Then there remain FIVE PERFECT COUNTS WITH FIVE PERFECT FINDINGS, in the opinion of all the judges and of all the law lords; those five _counts_ containing the gist of the whole charge against O'Connell and his confederates--those five _findings_ establishing that the defendants were guilty of the offences so laid to their charge. Blot out, then, altogether from the record the six counts objectionable on the above-mentioned grounds, how are the other five to be got rid of? Thus, said the traversers' counsel. We have the entire record before us containing all the eleven counts and findings, both good and bad; and we find by the language of the record itself, that the judges, in passing sentence, _took into consideration all the eleven counts_, as if they had been valid counts with valid findings--for the judges expressly inflicted punishment on each of the traversers "_for his_ OFFENCES _aforesaid_." Is it not therefore plain to demonstration, that the measure of punishment was governed by reference to six--_i. e._ a majority--of eleven counts, which six counts had no more right to stand on the record, entailing liability to punishment on the parties named in them, than six of the odes of Horace? The punishment here, moreover, being discretionary, and consequently dependent upon, and influenced by, the ingredients of guilt, which it appears conclusively that the judges took into their consideration? Such was the general drift of the reasonings of the traversers' counsel. What was their effect upon the assembled judges--those experienced and authoritative expositors of the law of the land? Why, after nearly two months' time taken to consider and ponder over the various points which had been started--after anxious consideration and communication one with another--they re-appeared in the House of Lords on the 2d of September; and, led by one who will be on all hands admitted to be one of the most experienced, gifted, profoundly learned, and perfectly impartial and independent lawyers that ever presided over a court of justice--Sir Nicholas Tindal--SEVEN out of _nine_ of the judges expressed a clear unhesitating opinion, that the third and eleventh questions should be answered in the negative--viz. that the judgment was in no way invalidated--could be in no way impeached, by reason of the defective counts and findings. The two dissenting judges who had been _hit_ by the arguments of the traversers' counsel, were Baron Parke and Mr Justice Coltman--the latter speaking in a confident, the former in a remarkably hesitating and doubting tone. The majority consisted of Chief-Justice Sir Nicholas Tindal, Mr Justice Patteson, Mr Justice Maule, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Baron Gurney, Mr Baron Alderson, and Mr Justice Coleridge.