The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

land, and the Members for England have had their share, and they all voted, or they had an opportunity of voting and speaking, or free discussion in every sense of the word, Very many of the most important Acts of Parliament have passed passed according to the deliberative judgment of the Limited Parliament—where an individual did not act for antaf,her—where one part of the kingdom did not act for another—but where the entire Parliament, under the sanction and concurrence and co-operation of the King or the Queen, =eke their decisions on the political subjects which come -under their consideration, arid passing the Legislature, - received the Royal assent. I need not say that among these was the Act of Catholic Emancipation, by which every Roman Catholic of Ireland is entitled or would be entitled to the position in which he or they now stand, to the rights which he enjoys ; and were it not for that Act of Parliament which was passed, conferring those rights on those persons—passed by a Parliament which it is now alleged to be utterly incapa ble of passing an Act of Parliament —that would be so if the Act of Union were void. The Reform Act, with a variety of other Acts, with which we are more or less con versant, were also passed ' • and observe, also the Reform Act for England and Scotland. The Irish Members, sent from 4141 country under the Act of Union, gave their voices and their votes—or they might have done so—they condemn that Act of Parliament which was so passed. If the proposi. tion be true, which I have heard so often contended for that the Act of Union was a nullity—and if Mr. O'Connell was right in proclaiming that to the hundreds of thousands assembled at Mullaghmast and elsewhere, the result would have been that Mr. O'Connell himself would never have sat in the English Parliament, nor could any emancipated Roman Catho lics have become entitled, as free citizens, to the rights and pri vileges which they ought to enjoy as such. Now, Gentlemen of the jury, they are all accused of forwarding—whether by means legal or illegal, will be the question for you—the repeal of that Act of Parliament, which, if what the last proposition states to you were correct, would render it perfectly uselesss for these persons, or any of them, to take such a step. If the Act be void, where is the necessity of seeking for the repeal of such an Act? The two things are inconsistent, when seeking the repeal of the union, in the eye of reason and common sense. Pre-suppose the existence of the Act of Union—we have no right to discus the merits of that Act ; it is in full force, and if you had the power, which you have not, of interfering, directly or indi rectly, it would be difficult for me to tell you the consequences which would follow the exercise of that power. A great many years ago Mr. O'Connell appeared to entertain a strongly grounded opinion against the propriety of the Act of Union. He has given in evidence that he attended a meeting in Dublin, re gularly constituted, and regularly assembled, at which he made _ a speech, and declared these sentiments in public. That was a subject of free discussion ; nobody prevented him doing so. Everybody did not ag ree with him. That, per haps, is anoth er ma tt er . He had a right to deliver those sentiments ; but what has that to do with the question whe ther he is guilty or not of what took place in 1843, something more than 13 years after his attending that meeting in which he made that speech. In 1810 he attended another meet ing, 10 years after the Act of Union. This meeting was a meeting regularly called, not by irresponsible authority, but by the High Sheriff or Sheriffs of the city of Dublin, where every freeman and freeholder was entitled to attend for the purpose of free discussion, either to petition for the repeal of the Act of Union or the contrary. As far as he confined himself to such discussions, without giving any undue offence to any person, he had a right to deliver himself as he did. But what has that to (to with his defence ? It is the first time I ever heard, in the rear 1844, a man seeking to justify himself from the charge by putting forward what he had done forty or at least thirty years before. "Oh !" says Mr. Sheil, " what a man has ex- i pressed in political discussions at any time may be given in evidence." As to his opinions in support of his argument he referred to the case of Horne Tooke. But what is that case ? Herne Tooke wrote a book of very questionable matter, and, he was permitted to give in evidence his pre ceding writings for the purpose of proving continuity of purpose, and to give a colour—a true one, perhaps—to the matter thus tried. But what is the case here ? Mr. O'Connell puts in two speeches made at public asse i blies. convened by the High Sheriff, when petitions were adopted and presented to the city representatives ; but were any of these meetings convened magisterially ? . I do not mean to say that there were not magistrates present, but were any of these meetings convened by the order of a magistrate? At least I am not so informed. Were any of them convened by order of the Repeal Association ? Why, we have the distinct acknowledgment that they were from Mr. O'Connell's own lips. Between the cases, then, there is no analogy—existing circumstances arc quite different. I have no objection that that word continuity of purpose should go to the jury, and that you [ Addressing Mr. Shell] should have the full benefitof it. Sir Colman O'Loughlin was anxious that I should take notice that an alteration took place in the name of the Association—namely, that the word loyal was in serted, thereby showing that they always maintained the duties of loyalty and allegiance to the Queen. Now I arm quite ready to give them the merit of that. The Attorney-General brings no accusation against Mr. O'Connell, or the members of the Repeal Association—he makes no charge without knowing whether there be guilt or not. His position is, I don't inquire as to what took place before the year 1843. Gentlemen of the jury, you will bear in mind that the crime imputed commences in 1643. Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers avow that they attended to procure the repeal of the union by such modes as the law and the constitution warrant. Mr. Solicitor-General says—l say nothing as to the proposition until we come to 1843. The union is what you consider to be a grievance, and you have a right, by free discussion, by petitioning Parlia ment, and by adopting every other legal and constitutional step, to endeavour to relieve yourselves from those grievances, and thereby procure a repeal of the union. Now what the tra versers profess and state they were doing was this—following those means which the law allowed to secure their object. The Crown says that in the beginning of the year 1843 a great change took place in the affairs of the Repeal As sociation, and from thenceforth the means by which the members at tempted to effect a repeal of the union (if that were their object) became illegal. Now, Gentlemen, such is the proposition of the Crown, and it lies ox, them to maintain it. It appears that from some time in 1843—the precise time or place is immaterial—Nlr. O'Connell said something to this effect, " how cou ld I prove an a 'i l i . " Why, it is not neces- . sary to do so. He has had the bill of particulars, and Le has had overt acts placed in the indictment, but without proving as to the direct time or place in which the agreement was concocted between the traversers, it is for the jury to say, *ether they are satisfied, from the facts laid before them, but, although the actual time of the commencement of the conspi racy is not stated, yet that such a conspiracy as imputed must have taken place. Gentlemen, you must be satisfied as to whether their guilt has been proved, that is to say, that satisfac tory evidence has been given to you of the existence of the al leged conspiracy—of the alleged agreement—of the common design between the several traversers, or some of them, and if you are not convinced—if you have any reasonable doubt on the subject, it will be your duty not to convict. No, Gentle men, you must not convict on presumption—you must convict on proof. I pass over, without more particular detail, the evidence given on the part of the traversers. It will be for you to say whether you are satisfied or not with the mode in which the Crown would prove its case. Excuse me, Gentle men, for a few minutes. I want to say a word or two to my brother here. [f he Chief Justice and Mr Justice Crampton then retired for a short time. On their return, his Lordship resumed his address, and thus continued] : I think there is evidence to supp or t th e s t a t ement, that some time in the beginning of 1843 a material alteration took place in the regulations of the Association. It had before that time become a very great body—l mean in point of numbers—and I believe a considerable sum of money had been sent to them in the way of contributions front various parts of this country, from Great Britain, America, and perhaps from France, but lam not sure of that. They had extensive communications, and, I believe, in 1843, proceedings were adopted for rendering those communications more exten sive and efficacious. A plan or new method was also adopted for the admission of persons desirous of becoming members of the Association—classes were created, into which the members were distributed under the names by which they were to be known. There were three classes—the general class were called associates. Every person who subscribed a small sum of money, amounting only to a shilling a-year, was capable of becoming an associate, and was ad mitted by a certain kind of card to this society. Every person who paid a pound a-year was entitled to admission as a member. The third class were called volunteers, and they subscribed ten pounds, or procured subscriptions to that amount ; and one and all of these persons were, by a certain form, to be admitted into the Society and enrolled on its books. Now, here was certainly a very strange—l was going to say formidable—mode of organisation, which was adopted by the Society in 1843. Mr. O'Connell said, at more than one meet ing, " That in one way or other he had three-fourths of the male population enrolled members of that Society." A computation, taking the lowest member at a shilling a-year, would show what a large sum of money this So. tele) , became possessed of. I don't absolutely say that that was illegal ; but if it was intended to extend it, and ramify itself in any such way, and to collect a sum of money from each person, about the application of which they knew nothing, 'out collecting from each person a sum of money to 1 he laid out for the objects and purposes of the Association, whatever they might be, that appears to me to be a dangerous state of things. Abont the same time resolutions were passed with regard to the appointment of officers of this Society. They appointed what they called inspectors ; but we have no par ticular account of them; but there is evidence that these officers did exis', and that they were spread over the country. Repeal wardens were also appointed in the year 1813, some time about the period when the arrangement teas adopted for the admission by cards of the several members of this Society. You will see, Gentlemen of the jury, whether or not there was any discipline in the way in which the repeal-wardens conducted their business. They were instructed in the duties prescribed to them, and all their acts were the acts of the Association. Committees were appointed to report ; reports were adopted and acted on by the creation of a system of repeal-wardens all over Ireland. The charge of particular districts was given to them, and they regularly transmitted re ports to, and received orders from the Repeal Association re• lative to their respective duties. That, with the assistance of a repeal inspection, amounting to something very like a well re gulated police—in calling them police 1 only call them what the Association themselves called them—there was no part of Ire land into which that system was not introduced. The duties of the repeal-wardens was to see that every adult male in their respective districts should become a member of the Associa tion. They had another duty imposed upon them—he would be very much obliged to the gentlemen on the other side, if he obis-stated at all, that they would correct him ; it was quite necessary for the ends of the law that he should be so—that they should. take care that newspapers should be supplied to their Associations, and should be read to them. These papers were the Pilot, the Nation, ant the Freeman, The owners of these papers were three of the traversers at the bar. ~ Mr. FITZGISEON begged permission to say a few words. Cuter JusTice—Of course, Mr. Fitzgibhon, I should be extremely sorry to prevent you. Mr. FITZGIBBON then said that there was no evidence be fore the Court that Dr. Gi ay was the proprietor of the Evening or Weekly Freeman. CHIEF JUSTlCE—Gentlemen I was-_.. and M r. Sergeant WARREN It has been distinctly pr oved , my Lo r d, b y M r. Vernon, that Dr. Gray is the propr ietor of all the papers published under the de nomination of the Freeman. CHIEF JUSTICE—II is of very little consequence, but these papers were circulated for the purpose of indoctrinating the people into the system and the objects of the Society —no doubt for the diffusion of the Association. It is, however, ne cessary for me to refer to this card. You will see from its general nature that it is a statement, and an enumeration of many circumstances. Mr. Mooaz, Q.C.—I wish to be understood, on the part of the traverser!, that we do nut consent to that card being sent up to the jury. I make the observation now that we may not be precluded from adopting any course which we may think right at the conclusion of your charge. Unless I made that obser vation now, it might be thought that we did consent. CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Moore, you are quite right, and I have no right to assume that these documents are laid before the jury ; but I shall make a few observations on them. My intention is not to enter into the minuteness of detail, but to give you generally a correct notion of what they are, and to leave the subject to your consideration. If I mistake their present object, the gentlemen here are ready to correct me. iEwc2_,Tliek Of object of - this member's card is apparent upon the „..._, l ice Of it. , TWe have certain things done :it is itself of a green eels tls_-_ - -- --, ..796 r. . e.:,,;;Nre \ have on it an enumeration of our population, and / ,'".':=::;-... 4_ • esitrept,d( the ability of Ireland to have a Parliament A.; :„..,: . ,,: : ,„,i - s 'ak , .-Aitg:% i itild the Association has taken upon itself to .. , ( -,-,- 4, ) 0, - ' ' - ~ (4 cough every part. of the country those cards, —' ' 111 48' ;--- C- --- ''' )7 -; ( c 4 -4,_ „v. • --' t.r: iti , .--..,. .......... ba b ------ which contain a statement of matters upon which they (the members of the Association) had no right to make any de cision. They may give their opinions—they may circulate these opinions —they may endeavour to support them, they have a right to enlist popular opinion in favour of what they call their grievances; by all fair means they are entitled to do so ; but is it to be so considered, when they are enrolling the whole country under stated officers, under repeal wardens and inspectors, and that these cards are given and circulated, to be placed by these officers in the hands of persons whom we find gathered as conscripts? Gentle men of the jury, the intention of such enrolment is for your consideration. Is it with a fair intention of free discussion —of candid and deliberate opinion—or is it with a view of banding the persons through whom cards are distributed, and that newspapers are desired to be circulated ? Are they banded, I say, in favour of the particular political views enter tained either by Mr. O'Connell or by the members of that As sociation—is that the intention? Or is the intention to pro mote free discussion by the enrolling of members to be con federated in one universal object, the nature of which they themselves do not know, and to which they subscribe while they are ignorant of the purpose ? The CHIEF JUSTICE then intimated that he would postpone the further consideration of the case till to-morrow. The Court was then adjourned till ten o'clock the following morning. There was great excitement in the Court, and large crowds in the vicinity. TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, SATURDAY. THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. Their Lordships having taken their seats on the bench at 10 o'clock, The CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded with his charge to the jury, and commenced by recapitulating the observations with which he concluded yesterday, respecting the sums of money contributed to the funds of the Association by these and other countries. Very large sums came not only from America under the British dominions, which might have an interest in what was going on in this country, but also from the United States of America, which, in reference to Great Britain and Ireland, were foreign countries. Those sums of money were handed in in large amounts; and they had in controvertible evidence that Mr. O'Connell spoke then of the forces he had at command and acting under his control ; and that at one meeting he said he would lake the opportu nity the next day of handing into the Association several sums of money, amounting in all to about 1,1001., all from America, and for the purposes of the Association. The Asso ciation was thus provided with funds for the purpose of working out the ends and objects for which that Association was fonned. Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers con tended that this was all legitimate, and that they had a right, by all legal and constitutional means, to get rid of the union if they could. So far the Attorney-General concurred with them ; but the question between them was this—whether the means resorted to by the traversers were or were not legal? or whether, in pursuing their object in the manner they had adopted, they had agreed to transgress the law in the manner charged in the indictment under which they were then on trial? As far as he knew, the only legal means to obtain a repeal of the union would be by addressing petitions to the Queen or to Parliament, as by law esta blished; nay, there might be more than that—there might be the introduction of free and fair discussion to ascertain the opinions which were entertained by the people generally on the question of the union. But there must be nothing done inconsistent with free and fair discussion—no threats for the purpose of intimidating the Ministry and the Queen; and still less should the traversers take the law into their own hands, and endeavour to.alter the constitution of the coun try from what it was made by the Sovereign and Legislature. He would now procoed to lay `before the jury some of the acts of the Association in furtherance of what they called their legal intentions; and the first document to which he should call their attention, was one submitted to the Associa tion on the 22d of August, entitled " A Plan fof the Renewed Action of the Irish Parliament:" He had already explicitly told them, that as the Act of Union remained unaltered by the proper authority, the Queen was bound by her corona tion oath to support it—and no set of persons had a right in themselves to attempt any alteration in that Act, except those legally authorised—the Sovereign and Parliament of the country ; yet here was a plan for making new laws and a new constitution for that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland. It commenced by stating, first, that " the Irish people recognise, acknowledge, and maintain, and will continually uphold and preserve upon the throne of Ireland, her Majesty Queen Victoria, whom God protect—Queen by undoubted right, and by hereditary descent, of Ireland—anti her heirs and successors for ever." Now, from the time of the passing of the Act of Union, and up to the present, she had ceased to be the Queen of Ireland. The King at that time was Kin.. of - Ireland, but since the passing of th a t A c t h e - ceased to be so, anti the title merged in that of King of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland—in fact, thence forth, the King or Queen was KingorQueen of Great Britain and Ireland. That process, therefore, was one for an entire alteration in the constitution of the country as by law esta blished; and to propose in lieu thereof to place her Majesty on a separate throne, which could not be done without the consent of the Legislature of the United Kingdom sanc tioned by the Throne itself. The plan went on, secondly, to state that " the people of Ireland will acknowledge, and will maintain and preserve, the privileges, hereditary and otherwise, of the peers of Ireland ; together with the legis lative and judicial authority of the Irish House of Lords," &c. Now they (the jury) would have to say was that the language of petition to the Parliament and King or Queen of the United Kingdom—or was it a petition at all ? Was it not rather a demand, than the language used in a petition ? The fourth plan (the Chief Justice went on to observe) was for the increase of county members ; the sixth provided for a right of voting by virtue of h ouse h o d suffrage ; the seventh provided for voting by ballot ; the eighth provided that the monarch of England de facto should be monarch de jur e •of Ireland ; and the ninth acknowledged the connexion be tween Great Britain and Ireland, by means of the authority of the Crown, to be perpetual. He did not see how much such a plan as that proposed by Mr. O'Connell, being as it was a direct violation of the coronation oath as at present existing, could possibly be carried into effect according to law. It is impossible, then, to repeal the union in the exist ing state of things ; but the union might be altered if the Legislative wisdom of the country, together with the Crown, should think fit to adopt, and if the Par liament of the united kingdom, with the concurrence and sanction of the Crown, thought proper to pass a new Act of Parliament, either repealing the union or modifying it as it at present stood with regard to the connexion between Ireland and England. That was the legitimate mode of doing it; but as long as the law continued as it now was, there was the Queen's coronation oath to be violated, and the statute of the 40th of George 111. to be outraged, before the plan laid down by the Association could possibly be carried into practical effect. There was no attempt made to petition the Queen in this plan suggested by the Associa tion ; nor was there any recommendation in it that the Re pealers should petition the United Legislature. This plan or manifesto of the Association was put forward as the demand of the Irish people, organised and disciplined as they were to have their objects carried into effect according to their own wishes and desires—by- whom or how, he (the Chief Justice)" not know, n or did th e pl an specify. However, this plau was laid before the Association, and there was no statement,_ whatever that it was rejected. What was the Association doing in the meantime, while the authoritative demand on behalf of the people of Ireland was thus placed upon their records? They thought right to have meetings held in dif ferent parts of Ireland. Now, although it had not been ad mitted in that Court that he or the Association had convened more than a few of those monster meetings, yet it would be seen by the repe a t e d d ec l ara ti ons o f Mr. O'Connell himself, in the Association, or out of doors, that lie or the Association had called all of them. It would be for the jury to say, whether these meetings were held for the purpose of petition and free discussion, or whether they were called together in order to make a display of the physical force and powerful strength of the Irish nation, banded together by the ties of the Asso ciation for effecting their objects by the agency of such means as had been imputed to them by the Attorney-Gene ral. He was not inclined to lay much stress upon the fact of there being bands of music at those meetings ; there were bands almost in all instances—perhaps in every instance, and those bands were in great number, 30 or 40 of them being at a single meeting. There were flags, and banners, and inscrip tions, but to all this lie was not inclined to attach much im portance. Although it was true that in some cases violence of expression might appear in souse of their mottoes and de vices, they went but a little way to establish the crime im puted, namely, that the traversers intended, by intimidation and demonstration, by physical force, to overawe the Govern ment of the country. These bands were something, no doubt, contributing more or less to the existence of physical force, but they constituted, after all, but a slight ingredient in the case. The striking feature in these meetings was the immense masses in which the people were collected, and the nature and violence of the speeches which were delivered to the assembled multitudes on that occasion. Generally those speeches were made by Mr. D. O'Connell ; but that gentleman was not by any means the only person to address the meetings. There were other persons also, some of whom were included in the number of the :traversers, who took the opportunity of making their feelings known to the face of the assembled multitudes. It was for the jury to decide, from the tone and tenor of those speeches, whether they were delivered by men who were acting in pursuance and From of a common design, and that a cr i m i na l one. From a few of these speeches he would take the liberty of selecting one or two passages for the consideration of the jury. The first he would refer to was the meeting held at Mullingar on the 15th of May, and which was attended by Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Barrett. In the presence of that assemblage, composed of a multitude of persons amounting to hundreds of thousands. Mr. Barrett thought proper to express himself in language which he should read from the Pilot of the 15th of May, Mr. Barrett's own paper. Mr. Barrett could disown whatever there might be of criminality or violence in.the speech, by the asser tion that what he uttered escaped from hint unpremeditatedly and in the excitement of the moment—that it was a hot effusion —but that the thing should be passed over, inasmuch as it was not preconcerted or premeditated ; but there was not a particle of evidence to show that Mr. Barrett's speech de served to be so characterised. It was a deliberate speech, and not only did Mr. Barrett utter it at Mullingar, but it was to be presumed that lie wrote it down, and when he had ar rived in. Dublin he had it printed and circulated in his paper, the Pilot. llis Lordship then read an extract from the speech, concluding as follows:—" We will crouch, but it will be the crouch of the tiger, ready to take a terrible spring, and clutch our independence. Come what may, the dye is cast—repeal must be successful. We have a leader worthy of our people, and a people worthy of such a leader—a people sober, forbearing, resolved, and possessing all virtues which will enable them to obtain, by allowing that they are worthy of, national independence." That speech was delivered on the 15th of May. See how simultaneously the operations of the Association, the meetings, and all these proceedings went on together. He now came to the Pilot of the 31st of May, and they would see that in that paper Mr. Bar rett gave a report of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the great Longford repeal meeting. The jury remembered what was stated at that meeting by Mr. O'Connell with respect to an English Roman Catholic Nobleman, Lord Beaumont. lie (the Chief Justice) would not go into the particulars of the dispute between the two individuals, but he alluded to this speech as showing the opinions which Mr. O'Connell uttered in presence of the populace with respect to what he thought might take place in England if opposition were made by the Government to his plan and that of the Asso ciation. (His Lordship proceeded to read that passage from Mr. O'Connell's speech at Longford where he alluded to the sensation which would be treated in the popular mind to wards England, in case coercive measures were used against this country.) It would be for the jury to say, whether they thought the use of such language as this a fair and legitimate mode of exercising the right of free discussion, and bringing. the mind of s ol t v l h e ea t p ? s e l o v p ao l sm e et t h o t hi s b i n e mg a raenxconstitutionallyin the o ii n vh he p o o mi m l i t aA i h c ri a r: l O qu 'C es o t n io n n e s ll . nation of Mr. O'Connell, who framed and fabricated this story for the purpose of having its effect. No such story ever existed ;it was a supposition—a kind of novel invented by him upon the occasion ; and for what purpose ? To have free discussion of the subject of the union, or to have the passions of one portion of the people of this country excited against another, and violence, and deeds of violence, provoked by the introduction of unfounded and false stories of this nature. The speech was received with "hear and clreers ;" and that was the way in which stories of the kind were received by those multitudes of loyal men. His Lordship rriv SVNT, LONDON, MONDAY EVENINO, FEBRUARY 12, 1844. then proceeded to read Mr. O'Connell's speech at Mallow, observing to the jury, the word " enemy" occurs very often in very many of the speeches made here and elsewhere by Mr. O'Connell, either in the presence of some of the traversers. or others, and was also made use of by other persons among the traversers in their speeches. Whether it be the word " enemy" or " Saxon" it will be fin. you to say to whom the designation is attached. Can it have the meaning or any other description than that of English ? It is for you to say, (His Lordship having proceeded with the reading of the speech, when he came to the words—" We will violate no law ; but you are much mistaken if you think that they will not assail us.") Gentlemen, it is true, as I have before observed, that not only at the meetings of the Repeal Association, but also, I believe, with scarcely one exception, at every public meeting that was called to aid the objects which the tra versers had in view, there was a most industrious inculca tion to the people not to violate any law. "He who com mits a crime gives strength to the enemy." That is their maxim. It will, however, be for you, Gentlemen, to consider whether in the whole of the conduct and de meanour of the the traversers they had actually in view the preservation of the public peace, or whether those warnings and this advice were given for a particular pur pose—the keeping back any violation of the law—the keeping back all violence and resistance to the law until the time should arrive when they would be prepared to make such use of their existing forces as their particular circumstances might then suggest. In his speech Mr. O'Connell stated that the only Englishman who subdued Ireland had sent away 80,000 of the people as slaves, all of whom perished in the short space of twelve years; whether that statement is a true one or not, I cannot tell—but with what object was it in troduced? " Yes," continued Mr. O'Connell, " Peel and Wellington may be second Cromwells •, they may have his blunted truncheon." And recollect, Gentlemen, that this portion of the evidence was proved on the part of the tra versers by Mr. Fitzgibbon. Mr. FITZGIBBON—I beg your Lordship's pardon ; that is a mistake. The CHIEF JUSTICE—I would not have made the asser tion, but:that I find in my own handwriting a note to that effect. Mr. Close said he had taken a note of what took place, and the paper was given in evidence by the Crown. The CHIEF JUSTICE—I may be mistaken, but certainly I made an entry at the time in my own handwriting. I will not dispute with Mr. Fitzgibbon on the point; and you will, therefore, take it that the paper containing a report of this meeting at Mallow was proved by the Crown. What is the language of Mr. O'Connell, and to which I had been advert ing? He says—" They"—that is, 44 Peel and Wellington— may get the blunted truncheon of Cromwell, and may, oh, sacred Heaven! enact upon the fair occupants of that gallery the murder of the Wexford ladies.—(Oh, oh.) But lam wrong ; they never shall." The report adds, that here the entire company cheered and waved handkerchiefs. Now, Gentlemen of the jury, was that speech made in the spirit of fair discussion, and as an appeal to the reason? The Chief Justice then commented on another part of this address, in which Mr. O'Connell stated that the massacre of the Wexford ladies was no mere appeal to the imagination, for that 300 of them, old and young, maidens and matrons, taken in a part of the town called the Bull-ring, appealed 'to the humanity of the English, and were cruelly slaughtered. The effect of this address was manifested by cries of " Oh, oh," and great sensation. Now, Gentlemen, what is the meaning of the introduction of such language, and of details of this nature? If there was a word of truth in this story, the event must have taken place 260 years ago ; and for what purpose is such language used? Is it, you will ask yourselves, for the purpose of free discussion upon a political question, or is it for the purpose of exciting, by this detail of horrors, the animosity and hatred of the Irish towards the English ? " May not," adds Mr. O'Connell, " such atrocities be enacted anew ? But no, we were a paltry remnant then ; we are nine millions now." That is not the only occasion upon which the assembled multitudes were treated with stories of such a nature and of atrocities perpetrated by the English on the Irish. Among other very remarkable meet ings was one held at Tara, in the county of Meath, on the 15th of August last. The place was one considered deserving of particular veneration. It is a place religiose sneer, and selected upon that account, as well as for its historical associations. Captain Despard, who attended that meeting, estimated the numbers present. at 300,000, while Mr. O'Con nell and those in the interest of the Association as infinitely the most numerous of any of the meetings. According to some accounts a million of persons were present, and Mr. O'Connell estimated them at a million and a half. And, Gentlemen, there was a dinner in the evening, as on pre vious occasions; and let me now read some of the ways in which the conviviality of the evening was enlivened by the speech of Mr. O'Connell. (His Lordship then read extracts from the speech of Mr. O'Connell, until he came to that por tion of it where mention was made of the massacre of three hundred females in Wexford, when his Lordship continued;) Now, Gentleman of the jury, you have here the same hor rible and revolting story of most astonishing barbarity and cruelty again repeated before another of those vast assem blages of persons, who are told of British cruelty and bar barity committed 260 years ago, with an intimation that such scenes may occur again. (His Lordship then proceeded to read another extract from the speech, and went on as fol lows :)—Now, Gentlemen of the jury, it was the constant practice of Mr. O'Connell, at most or all of the meet ings, to call on the assembled multitudes to obey his call, to be ready to come again when he should think proper to call on them, and that was one of the occasions on which he made use of that language. He said that when he should want them, the people would not be found to have melted away like snow, should an English army invade this country ; that the people would be found together again, inspired, no doubt, by the tale of the bar barity inflicted on their ancestors by the people of Great Britain, of which he more than intimated the threat of a re currence. After commenting on the spceclits made at other meetings, his Lordship came to that held at Mullaghmast, and said persons began to assemble early in the morning, and to march by different ways to the centre of attraction, the Rath of Mullaghmast. Great numbers came from Dublin, having, no doubt, been apprised of the meeting, and prepared for the occasion by the circulation of the placards, printed by Browne under the direction of the Repeal Association. It appeared, too, that there were a great number of those who came from Dublin who had wands and repeal tickets stuck in their hats, upon which was written, " O'Connell's Police." You have heard a great deal about the power of these police in preserving the peace wherever they were ; but it does not always happen, Gentlemen, that the absence of riot and the appearance of tranquillity is a proof of the absence of guilt. lon have heard a good deal about the placard that was cir culated at the Mullaghmast meeting; but I should like to know, Gentlemen, how it has come to pass that none of the O'Connell police ever attempted to stop the vending and circu• lation of that infamous production ? I will now read it for you, Gentlemen, and you will see if it does not pretty nearly agree in spirit and in meaning to what has been said at Mallow, Tara, and other monster meetings, where the traversers, or some of them, were present. (His Lord ship then read the document in question.) That, Gentle men, is the conciliatory, argumentative, peaceable, tranquil way in which the people who assembled at that meeting were to be addressed. I have said that no attempt was made by any Of Mr. O'Connell's police to prevent the circulation of this placard. Now, Gentleman of the jury, so far were they from putting down, or attempting to put down, the cir culation of this story and the horrible statement I have just read, that you will find in the speeches made by Mr. O'Con nell—one of which was before the assembled multitude in the open air, and the other at the dinner or banquet on the same evening —the same story was repeated; not exactly, perhaps, in thOiune words, but in substance and in spirit it was altogether Pie Same . which was. repeated an d de livered by Mr. O'Connell. to .who came that day to lis ten to him. What object had' they who,had attended him on that occasion, and who took part im his deliberations, some of whom repeated in their own language the self same story and sentiments? The history of what took place at Mullaghmast is given by an uninapeached witness, Mr. Frederick Bond Hughes, who described the banners that were there to have had these mottoes on them 44 The man who commits a crime gives strength to the enemy"—that, Gentlemen, is their favourite motto; " Ire land must be a nation ;" " Repeal ;" " A country of nine mil lions is too great to be dragged at the tail of any nation." Gentlemen, is that argument or threat ? Mr. O'Connell, when called upon at the dinner, spoke these words—(here the Chief Justice read extracts from the speech alluded to). The Queen's Speech that was here alluded to by Mr. O'Connell we have not now before us ; but I find from the context that it must have been a speech disapproving of the steps of the repealers. Because that speech was presumed to be spoken by the Queen and composed by her Ministers, therefore that is the remon, as alleged by Mr. O'Connell, for calling to gether again this enormous meeting at Mullaghmast. " I thought," says Mr. O'Connell on that occasion, "that the monster meetings had demonstrated the opinion of Ireland, but when the Queen's Ministers' speech came out, we saw it necessary to do more. Accordingly, we called a monster meeting at Clifden, we called another at Lismore, and we are now at Mullaghmast." Now, Gentlemen of the jury, mark these words : " I chose it for an obvious reason. We are on the precise 'spot on which English treachery —aye, and false Irish treachery too—consummated a massacre un equalled in the crimes of the history of the world until the massacre of the Mamelukes by Mehemet Ali. It was necessary to have Turks to commit a crime in order to be guilty of the crimes of English. We are assembled here This day to express our determination in open day not to be mis led by any treachery." Is that, or is it not, of a piece and in unison with the printed paper circulated all over Mullagh mast in the course of the same morning ? The Chief Jus tice then commented on Mr. O'Connell's statement as to Dr. Gray and his son having held a petty session of their own, and that they would select chosen judges in the room of the magistrates, who were unjustly deprived of their offices. This is the reason he gives for setting up the arbitration courts; not with a view of putting a stop to the taking Of oaths—not with a view of assimilating themselves to the Quaker-J.—not with a view Of assimilating themselves to the usage of the Ouzel Galley, who act upon process directed from the superior courts—but with the view of appointing to those courts magistrates dismissed by the Government for attending repeal meetings. Again, he said, "That with those courts they would see justice realised in Ire land ;" and was not that saying that justice was not ad ministered at present in Ireland ? Was that statement made to bring into disrepute the courts of law, as now established ? The Chief Justice then adverted to Mr. O'Connell's allusion to the rebellion of 1798 as " premature and rash." (His Lordship then read the resolution adopted at the meeting, and entitled, the " Leinster Declaration." Those resolutions have already been published in the course of the proceedings. The Court then adjourned for a few minutes. At the resuming of business his LORDSHIP continued to read Mr. Barrett's speech to the end and continued :—That was Mr. Barrett's part in the drama performed at Mullaghmast. At the banquet which followed Mr. Daniel O'Connell made another speech. Was there any difference in its tone and manner from that previously addressed to the multitudes in the morning? I will read it in order that the jury may judge for themselves. (The Lord Chief Justice here read copious extracts from the speech of Mr. O'Connell on that occasion. It referred especially to the supposed slaugh ter on the Rath —precisely the same story that was circulated among the people assembled at the meeting, and it was said that their Saxon masters would not dare to attack them again. Not, let it be observed, that they would not, but that they dare not again attack them. He admitted that they were there not by accident but by design; and in reference to the arbitration system he said, " We want to get the adminis tration of justice out of the hands of the enemy," and that he wished to show the nations of Europe that they were able to do their own judicial business, and that they required not the Saxon or the stranger to do it for them.) Now, Gentlemen, I will ask you, is this free discussion ? Ask yourselves, is it right or proper to circulate such a narration of bygone deeds, the truth of which the narrator could not be ap prised of, and which he knew he could not? I will ask you, Gentlemen, is is not a proof of the h a t re d of the speaker towards England, and that such language was uttered with that gall and bitterness which were sought to be excited in the minds of one portion of her Majesty's sub jects against the other. Mr. O'Connell made a second speech that day, into which he introduced the same subject, and here again he dwelt upon the cruelties of England to wards Ireland. (His Lordship read a portion of this speech, and then continued by saying :)—I will now, Gentlemen, call your attention to the meeting at Tullamore, where Mr. O'Connell spoke, and the evidence 'with regard to which was given by a trustworthy, because an unimpeached witness, that is John Ulich Macnamara. (His Lordship read a por tion of Mr. O'Connell's speech, Which has already ap peered ; and said)—l come now to the part take n and the speech made by the Rev. Mr. Kearney in the presence of Mr. O'Connell. That Rev. Gentleman brought forward a resolu tion, pledging the people to continue the repeal agitation so gloriously brought forward by the Liberator or their country. There was a resolution for the adoption of a pe tition brought forward, but there was no proof that such a petition was ever signed or adopted. The same gentleman said that when they got all they wanted, it was only then that the steam of repeal would be properly got up. Mr. O'Connell was present, and he did not deny the truth of what might be fairly deemed an imputation on himself, namely, that of acting a dangerous and uncandid part. In his speech, Mr. O'Connell alluded to a circumstance which a friend of his had witnessed. It appeared that this person saw some men working in a field, but apart from an other person, who was in a kind of Botany Bay of his own, and those who stood aloof being thought to be Ribandmen, the gentlemen, addressing them, asked why they shunned the other poor fellow. Their answer was, " Oh, that fellow re fused to become a Repealer." " Those good men," observes Mr. O'Connell, " were combined for the cause of repeal, and it is absolutely necessary that you should bedoubly alive. I cannot have man, woman, or child without becoming a Re pealer. The Saxon will be roused from his slumber, and the union shall be—must be—repealed." The next speech made was by Mr. Ray—l mean that at the banquet of Mullagh mast. Mr. John O'Connell also spoke at that meeting, and Dr. Gray, so that five of the alleged conspirators were present on this occasion. Dr. Gray spoke. (His Lordship then read portions of the speech of Dr. Gray, relating to the arbitration courts.) Gentlemen, does the speaker, when he talks of the people having been long trampled on by aliens and enemies, mean the existing courts by which justice is administered —does he mean the Queen's Judges, appointed by the law of the land ? I shall now close these observations on the day of Mullaghmast—a most im portant meeting, and, indeed, more important than any of the other meetings which took place elsewhere, exposing to you and to those who have to decide in this case what were the real objects and intentions of those who are ac cused before you for entering into this alleged conspiracy. The general effect of that combination cannot be mistaken, nor can it be denied that discontent and animosity were inspired among the people of Ireland against the people of England, by calling up the memory of by gone scenes, the truth of which we cannot now ascertain, and which, whether they were true or not, it is now at least gratuitous to call up in the minds of the people. Mr. O'Connell, sen., (for there are two of them), made two speeches at that meeting. Mr. O'Connell, sen., it was who gave orders for the procuring of that assembly ; Mr. O'Connell, sen., it was who selected that place for the purpose, be cause it had been the scene of a former bloody massacre and murder committed by the English of that day on the Irish of that day, in order to revive and bring back to fresh life and vigour those feelings which must have inspired the friends of the sufferers on that occasion. You may recollect how eloquently he describes the scenes of blood and horror and suffering which had been enacted on that spot ; and it was not for nothing, Gentlemen, that he brought the people together in that place, and made a speech to them on that spot where all that was dear to their ancestors was sa crificed by English cruelty and treachery. It was to revive and bring back those feelings that he did so, and to infuse them into the breasts of all those present who listened to his eloquent description of those atrocities. What is the first accusation against the traversers ? It is for endeavouring to excite hatred and dissension among one portion of her Majesty's subjects against another portion ; and was not such the tendency of the language to which I have alluded ? That assemblage consisted of as many persona as had met at 'Para. It was the greatest of the monster meetings which took place in Ireland. And is the British Parliament to be told that those hundreds of thousands excited in that way, should be in such a state that the moment that gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) thought proper to stamp his ti ot they should re-assemble for any purpose for which he might require them ? Does such a state of things belong to the system of free discussion, or does it prove the purpose of intimidating or overawing the Legislature of the country? Another objecl, alleged agai ns t those who are impli ca t e d i n this charge of conspiracy is the depreciating the courts of justice as established by law, bringing them into contempt, and inducing her Majesty's subjects to withdraw from those courts, and have recourse to others. Is there any evidence in this transaction of the affair at Mullaghmast given you in support of the charge of the alleged conspiracy ? Have you, or have you not, Dr. Gray coming forward and making a statement that the time is come to be re lieved from those courts over which presided the Saxon and the stranger ? Have you, or have you not, Mr. O'Con nell adverting to the same topic at the meeting held at Clifden, where he stated that the institution of those ar bitration courts was to be the foundation of a judicial system which was to upset or overturn the regularly con stituted tribunals of the country? We have him again recurring to the same subject and commenting in the same way at Mullaghmast, on the appointment of arbitration courts, and-placing therein those magistrates who had', been dismissed by the Chancellor for attendance at repeal meet ings. You have Mr. Ray coinciding in those sentiments ; you have Mr. John O'Connell, who likewise made a speech at that meeting, in which he •concurred in the general ob jects, and appears to have been himself one of the arbitrators at Blackrock, appointed by the authority of the Associa tion. Gentlemen, I have thus pointed out distinctly the bear ing of the Mullaghmast meeting had on almost all the ob jects of the Association, and I have also pointed out the par ticular persons accused on whom it bears. Hitherto I stated nothing of the Rev. Mr. Tierney, who does not appear to have attended at, or participated in, the meeting at Mullagh mast ; nor, as I understood it, is there any evidence that he became a member of the Association until the 3d of October, which was the day but one after Mullaghmast. It is quite true that he had a little pet meeting of his own—(A laugh)— at Clontibret, on the 15th of August, the day on which the great meeting was held at Tara, which ap pears to have gone off with more peace, decorum, and pro priety than attended those I have referred to. Mere were magistrates and policemen present at it. But as he did not think that meeting had been much pressed against Mr. Tierney, he (the Chief Justice) was willing to adopt the same course, the more particularly as some little uncertainty appeared to exist in reference to the parole evidence given by M'Cann, a policeman, who was examined as to what took place between him and Mr. Tierney on the 15th of June. Mr. Tierney attended a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d of October, the day but one after the Mullaghmast meeting. Whether he was cognizant of the resolutions passed at the latter meeting, he (the Chief Justice) did not know ; but the matter was so recent, and occurring at a place so near, it might be asked, could he avoid knowing them ? Mr. Tierney made a speech on the 3d of October, and concluded thus :—" I have always said you were victorious," that is, mind, Gentlemen, in the field ; " and you must now prove successful when you are unanimous ; nothing can prevent you of success, except your own timidity and treachery : are you ready to sell your country?" and, Gentle men, loud cries of "We are not," followed that question. " There were two ways to be followed ; one was to slavery, the other to victory ; and if you select the first you deserve it, but if you select the last, you will be yet blessed by unborn generations." The Rev. Gentleman concluded by handing in 921. from the north. To that speech Mr. O'Connell paid the marked compliment of a speech, and proposed the thanks of the Association to him ; the vote of thanks was re ceived with acclamation and adopted by the Association, and it was for them to say, under the circumstances, whether the Rev. Mr. Tierney participated in the common cause or not. Now he (the Chief Justice) had gone through all the traversers, with the exception of Mr. Duffy, who, it was not de nied, was also a member of the Association, and it was proved by various documents, independent of which it was not at tempted to be disputed, that he was the proprietor of the Nation newspaper, a paper more or less in connection with the Association. He was also accussed of having entered into this common conspiracy, so often detailed, although it was not sworn that he attended any of the great meetmgs, and to prove it, various documents, as he had before stated, were put in evidence, for the purpose of showing that he was engaged in what was alleged to be the common object of aiiTonheheadecl crisis the conspirators. (His Lordship then read articles from the N 7sSuompoenthuinsf,—isanCodmlienfrir Our Nationality" _ ' ;,o the jury to say 'whether those documents afforded proof that Mr. Duffy was aiding and assisting in the general confederacy. He next read from the Pilot articles, entitled the " Duties of a Sol ) dier," an d "The Army, the People, and the Government.") Another letter which had been read bore the signature of the Rev. Mr. Power, a parish priest in the county of Waterford, and it inculcated the notion that private soldiers were to con sider in their own minds whether they ought or ought not to obey the commands of those who are in authority over them ? and it was for the jury to consider whether these articles were or were not published by these alleged conspi rators, with the view of m akin g the arm y refuse to act, if called upon to repress any tum ultuary uprising which might be produced by their own acts. He need not tell them that if the traversers intended so to interfere it was a high offence, and several Acts of Parliament had been passed to punish any person who presumed to interfere with the army. Although there was no evidence of these publications reaching the hands of the soldiers, yet, if the jury were satisfied that the traversers had combined together for the purpose of tampering with the mili tary, although the fact was never executed, the crime was as complete as if they had succeeded. He had one subject more to which he would in particular direct their attention— namely, the arbitration courts. They would observe, that the charge was not simply combining together to bring for ward the erection and constitution of those arbitration courts, but the main and principal charge was this—the combining together for the purpose of endeavouring to bring into disre pute and discredit the existing courts of justice in the coun try as by law established. There was a great deal of argu ment, and a great deal of what he thought unnecessary state ment, with regard to the subject of arbitration. It was given in evidence, that b_,y the law of_ the Society of Friends, any man who had a dispute with another person was bound, hi the first place, to endeavour to decide the question by arbitration before he was at liberty to take proceedings at law, and, moreover, that rule of the Society was enforced by another rule, that any member of the Society of Friends who would decline so to terminate the suit by arbi tration before lie went to law was to be expelled or read out of meeting, as it was called by the Society. The Ouzel Galley was also referred to, and to these gentlemen, consist ing of the principal merchants of Dublin, suits were referred and decisions made by them ; but the system of arbitration adopted by them was not analagous to what was proposed, by the traversers ; for, although it took upon itself to de cide the disputes and differences of those who thought proper to refer to the decision of its members, its proceedings were always based, in the first instance, upon a writ issuing out of the superior courts, and thus the arbitration was subordinate to the superior court. But it was stated further that the decision of the courts by arbitration was also desirable upon a conscientious and religious principle —namely, putting a stop to the administering of oaths. That was a very plausible argument to be brought forward now ; but it would be for the jury to decide whether they were not set up for an entirely different purpose. Recollect that, in the address from the Association to the subjects under the British Crown, one of the grievanees which was proclaimed to the world at large, as far as the British sub jects were concerned was, that persons had been appointed to the bench hostile to, or not having feeling with the people of the country ; and theref o re they were dissatisfied with those courts, and the mode in which the administration of justice was dispensed in them. Now, if the people combined, in or der to put down the existing courts of justice, as derived from the appointment of the Queen, and to set them at naught, and to induce the subjects of her Majesty to withdraw from their cognisance the administration of justice, such an asso ciation, or agreement with such an intent, was a violation or the law, and any infringement upon the Queen's prerogative in that respect had always been considered a high misde meanour. The subject was treated clearly by Judge Black stone, in his celebrated C anon L aws , Ist vol., p. 277 (1837) ; " The King is the fountain ofjustice, and general conservator of the peace of the kingdom. The original power of judica ture, by the fundamental principles of society, is lodged in the society at large; but in England this authority has been immemorially exercised by the King or his substitutes. lie, therefore, has alone the right of erecting courts of judica ture, and they should be erected by his authority." Such was the commo n l aw of this country, as laid down by Black stone, and it was, therefore, an infringement, and a violation of that law, if two or more persons presumed and took upon themselves to enter into a common design to detract from the respect due t o th e Q ueen ' s courts of Pali", and the way in which the law was administered in those courts. There fore it was to be considered what had taken place—the man- ner in which tliciie Artiitfation Courts and the principle of arbitration was carried tint these fiarties. Ile held in his hand a Report of the Arbitration Coniniittee; Which was presented to the Association, and dated the 21st of Atigitet, 1840, and they would find in that Report a statement of the system that had been proposed by Dr. Gray and submitted to the Association, and by them carried into one of its laws. The offence contained in the indictment with regard to those courts was not an attempt to establish Arbitration Courts, although, perhaps, that might be an offence ; but he did not say whether it would or would not. However, the one charged he took to be clearly criminal, and was a com bination to bring into disparagement and disrepute the courts of justice as existing by law in the country, to bring them-into contempt and-disregard among the subjects of her Majesty, and to induce them to go to other tribunals to settle their differences—which he had already shown from the language 'of the traversers themselves. There was a paper adopted by datedthe A s i in t a t g t i u o s n t , , b l e B l 4o n a w R h j e e p h o r e t o n o f t a t i h n e Arbit the ration n sC forom tetreee, . commending and adopting_ this new system of Jurisprudence. It went on to say, " Your Committee are of opinion, that in asmuch as many of the Magistrates who possess the confidence of the people, have been dismissed, and deprived of the com mission of the peace, in consequence of their attachment to the cause of legitimate independence, Arbitration Courts should be established, and, in order to secure the harmonious working of such a system, they recommend that a standing one will be formed to arrange and superintend the carrying out of those testimonials." The same Report reconimended the ap pointment of those dismissed Magistrates, for the reason that they had been dismissed by the Government, by the constituted authority of the reality, and not because of their legal or other knowledge, local information, property, conduct, or any other qualification, and the situation of chairman of the arbitrators was to be given to any dismissed magistrate, if one should be found in the district. Was that a reason why the parties in question were to dispense with the powers of those courts of justice which her Majesty, by her letters patent, thought proper to provide, in the exercise of her undoubted preroga tive, as courts of law for the benefit and protection of her subjects ? There were four other grounds of accusation. The eight traversers were indicted for having conspired and agreed to raise and create disaffection, hatred, and unlawful opposi tion to the Government and Constitution; secondly, whether they .conspired and agreed, or any, and which of them, to to stir up jealousies amongst the queen's subjects, and to pro mote to her other subjects, especially the Irish against the English ; thirdly, whether they, or any or which of them, conspired and agreed, or any or which of them to excite dis affection in the army ; fourthly, whether they conspired and agreed to collect unlawful assemblages in large numbers in Ireland, in order to obtain changes in the laws and Consti tution by intimidation and the demonstration of physiCal force ; and lastly, whether they, or any, or which of them, conspired and agreed to bring the courts of judicature estab lished by law into disrepute, and with the intent to induce the subjects of the Queen to submit their disputes to other tribunals. If they were of opinion that the traversers, or any, and which of them conspired and agreed to do, or caused to be done, the said several matters, or any of them, then they were to And such traversers, or traverser guilty of the conspiracy as laid. The Lord Chief Justice concluded his charge as follows m.--- - You are called on, in the first place, to pronounce - whether these traversers, or any, or which, did conspire and agree to raise dissension in her Majesty's subjects, or to hatred and unlawful opposition to the Govatiment and Constitution. 2dly. You are called on to pronounce whether these tra versers, or any, or which of them, did conspire and agree to raise disaffection amongst the Queen's subjects, especially those in Ireland against their fellow-subjects in England. 3dly. You will have to say whether they, or any of them, conspired and agreed to excite disaffection in the army. 4thly. You will have to decide whether any or each of the traversers conspired to effect changes in the Constitution. of the country by a demonstration of physical force. Lastly, Whether they, or any of them; agreed to bring• the courts of judicature, established by law, into diets,-, pute, and induce the subjects of the Queen to submit . their disputes to other tribunals. If you are of opinion . t dets h rusiact a raltm t eilr t esis l se i neh e drste..s t , raversers, or any of them conspired and agreed to do, or cause to be done the said several matters, or any of them, then you are to find such traversers or traverser con sisting of those o tEb rl ve tsome Every T ml guilty of the fact of conspiracy as laid. I have, Gentle men, put the question to you in the language of the in home to the traversers, or any of them, to your satisfaction, em m . ust ß b u e t, d G e e e n ni t e le a m in en n , ocent fivee saep person rerPta°:anngee mbaaieinhs csw,ettai Crownesnretyehd eguu ei guilty o l%ofb e ac t establish b obn l iess conspiracy being that abetye i the g bt cri minality is a thing which must be proved, and not merely till the contrary is proved. The defendants plead their inno cence on the ground that they had a right to do the several things given in evidence, and had no criminal intent. -If it should be your opinion that they had no criminal intention in the acts proved against them, you would be bound to acquit them ; but if, upon the other hand, you should be of opinion that those were not the real objects of the defendants, and that whatever their real designs might be, that they had the criminal intentions attributed to them by the prosecution, and be satisfied that the traversers acted in concert in further ance of those intentions you will be bound to find them guilty. You have been pressed by arguments appealing to your feelings, and sometimes to your apprehensions —you have been addressed by a greater number of persons of ability than accused persons ever before had the advantage of, and nothing was omitted that could possibly strengthen your case. Gentlemen, you are by law indif ferent—you are to be biassed by nothing but the oath you have taken, which is, that you will give a verdict according to the evidence—that is your duty; and to enable you to do that, I never saw a jury who, during a long trial, extending over a period of three weeks, paid such individual attention to the case, the evidence that has been laid before you, and the several gentlemen that addressed you on either side. I feel perfectly certain that you will decide conformably to the dictates of your reason and of conscience; and I .do hope that the Lord, who rules over all, will enlighten and direct you. I have now no more to say. The Foreman of the Jury—My, Lord, as the jury are much fatigued, I beg leave to ask whether it is absolutely necessary to conclude this case now ? The CHIEF Jusnce----I Am sorry to tell you, that after the charge has been delivered it is not possible for us to allow you to separate to-night. You may retire to your chamber, •but I regret to say we have not the power of giving you that liberty which has been hitherto afforded you, of going to your homes. You must remain in the custody of the Sheriff, holding no communication with others, and the chamber is the only place that I am aware of which you have a right to occupy. I have known instances in which the jury were not allowed to separate, but they were permitted, while in the custody and care of the Sheriff, to have the accommodation which it might be expected they would require during the time that would elapse before giving their verdict. Wherever I have known anything of that kind done, it has been by consent, and unless there be a consent in the present case, I am not aware, Gentlemen, that I am at liberty to make any other reply to your question than that which I have given. The issue paper having been handed to the Foreman, Mr. Justice CnAmrrox said that he had no doubt the Sheriff would afford the jury every accommodation they might require. The jury then retired. Mr. HENN—Before the Court separates there is one point to which I-desire to call your attention. We submit that there has been no evidence in this case of any act done in the county or city of Dublin, and that we are entitled to have a verdict. The CHIEF JUSTICE—What do you call the meetings of the Association, and the speeches made there ? Mr. HENN observed that there was no printed document proving that the meetings were held in the city of Dublin. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said he would take a note of the objection. The excitement which now prevailed is beyond descrip tion—the whole bar standing—the cry everywhere, the Chief Justice has closed his charge. The jury are locked up—passages closed—no admittance. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Burton, aml Mr. Justice Crampton withdrew. On doing so. Mr. Justice BURTON intimated that the Court was not to be considered adjourned, as those Judges had only retired for a short time to the chamber. Mr. Justice . PEfinnt remained in the midst of the most ex traordinlFy suspense. Mr. MoonE rose and said, on the part of the tra versers, he had to object to the documents being given to the jury, as he had been instructed that marks and scores had been made under particular marks of them, which he did not think should go before the jury in that shape. Mr. MOORE (to the Clerk of the Crown)—Have you the documents produced on both sides? Clerk of the Crown—Yes. Mr. MoonE—You have those produced on our side ? Yes. The Clerk of the Crown, after a little time, said that he could not say whether he had all the documents or not—they were constantly sought for. During the discussion the foreman and some of the jury were in the box. Mr. Justice PERRIN (to the foreman)—ls the room suffi ciently large for your accommodation ? Foreman—lt is, my Lord. Mr. HENN—Our documents, when proved, were lodged with the officer, and we have not got them. The ArrousEY-GENErt.u.,—All the Crown documents are here. It was not our duty to look after any other documents. Mr. Justice PERRIN—The Attorney-General is quite right, all his documents are forthcoming. Clerk of the Crown—l marked eleven documents, but they were handed by me to Mr. Ford. I had my part of them re turned to me, so that I cannot be answerable for others. Mr. HENN—Mr. Ford required to have them ; they shall be returned, but none of the newspapers are forthcoming. Mr. Justice PERRIN—I understand a' messenger has been sent to the Stamp-office for them—they shall be h an d e d t o you soon. _ _ Mr. HENN said that they objected to any documents going . before the jury without having them inspected by the counsel for the traversers. The Crown did not make any objection, and, at the sug gestion of Judge Perrin, the documents were handed to Mr. Whiteside on behalf of all the traversers. Mr. HENN—Surely, Mr. Bourne, you can be able to tel me in point of fact, if you marked every passage read in de fence, as well as those read for the Crown. Mr. Bourne replied that he had not ; he believed that he did so to some. Mr. WHITESIDE, Q.C.—Have you, Mr. Bourne, marked this paper in this manner ? (Passages were underscored in a newspaper which Mr. Whiteside handed up.) Mr. Bourne.—No. After a long pause, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose, and said that it was the wish of the Crown that the question of the documentary evi dence should be decided one way or the other. Mr. MOORE, Q.C., said that it was originally the intention of the traversers to have the documents sent up to the jury, provided that there was not on the face of them any im proper marks. Some of the papers were underscored in passages which were read on behalf of the Crown, while no such marks were attached to those passages which were put in as evidence for the traversers ; and he considered that it would not be right to consent to have those papers sent up before the jury, as their attention would naturally be directed to the passages so marked. Judge CRAmrroN—Certainly not. You are quite right. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lord, it would be right to inform the jury that these documents are not to be sent be fore them in consequence of this objection. Judge CRAMPTON—I shall have the jury informed. Some of them required a little refreshment, and I have ordered them some of a temperate character.—(Great laughter.) I will remain here for a few hours, and then if the jury have not come to a decision, I will have bailiffs sworn, and they can have the use of the room for the night. After a short time all the counsel for the Crown retired. Mr. Sheil and Sir Colman O'Loughlin remained on behalf of the traversers. HALF -PAST SEVEN. Mr. Justice Crampton has just entered the Court, without his robes, accompanied by the High Sheriff, and stated that he will retire for the present, but that he will be in attend ance again at a quarter to nine o'clock, and that in the mean time the counsel for the Crown and traversers, with the soli citors and officers of the Court, may also retire until that hour. Bailiffs were then sworn to prevent access to the jury. The Court and its vicinity continue to be crowded, and the most intense anxiety is evinced by the assembled masses to learn the result. THE VERDICT. DUBLIN, SUNDAY MORNING, FOUR O'CLOCK.— The time between the adjournment and nine o'clock I t was spent in a manner but little suitable to the so ' lemnity of the occaison. The Court throughout the time was packed to suffocation. The majority of those assembled appeared determined to amuse them "selves-as best they might; and so.the interior of her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench for an hour-and a-half very much resembled that of a minor theatre between the acts, when the audience is at once very noisy and very facetious ; personal allusions to officers of the Court or individuals present, imitations of various degrees of merit in the crier's voice, false alarms of the Judges' arrival, and betting with every variety of odds and amount on the result of the trial, formed a Babel of sounds which effectually drowned all the efforts made by the officers of the Court to silence it. Outside an angry, and anxious, and excited mob had been forming, every minute adding to its numbers, until the Round Hall was filled with a solid mass of human beings, and the outer squares became impassable save through avenues of policemen. The quay outside the Four Courts was packed in the same manner by the very lowest of the Dublin canaille, who passed their time in scoffing at the police, or discussing the proceedings at the trials with great zeal and gusto. A body of mounted police patrolled through their masses to keep the carriage -way a little clear, whilst divisions of the same force were drawn up at intervals along the Quay-wall. At length Mr. Justice Crampton entered the Court at about a quarter past 9 o'clock, and, attired as he was in plain clothes, took his seat .upon the bench. All the law-officers and counsel on the Crown side, as well as those engaged for the traversers, were pre viously in attendance. The jury having been sent for at half-past 9 o'clock, The Foreman entered and said,—My Lord, we are not quite ready. (Marked sensation in the Court, as the words showed that there would be a verdict some way or another.) Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Very well, Gentlemen, we shall wait for you. His Lordship and the foreman then retired, and again the same busy hum sounded through the Court as before ; and the audience, to make up for the seri ousness of the previous five minutes, became more noisy and facetious than ever. The character of the betting was changed, and one of the junior counsel for the traversers was heard to offer 5 to 1 in favour of Carrickfergus against Kilmainham Gaol, as the future place of durance for his clients. The time wore heavily on till 10 minutes to 11 o'clock, when Judge Crampton returned 'to the Court, and directed the jury to be summoned. In a few moments the door was opened, and the jury entered amidst the profoundest silence. The Foreman (addressing the Court)—Are we to give our verdict upon each count of the indictment, my Lord ? Mr. Justice CRAMFTON—Yes, Gentlemen. The Foreman—And are we obliged to . give a ver dict on every count, whether agreed or not agreed ? Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Certainly. , Mr. HATCIIELL, Queen's Counsel—Not if they are not agreed on every count, my Lord. They can't, if they are not agreed. Mr.- Justice CRAMPTON—Pray understand me, Gentlemen. If you are agreed upon each count, or upon all the counts, you have only to say Guilty or Not Guilty, according to your verdict. If you agree upon some and not upon others, you will state those upon which.you are agreed, and also the names of the traversers with respect to whom you have agreed. The Foreman—And take no notice of the others? Mr. HENN—There must be a finding on the others? Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Certainly. The jury then withdrew, and His LORDSHIP, after a pause of a few minutes, said —I am disposed to think that if the jury were agreed on certain counts, and not upon others, I should be at liberty to receive their verdict so stated. Mr. MoonE=l think we had better wait, my Lord. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON.—Just so. I merely threw that out for your consideration in the meantime. Another anxious and more solemn interval elapsed till twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock, when the jury entered their box amidst the most profound still ness, the foreman holding the issue paper in his hand, Which was handed down to the Clerk of the Crown, who then proceeded to call over their names and those of the traversers. There being no response to the name of " Daniel O'Connell." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said, that he had to move that the traversers should be called upon their recognisances. Mr. Forde—l appear here for Mr. O'Connell. My Lord, I will send for him if Mr. Attorney-Gene ral desires it. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—WiII it not answer for Mr. O'Connell to appear by attorney ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It is not with any view to harsh steps that I move they should be called upon their recognisances, but as a matter of regularity. Mr. Gartlan—lt was; understood that Mr. Duffy should not be expected to appear. Mr. Justice CRAbIiTON.—It Is only a matter of form, Mr. Gartlan. [The traversers were then seve rally called upon their recognisances, when it ap peared that Mr. O'Connell, Mr. J. O'Connell, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, and Mr s . Duffy were absent.] The Clerk of the Crown (turning to the jury -box) —Gentlemen, are you all agreed ? - The Foreman—Yes. (Sensation in the Court). The Clerk of the Crown (reading the issue paper)— Gentlemen, you say nothing on the first and second counts. On the third you'say, Daniel O'Connell, R. Barrett, and C. G. Duffy are guilty. Mr . . Justice CRAMPTON—If there be no finding on the first or second counts, the verdict is imperfect. The Foreman—We consider that they were too comprehensive, my Lord, as the first included all the others. The Crown Clerk—On the fourth count you say D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell, T. M. Ray, J. Gray, T. Steele, C. G. Duffy, and R. Barrett are guilty. On the fifth you say D. O'Connell, T. M. Ray, T. Steele, C. G. Duffy, and the Rev. T. Tierney are guilty. On the sixth there is no finding. On the seventh all but Mr. Tierney guilty. There is no finding on the eighth or ninth counts. On the tenth you have found D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell, T. M. Ray, J. Gray, T. Steele, C. G. Duffy, and R. Barrett are .guilty. On the 11th there is no finding, but only the foreman's signature. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—This verdict is imperfect, as I take it, Gentlemen, and you must have it returned to you. You have named certain traversers as guilty in some counts, not naming the others ; now, you ought to say " not guilty" to those whose names you have omitted. With respect to those counts on which you have made no finding, you should state whether you are agreed or not, or whether you think the traversers, or any of them, guilty or :not guilty, stating the names in each case respectively. With respect to those whom you have not named, you must state that you find the traversers not guilty, if it be your intention so to find, or if your meaning in passing them by is that you are not agreed you must so state it. Now, in the first count, you should state on how much of it you find the traversers or any of them guilty or not guilty, naming each on both findings. The Foreman said, that they thought the first count too comprehensive. Judge CRAMPTON and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL instructed the jury that the first count entertained all the charges of the indictment, and that the others merely took it to pieces. A Juror—Will it be enough, then, to say " not guilty," if we do not find the traversers guilty of all ? Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Certainly not, but to so much of it only as you do not find the traversers guilty of. At this moment a tremendous burst of cheering from the mob outside, repeated again and again, broke in upon the silence of the Court. Some prac tical joker had told them that O'Connell was acquit ted, but the High Sheriff ordered the police to clear the hall, if it were repeated. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON continued—lf you are not agreed as to any of the traversers you must so state it, and mention their names. Mr. Floyd, a juror—My Lord, we are all agreed. There ig no difference of opinion among us, and it is merely as to the wording of the findings that we are not sure.—(Sensation in the Court.) The ATTORNEY-GENER. iL was about addressing the Court, when Mr. MOORE, interrupting him, exclaimed—Pray, let the jury retire, Mr. Atto.rney, before you speak. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL .said that other counsel had addressed the Bench %%Mk, the jury were in Court, and (the jury having retired) continued to make some observations on the first count, which he wished to have laid before the jurors. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said he bad already ex plained the nature of that count to them. Mr. MOORE said that he had, on the part of the traversers, to object to the directions which he under stood his Lordship to have given to the jury, on the ground that he had directed them to give a finding on every count, whereas they could not do so on those whereon they were not agreed. Mr. Justice CaAmtrorst—They do not disagree on any part, Mr. Moore. Some further discussion ensued upon this point, when, at a few minutes before 12 o'clock, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL x - ose and said, that he thought that the Court should be adjourned till Mon day morning, as after 12 o'clock on Saturday night; he apprehended that the verdict could not be received_ by the Court. He therefore thought it right to state that he thought the Court should adjourn. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, observing that it was not, 12 o'clock, directed the jury to be summoned at once, and asked was it quite certain that the verdict could not be received after that hour ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply said, that in a case of such importance, for fear any doabt should arise, he certainly did think thelCourt should adjourn. The Jury entered their box, and the for eman said that they were not yet quite ready. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON advised them to be in a hurry, as it was close to twelve o'clock, and they retired hastily, followed by a peal of derisive laughter. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—This noise and laughing is extremely indecent, and I must exereisie the au thority of the Court if such a breach of order and decorum be again committed. His Lordship ap pealed to both sides to know if some consent could not be arrived at to receive the verdict, or to let the jury go home. Mr. HATCBELL would reserve any point that might arise upon receiving the verdict after tweilve o'clock. in favour of the traversers, and The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he could not agree to permit of the jury separating. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON made another attempt to bring matters to an issue, and asked the A#torney General if he was perfectly sere that the verdict was not receivable after twelve o'clock ? • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not know ; h e was not aware of any precedent upon the point, and would not go the- length of saying that the verdict would not hold ; but he thought it the safer •course to adjourn. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, for his own part, would not object to receiving it upon his own responsibility; though he could not say if he had ever taken a or: diet after 12 o'clock on Saturday night, but was sure that he had done so on other occasions. He w anted everything to be done according to law, but he thought both sides should consider the great inconvenience that would result to the 12 gentlemen on' the jury from being confined the whole of that night and the following day until Monday morning. To some of them it might be fatal. He wanted to know if there was a necessity for such measures, for they were not at all advisable if there was no necessity ? The ATTORNEY-GXVERAL persisted in his desire for the adjournment of the Court. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON several times repeated hls request to be informed if the adjournment and conse quent confinement of the jury were necessary, bu t did not elicit any answer on the point from the At torney-Geveral, and, turning to Mr. Moore, asked, " What do you say ?" Mr. MOORE—Nothing, my tord (tittering). Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—YOU do not much commit yourself, Sir. Mr. HENN, Queen's Counsel, after some consulta tion with his learned brethren, said that he did not object to a verdict being received after 12 o'clock, nor yet did he consent to it. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON complained that he could get no information from either aide. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL slid he was willing to give all in his power, but the case was a singular one, and lest an objection shou]d be raised here after, he thought it the safer plan for the Court to adjourn. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said he would not discharge the jury, as it seemed to be against the opinion Of both the Crown and the traversers. Mr. MoortE—Not ours, my Lord; we say nothing. His LORDSHIP repeated his remark, wiiich was re pudiated by the traversers, and said that he weld' adjourn the Court till eight o'clock on Mendl morning. Mr. MooßE—What hour, my Lord ? Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Eight o'clock on Monday' as it is only fair to release the jurors as soon s g possible. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Perfectly so, my L erd j However, after some grumbling, it was arrange" that the Court should stand adjourned till nine o'clock. Mr. MONAHAN, Queen's Counsel, on behalf of the traversers, handed in a written objection, which understood to be to the competency of the Court adjourn after twelve o'clock on Saturday night. The jury were then summoned. Txrcl , Mr. Floyd (a juror) entered and said, "My we we have been twice summoned when it appears were not wanted." Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—You are wanted "ow, Sir. The jury having made their appearance, His LORDSH IP e x p r e sse d hi s regre t a t the ii°l 3le ; sant communication he had to make to thew. had been informed that his jurisdiction to re ce— d their verdict had cease d a ft er twe l ve o ' c l o ck, I/11 he was much di s t resse d t o b e o bli ge d t° t : 0 them that they would have to remain in C finement until Monday morning. It was a &t i n growing o u t o f th e per i o d o f t h e morn i ng at they had arr i ve d w hi c h i t was impossible o t viate. Hi s L or d s hi p s t a t e d th a t ev ery eiTht d . would he made to render their situation as easy an comfortable as possible, and th a t they Wo uld + he at liberty to attend Di v i ne se r v ice, und er care of the High Sheriff, on Sunday. After ha v a l . expressed his regret again at being obliged to °raid them into confine men t, an d g i ven th e m some g en- b e directions, his Lordship directed two bailiffs t° sworn for their safe custody, under whose care t hey were conveyed to their room for the night. roke As they left the b ox th e crow d i n the gallery b into a loud laugh of derision, whereupon gheritt. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON directed the High to have the first person arrested whom he caul" "- o: tect in the commission of such a gross breach eff y r eo priety after the repeated admonitions he ha d gl e te them. He would instantly commit to N e % wh to omsoever was brought before him, and pro ve ... 4, be guilty of such an act. His Lordship then re al and on his exit from the Court was followed by se v hini hundreds of the mob, who groaned and hissed until driven back by the police. ll Cow Up to two o' c l oc k on Sunday morning a t tinned quiet. L arge b o di es of police, horse alla,tfl:; patrolled the neighbo u rhood of the Courts , and 1 ea dy understood that a ll the troops in garrison wer e r to act at a moment's notice. Mr. O'Connell has not attended th e COurt Since the day on which he made his defence. It is sai d that the Hon. Gentleman is far from being vvell:: acid that the illness under which he was labouring vi 6 " - ' when he made his address to the jury, has bee n in- creasing ever since. THE INDICTMENT . FIRST COUNT. The first count charges the traversers with unlace' fully, maliciously, and seditiously contriving, intendir4'' and devising to raise and create discontent and disaffc tion among the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and to excite the said liege subjects to ha tre . and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm as by law established, and to excite hatred,jeith)esi,: and amongst different classes of th e said subjec' and to create discontent and disaffection amon gst diver! of of the said subjects, and amongst others her Afttiest/ subjects servirig M into disrepu te triv intendg, deving bg in )Majesty's army ; and further , eon- and ing to , diminish in the and confidenc is e of to her rin Majesty's su b j ects in the tribunals duly and lawfully const ituted for the administration of justice ; and further, ttalsofull'Y' and rnons. to w i t Lord Sr. M fully, spire, divers said t affecti Queen tempt us by 'Pposi also to ferent .promo) ings of kajest :o e f f t hi Gresci her M , nn Y; l ill causi th e Q u , fleet an times ai biwful n the exh at such in the G ks by la Rfindde i e e s r for th e tio n of Majesty' differertc tognizan to omi of other th At purl Forty runt, re c gs, the tiered at 1 b ''arrett, 4 an, and The co , but little "iena of t . On this, it at 1 ., 1 ttre g!-0, This co kali c i ousi prising t a th r id Loexc `ellipt of i as by law aid ill-Wil 41 : 4 to cre. the saitl L lib iects - "lttri v i n Pate andg sub. sleets it rh .l3r t he adi 1 1 , 34 • tit I eh of a ges tc ttitu tion On this ch lh e foui char - It.. ges th E tti esty s ea I°4 °f th 134 . 4 0 , th is c 0 1 O'C t etl " Sandi 11 fifth ilr th 4 , ktitU nd Nt, g m 4ti en. b ' 4 th e eli fi G r ; 'John l'hZ:, Th o q;:7 h sri, Si 't Thi s co, , 4 et . ti ng k e l e n t t (liv e a nd a; , 11 4 • tith . es ai op w f4l an of -g,e th,, It 11 4 14 1 e a exh.. alto t at su thia ati ons th e teal 4), Ir4 att s he t w , e lu tion ()l a , it) 844 11 ac . th e e vil a It: ,t_ 44d ac UIVII, thisa e, ~teeand th!' wnt too „ u 6 146 t i c,” 4,0 th..; 4401 z~ . elegy / i i ! chni4 stititt