aT 
arene 
Se 
ee 
1843.73 . 
THE GARDENERS’ 
CHRONICLE. 
423 
Clonmel gaol, will be tried at the ensuing assizes for this 
county. It appears that there were five persons concerned 
in the murder of the ill-fated gentleman, and that one of 
them has become an approver. They were all hired 
assassins. The man who fired the shot followed Mr. 
Scully, without his shoes, until he came close to his back, 
into which he discharged the contents of his gun, which 
took instant effect. The only cause that has been assigned 
for the homicide was a proposal made by Mr. Scully to a 
tenant, to exchange the farm which he occupied for another 
equally good and eligible. The murderers were neither 
the tenants of, nor in any way connected with the property 
of the unfortunate gentleman. 
Monaghan.—A fatal affray between the country people 
and the police took place on the 5th inst., on the estates 
of Mr. Shirley, at Maheracloon, in which one of the rioters 
was shot. On Thursday the jury returned a verdict that the 
deceased came by his death by a gun-shot wound from a 
party of 28 policemen, commanded by Major Wilcox and 
Sub-Inspector Barry ; that the police have not produced 
sufficient evidence to show that they were in imminent 
danger of their lives at the time they fired on the people ; 
and that there was not proof as to the identical person who 
fired the shot. The local papers state that this verdict 
has rather increased than allayed the excitement of the 
peasantry, and that the people have imbibed the notion 
that they should have a fixed tenure, at their own rent, 
and that their landlords by demanding their rights are per- 
secuting them. 
SCOTLAND. 
Edinburgh.—The number of ministers who have signed 
and adhered to the protest given in to the General Assem- 
bly on the 18th ult, is stated in the Witness of Tuesday, 
23d, to beabout 444, On a careful examination of all 
the names that have been hitherto printed in the Witness, 
it appears, however, that the number of ministers is only 
95, of whom are: Parish ministers, 214 ; Quoad sacra 
ditto, 144; Professors, 3; Assistants and successors, 14 ; 
Ordained assistants, missionaries, and others having no 
cure, 20; inall, 395. The number of parish ministers in 
all is, 947; deducting from which the above 214, there 
remain 733. The number of ministers of Parliamentary 
churches and chapels of ease is about 246; deducting 
from which the above 144, there remain 102; making 
together, 835. It thus appears that there are 733 parish 
Ministers, besides 102 ministers of chapels, who have not 
retired from the Establishment. 
ne 
THEATRICALS 
Drury-Lane.—Her Majesty and Prince Albert paida 
state visit to this theatre on Monday night, and on no 
occasion of a royal visit to a national theatre was the 
Sovereign received with a more enthusiastic welcome. As 
early as three o’clock the doors were invested by crowds 
anxious to obtain admittance, and the rush to secure 
places was so general that in a few moments every tenable 
position became eagerly occupied, with the exception of 
the reserved seats. The dress-circle was very quickly 
filled, and the house altogether presented a splendid 
appearance. At ten minutes before seven her Majesty 
left. the Palace, preceded by seven royal carriages, in 
which were the at(endants on the Queen and Prince 
Albert, guarded by an escort of the Horse Guards. In 
the carriage with her Majesty and Prince Albert were the 
Earl of Jersey, Master of the Horse, and the Duchess of 
Buccleuch, the Mistress of the Robes. Throughout the 
Progress from the Palace to the theatre the most loyal 
demonstrations were exhibited. Ter Majesty arrived at 
the theatre between five and ten minutes ‘after seven 
O’clock, and was conducted to the Royal box by Mr. 
Macready and Mr. Serle. For some time after her arrival 
the enthusiasm of the audience could not be restrained, 
and the warmth of their feelings continued to pour itself 
Out, cheer after cheer, and peal after peal, in the midst of 
Which the curtain rose, and the National Anthem was sung 
Y the whole company. The performances commanded 
on this occasion were Shakspeare’s play of ‘As You Like 
It,” with the farce of the ‘‘Thumping Legacy.” In both 
instances it is sufficient to say that the cast was excellent. 
Her Majesty and Prince Albert appeared to enjoy the 
Performances very much, a circumstance which they indi- 
‘Cated as well by remaining until the termination of the 
arce, as by frequently indulging in laughter at Mr, 
Keeley’s drollery in the afterpiece, At the conclusion 
the performances the audience again called for the 
National Anthem, which was immediately acceded to, 
and it was repeated by the whole strength of the com- 
Pany, the audience meanwhile standing. .The Royal 
Rey left at a little after eleven, and the rising of 
er Majesty to depart was the signal for a renewed 
Manifestation of the feelings of the audience.—The season 
_ 8t this theatre closed on ‘Wednesday night, when Mr, 
i &cready delivered his farewell address to a house crowded 
n every part. The character he selected for his last 
Performance was Macbeth, and at the fall of the curtain 
\ ang beared at the call of one of the most enthusiastic 
| layers’ ever collected together at Drury Lane. The 
a ate Stood up and waved their handkerchiefs, the masses 
ii he pit and galleries waved their hats; bouquets of 
Sigantic dimensions were hurled down from all quarters, 
nfl instant the stage presented the appearance of 
Ower-show. At length order was restored, and Mr. 
who was evidently much affected by the warmth 
After Mawar came forward and addressed the audience. 
oN caus ane that his resignation of the theatre was not 
Raion 'y the want of public encouragement, or by low 
eae the heavy expenses incurred in 
ti of the establisk 
receipts, but by 
arious dep 
y and ruin to its present state, he gave 
‘ing the 
‘itself from lees 
a history of his connection with the two large theatres. 
He then passed to the circumstances of dramatic patents 
and, disclaimed all intention of imputing blame to the 
proprietors of the theatres or to individuals, but declared 
his conviction that “ against the law, which gives to per- 
sons totally unacquainted with the drama and with all 
appertaining to the dramatic art, an irresponsible power 
over it, every impartial voice should be liftedup.” “The 
principal performers,’ he said, ‘‘have testified their 
confidence in my system, by deliberately consenting to 
hazard one-third of their incomes in its support; and 
Thave volunteered myself still further sacrifices towards 
perfecting what is so far advanced; but as I cannot 
subject myself to the liabilities required of me, I have 
reluctantly and with deep regret resigned my charge. 
The consequence is, both these large theatres are now 
untenanted. The holders of their patents are unable 
themselves to present the glorious works of Shakspeare to 
an English audience, and yet are armed by the law with 
power to forbid their representation elsewhere. For were 
I now, after all I have given and endured to maintain the 
drama in these theatres—were I excluded by circumstances 
as I now am from them—to attempt in a theatre lately 
licensed by the Lord Chamberlain for the performances 
of brutes and brute-tamers, were I to attempt there the 
acting a legitimate play, the law, ‘with all their might 
to urge it on,’ would be put in force to prevent, or to 
punish me. May I not ask for what public benefit such a 
law is framed, or for what one good purpose it is persisted 
in? In regard to the proprietors of this theatre, let me 
Once again, and emphatically, disclaim all intention of 
imputing blame individually—for many of them I enter- 
tain the highest respect and esteem—it is the law under 
which they act that I complain of, and condemn as the 
drama’s worst enemy. In conclusion let me merely add, 
that I have endeavoured to redeem, throughout my man- 
agement, every pledge of my introductory address :—I 
have endeavoured to make your national theatre worthy of 
Shakspeare and of our country. In this attempt I hope 
I have not entirely failed. I have at least striven my 
utmost, and the encouragement I have received from you 
would have been sufficient to sustain me in the struggle, 
if, as should have -been the case, this theatre had been 
adequately appointed, For that encouragement, ladies 
and gentlemen, I return you my warmest acknowledge- 
ments. To the respectable portion of the public press I 
am anxious to dffer the expression of my gratitude for its 
sympathy and aid ; and with my own, with the performer’s 
thanks, let me indulge the hope that time may bring 
about a better state of things, and that I may yet again, 
under happier auspices, be honoured with your favour and 
approval. With a feeling of sorrow, but no desponding, 
adies and gentlemen, I respectfully and most gratefully 
take my leave.’” Mr. Macready retired amidst loud and 
continued. cheering. 
Wah, 
Courr Quern’s Brnen.— (Sittings in Banco.)— THe 
Cuantists.—The Queen v. M'Doualt.—Mr. Erle had to support 
the rule for arresting the judgment on the fourth count of this 
indictment, and before drawing the attention of the Court parti- 
cularly to the count itself, he would pray their Lordships would 
bear in mind what this indictment did not charge. There were 
nine counts in this indictment, of which several were framed for 
known offences of conspiracy, and several in respect of riotous 
and tumultuous assemblies; but this coun neither for 
conspiracy nor tumultuous assemblin 
he 
The fourth count was 
not framed for any offence that had a name in respect of which 
any precedent was to be found. need not draw attention to 
the right the defendants had to insist upon the prosecutor putting 
forward a charge of a known crime to which the defendants 
were accessory. The indictment was framed upon the principle 
of charging in the earlier part that some other persons as prin- 
cipal offenders were guilty of a principal offence whereof the 
defendants were accessories before the fact by aiding and abetting. 
He was to submit that, dividing this indictment into two parts, 
there was no offence charged in the first branch of the indict- 
ment; and the latter branch of the indictment, imputing that 
the defendants were accessories, was not sufficient to establish 
that offence. The first part of the indictment charged no principal 
offence; it was not a charge of conspiracy, nor was there a 
charge of riotously assembling. The description given was, 
‘that divers evil-disposed persons unlawfully and tumultuously 
assembled together.’ If that did not constitute an indictable 
offence, he was at a loss to know how the introducing several 
steps in the indictment could form an offence. The defendants 
could not be found guilty of riotously assembling. 
essential that three or more should be charged, because the 
essence of the offence was, numbers should be assembled. (Co. 
t., 176; 1 Ventris, 251; Salkeld, 934.) It was essential that 
the purpose of the assembling was to disturb the peace, or that 
the indictment should have gone on show some act, done in 
common by the parties assembled, which in itself would consti- 
tute a riot, or breaking the peace; but it was consistent with 
the present indictment that they might haye assembled for the 
purpose of festivity or electioneering, which were legal assem- 
lies, and the mere adding the word ‘ unlawful” would not make 
the indictment good, The first step, therefore, did not show thatthe 
assembling was for the purpose of breaking the peace, The second 
step was, that by violence, threats, and intimidation, divers other 
persons, being peaceable subjects of the realm, were incited to 
leave their occupations and employments, and thereby labour 
was impeded. Was there to be found in that statement anything 
which, taken by itself, would constitute an indictable offence? 
The result was no part of the offence. The mere impeding labour 
was not an indictable offence. The nearest offence to this would 
be that of assault; but it would be idle to say that a party could 
be convicted of an assault by circumlocution, such as was to be 
found in this indictment.— Mr. Justice Williams.—If persons 
assembled together, and by acts of violence impeded labour, that 
would be an indictable offence, would it not?--Mr. ‘Erle said his 
barging that the divers persons 
which would have brought them 
Jaw. The residue of the first branch. clearly did. 
an indictable offence by saying that they thereby impeded labour, 
because that was merely the result. They ought to have been 
charged with an offence of a known name. Those who made 
the charge ought to have kept within the known principles of the 
criminal law. The count was bad.on the ground that it did not 
appear where these divers persons were assembled, There was 
counsel cited the case of “The King v. Caspar,”? 2 Mi 
minal Cases, 101. 
‘ged, i 
after the fact, but it did not appear that they were presen’ , nor 
that they knew what was going on, but it was consistent with 
the indictment that they might merely have subscribed mon 
for the support of parties during the time they ceased to labour, 
Unless the parties were shown to have been 
ustite Patteson 
uld aid and 
M 
no gun was fired. Where there 
offences ought to be stated. It was not aidii 
anattemptto commit a misdemeanour, Where an a‘ 
charged, there must be an act done by the defendants which 
v 
not be re was no 
of the law; the intention alone was not eriminal.—Mr. 
Justice Patteson said there was 
Governme! 
indicted for solicitii 
different ; the defendants 
here was noact d 
that the generality of this indictment made it bad 
indefinite; it was so devoid of i 
is to what they were 
called upon to answer, to which all indicted persons were by the 
‘law of England entitled. There never was an indictment more 
bare in specifying any particulars; the words wer livers per- 
sons, at divers times, at div 
vers 
time? what was the offence ? 
day-assembly, every festive meeting, might come under the 
denomination oftumultuous assembling. The defendants were 
not supposed to be jointly guilty of any one of the acts charged, 
for these had been laid in the indictment as several and distinct, 
yet this only furnished an additional reason why the count now 
sought to be overturned should have been rendered more accu- 
rate and specific in its language. Among many other cases upon 
) conspiracies, those of “The Queen v. Touls,”” 5 Carr. and Payne, 
and ‘ the King v, Seaworth,” 1 Adolphus and Ellis, were autho- 
rities to show the inflexibility ofthe Courtsin regarding “ gene- 
rality” as fatal to an indictment. Upon these authorities, as 
| wellas apon the loose and vague wording of the 
| 
opposed to the spirit an 
must 
Mn. Sergeant Murphy, Mr, Bodkin, and Mr. Atherstone, followed 
on the same side, after which, Lord Denman said the Court 
would take time to consider the matter. 
Po.ick.—The Aldermen at Guildhall have been this week 
occupied with a charge of forgery preferred against Lady Ricketts, 
the widow of the Admiral who died recently at Cheltenham. The 
was preferred by ewton, her ladyship’s son-in-law, 
who alleged that she had forged the signature of her late husband 
for the purpose of receiving hispension. Our readers will recol- 
lect similar charge was brought against by 
Mr. Newton a few months since at Cheltenham, when the magis- 
trates, after full investigation, dismissed the case. nearing: 
f the evi pied the court during t adjourned sittings, 
and on each occasion the hall was crowded. rt. Newton con- 
ducted his own case, and Mr. Humfrey appeared for Lady Ricketts. 
Alderman Musgrove objected to Newton conducting his 
own case, and decided that all questions should be put through 
him. Mr. Price, from the Audit-office; Mr. Pike, senior clerk 
in the Paymaster-General’s Office; and Mr. Defaur, the Navy 
Agent, were examined at great length. Mrs. Newton was then 
examined, and distinctly stated that the signature to one of the 
documents was notin the handwriting of her late fath: This 
statement created an extraordinary sensation, but it afterwards 
appeared that she had not seen her father write for fifteen years. 
Two servants, who formerly lived in the service of the late Sir 
icketts, swore positively tha’ ite childish, and 
i ii On the other side, an unmarried 
daughter of the accused swore that the signatures to the three 
alleged forged certificates were in her father’s handwriting. Mr, 
Humfrey made a powerful speech on behalf of Lady Ricketts, 
and the presiding Alderman said, it was the opinion of himself 
and brother Aldermen that no case had been made out to sustain 
the charge of forgery, and therefore the case must be dis- 
missed, The result was received with loud cheers. 
Bail shah 
3 
SPORTING. 
Ascor Racss, Tuespay.—These races commenced this day 
under very unfavourable circumstances. The rain set in early, 
and continued without ceasing throughout the day; the 
approaches to the course were ankle-deep in mud, and the course 
itself in a state that has rarely been equalled. The assemblage 
was in keeping; the Gran ti contained only the inveterate 
lovers of the Turf whom nothing could deter; the minor stands 
were almost tenantless, and the whole display was disheartening, 
‘The jockies suffered severely ; their jackets presented any colours 
but ‘colours 0! 
s. 
gths. 
The St. James's Palace Stakes of 100 sovs. each, h ft; for 
three-yr-old colts, 8st 7lbs; fillies, 8st. dibs. Old mile. 
subs. Lord Westminster’s ¢ by Touchstone out of Languish 
(Templeman); beat Lord Exeter’s ¢ by Beiram out of Marinello ; 
Lord Bruce’s c by Elis out of Rosalie; and Lord Jersey’s c by Slane 
out of Cobweb. Wonby two lengths. 
The Ascot Derby Stakes of 50 sovs. each for three-yr-old colts. 
Swinley course. 9 subs. Sir G. Heathcote’s Amorino (Chapple), 
beat Mr. Thornhil’s Elixir; General Wyndham’s c by Velocipede 
—Guerdon; Lord Exeter’s Czar; and Lord Exeter’s Antidote. 
The Ascot Stakes of 25 sovs. each, 15 ft, and only 5, &c., with 100 
added; the second to receive 50 sovs. out of the stakes; 
winner of any handicap after the weights were declared 7lbs 
extra; two miles and a half, 37 subs., 18 of whom declared, 
