Lord Broughamsaid, he had to present to their Lordships three petitions from three individuals in similar circumstances—viz. John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, prisoners in the county gaol of Monmouth, who had been convicted of high treason, setting forth various facts relating to the trial, and the ultimate decision on the objection taken, and complaining, that not being aware of the law, they were not informed of that which now turned out to be the law, and were, therefore, prevented from taking the objection in what was now said to have been the proper time; also solemnly declaring, that the Judges had expressed the same opinion upon the trial as they afterwards entertained, and that, therefore, if the objection had been taken in due and proper time, the petitioners ought to have been acquitted, and praying their Lordships to interfere to obtain mercy for them. He believed, that a great error had gone abroad respecting these proceedings. It was a great mistake to suppose the fifteen Judges constituted a tribunal known to the law of the country. It was not so. They were merely consulting on the subject as any other individuals learned in the law might have done, and had not an atom of jurisdiction, because they had not heard the cause tried. Such consultations used to be in the dining-room of the Judges, and he had argued causes there before their Lordships after dinner. The case of Lawless was so argued, but the judgment was not given until next spring, when it was delivered at the Assizes in the Court where the cause had been tried by a single Judge. It was altogether a mistake in 1160 the petitioners to say the two Judges retained their opinion, for having heard the opinion of the majority, they now believed they were wrong. He hoped the point on which the objection was taken would be made the subject of legislative enactment, as there ought not to be the slightest doubt whatever on that matter.