovereign had given the three a freo pardon for the treason, would that free pardon also be a free pardon for the conspiracy with the fine to overawe the Legislature? Here were eight persons charged with attempting to create disaffection in the army. Five were found not guilty. If it were one conspiracy they were improperly found not guilty, because three •had been 'found guilty. Now, the same couldperson sane conspiracy. That led . him to the charge which had been made, o b the guilty 'and not guilty of one and the he jury. If this were one conspiracy, as soon as evidence had been given against all the defendants, every act done by one was evidence against not the' whole. He would" ask, would evidence against one of these parsons who were proved to have been guilty of conspiring to spread disaffection in the army be admissible against the five, when there was no evidence to convict them with being parties to that conspiracy ? Suppose eight agreed to do /cos. 1 and 2, seven to do Nos. 3 and 4, and three to do No. s—suppose evidence offered against the three on that charge, could that be admitted as evidence against the remaining five, on a charge of spreading dnkaffection against the Queen ? Would not the judge he bound to tell the jury that the acts done by, the three,in furtherance of one conspiracy, were not admissable in evidence against the other five, who were charged with a different conspiracy ? The LORD CitaateEn.on—All this was practicable, but difficult. Mr.