The traversers were charged with having committed the offence of CONSPIRACY; which, by the universally admitted common law of the land for considerably upwards of five hundred years, exists "_where two, or more than two, agree to do an illegal act_--that is, to effect something in itself unlawful, or to effect by unlawful means something which in itself may be indifferent, or even lawful."[1] Such an offence constitutes a _misdemeanour_; and for that misdemeanour, and that misdemeanour alone, the traversers were _indicted_. The government might, as we explained in a former Number,[2] have proceeded by an _ex-officio_ information at the suit of the crown, filed by the Attorney-General; but in this instance, waiving all the privileges appertaining to the kingly office, they appeared before the constituted tribunal of the law as the redressers of the public wrongs, invested however with no powers or authority beyond the simple rights enjoyed by the meanest of its subjects--and preferred an _indictment_: which is "a written accusation of one or more persons, of a crime or misdemeanour, preferred to and presented on oath by a grand jury."[3] Now, in framing an indictment, the following are the principles to be kept in view. They were laid down with beautiful precision and terseness by Lord Chief-Justice De Grey, in the case of Rex. _v._ Horne--2 Cowper's Rep. 682. "The charge must contain such a description of the crime, that the _defendant_ may know what crime it is which he is called upon to answer; that the _jury_ may appear to be warranted in their conclusion of 'guilty,' or 'not guilty,' upon the premises delivered to them; and that the _court_ may see such a definite crime, that they may apply the punishment which the law prescribes."