The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-05 00:00:00

IRELAND. ',T HE. STATE TRIALS. '.SEVENTEENTH DAY. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. DUBLIN, FRIDAY, FRB. 2. TUE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. On Mr. Whiteside entering the Court he was received with loud cheers. The Judges took their seats at ten (Mock. Mr. Whiteside rose to resume his speech. 'lle CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Whiteside, I beg you will 'wait for a moment. lam not now addressing myself to you, Mr. Whiteside, but I would wish the people in the malle2ry would attend to what the Court feel right to say with regard to the impropriety which took place yester day evening, A great deal of cheering and improper noise took place—a just tribute due to the distinguished talents of Mr. Whiteside, but a great indecorum, and improperly committed before the Court. Such a thing catuutt be allowed again ; and those who are disposed so to signify their approbation or disapprobation of what takes place in this Court, must be informed that the Court is not the place to show any signs of such feeling; and they must hold their tongues, and keep quiet. Mr. WHITESIDE then said—l shall draw your attention oow, Gentlemen, to the charge in this indictment on the subject of the Arbitration Courts. This single accusa tion is spread over a great portion of the indictment, end much dwelt upon by my friend, the Attorney -4.7.! eneral, in his address to you. I apprehend it would astonish you very much if any of you were pre vented serving on this jury on the ground that you recommended one of your brother jurors not to go to law. You must recollect the thing to be done, and advised to be done, and how it is to be done—to see if the act itself be legal, and if the means adopted for carrying out of the act be legal also. I stibmit that it is both a religious and moral duty, if possible, to compromise the subject-matter of litigation between two parties, and you will find it in that book, which I am sure is a high authority in your estimation. Next, it is a moral duty. , In Paley's Moral Philosophy entitled " Litiga tion,' you will find these words—" But, since it is sup posed to be undertaken simply with a view to the ends of justice and society, the prosecutor of the action is ilrociactd to confine himself to the cheapest process which will accomplish these ends, as well as to consent to any peaceable expedient for the same purpose ; as to a refer ence in which the arbitrators can do what the law can not, divide the damage when the fault is mutual, or to a c nnpounding of the dispute by accepting a compensa ton in the gross without entering into articles and items, which it is often very difficult to adjust separately." Therefore, the thing recommended to be done is both a religious and moral duty. The law itself respects arbitra tion, and encourages it by every means, and it has occurred frequently in our experience, that while a suit was pend ing, and, after great expense, was brought before a judge and jury, it has been suggested by courts- 1 or the court that the subject-matter of that dispute shall be referred by consent to discreet men to adjudicate upon it. The statute law of the land recognises arbitration. By the 10th William 111. it is provided that it shall be lawful to refer matters to arbitration. By two later statutes, one which is called by the name of the Learned Gentle man that passed it, Pigot's Act, 3 and 4 Vic., there are provisions introduced to facilitate arbitration and compel the attendance of witnesses. By the sth and 6th Wil liam IV., it is also recognised, and by the sth and 6th Victoria, where th, matter in dispute is under 201., the arbitration awards are relieved from stamp duty. The statute law recommends arbitration to be adopted where it makes no positive enactment on the subject. (The Learned gentleman:here referred to the Friendly Societies' Act, and several authorities to show that arbitration was recog nised. It was said they did more—they not only induced parties to refer suits to arbitration, but that those justices that had been dismissed should be selected as arbitrators. That has been most strongly pressed by the ,Attorney- General, and has been over and over again urged. I admit frankly that it was said by Mr. O'Connell and others that they hoped that those persons being dismissed justices residing in some parts of the country should be selected or appointed to act on behalf of the people ; and they hoped the time would come when the people would be at liberty to elect their magistrates. It arose from a matter merely accidental, and never was intended or con templated by those who became Repealers. It was long afterwards that the act was done which led to the appointment of these ex justices as arbitrators, and it was not the result of a common design. It arose from the act of the Government. They saw that a number of gentlemen of high respectability attended these repeal meetings, and it is quite plain, from reading the corres pondence of the Lord Chancellor, that he did not eonsi der they had thereby done an illegal act. In his -letter of the 28th of May, 1843, he says that it had been his earnest determination not to interfere with expression of opinion by any magistrate in respect to the repeal of the , Union, although, from his arrival in this country, he felt• it to be inconsistent with his duty to appoint to the commission of the peace any one who was pledged to the support of that measure ; but he afterwards assigns as his reason for dismissing them, that after the discussons in the House of Lords, and the declarations made in Parliament by Sir R. Peel, in answer to the plain and distinct question of Lord Jocelyn, he felt it his duty to ask whether they intended to attend any more of these meetings, and if so, to dismiss them. That letter plainly showed that attending these meetings originally was not an illegal act, and his letter was then merely a warning. Gentlemen, it is not ray duty, consistent with the high respect I entertain for that, distinguished functionary, to enter on a discussion of the grounds on which he proceeded ; but there were men of high authority who expressed their opinions upon it, and, among others, two who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor—l mean Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell—who, in tho House of Lords, disputed those grounds, and said very plainly that it was un constitutional to dismiss those magistrates. That a justice of •the peace had the same right to expres and entertain his opinion as any other man in the community, and that for having so done it was illegal and unconstitutional to dismiss them. When the mem bers of the Repeal Association saw that such high legal authorities entertained that opinion in reference to the dismissal of these magistrates, and considered that the declaration against repeal, on which their dismissal was based, did not come directly from her Majesty, or in any constitutional shape upon her authority, they did— and it is not for me to say who was right or who was wrong—seeing that these gentlemen possessed the con fidence of the people, that the people were piqued at their dismissal, recommended their appointment as ar bitrators, and, in the words of Mr. O'Connell, " recom mended that all miserable petty-session litigation should be put an end to, and that all disputes arising in those districts where the magistrates had been dismissed, should be referred to them as arbitrators, and that he hoped the day would come when he should see the magistrates appointed by the people." Gentlemen, I defend that assertion of Mr. O'Connell. He had a right to make that observation. I have yet to learn from Mr. Solicitor-GeneraL that it is illegal to express a wish to walk in the ancient footsteps of the Constitu tion, and that a desire to return to the ancient state of the wise administration of justice is a combination and a conspiracy. The more we investigate the old rules of the common law of England, the more deep is our respect for, and attachment to them. They were based on the soundest principles of constitutional freedom, and they only serve to show how strong should be our attachment to those princi ples which form the basis of public freedom and liberty. Centlemen, the next charge brought against the traversers is that of endeavouring to excite disaffection and -disconient amongst her Majesty's subjects serving in the army. It is a singular charge, and peculiarly so from this remarkable circumstance, that it is not asserted that the traversers undertook or conceived any project for the purpose of exciting mutiny amongst the troops, or encouraging the practice of desertion. It is merely charged against us that we endeavoured to excite discontent and disaffection; but it is not stated amongst whom we endeavoured to ex cite discontent, or against whom disaffection. Mr. O'Connell's remarks in reference to the army arose, in the first instance, out of a most tragical transaction which occurred last summer. A soldier dropped suddenly dead while on drill, and the Coroner's jury, which sat upon the body, added to their verdict a state ment to the effect that his death was induced by great fatigue consequent upon excessive drilling. This ver dict gave rise to an infinity of public discussion, parti cularly in the- newspapers, some of which contended that the jurors were not justified in appending that state ment, for that it was subversive of the discipline, while others as stoutly maintained that the jurors were quite right in doing so, for that it was full time that the griev ances of the soldiery should be inquired into. The me mory of this occurrence was yet fresh in the public mind, when another equally tragic event occurred. A private belonging to the sth Fusiliers, a Protestant and an Englishman, stepped out of the ranks, when on a drill, and shot the adjutant, a Scotch officer, dead upon the spot. This dreadful occurrence also gave rise to much discussion, and men asked each other whether there must not be something wrong in the discipline of the army —something exceedingly oppressive upon the sol diery—when a man of good character—who, up to that time, had conducted himself with strict propriety—could Le guilty of a cr i me so horrible and atrocious. It was the topic of general observation. Mr. O'Connell inci dentally, in th e course of his of speeches, made some allu s on to it; and a clergyman,ioh name was of published Power, ialson NI rote a letter o n t h e subject, : h the Pilot. Of that l etter I will say nothing, for Mr. Power is defended here by counsel. CHIEF JUSTICE—There is no traverser before the Court of the name of Power. Mr. WHITESIDE—Oh, no, my Lord, lam ware ther e is not. What I mea n t t o convey was, there is: P ouzl here for the gentleman w h o i s responsible for th c ation of that letter. Th a t l e tt er may, perhaps, be fairly enough adduced in evidence against Mr. Barrett, but I deny that it can be adduced in evidence against the .cther traversers; and what I co m pl a i n o f is, that th e „invisible gentleman with the scissors should have been so exceedingly polite as to have introduced it into his indictment for the purpose, forsooth, of proving a con spiracy against my client ! No specific act is laid to Mr. O'Connell's charge, designed for the purpose of weaning the soldiery from their allegiance; and the head 'And front of his offending consists in his having expressed `jt a his qpi_ ,nion that sergeants ought to be more fre dWayS lif olwiiini, to commissions. But, Gentlemen, " . <4 . • rttor ,-- a . do not wish to weary out your ..ttlePeej. tielltAct . you extracts ad infinitum from A f 7 111 #4i, -. - -- i lii by officers in the army, in which , .ifte gia.a , de . 4o , * , distinctly propounded. For my (,' tart, I pass do ' pon the subject, but I cannot see woro tt 0 hy the right of ot 'es to do 60 should be disputed. \t, i..-:_%,...... ..- X. ;1 S .. ~.-- THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING FEBRUARY 5, 1844. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General has called the tra versers severely to task for having adopted the resolu tion of the old volunteers, and for having quoted in their speeches the words f some illustrious men, now no more, who expressed it as their opinion that in point of constitmtional principle and upon constitutional reasoning, the Union was null and void. He told you that what is stated by Members of Parliament against an Act before it becomes law cannot justify a man in op posing that Act of Parliament after it shall have be come the law of the land. That is certainly true to a certain extent ; but I cannot help thinking that the Attorney-General is endeavouring to push the principle somewhat too far. He finds fault with us for having quoted the words of that distinguished man, Mr. Saurin, but I do not think that he had any right to call us to task for having done so. Why should not Mr. O'Con nell refer to Mr. Saurin's words ? They are public property—they are the property of the Irish people. Gentlemen, I will trouble you with one word more—it is the declaration of the Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who at the time was prime Sergeant of Ireland—a very lucrative office. He sat in the House of Commons at the time, and hear what he says—" Posterity will inquire into the means by which this Union was carried. If the question had never been made, I should have declined the discussion of it; but as it has I must declare that it is not, in my opinion, within the moral competence of Parliament to destroy and ex tinguish itself, and with it the rights and liberties of those who created it. I acknowledge the competency of the English Parliament to adopt the union with Scot land, because the number of the representatives and the Peerage only was increased, which, as the Crown, by its prerogsative may do, so may the act of the Legislature. But after the Union the constitution of England conti nued, but the constitution of Scotland was dispersed. And of this opinion must the great advocate of constitutional establishment have been. The • House of Lords was not competent to dissolve the House of Commons, nor even to dissolve itself, nor to abdicate if it would its proportion in the legislation of the king dom ; that though a king may abdicate in his own person he cannot abdicate for the monarchy. The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold their public faith with each other. Sueh a corn pact may, with respect to Great Britain, be a union, but with respect to Ireland, it will be a revolution. The Scotch Parliament was elected with a notice to the people that such a measure would be submitted to their discussion. How different the present case. Will the measure proposed benefit the country and remove the causes of the discontent ? In my opinion not. It will, on the contrary, increase the agitation of the one, and aggravate the other ? f: ill it tranquillise this great metropolis, which, so lately as the last summer, by its valour and spirit, preserved this country to ourselves and to Great Britain, while the Government of the country lay shuddering in the Castle ? Whom, then, will it gratify ? Not the loyal ists, but the United Irishmen. Nine out of ten of the men execrate the measure—the women are unanimous against it. Would to God that they would emulate the Athenian ladies, and subject the man who would vote for it to the ban of their displeasure. Will it give you any stronger claim on Great Britain ? No ; and lam satis fied that the honour of the British nation would reject such an insinuation. Would Great Britain, that arms for the deliverance of Europe, that seized Prussia, Sar dinia, the Emperor, and guarantees his loans, that makes Egypt an object of his care—will she refuse her protection to Ireland ?" He concludes—" Posterity inquire into the means by which this Union is car ried." Gentlemen, yon see what that man clearly foresaw. After numerous references to authorities the Learned Gentlemen continued:—lt is curious, too, that the Act of Union contains no provision that its finality should not be discussed; and, therefore, the Attorney-General's ar gument against the right of the traversers to do so fails. He then read an extract from Molyneux's book on the state of Ireland, quoted the passage in which the writer questioned the right of the English Government to de prive the Irish people of their ancient privileges, which they had possessed for 500 years, and proceeded to say: —The English were so unable to get over the arguments contained in that book, that they ordered it to be burned by the common hangman—a circumstance which in creases very much my estimation of the work.—(A laugh.) I will next call your attention to the considera tion of what Mr. O'Connell has asserted about the revival of the Irish Parliament, and I will first, how ever, dispose of his proposition fur the "Renewed action of the Irish Parliament." Mr. O'Connell in that extraordinary document sets forth the whole of the Irish population, and states his opinion, that household suffrage is the best. Why, Gentleirien, that is the suffrage we have at present in Dublin. Every man who has a house worth ten pounds possesses a vote, and there are very few houses in Dublin that are not worth 101. The Duke of Richmond, who was examined by Mr. Erskine on the trial of Hardy, was of opinion that the whole system of the franchise was corrupt, and that every man who had not committed a crime ought to have a vote ; and that there ought to be Annual Parlia ments, Vote by Ballot, &c., all which was very well for a duke. And in his letter to Colonel Sharman he (the Duke of Richmond) states that he is of opinion that the two nations should have but one Parliament, provided the Sovereign of England should reside a reasonable time in this country, and hold her Imperial Parliament in itAwhich he said her Majesty could do with a scratch of her pen—and, Gentlemen, I hope she may. It is a positive insult to the understanding of any man to say that such a state of things would not be a positive benefit to the country, improve her trade, her manufac tures, and her resources. Even our own profession would be benefited by it; for the residence of her most Gracious Majesty in this country would be no bar to her loyal subjects to go to law.—(Laughter.) The Attorney-General adopted the Socratic doctrine in his argument with us : he put questions to us. Now, I am not to be held accountable for the doctrines propounded by others who have spoken before me. But it can be said, as was alleged, that it is revolutionary to state that every town possessing 10,000 inhabitants should have a representative? Why, that is but the principle of the Reform Bill. Mr. O'Connell also says that every man who marries shall have a vote. I think there can be no objection on that score—and that the conspiracy on that ground may be abandoned ; and certainly such a question could not be submitted to a more favourable jury, for you are all married.—(Laughter.) Has Mr. O'Connell said that her Majesty was to be pulled from her throne—the House of Peers to be abolished—and the House of Commons ex tingushed? No. What then has he done? He has been guilty of the monstrous proceeding of extending the Royal prerogative? The Attorney-General—the legal champion of the Crown—charges it as a crime against Mr. O'Connell that he said the Queen has a larger, wider, and more extended prerogative than her Majesty possesses. Where is the authority in which it is laid down that the man who propounded such a propo sition is to be charged as a conspirator? What authority is there for sayine , that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Steele, or any one else, is to be charged with conspiracy, because when they heard such a proposition they did not say to the per son propounding it cite us some authority—cite us your case? Suppose Mr. O'Connell, instead of saying that Parliament should be reformed—that a Parliament should be given to Ireland—said, Sir, I am of opinion that Parliament is a humbug—a nuisance ; that her Majesty has a perfect right to rule, independent of either House of Parliament. Why, what would be the consequence ? I cite a case in point. A celebrated writer in England wrote a book, in which he said that the House of Commons might be dispensed with. That aas voted to be a scandalous and seditious libel by. the House, and the Attorney-General of the day was directed to prosecute the writer. He was accordingly prosecuted, and the case is to be found in Peake's cases in the King's Bench. It is called the King v. Reeves. Lord Kenyon there laid it down that the power of free discussion was the right of every subject of this country—a right to the free exercise of which we were indebted, more than to any other claimed by Englishmen, for the enjoyment of all the blessings we possess—for the Reformation the Revolution—and our emancipation from the ty ranny of the Stuarts, &c. &c.—and that in a free coun try like this the productions of a political writer should not be hardly dealt with. He directed the jury to read through the whole book, and then form their judgment on the entire work. That was his charge, and do you wonder that the people of England sh ou ld b e so much attached to the judicial system under which they live, when you hear laid down by the Lord Chief Justice of England a doctrine so constitutional—so favourable to freedom and the right of the subject as that doctrine? The jury in that case retired; they had the book before them; and though they decided that the book was improper, yet, nevertheless, they thought that he was not actuated by any bad inten tion; and Lord Kenyon said he approved of their verdict. That was the doctrine pro pounded from the Bench, and the jury having looked with the eye of men of sense, qualified their verdict by saying they deprecated what was said by the defendant, the mode in which he conducted his argumeat, but they found their verdict of not guilty, and the Lord Chief Justice said he approved of their decision. Therefore, i f Mr. O'Connell said her Majesty may dispense with the House of Lords he would be safe according to the authority of that case. Gentlemen, the power and prerogative of the Crown to issue writs seems to have been a very ex tensive power—at least, as it was formerly exercised. In the reign of Elizabeth, she, wishing to have a majo rity, sent the writs to only fifty boroughs and left out ten. There are very remarkable instances where the Crown have withheld writs from places entitled to send representatives to Parliament, as to numbers. Looking to the Parliamentary history, we find the most elaborate discourse ever spoken. It was by Sir John Davies, the Attorney-General to King James the First, and was to be found in Leland's " History of Ire land." In that discourse you will see the right King James the First had for what he did—to create forty boroughs in the north of Ireland in one day. It was questioned in that Parliament whether he had a right to do so—the question was discussed—carried over to Eng land, and it was decided in favour of his right, and those persons so elected under his writs sat in Parliament to the period of the union. The last instance of the kind was the issuing of a writ for the borough of Newark, and it was decided in the House of Commons, by a very large majority, that the Sovereign had a right to create the borough. Mr. O'Connell's argument was this, that the Sovereign has still th e p ower t o crea t e boroughs in England. Chitty, in his work on the prerogatives of the Crown, enters into that question, and says there was nothing to take away the prerogatives of the Crown in that respect. Then, if it does exist, the union is in the and m.n that tocr l e e a a t n is i w n e it-hoef power Sovereign, er o f th r o the Crown learned writer boroughsas says y i they s t did before. Mr. Justice PERRIN—What is the date of that work Mr. WHITESIDE—It was published in the year 1820 —. since the union. Whether the argument be right or wrong, which is not the question before you, is a man to be branded as a conspirator because, without knowing whether Mr. O'Connell was right or wrong —and Mr. Duffy will pardon me, for I don't think he has read sufficiently on the subject—he adopted his opinions ? It now remains for me to say but a few words in re ference to the particular acts charged against my client, Mr. Duffy. Gentlemen, lat once admit that he is a Repealer—that he is of opinion that the union ought to be repealed ; but he never attended any one of those meetings. His state of health did not per mit him ; his inclination did not permit him ; his business did not permit him ; and the only occasion on which he attended a meeting of the Repeal Association he handed in some subscriptions, and did nothing more. You are yet called upon to hold him re sponsible for everything that was said and done at those meetings—for the speech made at Clifden, as well as that at Mullaghmast, Mr. Duffy is to be held accountable. What, then, is the separate evidence against him ? I shall apply myself very briefly to it. The publication of a song has been charged against him, and anything more monstrous than the manner in which that part of the charge is introduced into the indictment it is scarcely possible to con ceive. The charge against Mr. Duffy, I should observe, is under two distinct heads—the publica tion of reports of speeches, and the original articles an d observations upon them. With respect to the reports I apprehend that you cannot find him guilty of any charge of conspiracy. He reprinted in his weekly paper, though not at such a length, the reports of proceedings for the previous week, compiled from perhaps ten or a dozen other journals in which they originally appeared. The remaining question, then, is as to the original publica tions, which, I admit, suggest other considerations, which I shall take the liberty of bringing under your notice. The Attorney-General proposes to establish the crime of conspiracy, by picking out three or four articles, published at different periods, and suggested by passing events, culled from the publications in a weekly newspa per, extending over a period of nine months, and read to the Court as being calculated to phjudice the minds of the people against the Government of England ; and, observe, that all the intervening quotations, which might qualify or explain them, are passed over, although the Learned Gentleman ferretted out everything else that could serve his purposes, whethei in large type or in small. The song on which they rely is entitled " The Memory of the Dead," and was published in the Nation or. the Ist of April, 1843—a very proper day for the publication of that which is now selected by the Crown as evidence of a conspiracy. Are you to visit this act of Mr. Duffy's on Mr. O'Connell, or to presume that it was published in pursuance of a common plan between the traversers? That song was written by some clever young man, and I took the liberty of reading to you another song published in the same paper on the same day, and which it was certainly as agreeable to hear as many of Mr. Attorney-General's state ments. These very sweet, agreeable verses were read from the very same paper. Are you to be asked to believe that Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Steele knew beforehand that some young man, perhaps within the walls of Trinity College, animated with that poetic fire which illumined his imaginative soul, would write that song and send it to the proprietor of the Nation to fill up a corner in his paper ? Are you to believe that all this was done in pursuance of a common object, and in furtherance of a conspiracy ? Is it come to this, that the Government of England is not safe—that the constitution of England is in danger, because some young men, gifted as the writer of that song un questionably was, adverted, in poetic language, to the mistaken views of men who lived in former days ?—or will any twelve honest, or intelligent, or experienced men, he asked to found a ver di c t on such grounds ? Gentlemen, it is not fair—it is not chivalrous—it is not generous thus to take a young man to ask for the ardent and warm-hearted effu sions of his early youth. The writer whom, of all others, I most admire—the writer who, in my opinion, has, by his writings, done more than any other author to uphold our social system—to mend the morals and improve the mind—Robert Southey himself, commenced his career by writing that memorable work, " Wat Tyler," but the tone and temper of his mind were changed when a sounder judgment and more extensive knowledge of the world taught him to view men and manners by the calm light of cool, dispassionate reason. Alas ! Mr. Solicitor, am Ito be told that it is worthy of a wise and enlightened Government to bear down with the full current of a State prosecution upon the writer of that enthusiastic little song, writ ten with the ardour of thoughtless youth, and that, too, after the lapse of nine months from the time of its composition ? Gentlemen, in the disastrous and criminal movement of '9B, amongst the most prominent of the leaders were two ill-fated mem bers of my own profession—Henry and John Shears. In a review which recently appeared in a re spectable literary publication, the Athenmum, of the " Life and Writings of the late William Taylor, of Norwich," I find this remarkable fact noticed, that the first letter of a long correspondence between Taylor and Southey transmits an elegy on the fate of those unhappy young men. I will read for you an ex tract from the review in the Athenceum:—" In 1798 William Taylor became acquainted with Robert Southey, then rising into fame, and a correspondence ensued be tween them which extended for many years. It is sin gular that Taylor's first letter should transmit an elegy on the fate of Henry and John Shears, who had just been executed for high treason in Dublin ; Taylor cele brates them as martyred patriots. The passage in which their mother is introduced, bidding them farewell in the dungeon, will give a general notion of the spirit which pervades the whole : Sons, 'twas for this I bore you—die as men, To whom your father's country and your offspring Deserved to owe the good Ye struggled to obtain. Thy wife, son, cannot speak— she loves thy children ; And in her poverty shall thank her God That thou hest boldly dared Devote them for thy country. Thou needest, John, thy mother's counsel not. If the few weeks that ere we meet, roll by, Worthy of thee I spend, Well pleased mine eyes shall close. And, Gentlemen, am I to be told that the man who penned that touching verse is to be brandedfor ever more as a conspirator, because he commisserated the unhappy end of any ardent and misguided men who loved their country, " not too wisely, but too well ?" No, Gen tlemen, such a proceeding would be scandalous and disgraceful ; and equally unworthy is it of the great and distinguished Government which prosecutes in the present instance, to direct the thunders of their indig nation against the enthusiastic young author of the " Memory of the Dead." Let the Solicitor-General tell how the Government of England punished Mr. M oore for poems not a w hit more indicative of conspiracy (if conspiracy indeed there be) than the stanzas which have been read to you. Let him tell you how Moore was punished for writing such lines as these in the " La mentation of Aughrim" : Could the chain for an instant be riven Which tyranny flung round us then, Oh ! 'tis not in man nor in heaven To let Tyranny bind it again. But 'tis past ; and though blazoned in story The name of our victor may be, Accursed is the march of the glory Which treads o'er the hearts of the free. He will tell you how the bard was punished for penning the song of " Rourke, Prince of Breffny," and of in serting in it such lines as these -- Already the curse is upon her, And strangers her valleys profane ; They come to divide—to dishonour; And tyrants they long will remain. But onward !—the green banner rearing, Go flesh every sword to the hilt : On our side is Virtue and Erin ; On theirs is the Saxon and Guilt. Yes, gentlemen, the author of the "Adventures of an Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion," and of the " Memoirs of Lord Edward Fitzgerald," was punished. But how was he punished ? He was punished by a pension from the English . Government —yes, Moore was punished with a pension for his sedition; and you, Gentlemen of the jury, are now so li c it e d to b r i ng a verdict of " guilty" against the writer of this song, and to declare your conviction that the emanation of a mind, young, ardent, poetical, and imaginative, though mis taken, was written in furtherance of a common plan and design of the most infamous nature! However ardent the youth of Ireland may be, it should never be forgotten of them that they never forgot their loyalty to their Sovereign—even when in 1715 and 1745 the best blood of England and of Scotland bedewed the scaffold, in con sequence of the mad, and well-nigh successful attempt to dislodge the present Royal family from the throne of these countries, the Irish were faithful even to the death. Are not the free subjects of a free state to be permitted to raise their voices in constitutional protes tation and remonstrance, when they think that their interests are endangered or injured ? Scott, the most cautious of writers, was once called upon to decide between his attachment to his party and his love of Scotland. The British Ministry declared their inten tion to introduce—regardless of the feelings of the Scottish people, who considered that their in'erests were vitally concerned—a Bill in reference to the joint stock banks of Scotland. The Scotch thought that they would be injured by the contemplated Bill ; and Sir Walter Scott, fired with indignation at the idea that the Act should be introduced without con sulting the wishes and feelings of his countrymen, wrote under the signature of " Malachi Malagrouther" a series of letters which excited such a flame of indig nation in the country, from north to south, from east to west, that the Minister of the Crown was obliged to fly away with his obnoxious Bill under his arm, just as the Attorney-General would be forced to fly off with his monster indictment on his shoulder, for it would not fit under any man's arm.—(Laughter.) The British Mi nister failed, for the Scotch said, "we must get our joint-stock banks"—aye, and they did succeed in getting them; and are we not a country as good as Scotland, that succeeded in wringing from the British Minister their rights in what they considered a mercantile point of view? Was that to be done in a cold and servile man ner? Do you think Scott did it in that cold and mawkish manner, and said, as we lawyers say, "Oh! I respect fully submit?" Not be; he too well knew that he might as well be whistling jigs to a milestone—(Laughter)— and, therefore, he went boldly about the task, and Sir Walter Scott succeeded in making his country—which contained about one quarter of the number of inhabitants that Ireland did—he succeeded, I say, in making her happy, respectable, and great, while we remain a poor, pitiful, pelting province. lam not ashamed to say this. I hope that the people of Ireland will combine in the one cause, and that is the cause of their common coun try—for the common good of that country—for the good of this ancient kingdom, that she may once again flourish in the world's history. There is one article more I shall trouble you with; but I must remark that I cannot approve of the unjust and intemperate observations which were sometimes made upon the English nation—for they are a great, free, and magnanimous p eo pl e . I o bj ect to rev i v i ng the recollec tions of past struggles and contentions. They can only be usefully recalled for one purpose, and I hope and be lieve it was for that purpose-0 show the people the errors of their forefathers—and by the warning teach how to shun them. Let silence for ever cover—let dark ness hide them—let no hand withdraw the veil that con ceals them —or, if it touch them, let it be for a holy and useful purpose—to imbibe morality and peace from the lessons of the past. Gentlemen of the jury, I have no more to say upon that part of the case. I admit that strong language has been used, and I regret it. The term " Saxon" has been applied to Englishmen. Mr. O'Con nell has entirely renounced it at the request of an English gentleman—l believe he borrowed it from Moore. Moore was wrong to have used it. Yet pro bably when the trials are over, if I called upon the Learned Gentleman (pointing to the Solicitor-General) I should find " Moore's Melodies," and " The Irish Gentle man in Search of a Religion" upon his table—yet, perhaps, if he knew who knocked at the door he would, like the lady in the play, thrust one into a drawer, and put the other under the table.—(Loud laughter.) The last docu ment to which I shall refer is, " The Morality of War," which the Attorney-General has dwelt upon so eloquently, and translated with not a little freedom into " The Mora lity of Rebellion." [After referring to that document the Learned Gentleman thus concluded his long speech] : I will say that the true object of this unprecedented prosecution is to stifle the discussion of a great public question. Reviewed in this light, all other considera tions sink into insignificance ; its importance becomes vast indeed. A nation's rights are involved in the issue, a nation's liberties are at stake--that won—what pre serves the precious privileges you possess? The ex ercise of the right of political discussion—free, untram melted, bold. The laws which wisdom framed—the in stitutions struck opt by patriotism, learning, or genius— can they preserve the springs of freedom fresh and pure? No; destroy the right of free discussion, and you dry up the sources of freedom. By the same means by which your liberties were won can they be increased or defended. Do not quarrel with the partial evils free discussion creates, nor seek to contract the enjoyment of the greatest privilege within the narrow limits timid men prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extrava gance, contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped on man. Free discussion aroused the human mind from the torpor of ages—taught it to think, and shook the thrones of ignorance and darkness. Free discussion gave to Europe the Reformation, which I have been taught to believe the mightiest event in the history of the human race—illuminated the world with the radient light of spiritual truth. May it shine with steady and increasing splendour ! Free dis cussion gave to England the revolution, abolished tyran ny, swept away the montrous abuses it rears, and esta blished the liberties under which we live. Free discus sion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved but purified our Constitution, reformed our laws, reduced our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence to every portion of our political system. The spirit of inquiry it creates has revealed the secrets of nature — explained the wonders of creation, teaching the know ledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, science, civilization, freedom, pure religion, are its noble realities. Would you uado the labours of science, ex tinguish literature, stop the efforts of genius, restore ignorance, bigotry, barbarism—then put down free dis cussion, and you have accomplished all. Savage con querors, in the blindness of their ignorance, have scat tered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a great antiquity. Those who make war on the sacred rights of free discussion, without their igno rance, imitate their fury. They may check the expression of some thought, which might, if uttered, redeem the liberties or increase the happiness of man. The insidious assailants of this great prerogative of intellectual beings, by the cover under which they ad vance, conceal the character of their assault upon the liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the liberty to discuss—blame only its extravagance, pro nounce hollow praises on the value of freedom of speech, and straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy it. The open despot avows his object is to oppress or to enslave--resistance is certain to encounter his tyranny, and perhaps subvert it. Not so the artful assailant of a nation's rights—he declares friendship while he wages war, and professes affection for the thing he hates.— State prosecutions, if you believe them, are ever the fastest friends of freedom. They tell you peace is dis• turbed, order broken, by the excesses of turbulent and seditious demagogues. No doubt there might be a seeming peace—a deathlike stillness—by repressing the feelings and passions of men. So in the fairest portions of Europe this day, there is peace, and order, and submission, under paternal despotism, ecclesiastical and civil. That peace springs from terror, that submission from ignorance, that silence from de spair. Who dares discuss, when with discus sion and by discussion tyranny must perish ? Com pare the stillness of despotism with the healthful ani mation, the natural warmth, the bold language, the proud bearing, which spring from freedom and the consciousness of its possession. Which will you pre fer ? Insult not the dignity of manhood by suppos ing that contentment of the heart can exist under despotism. There may be degrees in its severity, and so degrees in the sufferings of its victims. Terrible the dangers which lurk beneath the calm surface of despotic power. The movements of the oppressed will, at times, disturb their tyrant's tranquillity, and warn him their day of vengeance or triumph may be nigh. But in these happy countries, the very safety of the State consists in freedom of discussion. Partial evils in all systems of political government there must be ; but their worst effects are obviated when their cause is sought for, discovered, considered, discussed. Milton has taught a great political truth, in language as instructive as his sublimest verse:—"For this is not the liberty which we can hope, that no grievances ever should arise in the commonwealth—that let no man in this world expect ; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed—then is the utmost bound of civil liberty obtained that wise men look for." Suffer the complaints of the Irish people to be freely heard. You want the power to have them speedily re formed. Their case to-day may be yours to-morrow. Preserve the right of free discussion as you would cling to life. Combat error with argument, misrepresentation by fact, falsehood with truth. "For who knows not," smith the same great writer, " that truth is strong—next to the Almighty. One needs no policies nor strata gems to make her victorious —these are the shifts error uses against her power." If this demand for a native Parliament rest on a delusion, dispel that de lusion by the omnipotence of truth. Why do you love —why do other nations.honour England? Are you— are they—dazzled by her naval or military glories, the splendour of her literature, her sublime discoveries in science, her boundless wealth, her almost incredible e ng seat of free disc uss i on , an d, labours in every work of te ar E t ng a l n an d d sk h il ee l e freedom, and the hop e a ? u s e No o h has eh felooernvee, for h theeargh—egs m y poeaus of fct rational cling of oppressed men throughout the world. Under the laws of England it is our happiness to live. They breathe the spirit of liberty and r eason . E mu l ate t hi s dythegreatvirtues of Englishmen—their love of fairness—their immoveable independence, and the sense of justice rooted in their nature—these are the virtues which qualify jurors to decide the right of their fellow-men. Deserted by these, of what avail is the tribunal of a jury ? It is worthless as the human body when the living soul has fled. Prove to the accused, from whom, perchance, you widely differ in opinion—whose liberties and fortunes are in your hands—that you are there not to persecute, but to save. Believe me you will not secure the true interests of Eng land by leaning top severely on your countrymen. They say to their English brethren, and with truth—We have been at your side whenever danger was to be faced or honour won—the scorching sun of the East and the pestilence of the West we have endured to spread your commerce—to extend your empire—to uphold bones of our coun t r ymen glory.fie Thldsoef Portugal, of Spain, of whitened the fields France. Fighting your battles they fell—in a nobler cause they could not. We have helped to gather your imperishable laurels. We have helped to win you im mortal triumphs. Now, in time of peace,_ we ask you to restore that Parliament you planted here with your laws and language, uprooted in a dismal period of our history, in the moment of our terror, our divisions, our weakness, it may be, our crime. Re-establish the Com mons on the broad foundation of the people's choice— replace the peerage, the Corinthian pillars of the capitol, secured and adorned with the strength and splendour of the Crown—and let the Monarch of England, as in ages past, rule a brilliant and united empire in solidity, magnificence, and power. When the privilege of the English Parliament were invaded that people took the field, struek down the Ministry, and dragged their Sovereign to the block. This prosecution is not essential fur the maintenance of the authority and prerogatives of the Crown. Our gracious Sovereign needs not State prosecutions to secure her prerogatives or preserve her power. She has the unbought loyalty of a chivalrous and gallant people. The arm of authority she requires not to raise. The glory of her gentle reign will be--she will have ruled, not by the sword, but by the affections ; that the true source of her power has been, not in terrors of the law, but in the hearts of her people. Your patience is exhausted. If I have spoken suitably to the subject, I have spoken as I could have wished ; but if, as you may think, deficiently, I have spoken as I could. Do you, from what has been said, and from the better arguments omitted, which may be well suggested by your manly understandings and your honest hearts, give a verdict consistent with justice, yet leaning to liberty—dictated by truth, yet inclining to the side of accused men, struggling against the weight, and power, and influence of the Crown, and pre judice, more overwhelming still—a verdict undesired by a party, but to be applauded by the impartial monitor within your breasts, becoming the high spirit of Irish gentlemen, and the intrepid guardians of the rights and liberties of a free people. When Mr. Whiteside con cludect his address, which was listened to with intense attention, he sat down amidst a burst of applause, which the presence of the Court could not suppress. Mr. WDONOUGH, Q.C., next addressed the jury, as counsel for Mr. Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot, but had not finished his speech when the Court rose. It re lated to reports of speeches and comments on the diffe rent meetings which appeared in that paper; but, as far as we can judge from the introductory part, contained no new arguments. EIGHTEENTH DAY. DUBLIN, SATURDAY, FEE. 3.. The Court sat at the usual hour. Mr. O'CoNNaLL—My Lord, I respectfully submit to th e Court, as th e li ne of observation which it will be my duty to take will not b e prec i sely that taken b y an y other Co unse l, an d as I knowsthe materials Mr. 11I6Donongh has will take a con siderable part of this day, if it were not interfering too much with the course of the trial, I should be glad if your Lordships would hear me on Monday, and not call on me this day. I teJoih JUSTlCE—certainly to can promise the C ourt t h at in what I h ave t o sa y— an d i t i s not much—l shall con d ense it still more , by k now i ng I s h a ll b e callod upon on M on d ay. CHIEFein icz--Cert Steele com ply with your app l ication . I wish to know whether Mr. Ste address theainlyco, u Ar. O'Connell, we shall r l e Mr. O'CogtaLL...No, my Lord. Mr. M‘Doisotion resumed his address—My Lords, the in dulgence you are kind enough to grant will not be abused bjt, me, and I shall not prolong my address in consequence. I beg leave, Gentlemen of the Jury, to direct your attention to the evidence. The next meeting to which I shall call your atten tion is the meeting of the 6th of August, 1843—the Baltinglass meeting—and the witnesses named Godfrey, Twiss, Lenahan, Hughes, and Taylor, all constables of police. There is some thing in the evidence of Godfrey exceedingly suspicious. This man was not ordered to take notes at all ; and when he v: as questioned on that point, he hesitated for a long time before he gave an answer in the negative, because he knew that the fact of a policeman doing a duty that he was not ordered to do was calculated to excite surprise. In the opening speech of the Attorney-General, he stated that one person at the meeting at Baltinglass, was heard to say that Father Lakor told them in the chapel, "It was too far gone now; but they would get it, but not without bloodshed." That statement was made, of course, from the instructions re ceived by the Attorney-General; yet that statement has not been sustained by evidence. The next witness was Henry Twiss, who took no notes at all, and he gave you some expressions that fell from the crowd. They said, wait patiently for two months. That this expression did not mean t hat the people should be quiet for two months before breaking out in disturbance, time has proved. He saw no inclination, on the part of the people, to riot or disturbance. The next wit ness is Lenahan. This witness reported one sentence of Mr. O'Connell's speech. He said he heard Mr. O'Connell tel the people that he was glad to see them there, and he hoped to see them when he next came there. That produced great laughter, and yet that humourous exi re-sion is changed into a sort of assignation to meet again for an outbreak and massacre. John Taylor, also a constable, and of the lowest grade, is the next witness. He, not having taken any notes, affects to give one or two short sentences of Mr. O'Con nell's speech; one was, that he would get repeal if the people stood to him—that some of the landlords at tempted to prevent the people from coming to the meet ing ; but still they did come, and if he wanted them again they would come to him. The object of Mr. O'Connell was to impress on the people union and perseverance. It was me lancholy to reflect how Mr. O'Connell's meaning had been per verted. He would next refer to the testimony of Johnson, from Longford. The testimony of such men is naturally subject to great suspicion; it was their trade—their duty—to seek out for anything that would criminate a Repealer. Notwithstand ing all their diligence, they could find nothing criminal—they could discover no plot. The Learned Counsel then read, from the Evening Mail of January 19, that which had been given in evidence. The Learned Counsel, in support of his position, then quoted several passages from the speech of Mr. O'Con nell at the Tara meeting, to the effect that, although the Act of Union was really a nullity, set, so long as it was the law, it should be obeyed, and that its repeal should be sought by peaceable and constitutional means. He also read the speeches of Mr. Boylan. Mr. Grattan, Mr. Smith O'Brien, and others, to show that the same peaceable doctrines were held forth by them also. The next meeting was held in Loughrea on the 10th of September, 1843. It was not convened by the Association, but was one of those springing out of a requisition, and entirely independent of it. At that meeting Mr. Ross attended, and it is observable that whenever he ap pears no second witness is produced, not even a newspaper. There is but one exception, that of the Mullaghmast meeting, where Mr. Hughes attended, and he, allow me to observe, is a fair specimen of a manly and an honest witness. But I will show you that Mr. Ross's notes, by their own intrinsic evi dence, are not to be relied on. Mr. Ross, with his topical notes—(Laughter)—he himself told you that Mr. O'Connell did not mean to lay what he read from his notes. Suppose that man Ross had died—suppose that his notes could have beers made evidence, by their having been translated, he would have _made Mr. O'Connell say what he himself swears Mr. O'Connell did not say—that is, did not mean. He would have put treason into Mr. O'Connell's mouth. Mr. Barrett slid net attend that meeting ; in fact, he did not attend any meeting. CHIEF JUSTICE—I think you are mis-stating, Mr. M'Donough. Mr. M‘Dosrotro is—No, my Lord, I am not; it is a fact on which I intend to rely. Mr. Barrett did not attend any meeting in the open air ; and his sole crime is for having dined two or three times with the Repealers. No expense was spared to obtain evidence in support of the prosecution. Mr. Ross got 4001. Inquiries were instituted in all parts of the country, and the police were on the alert; they are scat tered over the face of the land ; they are to be found in every; s hamlet in the country, watching the develope• ment of some treasonable act, but which they signally failed to discover—for this plain reason, that it did not exist. The next meeting was that at Mullaghmast, and the witnesses to that meeting are Mr. B. Hughes, his assistant Mr. Latham, Mr. Charles Ross, and Healy, the policeman. They were not examined at the same time. Hughes was called first, and Healy in some days after. Mr. Hughes went openly ; he ap. prised the parties that he came there to watch their proceed ings ; yet he was received with cordiality, and every fa cility given him to take his notes. On the other hand. Mr. Ross was recognised las a person connected with and representing a Liberal paper, who had been previously in troduced to the Association by a gentleman belonging to the Evening Post. He should, therefore, be regarded as a per son who was treated familiarly by those on the platform and in the pavilion, and he had an opportunity of judging of their conduct and intentions, which Mr. Hughes might not be supposed to have, who had openly proclaimed himself as a Government reporter. Again, Healy was sent from the south of Ireland, and he was selected because he was a stranger. He mixed with the people, and heard their expressions, and what does he prove he heard them say, but to shout for of in the h a r U a e n t i e o r n i s ? i n g Every one meet of The witness Healy said that he saw temperance bands one e it e n n e o s f s e a t s n h d e i tt n hh g as eeseQwu there, but not at all so numerous as at some of Father e m orn o ee s p t uera P e e d aceable description and tendency. Mathew's processions in the south of Ireland, where, on one occasion, he saw forty-five bands dressed, as Mr. Roos pro perly called them, in fancy dresses. Such was the meeting at Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell attended there in his civic robes, with several other; aldermen and town-councillors of Dublin, and the first resolution proposed was a declaration of loyalty and attachment to the Queen: The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read a variety of extracts from Mr. O'Con nell's speech on occasion of the Mullaghmast Repeal demon stration, and -alluded especially to the circumstance of the speaker having repudiated, in language most distinct and emphatic, the idea of the repeal movement being susceptible of any sectarian complexion. It was a national movement, which was designated and intended for the express benefit of all Irishmen, irrespective of political or religious differences. The Learned Counsel read from the Freeman's Journal the report of Mr. Barrett's speech on the occasion of the Mullaghmast demonstration. He would now come to the next meeting, which was intended to have taken place—he alluded to the intended meeting at Clontarf, and he would more particularly refer to the substituted meeting, which was held at Calvert's Theatre, on the 9th of October. It was proved by Mr. Bond Hughes that a meeting was announced to take place at Clontarf, but the evening previous to the day on which it was to be held, a proclamation was issued by the Lord-Lieutenant, by the advice, of course, of his law ad visers, prohibiting that meeting. That was the first interposition of the Government, and it was obeyed with a promptitude worthy of commendation. Well, the Clontarf meeting did not take place, but the resolutions prepared for Clon tarf were approved of at the meeting on the following day in Abbey-street. It was well that meeting was held, because it evidenced what the peaceable objects of the intended Clontarf meeting was. The first two resolutions adopted at the Abbey-street meeting asserted the right of petitioning for the repeal, and perfect allegiance to the Queen ; the third was a vote of confidence in Mr. O'Connell, and the fourth was to the effect that a petition be forwarded to the Houses of Lords and Commons for a Repeal of the Legislative Union. Mr. O'Connell made a speech upon that occasion, in which he said he had two objects; one of which was to proclaim to Ire land that there was but one way of obtaining the repeal, and that was by obedience to everything bearing the form of legal authority ; resistance was not right until legal authority was done away with, and the iron and dread hand of power was raised against them. There were certain other charges sought to be made, and one of these was a short article , introducing a report of a meeting which was held in America, and at which Mr. Tyler, the son of the President of America , attended, and made a speech. The sentiments made use of by Mr. Tyler were absolutely attributed to Mr. Barrett. He proceeded to read certain passages from the speeches made at the meeting in America :—I shall now call your attention to the sth and 6th Vic., entitled an Act to amend the law relating to defama tory libels. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—But not seditious libels. Mr. MsDorrouGn—l am speaking generally on the subject, The Learned Gentleman then read an extract from the Act of Parliament. CHIEF JusTreE—ls that an Imperial Act? Mr. M'Donoucw—Yes, my Lord. Judge CRAMPTON—Extending to Ireland? Mr. M‘DoNotion—Yes, my Lord. The Solicitor-General suggests that a seditious libel is not referred to in that statute. This Act only just now occurred to me, and lam not prepared to say that he is not right, and from his greater familiarity with the Act of Parliament, he may be so. But suppose the word "seditious" libel is not there, parties may be indicted for conspiring to defame another just as well as if a conspiracy, by seditious papers, to effect a certain purpose ; and any private prosecutor, if this precedent be established, may, instead of bringing an action of defama tion, indict a party for a conspiracy to defame him. It was the settled law of the land that when a - man was accused of any offence, whether conspiracy, or anything else, it was absolutely necessary that the jury, before they returned a verdict of guilty, should be satisfied that the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution was such as to bring guilt home to him be yond the possibility of doubt. Something had been said at the commencement of the present trial in allusion to the construction of the jury ; but this was a topic upon which he would not touch ; for he would never utter a word that could be by possibility construed into an expression of doubt on his part that the respectable and enlightened gentlemen whom he bad the honour to address, would discharge their duty with firmness, propriety, and discretion. If they had upon their minds any rational doubt of the alleged conspiracy having been substantially proved by the evidence that had been adduced on behalf of the Crown, they should not—they could not—find the traversers guilty. If the jury could, con. sistently with the maxims of law, and the dictates of their own consciences, find a verdict of acquittal, he had no doubt that that verdict would do more to attach the people of this country to the administration of justice, and to convince them of the purity of the legal tribunals, than anything that bad occurred for centuries past. Those who advocate the repeal are no despicable faction—the) are the majority of the Irish people. Whatever may be our speculations as to the result of your verdict, I cannot better conclude the observations I have had occasion to make to you, than by humbly imploring Pro vidence to lead your minds to a just conclusion. Mr. HENN, Q. C., then rose to address the Court for Mr. Thomas Steele—lt was with unfeigned regret he felt himself compelled to obtrude himself upon their notice. at that stage of the proceedings. He was not himself aware, until a very short time previously, that the duty would devolve on him. He felt that everything that eloquence, wit, and sound reasoning could do had been already done, and in the observations he should have to make, he would endeavour to abstain as much as pos sible from going over the same topics that had been dis cussed with so much more ability than he could approach them with, and he should, if possible, introduce new matter. He implored the jury to recollect that they were not now empanelled to try whether repeal was politic, or whether it would be beneficial to this country or not, or whether the discussion of it be beneficial to this country or not. He begged to impress that upon their minds, because he knew that at this moment there were hundreds out of that Court who believed that that was the question they were trying. He knew before they were empanelled that there were hundreds, aye, thousands of their fellow-citizens who were convinced that was the question to be tried. He knew that the case was prejudged by thousands of honest and conscientious men; and he felt convinced that, before the facts of that case were opened, and before the law applicable to it was stated, that there were not to be found in the city of Dublin ten men who had not formed their opinions on this case—no, not two—he doubted if there was one. He was convinced that there was not a single Repealer who did not pronounce the traversers " not guilty ;" and that there was not a man opposed to repeal that did not pronounce a ver dict of " guilty." He had heard it over and over again stated that this indictment charged nothing but a conspiracy, and that was perfectly true. But he did not think their attention as yet had been called with sufficient accuracy to the a2tual point in question. They had heard it said that a conspiracy to effect a criminal object was itself a crime ; and they had heard it also laid down that a conspiracy to effect a lawfill object by criminal Main was itself a crime. now, he thought for all the purposes o f this trial, they might simplify . the a o t si t a ien co i o n sp p i r o a in cy t t o o f d l a o w a , a c e ri d mi t o h a e l n act th e is si i m b p e l i e f a pr e o is z m os e s , tio so n that the two propositions he had stated resolved themselves into that one ; because a combination to effect f a lawful put:- n P e a d r Parliament, o c , t , pwut ease, , sucht iitself f to a p e r t lu e r e ; the but that by the commission of criminal acts then . it was a crime. repeali poafratinesAccotmobi iTahwefol4euffeestcito,nbsoitmtibley combination b n in o a t ti t o l o ie t c o o o m s b e i t n b a e tie s n rim to in i a s l ro in cu e r a e os a . To use constitutional means was not a . criminal act, and therefore that could not constitute a conspiracy ; it was com bining to do the illegal act that constituted a conspiracy. He hoped the jury w o uld k e ep the fact strongly in their mind, that there was no principle in the law, as laid down, that a party could be guilty of a conspiracy, before a clear proof of the fa c t was e s tablished. There . should clear proof that the party were conspiring—that. the act was the act of all—and then it might be given in evidence against all of them. With these opening observations he would ll their attention to the charges which had been preferred against the traversers. The Crown prosecutors have thought fit to put eight persons on their trial, and they had also put on indictment, which files of that Court a document, in the form of an which might well be termed a monster indictment. It had a vast variety of charges set out on the face of it, and also a vast variety of what was termed overt acts. He did not com plain of what was put on the indictment, but he must say that the defendants were put to a great deal of expense with regard to the overt acts, not one particle of which was even given in evidence of the offence of which the defendants stood charged. The jury must be all satisfied, however, that every single overt act was proved, or they could not find a verdict of guilty, nor could they necessarily come to the conclusion of guilt without that. Had the jury any doubt whatever about the common object of the parties (the traversers)—if common object they had at all ? He would ask them, Was it not a repeal of the union that they sought, and that they were not guilty of the charge attriboted to them at all ? Seeking for a repeal of the union was the real offence of which they were guilty ; but that was not charged in the indictment, and for this rea son—the Attorney-General well knew it was not an offence, and that if he bad put such a charge in the indictment, it would not stand one moment in that Court, as it was no crime in law. You see the way it was raised by those who framed the indictment. Instead of charging them with the teal fact, the Crown prosecutors allege that the defendants are guilty of a crime ; but if you are satisfied that their object was a repeal of the union, alone to be accomplished by legal means, then he would defy them to convict the traversers. How could they be warranted, on their oaths, in convicting them of a combination or confederacy, and the crime of conspiracy to raise di scon t en t an d di sa ff ec t ion in the minds of her Majesty's subjects ? And in this case, sup pose one of them did use illegal means to effect a repeal of the union, that would not affect the other traversers in the least & R ice. Why, the charge was so preposterous, so vague, and so absurd, when it was said that such would be a charge of conspiracy and a criminal offence, that it really deserved not the least attention or consideration, for any person saw what the real intent was, and how the alleged charge endea voured to evade it A conspiracy to raise discontent ! What was the meaning of that charge ? Was it to be supported in a Court of Justice that all free discussion was to be put down? If so, there would be an end to all constitutional law. Was he to be gravely told that men were to be gut on their trial for a criminal offence, because they had made certain speeches? Was their object a legal one? If so, such a charge as is preferred here cannot be for a moment sustained or entered into, Was there a particle of evidence that disaffection was roused among her Majesty's sub jects? Was there a charge of disaffection to the Queen, which, ho would admit, was an offence? No. Was there a charge of disaffection to the Government, or to the Constitu tion? No such ,thing. No, it was among the liege subjects of her Majesty, and in a case of the present nature the charge should be plain and intelligible to the commonest understand ing.. Be would ask, after all they had heard from those elo quent persons who had preceded him, as to those meetings, was not the real object to convince the Government of the country as to what were the real sentiments of the Irish people. Mr. O'Connell's whole life belied the charge—that was also clear during the whole progress of that agitation which ended in the successful issue of emancipation, and which proved to biro the great and beneficial effects following from the preservation of peace. He was not there to answer for the validity of Mr. O'Connell's reasons ; but let them be answered by something else rather than a State prosecution. Let the Parliament of Great Britain decide on the merits. Let the assembled intelligence of Britain do so—but such a prosecution as the present would not do it, for he felt firmly convinced that the result of that prosecution would be—no mat ter what it would be in that Court—to promote, rather than to repress what it was intended to effect. He trusted, whatever were the results, that he should not live to see the day when free discussion would be put down by means of a State prosecu tion. The next charge was that the traversers conspired to bring into hatred end contempt the Courts, as by law established in Ireland for the administration of jus tice. He then alluded to the Arbitration Court. It was absurd to say that to recommend men to subm their disputes to their fellow-men, was calculated to bring into disrepute the constituted Courts of the land. That was as absurd as to say that to make a complaint against the superior Courts was a crime. He begged the jury to keep in mind the fact, that before they pronounced a ver dict against any one of the traversers, they must be satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt that the said traversers did con spire together, not merely to procure a temporary repeal of the union, but to do those illegal acts specified in the indictment. On what did the Att orney -G eneral mainly rely? He said, . " True it is these meeti ngs were a ll very peaceable—true it is there was no outbreak—t rue it i s t h ere was no indication ' of the slightest breach of the peace ; but I say that the object was different from that propounded. True it is that as yet no mischief has ensued. hy ? Be cause, f ortunately, I have put a stop to agitation. 1 kne w th at there would be an outbreak, and so by a Crown prosecution I prevent it." He (Mr. Henn) recollected hearing of a Learned Gentleman once stating, in addressing a jury, ." Gentlemen, I sme ll a rat, I see it brewing in the storm ; but if it please God I will crush it in the bud "—( Laughter.) But, now to make more particular reference to his client. Mr. Steele avowed that it was his highest privilege to approve of every act o f D an i e l O'Connell, and he would not permit him to stand there as his advocate, were he not now, on his part, to repeat the assertion. What was the charge preferred against Mr. Steele. That of making a certain speech on the 3d of October, in which he seconded a certain resolution. The conclusions to which the counsel for the prosecution had come were as legitimate as any ever pronounced by the splendid Dewberry himself.—(Laughter.) Dogberry had been put into his (Mr. Henn's) mouth, by what at college he was taught to call a concatenation of ideas. There had been so little proved in the present case, and so much said and premised, that he was reminded of a play of Shake speare's called Much ado about Nothing.—( Laughter.) In that play Dogberry cut a distinguished figure. On one occasion a witness says—" I heard him say he received 2,000 ducats for defaming the character of a certain lady." "Black burglary," says Dogberry. And when the Counsel for the Crown read those speeches—" Treason," says the Attorney-General.— (Laughter.) " Sedition," says the milder Solicitor, and " black burglary," says Mr. Brewster.—( Great laughter.) Having first determined on finding the traversers guilty of a seditious conspiracy, the scissors we re put i n requisition ; and by transplanting to this indictment, from the ephemeral pro ductions of the day, the speeches of the defend an t s , im mortality was conferred upon them. He could well con ceive with what feelings the clerk employed on th e occas i on performed his duty. The recording angel certainly must have blushed when he gave it in—(Laughter)—and the monstrosity as well as the cruel nature of the charge, must have induced him, if he had the smallest amount of sensibility, to shed a tear upon the occasion and blot it out for ever.— (Laughter.) The Learned Gentleman then observed, that as the preceding speakers h a d t ouc h e d upon every topic that required notice, he should not trouble them much further by going over the same ground. He was convi nce d o f the i r notintegrityt diumnot raise e British thea n dimpartiality, liberty —was question whether and only n h t blaye a t by trtv t aa h li e n i b r . yg v i o e ri jury —that y c u _ t s theytbboaats boast, a o l u l ua l d that they would pr ove t h at t h ere was not, on the face of b the whole earth, a country in which a person would be more cer tain of obtaining justice than Ireland, and from a jury of Irish Protestants. Mr. Hoes!res, on behalf of the junior bar, made a request to their Lordships, that as th e space was not sufficient for their ac commodation, they should have access to the gallery. He did not think it right that the gallery should be confined to those only who had t ic k ets. T he junior bar were more particular in this request, as Mr. O'Connell was to speak on Monday. Ihe CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared very reasonable that the bar should have every accommodation which they might pressure. He was aware that the High Sheriff had taken great pains to accommodate all classes of the public who wished to hear what took place on that extraordinary trial, and he had given admirable accommodation to that class of gentlemen who gave publicity to what took place in that Court—they claimed it as their right, indeed, and it was at once conceded to them. The gentlemen of the bar had pre cedence certainly in the place appropriated fur the bar, pro vided they went there in their professional dress ; but he was of opinion they had no right of precedence whatever over the public in any other part of the Court. There was a gallery set apart for persons of distinction, and he apprehended he there saw several Peers of the realm standing in the station allotted to them. The HIGH SHERIFF requested permission to explain the ar rangements he had made. The members of the bar had, of course, the exclusive right to that portion of the Court set apart for them : the side gallery and the two rows in the front gallery were set apart for Peers and their families, and there would be a great number of them in attendance on Monday; and the directions he had given to the police were not to allow barristers as such, in their professional costume, to fill the gallery to the exclusion of the general public. The gentlemen of the bar had a habit, he supposed a proper one, of asserting their privileges by going wherever they liked when they had their caps and gowns on—(Laughter)—in fact, they seemed to expect that wearing their caps and gowns— CHIEF JUSTICE.—Their wigs and gowns.—(Laughter. ) HIGH SHERIFF—AII I can say is, tbat I have had the greatest difficulty in keeping order among the gentlemen of the junior bar.—( Renewed laughter ) Mr. Justice BURTON expressed his opinion, concurring with the regulations of the Sheriff. At tour o'clock the Court adjourned till ten on Monday morning DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—The following high so ciety have visited this theatre within the last few days to see Richard the Third and The Bohemian Girl :—Her Most Gra cious Majesty, Prince Albert, and suite; the Duke and Du chess of Beaufort, - Duke of Sutherland, Duke of Brunswick ; Marquis of Douro, Marquis of Worcester ; Earl of Chester field ; General Espartero ; Marchioness of Sligo, Marchioness of Conyngham, Earl and Countess of Wilton, Countess of Dunmore; Ladies Somerset, Carrington, Wharncliffe, Cecelia De Vaux, Lennard, Gardiner, Broke Vere, Caroline Cocks, Graham, Walker ; Viscount Hawarden, Earl of Errol ; Lords Hillsborough, Gifford, Torrington, Alfred Paget, A. Fitzcla rence, Castlereagh, Manners, Stanley, Eliot, George Paget, Henry Lennox, Charles Wellesley, Seaham, Auckland, Wen lock, Duncannon ; Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart. ; General Sir Arthur Clifford, Bart. ; Sir Thomas Lennard, Bart. ; Sir Simon Clarke, Sir Thomas Gage, Bart. ; Colonel Wylde, General Meade, Hon. Paul Methuen, Hon. Mis s D evaux, Hon. Mrs. Scarlett, Count D e Wenitts, Count Kielmansegge, Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart. ; Hon. Mr. Grimstone, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Wilson has quite recovered from the attack of hoarseness under which he laboured last Monday, and we observe that he is to appear at head-quarters to-night—the Music-hall. During last week Mr. Wilson gave his new en tertainment of Mary, Queen of Scots, at Bristol, 'Worcester, and Cheltenham, with great success, crowded audiences greeting him in those towns. CULLOMPTON.—The railway works at this place are proceeding with great rapidity. The double rail is laid down for a considerable distance westward from the town. The buildings for the station are progressing rapidly, and there can be now but little doubt of the opening of the line to Exeter in April.— Western Times. TILE STATE TRIALS.—Little did the Crown lawyers imagine, when they commenced their ill-starred prosecution, that two entire terms would be consumed; or of the pro bability now becoming violent, that it would not be brough e to a close for a fortnight after the presen e t e w s ri -t ti a n , g. vul tm l4 indeed, suppose that it will g , to All n however, we are designated the Ist of April. not of _that. number—human \ en e durance has its limits. Even the Attorney-GeWO canna hold out.—Dublin Evening Poat. FLANDERS AND DUTCH MAIL. BRUSSELS, FEB. I.—DEATH OF THE KING S linoTuEß.—Yesterday evening the Court had a se cond ball in the palace, at which about 1,000 per sons were present. The dancing was very animated, and the King was conversing with different persons; is the great drawing-room, when General &Bane came in and told his Majesty that an officer had ar rived express from the Court of Saxe-Coburg witra important dispatches. The King immediately went; to the apartment where the officer was waiting, andL there he heard the afflicting news of the sudden death.. of his elder brother, the reigning Duke of Saxe- Coburg. His Majesty, overcome with grief, directly retired to his private apartments. Unwilling, however, that the ball should be broken up, he sent word to the Queen that a slight indisposition hindered him from joining the company. The melancholy and unex pected news, however, soon became known to a part of the company and threw a damp over the whole. Many gentlemen and ladies declined dancing any more. The Queen did not leave the ball till just one o'clock, when she was first informed of the death of her brother-in-law, whom she highly esteemed. It is probable that there will be no more fetes at Court during the whole winter. Tun HAGUE, FEB. 2.—ln the second sitting of the Chamber of the States General tu-da.y, the President proposed to put on the order of the day for Tuesday next, the debate on the project of law for re gulating and providing for the deficiency of 1840 and the preceding years. Some mem bers objected on account of the connection be tween the measure and that relative to an extra ordinary income-tax and a voluntary loom. After some debate, the President's proposal was agreed to by a majority of 22 to 15. In the same sitting, the Central Section brought up the report on the project of law for meeting the deficiency of 1841, 1842, and 1843, the debate on which is immediately to follow the preceding one. THE llitoun, FEB. 3.—On the 31st of January- in the evening, during a splendid ball given by King Leopold, in his palace at. Brussels, his Majesty re ceived the news of the death of the reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The deceased person was father of Mince Albert, consort of the Queen of Rngland, and uncle to the King of Portugal, to the Duchess of Neinours, and to the husband of Princess Clementine, daughter of King Louis Philippe. COMMERCIAL TREATIES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. wish to direct attention to the speech of M. Guizot, which is published in your paper of Wed nesday last. I more particularly allude to that part where he says—" There have been negotiations for a treaty of commerce between France a.nd England?' In reference to this subject he observes :—" Those negotiations have ceased, and have not been resumed; for the present, therefore, there is nothing to excite the Hon. Gentleman's fears. All the questions have remained entire, and no engagement has been entered into.—(Approbation.) As for me, the more I have thought upon it, the more I have convinced m yself that between great Powers, which may be considered as rivals, treaties of commerce binding them for a long time are attended with inconvenience and danger —(Yes, yes)—and that it is better to prcceed with great rival countries by modifications of tariffs, which leaves them all freedom, and gives the experiment it is proposed making but the time strictly necessary. I shall add, that I have ,reason to hope that our notions are also finding their' way into the English Cabinet, that it will insist lie more on a treaty . 0 f commerce, but leave modifications of tariffs to attain the object aimed at by both parties.---an extension of commercial intercourse." It is oT great importance, that we direct the at tention of our legislators to this admirable speech, which confirms the sound doctrine of Mr. Della? Hume, and of all persons, who have directed their' disinterested attention to the subject. Let us admit, corn, wine, and sugar, at moderate fixed duties, and leave other nations to do as they may think proper. They will not give us their good s without an equivalent, and the more we import, the greater will be the benefit to the whole country, commercial and agricultural. Your most obedient servant, Jan. 26, 1844. A LANDOWNER. MANLY Srowrs RELIEF BILL.—The Bill Which.. will be introduced by the Duke of Richmond, in the House Lords, on the subject of the manly sports of Great Britain, vs to the following effect :—The first section repeals the statute& 9 Anne, c. 14, 16 Car. 11., c. 7, sec. 2, and 18 Geo. 11., e• 34, g s. 8, so far as they relate to horse-racin, and other spo rts mentioned in the sched u l e annexed, and so far as they extend to persons fairly, and without any fraud, trick, or deceit, wh l . - ning or losing any sums of mone - or any other valualue, chattel or thing, by dboetiteinfogrbuipdoantisl playing at sucli ' sports or pastimes, or by he exempt or uatchthaes,(iloctpsillatnottheexsationned. to exempt second sche dule tect from the penalties or punishments by the said rePe_tr u7 , Acts directed to b e recovered or infl i cte d against pers ( r who, by playing at, or b y betting o n such as play tett any games or sports, win a ny sums of money, or an y c whatsoever, by any fraud, shift, coze lage, circarnventLo.n! "1:n deceit, or unlawful device or ill p rac ti ce w hatsoever. e schedule referred to contains horse races, foot boat races, races, regattas, rowing matches, sailing matches, cntl, he r, matches, fencing matches, putting stone, wrestling int,' on d cricket, tennis, lives, racquet, bowls, quoits, curling , or any bona fide variety of any of the above sports, Pas''''boye games, and any sport of a like description to any of thee. sports, to which a different name may by general or WA' usage be appropriated. last w ROYAL BENEFICENCE.—Her Majesty (as - e nto week announced) has been graciously pleased to contrir, hs the sum of 20/. to the fund for the relief of the family ot late unfortunate Mr. W. Prichard. The appeal to her Ne jesty's benevolence, and the readiness with which it was ~ 1 1; sponded to, have somewhat of a romantic b as i s , w hich, 1113u ' less afflicting circumstances, might serve for a superstructl to a work of fiction. It is painf u l t o recap it u l a t e f ac ts w,h have already attained local notoriety, but as the sheet w 110 : contains the record of he r M a j es t y ' s generos i ty ma y fall A -t hands which the anterior stat emen t s h ave no t reache"; e t may not be amiss to premise that Mr. Prichard ,;,conunit' self-destruction under circumstances of a peculiar'," V A tressing character, and that his widow and family were „t,„ .. wholly destitute. It appears that on the 21st October , 1 7„1; Miss Julia Prichard (the eldest d aug hter of the late .4'4. W. Prichard), then three years of age, was adni„eetl by Sir John Conroy into the presence of her Majesty ' , r o t A ictoria, on her then visit at Clifton, and was caressed 4 ), taken much notice of, and her Majesty most condescenalhe presented Miss Prichard with a beautiful flower. lu a co flower was carefully preserved, and a few days since W munication was made to Colonel Anson, the Aide•-de - c a • tq Prince Albert, by our fellow-citizen, J. K. Haberfl e s ad of the lamentable distress of this unfortunate fanils;ste the flower so preserved was also transmitted, with rer , Sir merit of facts ; and in reply her Majesty's treas u Henry Wheatley, forwarded to Miss Prichard a nd ' w hi• ch with a note, of which the following is a copy and °I is most deserving of being recorded as another st. her Majesty's well-known kindness and liberalitkhea- tie James's Palace, January 25th, 1844.—Sir Henry rd, and presents his compliments to Miss Julia Baillie Pncb a it ted to begs to inform her that her petition has been 51 113 ° ) l e ase& the Queen ; and her Majesty having been graciouslY4 yrs to take into consideration the present afflicted statec. the Prichard and her numerous family, and also recolle twabded circumstance to which Miss Prichard refers, has 0 %00 0 Sir Henry Wheatley to forward twenty pounds, as a Ara ft towards their relief. Sir Henry begs to inclose a r e. r ichS that sum, the receipt of which he requests M l s 6 cir will acknowledge at her earliest convenience. th DP"' also returns the flower and verses; in accordance Prichard's request."— Weekly Chronicle. 1, for all The Flintshire colliers hays struck Nyco' • flie s orking bye advance of wages, at a time when hundreds of nt haS are in a total want of employment. This movenle _ etings t urged by the delegates from the North, whose 0 1„ c e s eaong: g have recently noticed. The following are said tn i. u ‘ ,. a re Oa the demands :—The colliers demand that what tu e 4 deels ll o paid 4s. for shall be advanced to ss. 6d. The dO' we t illers an advance of from 2s. Bd. to 3s. 2d. ' • and tli° 2s. sd. to 2s. lid. All o thers empl o y e d also denll; a rraslo Vance. The strike is not general, but still it is em pr° l° o lll to several large concerns. This combination it eyed' produce a combination of the employers, which In . , s ide- An ti. , end in the depression of wages.—Shrewsbury Ci 7 thel' ag ue We hail with delight the progress °Vile J' e t heir League agitation in the agricultural districts. ~ opel i . nr t of had succeeded in putting the " farmers' friend s t o a %ant trial ; and every Anti-League gathering contri h ,.. 4 , of inquest for the elucid a ti on o f th e l ocal grievan c Tha ts - will farmers. In spite of the blandishments and fr i o— tes so the ir lords of the Buckin g h am an d Richmond sch°,7,r.ge be found to speak the truth fearlessly, and to to c o . g la u l e v s s t . neighbours to hesitate before bearing a comP u ' s ts and g a lalr to the blessings of tenants at-will rack-r ents ' er ion M i o s vote for e - in of them eqinueisitniodieir;stiaionrdirsigtiltietrloraiel i t n uc elli ges t taiT he in the north of England who would not glad e Y o btsin in repeal of themraw to-morrow, could crun A c kert , to change for a corn rent and a good lenee•_, - ", l ,4k o stone tl5 The South Eastern Railway from -r u The e`' man , Dover will be opened to the public oft Tuesd t n. he chair to be celebrated by a grand entertainMen t . Directors, and Engineers, at Dover, in the afterno BIRTHS. f the I lev. On the 31st ult., at Cheltenham, the lad ' ' o °f Pranced Corbett Turnbull, of a son. the Bligh Hookey, Esq., of a daughter. __ell. square' On the 2d inst., at Montague-street, Russell of aOn the the Ist inst., at Blaekheath-park, the lady ni lady of Thomas George Smith, Esq., MARRIED Richard Oti the G l w st i n i yn ns t., 3, a f. t A. St. i n G e e j o im rg b e e 's n tHoa.fnuo Hanover-square, the Rem a l i l l e r ia : third daughter of the late T. Strickland, Esq, of R e po Hall, Suffolk. On the 2d inst., at All Souls Church, Langhanl-P1,1c...e: Charles Farebrother, Esq., S.C.L., of Trinity College, u-7",,, ford, eldest son of Alderman Farebrother, of the Moat ein, hte Stockwell, Surrey, to Emily So p hia, second daugr of Rev. John H. Hughes, M.A., Rector of St. Clemens, o:gfer', On the Ist inst., at Titchfield , H ants, the Hon. Si r Ede Butler, son of the Right H on. Lord Dunboyne to Urania Elizabeth, daughter of the la te Vice-Admiral the Right 001" Lord Henry Paulet, K.C.B. DIED. On the 30th of last mont h, at the Rose and Crlowav n, W is.. beach, Mr. John Mason , of Derb y , a commercia Eller, re spected and esteemed by all who;knevr him. the On the 3d inst. , in Portland-place, Anne, w if e of th o Right Hon. Sir James Wigr arn. On the 19th ult. , at Fl orence, Charles Alexander Lushillr ton, Esq., aged 31. On the 27th ult. , at Tysoe-street, Wilmington-square? Eliza, the wife of Mr. David Craven. aged 27. London: Printed and Published by MURPO YOUNG, tra nd, ni No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, N 0.112 . , S tug County of Middlesex, Monday, February 5, 1644 As trati s have Fund Th . try!, electi, the Noy bee tnit • Ft , - .1( the j Abu Mar bran Dul a Unlit akul I them 4tati l 't co Oli n t h em help 13ra rem bep vo qeb wec;( 11 4 1„, ( The T or 4T n tl 'e •0. T re c t oo 1. T the co J 9 . T — al an several The John Corr, 1 The Thal for his 14( rtit of -it t. 'll,l -_____ to sr de