We affirm, therefore, that the old rule--viz. that one good count would support a general verdict and judgment, though the indictment contained bad ones also--was a beneficial rule, calculated to obviate _inevitable_ difficulties; and its policy was so transparent to all the great intellects which have, both as judges or counsel, been for so long a series of years concerned in criminal cases, that no one ever thought of questioning it. The supposition of the three peers is one not very flattering to the distinguished predecessors, with the great Lord Mansfield at their head--all of whom it charges with gross negligence, ignorance, and, in plain words, stupidity--in overlooking, from time to time, a point so patent and glaring. The Lord Chancellor's answer to their argument is triumphant; and we refer the reader to it.[24] We respectfully and firmly enter our protest against Lord Denman's mode of getting rid of the efficacy of a custom or practice which has been so long observed by the profession; and regard it as one calculated to sap the foundations of the common law of the land. An opinion, a practice which has stood its ground for so long a series of years _unchallenged_, amidst incessant provocation to challenge it--and that, too, in the case of men of such vigilant astuteness, learning, and determination as have long characterized the English Bench and Bar--rest upon as solid grounds as are conceivable, and warrants it subversion only after profound consideration, and _repeated evidence of its mischievous operation_. Was any such evidence offered in the argument at the Bar of the House of Lords, of persons who had suffered either a kind or a degree of punishment not warranted by law? None: but several cases were put in which--in spite of past experience to the contrary--inconvenience and injustice _might possibly_ be conceived to occur hereafter!