that it
was an agreement to do an act in violation of the law." They did not
show what sort of fear was intended by the alleged intimidation, nor
upon whom it was intended to operate, nor was it alleged that the
"physical force exhibited" was to be _used_, or _intended_ to be used.

Observed, therefore, on what grounds these two counts--two only out of
eleven--are held defective: they are deficient in that rigorous
"_certainty_" now held requisite to constitute a perfectly legal charge
of crime. To the eye of plain common sense--we submit, with the deepest
deference, to those who have held otherwise--they distinctly disclose a
_corpus delicti_; but when stretched upon the agonizing rack of legal
logic to which they were exposed, it seems that they gave way. The
degree of "certainty" here insisted upon, would seem to savour a little
(possibly) of that _nimia subtilitas quae in jure reprobatur; et talis
certitudo certitudinem confundit_: and which, in the shape of "certainty
to a certain intent in every particular," is rejected in law, according
to Lord Coke, (5 _Rep._ 121.) It undoubtedly tends to impose inevitable
difficulty upon the administration of criminal justice. Sir Matthew Hale
complained strongly of this "strictness, which has grown to be a blemish
and inconvenience in the law, and the administration thereof; for that
more offenders escape by the over-easy ear given to exceptions in
indictments, than by their own innocence."--12 Hal. P. C. 193; 4 Bla.
Co. 376. The words, in the present case, are pregnant with irresistible
"inference" of guilt; an additional word or two, which to us appear
already implicitly there, as they are actually in the eleventh count,
would have dispersed every possible film of doubt; and Lord Brougham, in
giving judgment, appeared to be of this opinion. But now for the general
result: The indictment contained two imperfect counts, and nine perfect
counts, distinctly disclosing offences not very far short of treason.

Thus, then, the first question was answered.

To the _second_ question the judges replied unanimously, "that the
_findings of the jury_ in the first four counts were not authorized by
the law, and are incorrectly entered on the record." One of the judges,
however, and a most eminent judge, (Mr Justice Patteson,) being of a
contrary opinion.

Thus we have it unanimously decided by the judges, whose decision was
acquiesced in by the House of Lords, that there were two bad