The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-31 00:00:00

Or •P• ~~. in my humble judgment; a public prosecutor, and mor especielly one who holds the high and dignified position Oran Attorney -General—the first law officer of her Ma , Jest Y—has no right to abandon the direct and obvious path which lies before him, and to adopt the tor. 11101 13 and complicated course of a prosecution for conspir ac y, with a v i ew to i mp li cate one man in the acts and designs of others; and in adopting such a bourse of proceeding I have no hesitation in charac terising his conduct as equally unfair, oppres 'live, and unjust. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General took up all the meetings seriatim. He began with *horn according to their dates, and gradually came down to the latest of them; and he assured vou, in emphatic l anguage, that they were one and all illegal. He read for Yeu a number of speeches which were delivered at raetiiT, which he d ec l are d were seditious; and he also celett your attention to certain extracts from articles Which appeared in newspapers, and which he likewise tharacterieed as illegal ; but, gentlemen, it certainly did appear to me that the Attorney-General in making these atatenients to you, was most unwittingly, and most unconsciously, psonouncing the severest philippic that it possible for the mind of man to conceive, against l ' ulr l4Jlf end the Government that he serves. For, gentlemen, am I not entitled to view this matter in re calm light of common sense ? Am I not entitled o a lit a question which presses itself irresistibly on the mind of every man who dispassionately regards the con ono of the Crown prosecutors in the present extraor dinary proceedings? Those meetings lasted for nine In lave t h ey were, i ndee d , ill ega l—if i t was, in ecl, true, that the people were lured into outraging the of the country—if language of a seditious character nl• indeed uttered by the Repeal leaders from day to ulaY, and from hour to hour—how, I ask, can the Attor- General' l reconcile it to his own conscience—bow, I can he reconcile it to the duty which he owes to country and to the Government whose servant he that for such a length of time he should have ut terly neglected the great and p a ramount business of his °Mee—the brin g i ng t o j us ti ce th ose who v iol a te the law and the co ns tit u ti on ? Did h e li e d e si g nedly b 7 ,, in order th a t cr i me m i g h t accumu l ate , an d that, Rhea nt kngth he shook off his lethargy, he blight be aloft to encompass whole masses of cri ,ininals within th e mes h es o f t h e l aw ? W as t hi s , ask, his object ? W as thi s th e o bj ec t o f t h e Government whose officer he boasts to be? Gentlemen, i t i 3 the obvious duty of a Government to bring to Punishment those who violate the law ; but, gentlemen, they have a yet more important duty to perform—a duty With the the performance of which the best interests 13f. the common weal are yet more inseparably identified, and that duty consists in preventing the commission of c rime; and if it was the deliberate opinion of the At dM-General that the meetings were illegal—and if he hd that opinion to the Government. and if the Go 'rernment felt that the meetings were illegal, and the knowin g se di t i ous— i f, I say, they knew all this, and ' n °wing all this, lay designedly by in ambuscade !chile they saw crime committed—while they saw the infat uate d peop l e rus hi ng i n masses i nto the Perpetration o f cr i me —if thi s , I re p ea t, was their design, I have no hesitation in branding ouch a design, on the part of any Goveroment, as an bet of the greatest—the blackest—the most unparalleled baseness. What! Look calmly on while they saw the l'"Ple - rushing by thousands into the commission of folde ! W as i t the i r d es i gn to l oo k calm l y on w i th hod arms till they had a whole nation within their meshes, in order that the Attorney-General might then pick and choose such of the criminals as he pleased, and m molate what v i c ti ms h e lik e d u p on th e a lt ar o f th e law ? But, my Lords and gentlemen, let me net be mis • understood—let no man say that I impute any such design to the Government. Far be it from me to brine enY such c h arge against them ; but I must say that th e Peech of the Attorney-General, and the fact of the Government having lain by for such a length of time. Word ground fur making some charge against some tillarter. I, for my part, do not make any such charge i' rainst the G overnment —l i mpute to t h em no suc h thtgn—nor i s anyt hi ng more remote f rom m y oughts than th e d es i re o f attr ib ut i ng so ne f a rious an Intention to the Attorney-General (for nefarious it l'ould, indeed, have been, had it been entertained). I valinot bri ng myse l f to believe t h at any Go vern ment in ese countries, wh e th er com p ose d of men who are, po t.leticgaulillytyspeaking, m s y friends or my antagonists, could of basenes so execrable—so detestable. No, impute no such crime to them. I know that there are 'ltemisers of the Government (with two of them I am in timately acquainted) who are men of the highest ho nour, of the most unimpeachable integrity—men who Could fling their high places indignantly to the winds , ) efere they wou ld stoop to suc h a course . I, theref ore , 'to not impute to the Government any misconduct—l do not e'en charge them with a criminal negligence. -Their con duct may b e fairly attributed to another cause; an d thi s I will at once proceed to demonstrate. It is it fair principle of charity for one man to extend to- Wards his fellow, that when you can find a good mo tive to which to refer the conduct of your neighbour, it 1 3 to that pure motive, and not to any sinister design, th atilis actions ought to be attributed. I willingly concede the benefit of this virtuous maxim to the Go vernment ; but may I not be pardoned if I respectfully iesist on the application of the same principle to the case of my client ? The honest conviction of my soul is, that although the Attorney-General has at length brought. Ills courage to the sticking-place, although ho now enters Court with an undismayed front, and declares that the meetings were illegal, he never yet felt himself so strong in that p os i t i on as to venture to bring it single handed under the consideration of any court or any jury. Let the result of the present prosecutions be what it may, it is still open for the Attorney-General to adopt this course. Let 'hint select any of the meetings he pleases ; let him bring into the Court of Queen's Bench any or all of the persons who attended that meeting, and let him try the ques tion fairly, and take the opinion of a jury as to whether the meeting was or was not Hine , . If that had been done, we could not be in the dark—we could clearly see our way ; but that has not been done. .The cause, I think, is obvious. The Attorney-General Was a lawyer, and he could not tell the Government that the meetings were illegal. I have no doubt but that, in the conscien tious discharge of his public duty, he would have at once Pressed upon the Government the illegality of the meetings, if his mind had been made up on that ille gality. If he had a deep-seated conviction that the Meetings were against the law, he surely would have lost no time in declaring that conviction to the Government—that he could not bear to look upon such practices as were of daily recurrence in this 3ountry—th a t h e cou ld not b ear to see men rushing liethousands int o th e comm i ss i on o f cr i me — and that _ accordingly th oug ht th a t hi s d uty i mperat i ve l y demanded that he should institute prosecutions 4 , 1 ° Put th e meet i ngs down. But it is my firm belief that the A ttorney-General, not being able to reconcile the alleged illegality of the meetings with his own know tedge.ef law, was never prepared to go to such lengths— could'4l,_e not sanction any such proceeding, and this is 7 . e reason why the meetings were permitted to go on What interruption fur nine months consecutively. What is the use I make of this fact ? It is this—if the At t o rney,General was doubtful in his own mind that a ny violation of the law had been committed—if he was not during nine months abl e t o b r i ng him se lf t o th e con clusion that the meetings were illegal, is he now to be Permitted to come into Court and to require a jury to as ;acrt their ill ega li ty, after thousands and hundreds of thou in Nis h ave attended the meetings, in the full conviction that s ° doing th e y were violating no law, is he now to epiiie forwurd an d include millions of Irishmen in the e '", s tl . ge of having been guilty of illegal practices? He flo rid not make up his own mind that the meetings were fiaiiotreTnaa:j9itiat;in.ndgy N •e v t he calls upon twelve men to assert their heneyer you find an Attorney-Gcneral the obvious and easy course which lies be "Hu, in order to adopt a tortuous and complicated ' You ought n o t, nor oug h t any jury, to lend him as - Gene in carryin g out suc h a project.. The Attorney ea ral ca havin g g one . seriatim thr oug h all the meetings, me at I °foe , engt to the cont em pl a t e d meet i ng o f t h e Bt h g reate `"er, at Clontarf, an d never did I exper i ence a r degree of surp r i se th an i n h ear i ng h i m as- Z en that the int en d e d meet i ng was abandoned from toconviction of it s ill ega li ty. I am sure the At o r u . n eieGen era l entertained that opinion or he would t h e e are exp resse d i t ; b ut I am equally certai n to is not anot h er i n di v id ual i n the community, who to ",,W3 anything of the facts and circumstances relating °f its meeting, that for a moment thinks that the cause , al , lB n bandoninent was from any conviction of its ille '-'exuetYe• Does the Attomey-General 'forget, or does he t. that the people of this country will forget, the ex t:-)a,taltnury circumstances which occurred with regard h as ', ll .. at meetin g ? Does he forget the almost breathless ea : e t' and precipitancy with which the Lord Lieutenant befo re to this country, on the day, or the day but p u roc e ia that meeting? Does he forget that far-famed tarertation, issued the night preceding the day on which th e the exert'Ptg was to have been held, or does he forget zipeat ons that were made on the part of the Govern -10 suppress, to put down that meeting by the force Attorn e sword, the bayonet, and the cannon? And does the , ey-General after all that pretend to express to 3°ll his •• • eesou opinion that that meeting was abandoned on tha t nt of its illegality ? No, gentlemen of the jury, fi n ' tt 'las not the cause of its abandonment. I am not svit lng fault w i t h t h e Government for its i n t er f erence ,i, en those proceedings. I am unacquainted with the issued, a iiit tt r izi nu t i rn t . ; : i t t a h n e ees under which that proclamation _ ill not impute any blame where I am unacquaint facts ; but I must again declare that it was wa %th no conviction of its illegality that meeting act e ra s thmed. To what then was it owing To the ge ese s ' - 'ne of the traversers at your bar—to his strong T he ojapu.stice, and to his strong feelings of humanity. sea__Rw_ ', donment of that meeting was owing to the as hie' that g ent l eman enterta i ned of his high duties pictureth 4 honestgur citiz en . H e knew the fearful consequences 4 e 's ht ha ve resulted had that meeting taken place ; '''PPened to f or a moment w h at m i ght have d it been gone on with. How does the lions of mat ter stand ? On the on e s id e were t h e armed batta- Britain, under the direction of their most expe tienced leaders --armed with e ver y weapon o f d e f ence, sea es tnight think r . (!q,„ o f and - ernand s of ti ; ready to act in obedience to the ose leaders, and to do whatever they l i l l narm ed an sight On the other side, you had an a d a defenceless multitude. Gentlemen, r , Pla ce, ts ' s ',V° collision under such circumstances taken 'whi ch "fit , the slightest angry word been said L eave had the 4 'eident Zegnartredh;avinveich provoked ed it—had even an lead to it----you would Bull armed battalion s of this country, in the Plenitude of their strength, arrayed against the un helple i ci t oenccs re ally fisrlghiltnft(iii itoinacyonat d e , p ldefenceless t h m e ul e t i u td e e_. b ut might Ir a ! s eeond tim e d _ fur th e ~.x ert. ‘e been ; and the plains of Clontarf, lens of Mr. O'Connell, might have been , 4145. or mell stove .40tin ly Int Tl. Air. (ye - riged With the blood of ilia • t - fearfial ti e e „ ns . , t meeting, not, as I said, be mere( it illeaal but because he foresaw the .14.dziticen°t'tsreces that ' might have resulted, and in my " 4 nit10 4 %4-1 4484, z4 ;tii- co l r et to . the waria gratitude of ever touthiG; Ors that Milii011; =la ~~ will further add, that there is not an individual in the com munity who owes him a deeper debt of gratitude than the - Attorney-General himself. Gentlemen of the jury, I I hesitate not to say, that if I were to• select the act of Mr. O'Connell's life which, in my judgment, was most deserving c f praise—that act of his which I would most wish to send down to posterity —I would not select his great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci pation, or the consummation of that great measure by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all his countrymen ; but 1 would select his conduct on the occasion of this Clontarf meeting as doing most honour to his feelings, most credit to his humanity, and by which he saved the country from the dreadful consequences of a collision, which it was only owing to his exertions did not take place. Gentlemen of the jury, let me now advert for one moment to the nature of the charges preferred against the traversers in this indictment. They are charged, in the language of the indictment, with combining, and conspiring, and confederating together, fur the several purposes, for the bad and atrocious purposes I acknow ledge, but which, I think, are unjustly and untruly at tributed to them, in that indictment. If you separate the charge of combination and conspiracy from the high sounding phraseology given to it in that indictment, you will find that a conspiracy, in point of law, is nothing more nor less than this—an agreement between two or more persons, either to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means. The very instant that agree ment is entered into the crime is complete; and if a man once agrees to do an illegal act., he may be put on his trial for conspiracy the very hour and moment he en tered into that agreement. It is not necessary that there should be any act done, or any outrage committed, for the offence arose when the agreement was entered into; and therefore, before you can convict my client, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, or any other of the traversers, you must be satisfied in'your own minds, from the evidence you have heard, that they did enter into an agreement for the purposes stated in that indictment. Gentlemen, on the part of the Rev. Thomas Tierney, I controvert the assertion altogether. I deny that any such agreement was entered into by any of the traversers. I dispute altogether the facts of the charge of any such agree ment or conspiracy, and I also dispute that if any such agreement or conspiracy ever did exist, which I deny, that you have any one particle of evidence en which it would be possible for you to say, in justice to yourselves, or to your consciences, that my client., the Rev. Thomas Tierney, was in any manner implicated. Gentlemen, let me ask you this plain and simple question— have you even the shadow of legal evidence that he ever did enter into such an agreement? Whoever heard him, or any of them, say that there was such an agree ment, entered into ? There is no evidence of any such thing. I do not mean to say that it is abso lutely necessary that you should have direct evidence to that effect; the charge may be made out without the pro duction of direct and positive testimony; but what tes timony of any kind have you upon which you could say that this agreement which would constitute a conspiracy only took place. He 'the Attorney-General, ventured to suggest a period at which this alleged agreement took place. He lays before you a period of nine months over which these proceedings extended. Did it take place before the first, or second, or third, of those meetings, or when did it take place ? You have got the full period of nine months, and it is left to you to pick out whatever period you please on the date of the existence of the alleged conspiracy. He has not told you even where the agreement took place. The meetings were held in every part of Ireland. Did the agreement take place in the north or in the south, in the east or in the west? Is there a single item in the evidence which would fix it as having taken place at any time ? The Attorney- General read to you in evidence innumerable speeches and publications, an extract out of this, and out of the other newspaper, and he flings them all into the jury box, and calls on you, as you best can, to construct a conspiracy out of them. I trust you will never do it, when you recollect that the Attorney-General had a plain course before hint to vindicate the law, and when he might have indicted every one of those traversers, within the period after that agreement had been entered into, in a less time than it took him to address you ; and. therefore, I am sure you will not aid him in ex tracting from this heap of extracts the materials of a conspiracy against my client. Gentlemen of the jury, my Learned Friend, Mr. Sheil, called your attention to the indictment in this case, and he de scribed it, as I think he well might have done, as a " monster indictment." It has been called so with pe culiar propriety. It is in accordance with the expres sions of the Attorney-General himself, for I think I heard him use the word at least a hundred times in the course of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will call it what I think it deserves to be called—a mon th-ma indictment—for I do not believe a precedent for it is .to be found in the records of our Criminal Courts. It is truly a monster, and it well deserves to be put down as the Frankenstein of the imagination of her Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland. Is it not a monstrous indictment ? You have an accumulation of meetings of speeches, and of publications, and from them all the Attorney-Ge neral asks you to extract the material which would substantiate a charge of combination and conspiracy. Gentlemen, you have seen,but we have not heard the in dictment in question read over by the Attorney-General; I don't say it would afford you much pleasure to have heard it read : you may think it necessary, in the dis charge of your important duty to read it ; but if you had heard it read over twenty times over, and that you even had the memory of a Paschal, you would be puzzled with the multitude of matter relative to facts contained in it. It was in this case, as in all others of the kind, it being a principle of all criminal cases that the jury are called on to take into their considera tion all the facts of the case ; and I ask you by what power of unnatural reasoning are you called on to extract facts from the indictment which it does not contain ? The Attorney-General wishes you to extract from it that which you cannot do. It was publicly known that the indictment was pre pared and sent before the grand jury, and every person was aware that that respectable body of gentle. men were occupied in the consideration of it for several days: to be sure they ultimately found the bill, but it was notorious, as one of them stated in the box, that they were not unanimous in the finding of that bill. The duty of the grand jury was to read over the indictment, awl it took them several days to get through it, and before they had made up their minds on the subject, and even then on their oaths they could not come to an unanimous conclusion. Well, several days were. taken up by the grand jury in considering the bill, and then the Attorney-General comes to state the case to you; and he occupies you no less than eleven hours in doing so. We all know the power of the Attorney- General—we are all aware of the talent he possesses (suppressed laughter in court) ; and yet, with all his ability, talent, and sententious brevity, and concentrated condensation, he could not get over the case in less than eleven hours. What more did the Learned Attorney- General do ? After making a long speech of eleven hours, what time did he take up to produce his proofs of the terrible conspiracy which he led them to believe had been hatched by the traversers at the bar ? He took eight long days, of from seven to eight hours each day, to lay his proofs of the charge before you. You have eleven hours of a speech, eight days taken up in proving the case, and if yop now take up the indictment and have it read, it will cost you several weeks' labour to do so, and I am bound to say at the end of that time that you will not understand it better than you do at the present moment. The Attorney-General, after his speech of eleven hours and his proofs of eight days durations, after laying his mass of facts before you, is satisfied that there is a constructive conspiracy made out against the traversers, and he then tells you you have a right to come to the same conclusion, namely, that because he is satisfied that there is a case of constructive conspiracy made ont against them that you ought to come to the same conclusion. There never was a more dangerous doctrine than the doc trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of it. There was now an effort made to charge the de-_ fondants with constructive conspiracy, and to satisfy you that there was an agreement entered into be tween the traversers to commit the offence with which they stand charged. There were various attempts of the present nature made in England, in order to charge parties with constructive conspiracy, but they failed. There was the case of Hardy, tried in 1794, which was a case of alleged high treason, and where the overt act was constructive con-piracy. The mode of proceeding in that and the present case was the same, and that case was the precedent for the present Attorney-General. He founded a case on it, and carried out the details in the same manner as they had been carried out in that case. The then Attorney-General produced evidence of a number of meetings, a large quantity of publications, extracts from speeches, and the like, and from this precedent the present Attorney-General proceeds to do the same. The case I allude to at last came before an English jury—a jury who were ready at all times to punish any man who violated the law ; but the English jury in that case had no hesitation in saying that they could not find a party guilty of constructive conspiracy, as it was not their business to put a construction on the man's ac tions. The same thing took place in the case of Horne • Tooke as in the case of Hardy, and a like result was come to in the case of Hunt. In all those cases the juries came to the conclusion that they would not be act ing fairly, or conscientiously, or constitutionally, by put ting a constructive conspiracy on the party charged. I trust you will imitate the example set by those persons, and, although I am sure you are always ready to bring to justice all parties who may violate the law, yet I am sure you will not, on your oaths, come to the conclusion which the At torney-General has arrived at, and that is a con structive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew the fact, and why (lid not he go by that case ? Had he produced any respectable person on the table to prove that and a na a g r r e ee ) m .o e u n t t o o a r sse, conspiracyand adopt existexisted thatb e:tesesunmtlpietitpma,rttiLst; such was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact was clear ; and, ther&'ore, you must come to the con elusion that there was not, and return a verdict of acquittal on that point. ; will now come to the second branch of the case as regards my client, and there is not, I am bound to say, the slightest, ground for charging him with con spiracy, if such a thing as a conspiracy ever existed at all, but I deny that there was any such thing. It is necessary for me to tell you who my client is. He is the Roman Catholic priest of the parish of Clontibret, in the county of Monaghan. He is a gentleman of the most exemplary character, both as a private individual and a Christian clergyman. He had filled the office of clergy man to that parish for several years, and was highly re spected. Ile was an educated man, and a man who had read and studied the history of his country. I say it is no imputation either to his character as a gentle man, or a clergyman, to have read, studied, and formed opinions relative to his country and her-wrongs. _Every man has a right to form his own political opinions, and my client has no right to be charged with a crime for -having done so. Mr. Tierney is a man of talent, and deeply interested in the welfare of his country, and, as he had read libcatt, and formed hie opinions on, the union. Whether these opinions were right or wrong, he had come to the conclusion that the union was a measure fraught with disastrous conse quences to this country, and the question was, is he right or not.? You may differ with him in political sentiments, and in the view he takes of the question, but still you cannot shut your eyes to the facts which I state, and which cannot be contradicted. Dees any man attempt to tell me, or to say my client had not a right to form his opinions and speak his sentiments on the sub ject of the Act of Union ? Is there anything in the Act of Union to put a stop to such free discussion ? No, there is not ; and it should also be recollected that the Act of Union was an Act the same as any other Act of Parliament, and could be repealed or altered in the same manner. Mr. Tierney had a right to enjoy his opinions on this pint, and he also had a right to express his sentiments relative to that measure. Is there any man who will tell me he has not a right to his opinions ? It was the right of every man to speak out openly and fairly what he felt to be his honest convic tion; and it was, moreover, his duty as a good citizen to do so. Every honest Irishman who has brought his mind to the 'honest conviction that any measure has been injurious, is bound by every principle to do away with it by honest and legitimate means ; and if a, man honestly believe that the union has sacrificed the independence and prosperity of Ireland, he is bound to use all legitimate means to set it aside. I am not now using any argument for or against that measure. It is not my province or yours to do that ; but I say every man ought to act up to his own honest convictions. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General, in order to make you doubtful of the sincerity of those who advocate a repeal of the union, took a line of argu ment which is often resorted to in trials, and he re ferred to the opinions of Bushe, and Plunket, and Saurin, which he knew would be resorted to by counsel for the traversers. And why should they not resort to them ? Where are the Irish people to resort for wisdom if not to luminaries such as these ? I will not trouble you by reading the opinions of those eminent men ; but if any person compares their language with the language used by any of the traversers, eloquent and strong as it has frequently been, it will fall short of the language of those eminent individuals. Gentlemen, I will read a stronger passage of Saurin's to you : " You may make the union binding as a law, but you cannot make it obligatory on conscience. It will be obeyed as a law as long as England is strong ; but resistance to it will be in the abstract a duty, and the exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of prudence." Take any of the numerous publications laid before you in evidence, and it will not be found so strong as this passage. I ask you have you any , reason to doubt the sincerity of those eminent men I alluded to—of Mr. Bushe, whom in common with every one who knew him, I regret is no longer amongst us, whose memory, I may say with perfect truth, will remain for ever in the hearts of his countrymen. Who can doubt of the sincerity of Lord Plunket? I rejoice that he is still amongst us, and still commands and possesses the love, respect, reverence, and admiration of an who have the honour of his acquaintance. Who doubts of the sincerity of Mr. Saurin ? You heard the opinion of Mr. Sheil, who may be considered his political opponent, as to his character. He might have many faults, but, as Mr. Sheil told you, hypocrisy was not among them. And when you find these eminent men —not enthusiastic boys, but in the full maturity of their vigorous interests—adopting those views and ex pressing those opinions with regard to the union without any reason to doubt their sincerity, I think you will agree with me, and 'tis all I ask of you, that the same reasons which influenced them might exist in the mind of my client, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, when he brought his mind to the conclusion that a repeal of the union was necessary for the salvation and renovation of his country. With the same object the Attorney-General endeavoured to convince you that the repeal of the union was impracticable and unattainable. Gentlemen, after what we have seen in our own days, I think it would be difficult to say that any measure, whatever difficulties may exist against it, is impracticable and unattainable. There is the slave-trade, which was denounced by Mr. Pitt as the greatest stain that ever disgraced mankind The abolition of that trade had the support of his mighty in tellect, as also that of Mr. Fox. It was recommended by every feeling ofhumanity and justice, yet it took years to coun teract the prejudices which existed against the measure. But at length it became the law of the land. Again, there is the measure of Catholic Emancipation. We all know the difficulties it had to struggle against, so great—that to many it appeared impracticable. Yet it became the law of the land. There is the still more recent measure of Parliamentary Reform. We know how long it took before it became the law of the land, and therefore I say that you cannot doubt the sincerity of those persons in advocating a repeal of the union, though great, and, perhaps, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties may exist against it. The Attorney-General also referred to the opinions entertained by eminent statesmen with regard to the measure. I never expected to hear the Attorney-General refer to the speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but, he cited them on this occasion, as also the more congenial opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. , To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is due ; but I deny that any man is to be bound or controlled by the opinions of other men, however eminent they may be. The opinions of statesmen are not immutable ; they are at liberty—and why should they not—to change their opinions, if they see grounds for it. 1 may refer to one of those eminent individuals in precf of what I say. You cannot but recollect, when the question of Catholic emancipation was brought before Parliament, in 1828, that Sir Robert Peel expressed an une quivocal and decided opinion against it . . Do you doubt of his sincerity ? 1 believe he was perfectly sincere ; yet, in twelve short months, that same question, opposed by Sir Robert Peel, became the law of the land, and was introduced by Sir R. Peel himself. Do I find fault with him for this change of opinion ? On the contrary, I think his conduct upon that question is the most glorious portion of his political life, and that it does him infinite credit. It is the part of a sorry and wretched statesman to say that because he at one time entertained such and such opinions he is immutably bound by them. The opinion he entertained, conscientiously, in 1828, he found reason to alter ; and instead of displaying the pertinacity and obstinacy of a fool, he yielded to altered circumstances and greater experience, and, therefore, recommended and carried, in 1829, the measure he opposed in 1828. If, then, you believe that the Rev. Mr. 1 ierney honestly believes that the union has been injurious, you will give him the credit for it,--and refer to honest motives whatever acts he has done. And I now come to the acts imputed to him. If I understand the ev id ence right, those acts are two; one was, attending a meet ing at Clontibret on the 15th day of August, 1843 ; the other, attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d day of October, in the same year ; and if he be, by your verdict, branded and convicted as a conspirator, it will be on one or both of those acts to which I have referred. Before going to the meeting of the 15th of August, I must refer to a portion of the evidence given before you, with regard to an alleged conversation between him and M'Cann, who was produced as a witness. This conversation is said to have taken place on the 10th of June, and it is better that I should read to you, from what I believe is a correct report of his evidence, this. conversation, which took place two months previous to the meeting in ques tion, M'Cann said he received instructions to go to the Rev. Mr. Tierney to know at what time the reported meeting would take place, that accordingly he went, and that Mr. Tierney gave him all the information he could, and - that he did not know the precise day on which the meeting was to take place. M'Cann told you he had a conversation with him, which I will now read. "He (M'Cann) said that Mr. Tierney adverted to the union ; he repeated that it was frau dulently carried ; he said it was not binding ; he represented it as a nullity and not binding on conscience; he spoke of the feel ing on repeal becoming general, and extending itself to the army, that they were favourable to repeal, that they partook of the en thusiasm of the peorle,and could not be easily brought to spill the blood of their fellow-countrymen. I remember he referred to wbat the army in Spain had done." Now, on the authority of Mr. Tierney, I say that he absolutely and positively denies that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried on between them. He acknowledges that M'Cann came to him for information about the meeting, that he gave him that information, but that he had with him this conversation he positively and unequivocally denies possesses any particle of truth. lam not able to produce any witness to sustain this assertion, and why ? Because, according to the testimony of M'Cann, there was no one present but himself and Mr. Tierney. But for the sake of truth I am glad to be able to convict M'Cann out of his own mouth, in such a manner that it is im possible to attach one particle of credit to what is said by that officer. In the first place, is it not improbable, if such a conversation took place, that a common policeman should have been able to recollect the terms of it, which he read to you — that he would be able to detail to you the apparently eloquent language in which the conversation seems to have been carried on ? He was a policeman, was not even one of the flock of the Rev. Gentleman—he came on business—he came dressed in his uniform ; was it likely that a gentleman of rank and station would have held such a conversation with a common policeman ? There is great danger in acting on conversations so reported ; you will also remark that the witness said he kept a diary, but he never kept any notes of any portion of that conversation. You will recollect that one part of this conversation was alleged to be, that Mr. Tierney spoke of the great things that the army had accampli , ,hed in Spain. Tue army his done a great deal lately in Spain ; it has abandoned the constitutional au thorities, and set up by force a government of its own ; the object, then, of bringing forward this conversation was to sup port the charge of the traversers tampering with and endeav ouring to seduce the army. This conversation was alleged to have taken place on the 16th of Juno. Now, the first indica tion of revolt given by the army in Spain took place on the 11th of June, in the city of Valencia. The first demonstration took place on that day. The next demonstration did not take place till the 12th, at Barcelona; and the most important re voit of the army in Spain did not take place till the close of the month of June. Of these movements there was no account in this country, as will appear by reference to the newspapers of the time, till the 19th or 20th; it was, therefore, an impossibility that a policeman in the county of Monaghan could have in formation of what took place at Valencia on the 11th, so soon as the 16th. There is then the strongest reason for contending that this must be a fabrication on the part of the policeman. He had sense and cunning enough to be apprised of the impor tance of the charge, and there was an obvious advantage in connecting one of the traversers with an alleged attempt on the ; army, and he thought that bringing the Rev. Mr. Tierney to speak with approbation of the revolt of the army in Spain, might be a most useful assistance in leading the jury to believe that he had done so. But if lam right in my dates. as you will find by reference to the papers that I am, you will see that there was no revolt in the Spanish army till the 11th, yet here is this wretched policeman on the 16th, in the county of Monaghan, talking as if he was already apprised of it. I need not waste more time on this part of the case. I only ask you toagree with me that—independently of the danger of acting on a conversation of this description, or the.improba bility attending it, and with this clear proof that no such conversation took place—l am not asking too much when I request of you to dismiss from your minds altogether this al leged, and untruly alleged, conversation. I now come to the meeting at Clontibret, which took place on the 15th of August. And who were the persons brought forward to give you an ac count of what took place at these meetings ? The only evidence adduced is that of two policemen. You have heard from them there were magistrates present—that two stipendiary magistrates were present. Why had not either of them been produced ? Was it not the duty of the Crown, if it wanted to represent the meeting at Clontibret as an illegal meeting, to have produced those who were calculated to give the best information on the subject. Though these two stipendiary magistrates were pre sent, though they were in the pay and service of the Govern ment, arid under its control, though there was not a particle of difficulty in th e G overnment, if it thought fit, producing an the magistrates them, yet not one o f t h em had been called in or d er to give meeting pre sent l o r l, tlbret but e character ; accountto policemenofth a o g f i st t r h a e who w tes sent were passed by. Ido not wish to cast an imputa tion on the Crown for so doing , I know not its motives, I knew not its reasons for so doing—but I think I: am justified in sayi ng t hi s, that from their non-production might be drawn this plain and simple inference, that have said anything that mold lias-e served the prosecution, LS. ,x• 29' cry the rin 3we )ir , , I _~ F}lF SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JANUARY 81, 1844. and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it. That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual of file traversers present at it, with the exception of Mr. Tierney. There was not one iota or particle of evidence to connect him, up to that time, with any of them. Yet he was ' represented as having entered into a conspiracy or agreement with them. Are there any grounds for saying that this m.-et ing was an illegal one? Was there any act of violence com mitted at it? Not one ! Was there anything lore that could show this meeting to be an illegal assembly ? Not ! There was not a single act of riot or distarbance at it ; it was characterised by that which cha racterised all the other meetings—perfect tranquillity, per fect peace—not a finger was held up—the utmost that was alleged was, that some people were crushed, and among the rest a policeman, If that is to be the means of attaching the charge of illegality to that meeting, I must say that the Court of Queen's Bench has been a mot ille gal meeting for the last fortnight.—( Laughter.) There had certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your peculiar situation—( Laughter) —you are guarded and pro tected from it,—no other portion of the Court, not even the judgment-seat ( Laughter) but has been invaded, and the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed" by those whom they have found it impossible to resist.— ( Great laughter.) Yet this meeting you are called on to pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the alleged conspiracy. I say with confidence that there is no particle of evidence by which the meeting at Clontibret can be pronounced illegal. (The Learned Gentleman here read the object of the meeting, the resolutions adopted at it, and the petition to Parliament which was carried, and having pointed out the perfectly legal and constitutional nature of the proceedings, said—Mr. Tierney is charged with attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d of October. Up to that time there is no evidence to show that he ever had any communication with the other traversers, or that he had ever read or heard of their speeches or proceedings. On that day he was first brought in connection with the Association. It is true that on that day he became a member of it. Gentlemen, I shall certainly never forget the withering and concentrated sneer with which the Attorney-General read the name of this Association when he came to the word " Loyal," Loyal Repeal Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of its disloyalty. What he dared not venture to express in plain terms he has stru g gled to give vent to by a sneer." am no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the attempt. Some of the wisest, the ablest, the best, and me , t eminent of the land, are amongst its members. They may be wrong, but they are not disloyal. One mil.ion of men, at least, were members of that Association in October; and is the loyalty of one million of men to be sne.Ted away ? Are you to brand them with disloyalty from a sneer of the Attorney- General? I deny their disloyalty. I assert the legality of the Association, and I will prove it by an authority which the Attorney-General must acknowledge, My authority is the Attorney-General himself. That Association has gone on for the last three years without interruption, openly and publicly, and every person in the community might be present at their proceedings for the paltry sum of a shilling. Yet the Attorney-General sneers at their loyalty. Has he dared to put it down? No; and he would not hesitate to do so if it were illegal. It may be very safe to sneer, and to cast indirect imputations; but the Attorney-General has not dared, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to im peach its legality. Is a respectable Roman Catholic clergy man to be charged with a conspiracy—a conspiracy of the worst kind—merely because he has attended meetings of a body which the Attorney-General has not dared to put down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. Tierney not merely attended those meetings, bat he gave in contributions. Yes, he gave in contributions, but is that illegal ? Does the Attorney-General mean to say that a man may not hand in contributions to a fund collected for the furtherance of the repeal of the union ? and when I say that it is lawful to do so I suppose he would willingly accuse me of ignorance. The Attorney-General cannot be ignorant of the present state of England, and the existence of the Anti-Corn law League. It is matter of history—it cannot be denied —and their contributions amount to a large sum. Is there any prosecution ingituted there? The Marquis of Westminster has written a letter and has contributed 5001. to that fund. Has ho been prosecuted for it ? Perhaps I am wrong in suggesting that he is not to be prosecuted for subscribing that amount. The meeting of Parliament is approaching; the Attorney-General, of course, will be there to attend to his duties, and he may recommend a prosecution to the English Attorney-General. He owes him a deep debt of gratitude for his recent assistance— a debt which was never before due by an Irish Attorney- General to an English one—and he has now an opportunity to repay him for the assistance he received. He can from his own experience instruct him in the law of hypocrisy—teach him to " sneer away" the loyalty of a people—and, by in fusing his own peculiar ideas into him, cause the Marquis of Westminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetings of the Association ; I confess he did so. He is accused of having handed in contributions—l confess it. He made a speech, too, which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length in the indictment, [suppose for the purpme of handing down that specimen of legal skill to posterity. I find in it a long historical al lusion to the parish of Clontibret.. Ile had, it seems, a lively interest in whatever concerned it. He felt as much for the event's which occurred there—they were as interesting to him, as those of Blenheim or Waterloo. He delivered himself of much lore in the history of the parish of Clontibret. Oh I but says the Attorney-General, "he talked of using hand and heart." Yes he did. But you must know that in all ordinary occasions the expression hand and heart is used. But, said the Attorney-General, " he must have meant by deeds, deeds of hands with arms in them." What right has the Attorney- General so to construe the expression ? It is not for you or for ' me to descend into the mind of any man; that is the province of the Almighty only. When man judges he should only attribute and come to conclusions from facts of which he has the cognizance of his senses. Gentlemen, I have detained you too long. I have laid before you the facts and circumstances on which I rely for your verdict of acquittal, and I am confident of this, that if you agree with me in the view 1 have taken, and come to a conclusion that my client is entitled to a verdict of acquittal, I feel that this is a verdict I that you will he able to justify to your country now, and to your God hereafter. Mr. HATCIIELL, Q. C , then rose and said—May it please your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury— CHIEF JUSTICE—Whom do you appear for ? Mr. HATCIIELL---1 am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray. Gentlemen of the Jury —I consider, notwithstanding what you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge nerally with repect to the charges that are made against them all, and particularly with respect to their own clients _.I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have heard with respect to the law and facts of the care, still to address to you, on behalf of my client, a few observations. Gentlemen, I think you must feel that the ground has been pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in the facts and law of th e case, and the powerful and able o bservations of my fri en d M r. Moore on the genera l charge and circumstances under w hi c h t h e i nd i ctment h a s been pre ferred. Still, gentlem en o f t h e j ury, t h ere are circum stances, peculiar to the s i tuat i on of eac h o f the traversers, which it is considered right should be laid before you, in judging of the share each of them appears to have been charged to have taken in those transactions, and to see if you can bring your minds, as fair, honest, and impartial jurors, to come to the conclusion, from the criminal intent charged by the indictment, that those traversers, and each of them, had joined in the preconceived plan of, I may say, overturning the Government of the country. Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Ray, is peculiarly circumstanced in relation to this charge. He is the Secretary of th e R epeal Association. B e f ore 1 call your attention to the char ge , as contained i n t h e i n dictment, and which you have to t r y, permit me to cal l your attention (al though I believe it h as b een already closely d rawn to the ques tion by the coun se l th at preceded me) to the real, substantial question, whi c h you h ave to try. Permit me, before Ido that, to remind y ou o f what you have not to t r y . Gen tlemen, you are not to try Sir. Thomas M. R a y , as ha s been already observed, for having attende d an ille g al assembly. He denies that any asse mbly with respect to which evidence wa s g i ven before you on this trial, was illegal ; and, if I Irad to d e f en d hi m on that charge, I could do so. You are not to try whether Mr. Ray, at any one of those assemblies, at any time or place, uttered a seditious speech or published a seditious libel If such a charge was preferred against him, I am satisfied I could per f ec tly justify him from such a charge. He neve r p u bli s h e d a libel in his life. He never uttered charge or accusation against any man, or against the Government. Gentlemen, you aro net to try whether he he a Repealer or not. 1 mu s t a d m i t t h at , if L ou were to try him on that charge, I could not d e f en d hi m . He is, and has been a Repealer, and is, and ha s b een t h e se cretary to the Repea l As sociation for several ye ars . H e h as b e en the secretary and paid officer of that Association since its institution. He be came the officer, and salaried officer, of it, approving of its objects, mixing himself up with its proceedings, in ac• cordance with the principl es which he professed, ,euhave heard so much. But, gentlemen—andand to sustain his opinion in that question of which you come to try the question as to what intent 11Ir t • Ra ).was a acts connected with that Association—as to whether he member of the Association—as to what intent he did the w as guilty considerliat when of a criminal intent, or entered into a preconcerted conspiracy —it is important to consider the position in which he stood, and the relation which he bore towards that Association. Gen tlemen of the jury, I need not repeat to you again, and to im plore you not to permit your minds to be diverted from, or your attention distracted from, the consideration of the real ques tion attempted to he drawn from you. The question you have to try on your oath is, did Mr. Ray, in conjunction with all or any of the traversers, enter into a plan preconcerted, arranged, preconceived, and laid with the criminal intent of exciting dis affection against the Government or Constitution, and with the other criminal intents which are c h arge d i n t hi s indict ment. Gentlemen of thejury, it is a question peculiarly for you—the question of intent—with what intention those proceed ings took place—what was the intention of the parties who committed or did the acts which are charged as ev id ence o f t h at intention ; it is }cur peculi ar province to judge of that :ntent. The Court, the judges who preside here, it is for them to say whether the acts given in evidence are acts that ought to go before you for to ur consideration ; they are the j u d ges o f t h e i r illegality, or whether- these facts shall go before you ; but it is your sole and exclusire province and duty to decide this upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those persons interfered in those transactions? They were the actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to the opinion of the eminent Judge who charged the grand jury in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in calling the attention of the jury to the piestion they had to try, said— Judge Bu RTON —What do you take that from ? Mr Heecir tee—From the " State Trials," vol. 24. Your Lordship will find it in page 203. You are aware, gentle men, from what has been already stated, that the obj ec t s o f the societies of that day—the professed obj ects o f t h e socie tieslokooef thatwere prosecuted—that there the indictment w as for day—for being members of which Hardy and a conspiracy in the n ature of constructive treason. And in charging the grand jury in. Hardy's case, Chief Justice Eyre said—" If there be ground to consider the pro fessed purpose of any of these Associations a re f orm o f Par • liament as mere colour, and as a pretext held out in order to cover deeper designs—designs against the w h o l e Constitu tion and Government of the country—the case of th o se em barked in su c h designs as that which I h ave a l ready consi dered,—whether this be so or not is a me re ma t ter o f f ast , ostensible as to whi c h I s hall only remind you that an i nqu i ry i n t o a charge of this nature, which undertakes to mak e ou t th a t th e purpose requires cool and d e lib erate considera tion, a mere veil und er w hi ch is concealed a traitorousconspiracy, and that the result should be perfectly dear and satis factory. In the affairs of common life no man is perfectly jus tified in imputing to another person a meaning contrary to what he himself expresses, but upon the fullest evidence." Gentlemen, no man has a right to impute to another that he is not intending what lie professes to do, unless there is clear, satisfactory, arid unambiguous evidence to show the contrary. E very m an must be presumed to be acting according to his declared intentions until the contrary is proved. Every man is presumed by the law of the land to be innocent before his guitt is clearly established ; and, as already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if th ere b a cri minal intent alleged, and if there be a legal intent to which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, com mon justice—the spirit of the British law—requires that his acts should be attributed to the legal and innocent motive, and not, by straining, to a criminal intent. Gentlemen of the jury, you have a right to go further—. according to the spirit of the British law if it be question e able to what those motives are attributable—if there be doubt upon your minds in judging of the transaction, the parties accused are entitled to the benefit of such donbts, and their acts are to be attributable to honest and just motives, and not to criminal design. Now, gentlemen of the jury, you have heard with great force of expression, and great power of argument, an observation made to you already on the nature of this proceeding. It has been already characterised a " monster indictment" unprecedented in the annals of English justice or English injustice. No precedent can be found in the records of the law of England for such a proceeding as this, charging almost traitorous intentions against the parties—mix ing them up in the transactions of nine months of their lives— fi zing the acts of one upon the others—making each responsible for the acts of the whole, and combining thase charges i 9 a volume of overt acts—accusations which I say are unequalled in the history of the law. How is an individual to be competent to prepare himself for his defence against such multiplied accusa tions—for though they all tend to one, or two, or three charges of conspiracy, yet all the overt acts stated in this indictment are charged as illegal acts to sustain the ultimate charge of conspiracy with a criminal intention of assailing the State and Con title ion ? Of the injustice of such a course of proceeding as in the present case has been adopted, you have heard. You have been told that no precedent can be found for such a prosecution as the present. Gentlemen, there is but one case on record which bears any analogy to it, and that case is one which is a blot on English history, and one which has challenged the indignant animadversion of all intelligent men who have ever considered it—the case of Warren Hast ings. When, on occasion of Hardy's trial, Mr. Erskine, the eloquent advocate of the accused, came to speak of the in dictment in that case (which falls fifty degrees short of the perplexity and injustice of the indictment on which the present traversers have been given in charge) he expressed himself in language of no common force. Lord Erskine, in page 890, of the " State Trials," expressed his sentiments upon such pro secutions as the present in no ordinary language. He began by quoting the sentiments of Lord Hale upon constructive trea son, which are as follow ;—" And third, how dangerous it is by construction and analogy to make treasons where the letter of the law has not done it, for such a method admits of no limits or bounds, but runs as far and as wide as the wit and invention of the accusers and the detestation of persons ac cused will carry men." " Surely (continued Mr. Erskine) the admonition of this resplendent lawyer ought to sink deep into the heart of every judge and every juryman who is called to administer justice under this statute ; above all, in the times, and under the peculiar circumstances, which assemble us in this place. Honourable men, feeling as they ought for the safety of Government and the tranquillity of the country, and naturally indignant against those who are supposed to have brought them into peril, ought, for that very cause, to proceed 'with mo-e abundant caution; but they should not be sur prised by their resentments or their fears. They ought to advance in the judgments they form by slow and trembling steps—they ought even to fall back and look at everything again, lest a false light should deceive them. admitting no fact but on the foundation of clear ant precise evidence, and deciding on no intention that does not result with equal clearness from the fact. This is the universal demand of justice in every case—how much more especially, then, in this, when the judgment is every moment in danger of being swept away into the fathomless abyss of a thousand volumes, where there is no anchorage for the understanding, where no reach of thought can look round in order to compare their points—nor can any memory be capacious enough to retain even the imperfect relation that can be collected from them. Gentlemen, my mind is the more deply affected with this con sideration by a very recent example in that monstrous pheno menon which, under the name of a trial, has driven me out of Westminster Hall for a large portion of my professional life. No man is less disposed than I am to speak lightly , of great State prosecutions, which bind to their duty those who have no other superiors, nor any other control, least of all am I capable of even glancing a censure against those who have led to or conducted the impeachment, because I respect and love many of them, and know them to be amongst the best and wisest in the nation. I know them indeed so well as to be persuaded that, could they have foreseen the vast field that was to open, and the length of time it was to occupy, they never would have engaged in it—for I defy any man, not enlightened by the divine Spirit, to say with the pre cision and certainty of an English Judge decidingupon evidence before him, that Mr. Hastings is guilty or not guilty ; for who knows what is before him or what is not? Many have car ried what they knew to their graves, and the living have lived long enough to forget it. Indeed, I pray to God that such another proceeding may never exist. in England, because I consider it a dishonour to the Constitution, and that it brings, by its example, insecurity into the administration of justice. Every man in civilised society has a right to hold his life, liberty, and reputation under plain laws, that can be well under stood, and is entitled to have some limited specific part of hls conduct compared and examined by their standard ; but he ought not fur seven years, no, nor for seven days, to stand as a criminal before the highest tribunal until judgment is bewildered and confounded, to come at last, perhaps, to defend himself, broken down by fatigue, and dispirited with anxiety." Such was the language of the acute and impasioned Erskine in comparing the proceedings in Hardy's case with the proceedings which had been instituted against Warren Hastings, and yet I have no hesi tation in avei ring that in Hardy's case the parties charged were few, and the circumstances were few, as compared with the num ber of the accused, and the abundance of the accusations in the present unprecedented prosecution. How monstrous is the injus tice to which my client has been made a victim in being called upon to become responsible for the words and actions of other men, beside himself, during the period of seven months. Gen tlemen, the task is indeed arduous which the Crown has im posed upon you. You are called upon to jump at the conclu• sum, but everything that my client did in his capacity of paid officer to the Society, he has done, not in the conscientious dis charge of his duties as a paid servant, but with a criminal intent pervert the laws and injure the Constitution of the country. That you are sworn to try : at that conclusion you are required to arrive. Gentlemen, I feel embarrassed in addressing you ; I confess that I am adverse to going over the same ground that Mr. Moore has traversed in his eloquent remarks, for I am apprehensive that a repetition of the same topics liy me, instead of being of value to you, or to any client, would rather have the effect of weakening the im pression that must have been produced upon your minds by the admirable speech of my Learned Friend. But I can not avoid offering a few remarks to which I would fain at tract your most serious attention, in reference to the particular case of my client, Mr. Ray. Gentlemen, look at the position in which my client is placed, and have regard to the circum stances by which his particular case is characterised. Gentle men, Mr. Ray is a humble man with a large family, who look to him alone for support. •He has no other pursuits than those which are connected with his avocation or office. He was made Secretary to the Repeal Association on its forma tion in the year 1840, and from the day of his appointment to the present hour his time and attention have been totally engaged by the discharge of the duties incidental to his situa tion. He has not given me the slightest instructions to say that the repeal movement did not enlist his good wishes in its favour—or that he did not, to the fullest extent, sympathise with the leaders of the agitation—but what he did he did in the discharge of the duties connected with his official character —what he did he did in compensation for his salary, as in duty hound—and yet, gentlemen, you are called upon to view him in the light of a conspirator, and you are told to attribute every act of his—which he has performed in requital for his emoluments—as an act p!anned and achieved with the design of subverting the law and the Constitution. If the Association were an illegal society, and if it had been cha racterised as such by the Crown, then indeed my client might fairly have been made responsible for all his actions in the capacity of secretary ; but no such doctrine as this has been ever propounded—nobody has presumed to say that the Assos elation is illegal—nobody could say that it is illegal. You find my client, M r . R ay , on pr i nc i p l e, no doubt, a Repealer, and incidentally a member of the Association ; but you also have distinct evideuce to show that he is the paid officer of a per fectly legal association—such is the character in which he truly appears before you. You find him discharging the routine du ties of his office, and yet you are called upon to say that his acts are not to be attributed to the discharge of his duties— are not to be viewed as the deeds of a paid servant who is anxious to give value for his salary ; but that they are rather to be attributed to a fell purpose existing in his mind to outrage the laws and trample on the Constitution ! You are called upon by the C rown to v i ew h i s case in this artificial light. You are called upon to come to this conclusion ; but as honest men—as intelligent men—as men who love justice, and prize the independence of the mind-1 ask you, can you come to that conclusion ? In my humble judgment, it was a mon strous thing to include Mr. Ray in this indictment. He ought never to have been included in the present charge; and I cannot forbear from expressing it as my opinion that the Crown, in having proceeded against him, have not pursued a candid, ingenuous course, either towards him or towards the other traversers. They have indicted the members of a certain society for a criminal conspiracy, and they have included in the indictment Mr. Ray, the salaried servant of the Asso ciation. I will not apply hard names to this proceeding, I will not go so far as to say that they were guilty of a dishonest intention, or that they could be capable of the common, paltry, pettifogging manoeuvre, of cutting the ground from the feet of the accused parties, by including the witnesses in the indictment. Ido not mean to impute any unworthy mo tive to my friend the Attorney-General, but I am surely at liberty to call your attention to the disastrous effect which re sults to the rest of the traversers from the circumstance of my client being included in the indictment. While I repu diate the idea of attributing an unworthy motive in any quarter, I am surely at liberty to demonstrate how the effeet of such a proceeding as has been adopted is exactly similar to that which would have resulted if the paltry ma nceuvre to which 1 have alluded had indeed been deliberately had recourse to. By including Mr. Ray in the indictment, they have deprived the other traversers of the benefit of his services. Ile was the acknowledged officer of the Society—he had in his possession the authenticated books and documents of the Society, written in his own hand-writing— he knew the working and machinery, so to speak, of the Society, and was the only man competent in law to prove the honest and perfectly legal intentions of its members. He could have proved their objects—he could have clearly demonstrated the means that were resorted to by them for the constitutional purpose of procuring the repeal of a statute which they conscien tiously believed was a grievance to their country—all this he could have made as clear as sun-light ; but he (the man who was in a position to prove all this) has been silenced, and is incapacitated from acting as a witness by being included in the indictment. The Crown might have brought Mr. Ray upon the table—they might have called for his books, and examined the man who made the entries, and thus have furnished themselves with primary evidence of the most au thentic character, but this they had not done, and they were accordingly obliged to avail themselves of the ordinary news paper reports, which did not publish all the transactions of the meetings, but only such as appeared at the time of public in terest. They thus were obliged to resort to a species of se condary evidence, and in order to make out evidence ad missible they were obliged to have recourse to the left handed management of including in the indictment the editors of the different newspapers in which these reports were pub lished. What was the course taken at the trial of Hardy and of Horne Tooke ? Who was the Attorney-General of Eng land in that slay ? The late Lord Eldon, then Mr. Scott. Who was the Solicitor General of that day ? The late Lord Reilesdale, subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Mr. Mitford. How did they proceed against Horne Tooke and the ether members of those associations which it was the object of those prosecutions to put down? Who was the first witness examined against Herne Tooke ? Daniel Adams, who was sworn and examined by the counsel for the Crown. And what did he prove ? That he was the secretary of this society or association—that he had held that office for ten years—that he had made the entries in the books. But the Crown may say to use here—" Oh ! do you expect we should call a co-conspi rator? do you expect that we should give to your counsel the benefit of his cross-examination ?" Gentlemen, I bold it to be a principle—a high, a noble, and inherent principle— ,of a Crown prosecution, and more particularly of a State prosecution, I hold it to be the duty of those who manage it not to discriminate, to judge, to calculate, to criticise in what way the evidence may be likely to affect those who are to be prosecuted ; but it is the duty of the Crown to call all those witiiesses who can depose to facts appertaining to the prosecution, and then to give the traversers the benefit of their cross-examination. Mr. Ray is included in this indict- I ment ; he cannot be a witness at all. I cannot cal! him for himself—the other traversers cannot examine him on their be half. In Hardy's case the Crown did not indict the secretary ; he was the first witness to 'prove the objects, the intent, and the tendency of the association. Horne Tooke was entitled to the cross-examination of the witness produced by the Crown ; he had the secretary of the society on the table to interrogate him as to the intent and object of it. One of the questions was, - Were the members armed with pikes or muskets ?—No. Did you ever hear anything said in the society about piker or muskets ?—No, never in my life. Was there such a thing as a secret Committee there ?—Never. Was not everything conducted openly and publicly? Was there anything ever took place which could lead you to believe that the members intended to depose or kill the King ?—Oh, no, never." Would I not, gentlemen, have been entitled to ask him, if he was a witness on the table, " Had you any reason to suppose that the members of the Loyal National Repeal Association intended to excite disaffection towards the Government, or to corrupt the army, to affect the administration of justice, or to overthrew the Government ?" Why have we not the opportunity of asking those questions, which we might have done if we had the benefit of his testimony. Such was the course that was taken when those prosecutions were being carried on in England, at a time when the armies of France were sweeping the Continent of Europe, and when there were great dissensions at home among the people of England. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of that day put the Secretary of the Association upon the table in order that he might prove the facts—in order that the truth might be ascertained. The truth prevailed, and Horne Tooke was acquitted. What more questions were put to him ?—" What do you think was the object or intention of the greater part of the members of that Society ?—To obtain Parliamentary re. form." Do you think there are many among them who meant more than what they said ?—I do not know; I believe they meant what they said." Gen tlemen of the jury, I will not go further with this exa mination. Observe its application to the case of my clients, the Secretary of the Repeal Association, who discharged his official duties in the ordinary way that the officer of any public society was bound to do? Why is he included in this indict ment, or why is he now called upon, after having been per mitted for seven months past to go on discharging the duties of his situation, to answer here as a conspirator —as one re sponsible for all the acts, speeches, and publications of which you have heard so much ? Can you on your oaths, as honest and honourable men, say, in the face of the country, that Mr. Ray, the official of a legal, a recognised Association, did not discharge his duties as secretary, in accordance with the direc tions of those by whom he was employed; but that he ex ceeded his instructions, and combined in doing all those overt acts which form the charge of conspiracy against him ? You are called upon to say he did not do these things with the intention of discharging his duty, consist ently with his principles; but that he was engaged in a pre concerted plot —in a settled conspiracy formed between those gentlemen, for you are to swear upon your oath that you be lieved such to have been his intent before you can give a ver dict against him, and I am to get your answer to that plain question out of your jury-box. Gentlemen of the jury, it may be said that Mr. Ray went beyond the regular course of his duty ; it may be said that he did not confine himself to attend ing the regular meetings of the Association in the capacity of secretary. Gentlemen, I am ready to admit, on the part of Mr. Ray, that wherever there was a meeting of the Association, as of the Association itself, lie attended and officiated there as se cretary, and that gets rid of all questions upon the indictment upon that head. But it may be alleged that he was present at Tara and at Mullaghmast. Now, on that subject I have ascertained the fact, that those were the only two country meetings at which he was ever present. The meeting at Tara took place the 15th of August; it was I believe chiefly an assemblage of persons from that immediate neighbourho'od ; but a con siderable portion of them were from the county and city of Dublin, many attracted there from curiosity, and many more of course from an identity of feeling with the object for which it was convened, and from which to give expres sion to their feelings on the question of repeal. Thousands went out there in carriages, gigs, and cars to see what took place on the 15th of August at the hill of Tara. I don't know whether you are aware of it, but I believe the fact is notorious, that from the number of persons who were going out of Dublin that day, it was regarded as a species of holiday through the city. Mr. Ray went there with his family, with the females of his family, and in company with the members of another gentleman's family, of whom one or two were females. He did nothing there ; he made no speech there ; he did not act as secretary to that meeting • and, taking that fact! alone, you might as well have included every other person who attended there as Mr. Ray. There can be no doubt but thousands went there from a mere feeling of curiosity. However, we now find Mr. Ray at Tara, and, as far as I can see, with respect to Mr. Ray as a traverser, on that head I have nothing requiring me to justify on his part. He may have gone there with a sympathy for the objects of the meeting ; but does that attach to him the character of a conspirat or? I shall not go into any of the particulars of that meeting, for its peaceable character has bees deposed to by the magistrates and policemen who were present—they have told that there was no riot, no breach of thepeace, no tendency to anything like it there. To be sure Captain Despard was examined, but what was his evidence ? Why was it given ? I will tell you ; it was in order to give a certain colouring to this case—a colouring of illegality to that great meeting, and that you might draw inferences from the evidence after obtaining a colouring for it. Well, then, Walker was examined, and what did he prove? That he saw people walking, heard bands playing, and saw a few flags or banners, and that was all h e s a w . W as th ere any thi ng illegal in that ? Walker was examined by the Crown on all that he was supposed to know. Well, Captain Despard, who, it will be recollected, had no great regard or esteem fur Mr. O'Connell—for what reason, I suppose, he knows best himself—but it was quite clear that, from his manner and evidence, he had a very strong feeling against Mr. O'Connell and the meeting. This Captain Despard comes from Trim, and he swears he heard the people say " Keep the step !" I asked him did they keep the step, and he said they did not. I must here remark that every police man who was examined did, either by design or accident, endeavour in the strongest manner to give a colouring, which they were not warranted in giving, to the whole character of the proceedings. Captain Despard said the people came in marching order to the meeting, and by that word he wanted to impress something on your minds relative to military array. He was obliged to admit that the people did not keep the step, nor did they know hew to keep it. He was a military man, ant he at once committed himself in his anxiety to colour the ease, and give a turn to the whole proceedings, which were totally different from the facts. It was most disingenuous in Despard to use a military term for the purpose of throwing it into your box; but at the same time it only proves the nature of his temper, and the bias of his mind, and his partisanship on the subject. I will ask, are men to be branded with being foul conspirators—are their lives, liberties, and fortunes to be at stake in consequence of such evidence as this that I have shown you ? The gallant Captain Despard and Major Westenra were taken for foreigners, " because," says the captain, " Major Westenra had a mous tache, and I had a curl in my lip."—( Laughter.) Well, he gets into a conversation with some lump of a fellow from Stoneybatter or thereabouts, who was waiting to see Mr. O'Connell pass, and because of this conversation the meeting was stiematised as illegal. The man told him he came from Wexf ord, and therefore the meeting was illegal, and the traversers guilty of a foul conspiracy.—( Laughter.) This alleged conversation could have been sustained by evidence, but I think the Attorney- General knew nothing at all about it when he opened the case, or if he did I think he did well to leave it out arid not contami nate his case, bad as it was, with such trash as I allude to. The Attorney-General did not allude to 20,000 Shilmalier men, who marched to Tara. Oh, no, he knew it would be really too farcical to do so. The conversation to which he referred, if ever such took place at all, must be treated as a cock-and-a-brill story, or a humbug. Walker was examined before Capt. Despard, in the country, and it was said also thathe was near him when the con versation took place, yet there was not a word about it, as it was too equivocal. Oh ! but the 20,000 Wexford men could not be forgotten by Capt. Despard. Oh, but that was done for a purpose—to give a colouring to the case ; and well the other side knew that. Why was not Walker asked about it? He might have corroborated the story. It was disgraceful to bring such a case as that forward, in order to sustain the prosecution. Why was not Westenra produced to corroborate the story? He was not. And well the Attorney-General knew it would be a disgrace to the case to introduce such an episode into his opening statement. It is not my intention to make any re marks relative to the other meetings, because Mr. Ray attended only that at Tara and Mullaghmast, and I will leave them to other hands. Why do I mention these things but to show that you ' ought to. come coolly to the consideration of this awful case as I am convinced you will. I would not have mentioned -the facts related here, but if I left them untouched it would be giving them a weight which they are not entitled to, or which they do not possess, and a different construction might be put on them. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the evidence of Mr. Despard, as follows :—Walker was in coloured clothes ; Westenra was there also, and is alive at present. as far as I know ; a man asked him to take off his hat for O'Connell ; he was surprised when he heard of the 20,000 Wexford men ; and when I asked him did he believe the man, his answer was, " I had only his word for it." I ask, is that evidence in this case ? There was the case made by Des pard of the great treasonable design concocted against the peace of the country, because he met a man who told him he came from Wexford ! The only other meeting at which Mr. Ras attended was that at Mullaghmast. He went there, not in his capacity of secretary to the Association, but on an invi tation which was conveyed to him from the Committee. He was at the dinner which took place in the evening ; and that was the only place in the whole history of the transaction that Mr. Ray made a speech or said a word. Well, let us ace under what circumstances ho went there, and made the speech. Everything done at that dinner was given in evi- ' dence, except that speech of Mr. Ray. In the course of the evening certain toasts were proposed, and amongst the rest was the " Loyal National Repeal Association." Mr. Ray spoke to the toast, but how ? Did he volunteer to speak ? No; he did not ; be was called on to reply to the toast as the secretary of the Association, and he made some observations on the sub ject, but of so little importance were those observations that they were forgotten. The speech was not reported, nor was it given in evidence on the table—it was merely stated that Mr. Ray re turned thanks on the part of the Association, and that was the only time in the history of the whole transaction that Mr. Ray made a speech. In speaking of the meeting at Mullaghmast, I think this is the time to make a few observations with regard to something which occurred at that meeting. I think we have reason to complain of the mode in which the prosecution has been conducted, and my client complains of being made a party to what occurred there—that was the first resolu tion moved at the meeting, which is one of the overt 1 Acts laid as disclosing the criminal intents of the parties to excite disaffection among her Majesty's subjects. ( The Learned Gentleman here read the first and second resolutions agreed to at the meeting.) You have had a great deal of evidence laid before you as to the numerous assemblage of persons who came tog ether at Mullaghma s t, but though nume rous, it was proved that this meeting, like the others, was peaceable and orderly, and that there was not the slightest tendency to commit a breach of the peace. But it was deemed necessary, -as in the case of Tara, to get some species of evidence reflecting on the character of the meeting, and on the designs and objects of th ise who were assembled there. I call attention to this fast, because it is one which, I regret to say, discloses a iagement and distorting which ought to be absent from a trial of this description when everything should be above board and brought forward. What do I allude to ? I allude to the catch-penny} ballad or placard published and printed by a p.rson named lfanvey, whom it was the bounden duly of the CeJwil to have produced. If it were a case of common aas mit, where there might be a struggle for a forty-shil ling verdict to carry damages, I would understand la hy he was not produced, but in a State prosecution, and parti. cularly in a State Crown prosecution, I deny that he ought to be kept back. When the Attorney-General opened this case, he said that seditious, infamous, and disgraceful pub• lications were circulated by themselves and tens of thou sands for the purpose of exciting one nation against the other, and that my client fabricated the document, and had it circulated. Why should not the Attorney-General pre duce the petson who .circulated them, that we might ascer tain where he got them, and who paid for them ? W objected to the document, we thought it unjust to be produced in evidence on a conspiracy, when it was sought to make each conspirator responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators. N't , as it to be endured that such a document, circulated by this person, whose character was blackened as a vender of seditious publications, in the outskirts of the meeting , : fo r profit and hire, should be received in evidence, littondr,alse.pler. he son himself not. produced ? AI t r i er d l i a r r ec a i tu4.lnrscefoorgntiisieettrperpienatierw:T_ , A ri a s r n s o d vi c?it i, v , ,y l. o of Pr d i o n r t r u , . l of meansh e vi dence; is f hic h b h u e t why was p cll i d d Ti t re ' e Attorney- b G ad en t e h r e al be e n l e o fi s e t his case, having this document in his possession, without calling the person Who sold them to show bow be got them S TY. EC - _ , ,111.• 4 , , ,, ,e, ,,,c7... .', 1 Pt —whether he was a member of the hisiecialgin. or who paikii ! for them? Yet the Attorney-Genesittil s t!e s 'i • to infer, and presume, that he was a. meta - oetal tion. If the object of the Crown was, to. at-the tenth, it was their bounden duty to produce this aid tiOus'iender of infamous publications. Do you think that Mr. Kemmis, the respectable Solicitor for the Crown, than whom no man dis charges his duty more faithfully and more respectably, was not instructed as to who he was and what he was? Why, I again repeat, was not this vender of sedition pro duced? He could have told us whether he war a member of the Association, or from what old history he drew his account. But my learned, acute, clever friends, perfectly understood their business. Every one knows that even at the assizes such songs and publications were sold by wretched paupers at the corners of the streets. He knew that the Attorney-General would not have suggested any course that should have the effect of making the traversers fall into a trap, or one by which they weld.' be compelled to call a witness, of whom the traversers knew nothing, and of whom the Crown might possibly know much. Such an imputation was utterly unworthy of them, and he should only be brought to think so if he should hear the At torney-General say, in his reply, that the traversers ought to call as their witness this vender of sedition. Mr. Moore had observed to them on the principles on which a British jury should decide. We can all understand that an indictment for conspiracy might be justifiable, or the only proceeding by which individuals could be punished in certain cases. In proceeding against private individuals for doing a private wrong, it might be necessary tsindict persons for a conspiracy. Two persons might conspire to rob a man of his property, and in such a case the concert of their acts might be taken as the only evidence of their conspiracy. Men might be charged with offences of another character, and an indictment for con spiracy might here too be the only remedy. But the law of the Constitution looked with jealousy on the doctrine of con spiracy being resorted to as a political instrument in a State pro secution ; and I again repeat that it becomes a still more ob noxious proceeding—one to be discarded and scouted from a court of justice, when an indictment is founded on three hun dred separate acts; the Learned Gentlemen then cited the ease of Ham's' Hunt before referred to. It was an indictment against Hunt and nine others, on several counts, for a con spiracy to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the country, and to excite discontent, disaffection, and hatred of the law among his Majesty's subjects. The CHIEF STlCE—Where is the case cited from? Mr. HATCH ELL—From Barnewall and Alderson 536. The fourth count of that indictment was for their attending an unlawful assembly. It is stated, that bodies of persons at tending the meeting at Manchester appeared in military array, with the step and movement of a military march. This might, perhaps, account for the anxiety of some of the witnesses to prove the military character of the processions to some of these meetings ; it was in order to bring them within the principle of this count against Mr. Hunt and his companions. The result of this trial was, that five were convicted and five were acquitted, though the object of the Crown was to get them all convicted of the conspiracy. How did they es cape the meshes of the net ? Because the jury took it for granted that the conduct of the five convicted men ought to be visited on themselves alone ; and they were not satisfied that any preconceived plan of conspi sacy was proved out of subsequent transactions; and these five were convicted, not for conspiracy, but for assembling an illegal assembly. The jury repudiated, as dangerous to the Constitution, this indicting for con piracy. Then why was there not a count in this indictment against the traversers for attending an illegal meeting? Gentlemen, the case is either "neck or nothing" for the Crown ; it wants a convic tion for a conspiracy, and therefore it would not insert a count for attending an unlawful assembly; it thought that if yon bad the alternative you would only find those guilty under that count ;she did attend such meetings, and acquit them of the charge of conspiring. There is another ease which shows the same spirit in a British jury. It was that of the Queen v. Drinkwater, and others, reported in Carrington and Payne. This, too, was a conspiracy to disturb the peace, and create discontent and disaffection; the jury rejected the eonnts of a conspiracy ; yet, at the meetings in this case, the people were told, " if any individual should dare to interfere with you, break his head." How different was the conduct at all the meetings held by the traversers. A Mr. Vincent made use of the following words :—" To your tents, 0 Israel." It was no t for him to put any construction upon these words. They seemed to be a favourite quotation, and were mentioned by Mr. Sheil as having been used. In another speech, on another occa sthioen; r A i I v r i e N g . i e n d c e o n r d t e a r l s s s a a n i d d , O up w n i t e h heart the G a n o d v e o r n n e m b e l n o t w wh de ic a h th e to le people have established." This was the language then before the jury, yet they were not of opinion that the acts of the accused were to be attributed to any preconceived plan or conspiracy, but arose at the moment out of the pro ceedings of the meeting. They believed that the meeting . was illegal ; they acquitted them of the conspiracy, and found them guilty of only attending the unlawful assembly. I now come back to Mr. Ray, and on his part I state and call on you to go with me, that there is no act of con spiracy to be attributed to him in any part of this charge. His object was a legitimate object ; and, independently of that, Mr. Hay attended the meetings at the Corn Exchange as the secretary of the Association ; and I call on you, as honourable men, to say whether you can reconcile it to your consciences,"or say on your oaths, whether in what he said, or in the character in which he appeared,there was anything of the criminal intention ascribed to him in the indictment. He would not have discharged the duty he owed to himself and to his country—he would not have asserted the principles he avowed and entertained,'nor have fulfilled his daty as the servant of the Association, bad he acted otherwise. All this must, therefore, be taken into consideration in finding your verdict, and that verdict, I trust, will be one of acquittal for my client. The Court was about to adjourn for a few moments for re freshment, when Mr. FITZGIBLON rose, and in a faint and scarcely audible voice, applied, as we understood, for the indulgence of the Court till to-morrow, on the ground of indisposition. He also said, that in a case of such magnitude, though he knew the jury were anxious to attend, yet if they were called on in such quick succession to hear the views of so many persons in the same day, it might not be contributive to the ends of justice. The CHIEF JUSTICE said he felt great unwillingness to press Mr. Fitzgibbon to go on ; he had observed that he bad been labouring under a severe cold during a greater part of this trial. The Court all felt that no undue time had been taken up by the several gentlemen who had addressed the Court and the jury, neither of whom could complain of the conclact of counsel. This was an additional reason why Mr. Fitzgibbon's request to begin his address to-morrow, instead of to-day, should be conceded. The Court would, therefore, adjourn till to-morrow. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would not for a moment press Mr. Fitzgibbon to go on, but Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Al'Donough still had to address the Court, and he thought on• of them might go on. One of the traversers, he understood, was to address the Court himself. He admitted that the illness .A Mr. Fitzgibbon was quite a sufficient reason for his not ad. dressing the jury, but he thought it might be desirable that oats of the other gentlemen should do so. Mr. FITZGIBBON said the Court had been kind enough to take his indisposition into consideration as one of the ingre dients of its decision. But he did not found his application upon that. If they forced him to go on be would bo prepared, and if there were no other reasons but his personal convenience, he should beg them not to make their rule merely upon that. Judge BURTON-1 suppose the counsel for the traverser! have made some arrangement as to the order in which they , were to speak. Mr. O'CONNELL—They have ; there has been a certain dis position of forces on this occasion, and another counsel sus be substituted now. CIIIEF JUSTICE—I suppose so. He will then do as I stated at first; the case will then be adjourned till to-morrow. The traverser!! and their counsel then quitted the Court, which sat afterwards to dispose of motions. TWO SUPPLEMENTS GRATIS, WITH THE "DISPATCH." GREAT NATIONAL TRIAL AT DUBLIN. The immense size of THE WEEKLY DISPATCH has, hitherto, enabled its Proprietors on all occasions to present a copious, and, at the same time, interesting account of the events of each week. It i., however, now found utterly impossible to give anything like a faithful report of the Trial of Mr. O'Con nell and his repeal associates, without excluding a great mass of interesting domestic and foreign intelligence ; the Proprietors; therefore, feel that their journal, which has been for years, and is now, honoured with more patronage than any other in ex istence, should be, in all respects, complete ; and, with that view, they intend to insert a summary of the proceedings during the progress of the trial in their usual columns, and present to their friends and subscribers TWO SUPPLEMENTS, GRATIS. One of these Supplements will be published on the Sunday suc ceeding the delivery of the Verdict, and will contain the Speeches of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil, Sir C. O'Loghlin, the Attorney- General, and other leading Counsel; together with the Summing up of the Judge, the Yet diet of the Jury, and other matters of im portance that may arise up to the latest hour, for which the services of several short-hand writers of eminence have bran specially engaged. The second Supplement (also of the fall size of THE WEEKLY DISPATCH) will, in fact, form the early portion of the trial, and embrace the pro ceedings of the commencement to that stage at which the other begins; so that every subscriber to THE WEEKLY DISPATCH will be in possession of a complete and faithful report of this great national trial—a trial which must become a matter of history, and be regarded as an event of no ordinary importance in after time. A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MR. O'CONNELL will precede the account of the Trial, which will be written by a gentleman intimately ac quainted with the " great Agitator," and consequently one who has treasured up many reminiscences that will render the Die graphy a paper of general and absorbing interest. The Two Supplements, forming Ninety-six Columns, will be printed uniformly with THE DISPATCH, and contain 'a quantity of matter equal to at least an octavo volume of WO pages. [ THE DISPATCH is supplied by every Newsvender in London, and by the various Booksellers and News Agents in the country, to whom bills for circulation will be forwarded, with the name and address attached, on receiving a letter to that effect, directed to Mr. Wood, Dispatch-office, 139, Fleet. street, where orders are also received. THE STATE . PROSECUTIONS. We are really at a loss to conjecture what good Sir Robert Peel expects from the prosecution of Mr. O'Con- nell. Be the result what it may—acquittal or punish ment—the influence of tho agitator is sure to be aug mented, and the authority of the Government propor tionally weakened. At the date of the latest accounts, the Court of Queen's Bench had sat eight days, but not a single circumstance had been brought to light that a - as not well known before. The foul and wicked conspiracy of the Attorney-General, turns out to be nothing snore than an open combination to effect a change in the lay. such as has existed over and over again in all parts of the country, and such as exists in the Complete, Suf frage Union and Anti-Corn-law League, at present. Ail that. has been proved, and all, we are satisfied, that ran be proved, apilist O'Connell is, that he has organised associations, collected subscriptions, and given tickets of membership to as many people as desired to repeal an Act of Parliament that has only existed same forty years. This he has done peaceably, and aecompanied by professions of the most unbounded loyalty. Now, what is there in all this that has not been done a hundred times over—that is not done at pre a s n en t tt e ? What greater crime has O'Connell committed h_ 43? None whateveT. Complete-Suffrage agitators , of 18 . a dim It cu y, and they Reform leaders of 1831, or than the Anti-Corn - law' sad But the Ministry feel theraselvesofmi t t h h e an wielding the instruments of ,justice, ust t i , c , e o o Ir: e l r an o b i ‘ e t g r r y i4 evade r t,ng hole course of this prosecution has been marked c s n h n e c e y s e s t i ssuffered. rous hen by folly. It began ill in the suppression of the Clontarf ineetiug, and it toa gone on from had to worse through the blunders of the preliminary proceedintp;--the unfair ness of the panel—and the lndicr..us absurdities o f t h e Crown witnesse. Come out of it what willohe Admi nistration must suffer.—Aberdeen Herald. THAMES TUNNEL.—Lsot week 26,938 persona went duo* thit etructue, LSO ;nt ais ry,