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

Ll bee, sc: \r ide, )ited by l.' cks, HOL. , and Be v ' t Western . opting lC) I the :bneSS pf the Ad' noon, wa s Lckingb s9i nce of tile e of Sase ice Alber:i eas urer un Pala° Called it Vile After Deveretai LaingWO ulli e terra e count° arden wokal Par t, ' t° Lin palace ur' ; and fo cess Ito). in Vi iut Colgig rden-gati! ry visited be saturalY' .or ge vi vee l ',oboe treet, row mial-0 0 " es, had ° Sat urdaf: r With SO Canads , Colouiess Saturdal , npany aord COur Hon. P',, Holt s Acis n ' er Jsra e* lonel gr. !' ,nd 13P1 ;10 aSOIIf kir. LYh f t, 1 Y I°iig i Air. Si° ; r toii• , 0 thie reai. sat on the B ° t pe t eine 16 flee ! f t est M tbe elit ree bt r the de n Mtiar'i' 0 0 ) 01 l er rP° tw a" ou g r• ei• I,cly rfoi are , l i s if gtero n43 - 1; sin, • O tto ol d o.* noryet Ae tied lo ioi ving be u t , V the. B o 4l t be j o t the r oo d it in lot of 3 f on o. ,Arf e +l ° o foneYie, the [be hestf ester.dq ar tictl , P n ornint . Forwe s quoted ian 1.30'; ch St2l; mg. . 3 1 e ic: c f % sui t fl itted a r rer ter '!erll And ( 0 boo l Io es/ s•; to.i jo g' isclS :-A" :.20 lo ;p0 f o —n 00 1 0 10h i It. -, p• • • . 0 0 0 . 7 .0, .: f mac. .f .G~ LteT . :i e d, a''' . of 'orM e at. tnie . o no t o t° Jgrf°' o sios PT, real l eto t. de to 1- 0 V nr e on!. 'do 1 1 0 1:110; eta W b e tDr t o p 00 0 sad' )1 0041 wo - d er of illi-tlri -010 of ,:„ ,01.- to r go., De coo tile' t o ost o gre ° ga s° 411161ropit' in ngr s 0 11 40' to _we. -~ ~~ o a ~~~ .00 bl6# eb °l° be y ebb e w r her "stel ° °. r1 1 " 14 of I " 4 tile r (.0 ,9 1, Tiori lll ' 0 We igh e , rm ed.! • it n an d IV PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (irom the rotes end Pl of the Howe: of anunto; 711 LIUSDAY. THE ADDRESS.-MR. HUME'S AMENDMENT. MINORITY-AYES, 49. arnard. E. G. Duodas, David Ricardo, John Lew erkeley, C Elphinstone. Howard Roebuck, J. A. ernal,Captain Evans, William Strutt, Edward leivitt R . • . . Fielden, J. Fhornely, Thomas Odkin, J. S. Gibson, T. M. Trelawny, , J. S. right, John. _. Gisborne, Thomas Villiers, Charles P. rothe.ton Joseph Granger, Thomas C. Wakley. Thorez.s Aokild, q . Hastie, Archibald Wallace, R. oiler, P S. Hawes, B. Warburton, Henry 44 P100n, Benjamin Hindley, Charles Ward, H. G *dors. J. W. Johnson, General Williams, W. bristle, W. D. Marshall, W. Wool, Benjamin , bden, Richard Mitchell, T. A. Yorke, R. H ilborne, N. -IL W. • Murphy, F. S ntwford, W. S. Napier, Sir Charles TILLERS- AnCOMbe, T. S- Pattison,Jam• a Hume, Joseph undas, Admiral , Plumridge, Captain Bowring, Dr. Oxides, F. Ponsonby, Hon. John . MAJORITY—NOES, 235: ..,..,. . tkers, James Fitsmaurice, W. Morgan, C . eland, Sir Thomas Flower, Sir James Mundy, E. M. ckland, T. II I. ollett, Sir William Nee ld. Joseph 'Court,t apt. Fox. S. Lane Neville, Ralph • dare. Lord Fuller. A. E. Newdegate, C. N. dderley. C.'n. Gaskell, James M. Nichol!, Right Hon lhx; John Peter Gladstone W. E. Noreen,. Lord ntrobus, Edmund Glynne, Sir Stephen Northland, Lord ' rbuthnot Hu , h Godson, Richard - O'Brien, A. S , .. rkwright, George Gordon, Captain Ossulston, Lord. :tell, William . Gore, Montague Oswald, - Alexander %wood, M. Gore, W. Ormsby Packe. C. W. Nlotii Hon. W. Gore, Robert Paget, Lord W. ' uley, Joseph Goulburn, Henry Pakington, J. S. eiley, Joseph, jun. Graham Sir J. Patten, Wilson sakes, George Granby,' Marquis Peel, Sir Robert aripg. W. B . Greenail, Peter Peel, Jonathan uneby, John Greene, T. Pennant, Colonel arington, Viscount Gregory, W. H. Piumptre, John P. drkerville, T. B. M. Grimeditc.h, Thomas Polhugton, Viscount .:!ckeit, Willisun Grimston, Lord Powell, Colonel 111, Matthew Hale, R. B. Praed, W • T. nitinck, Lord G. tialford, H. Pringle, Alexander Sreaford, Major • Hamilton, G. A. PrYse. PrYse -• t ickburne,lJ.lreland Hamilton, Lord C. Pusey, Philip takernote R. Harmer Sir .John Repton, George J. elder°, H . G. Hardlnge, Sir H. Rice, E. Boyd • 'rthwick, Peter Heathcote, Sir W. Richards, , ft 'tiled. Beriah Heneage, 0. W. Round, C. G., ra , dshavr,Junse Henley, J. W. Round, John _ raniston T. W. Henniker, Lord Rushbrooke, Colonel . roadley, H. Hepburn Sir T. B. Russell, Charles nice. Lord E. Herbert, Sidney Ryder, G. O. . rues, Colonel Hervey, Lord A. Sanderson, P. tick L. W. Hillsborough, Earl of Sanden, Viscount ackley, Edmun I , Hinile, J. H. Scarlett, R C. ' tiller, Sir J. Yards Hodgson, F. Scott. F. urrell, Sir CM. Hodgson. R. . Seymour. Sir H. alopbell. John H. Holmes, W. A'Court Shaw, Right Hon. F ardwell, E. Hope, Chath Shirley, k.. J. utlereegh, Visct. Hope, Alexander Sibtborp, Colonel hetwode, Sir John Hope, G. W. Smith, Abel holmondeley Hugh Hornby. John Smythe. Ho., G. hristopher R. A. Howard, P. H. Somerset , Lord U. hute, W. L. Hussey, Ambrose Stanley, Lord layton, Rice R. Ingestre, Lord Stuart, Henry lerk, Si George Jerisyn, Earl Sutton, Hon. H. M. livo, viscount Jones, Theobald - Tennent, J. E. o c t i i me. A , . K,.atchbull, Sir B. Thesiger. F. ollett, W. Bickford Knight,_Henry Gaily Thompson, Ald. orcipton, H. C. Lascelles, W. S. Thornhill, George onnolly, Colonel Law, hales E. Tollemache, F. J. oot', Sir C. Lefroy,gAnthony . Tomlin', G. • .opeland, Alderman Legh, G. C. Trench, Sir F. W. orry, Right Hon. H Leslie, C. P. Trevor, Hon. R. , sourtenav, Viscount Liddel, H. T. 'lrollope, Sir John ' r tlte. W. Lincoln, Earl of . . Trotter, John 4artr, H. B. Lockhart, William . Tumor, Christopher Long: Walter • Tyrrell, Sir J ),,,r, D. o A rg S . Lowther, John H. Vane, Lord Harry y "Iron, EB. . Lyall. George Verner , Colonel I .) .r kinsoh. F. H. Lygon, Hon. Gen. Waddington. H. S. o cl cld. George 11`Geachy, F. A. Walsh, Sir J 1 t Zullias, Sir Howard Maclean D Welle ley, Lord C. e, 4 lllas, Sir C. E. WNeill , Duman Wilbraham, R. B. K.: ugi ss -. J . B . Main waring, T Wilde, Sir T. tu'o. Marquii of Mangles,Wilshere, W. .3),Wdeswell, W. Manners, Lord C. Wodeliouse, Eileen' ,runtenond, H. H. Manners, Lord J. Wood, Colonel e . ' ut ti Id, T. D. March, Earl of . Wood. Colonel T. bu ncomb e A. Marsh= 'V iscount Wortley, Jas. ,Du Pre, C. 16. Martin,. L. W . Worthy Hon. JohnS -..aton s B .J. Master, T. W. C. . Wyndham, Colonel tilerton,W. T. Masterman, John Yorke, Hon. E. T. Jelton, Sir P. Maxwell, Hon. J. P. Young, John ..,.'uot. Lord!' Meynell, Captain ' l3 ‘ l l'n Vi t I ,. Miles P. w: a . TEERS. c mt.. Bichkam Miles , William Fremant le, Sit T. r 4 rcourt, T. G. B. Mordaunt, sir J. Baring, H . ! r ellowes, Edward Morgan, Octavius YitIDAY, PEE. 2. ADDRESS ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD'S AMENDMENT. "„Alnentirnent proposed, to leave out the words, " that your .".aieSty is resolved to act in strict conformity with th e declare tl°,l made by pus Majesty at the close of the last session of i t irliament, of your firm determination to maintain inviolate the als Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ir eland, and o 0. • Question put, " That tho words proposed to be left out "wind part of the Address:" The House divided:— MAJORITY—AYES, 142. • lad, T. D. Glao, W. E. Miles, P. W. S. •ICourt, Capt. E. Go rd on ,i_, Captain Mitchell, 'l. A. tldetjey. C. R. Gore, Montague Morgan, Octavius Allis, John Peer Gore. W. R. 0. Morgsui, C. Antrebus, Ed mun d . Gisulburn, Henry A Napier, Sir Charles rbothnott Hugh • ' Graham, Sir James Newdegate, C. N Ar • o ▪ kvrright, • George Granger, T. C. Newport, Viscount 'talky j . . Nichol'. J. 13 '' if reenall, Peter tasilklieer.viltile:Vß. lc 'diet', Joseph, jun Greene, 'l'. Northland. Lord Grimsditch. T. O'Brien, A. Stafford Raiford, Henry Paget, Lord W. rieekett, Wam Hall, Sir Benjamin Patungton, John S. teil, Matthew Hamilton, J. Hans Feel. Sir !WW II k is e t ti nck. Lord G. Hamilton, OA. Peel, Jonathan """ e re, H. George Hamilton, W. J. Pluniptre, J. P. Borthwick, Peter Hamilton, LordClaud Potlington, Viscount B tn °- -eld Benah Hardinge, Sir H. Pollock. Sir Fred. „,13rOckletiurst. J. Hardy, John Pringle, Alexander asru e , Lord Ernest Hastie. A. Rashieigh, Wm. Buckley',c Edmund Heneage, G. W. Round, John eat_ Jobell, John H. Henley, J. W. llushbrooke, Colonel c"'"` h w ell, Edward Hepburn, Sir T. B. Russell, J. D. Watts -etnode Sir John Herbert, Hon. S. Scott, Hen. Francis Cliyt tin. i t. R. Hervey, Lord A. Shaw, trrderick Clerk, Sir G. Hodgson Richard Sibthorp, Colonel Clive, Viscount Holmes, ' W. A'Court Somerset, Lord G. Cochrane CO , Al ex. Hope, Clarke Stanley. Lord iropton, H. •Hope, G. W. Stewart. John ate, Colonel liornby, John Sutton, Hon. H. M. izote, Sir C. H. Hussey, Ambrose Tennent. J. L. e r r , . Hon. Henry Ingestre. Lord Thesigeri F. ' Lai W. . . Jerinyn, Earl Tollemachs. J. Trench. Sir F. h" Y. Georg*. - Joiline. Sir W. --.. s lelt inion F H. Jones, Captainj Turner C. . . Knatchhuil. Sir E. Vane, Lord H. Douglas, 'Be l nj ). ain s.. ln Lawson, Andrew Vesen Rm....T. Drummondugl'l H. H. . Lefroy Anthony Williams, W . Lf u .,, t ,, Nii. S. Lincoln , Rail of Wodehouse. Hon. E -"---'-' '1 ....4 ' Lockhat, William Wood, Colonel T. Duncan, .---- . Eliot, Lord - M'Geachy, F. A. Wortley, .1. tuart Escott, Bickhazn . Mackenzie, W. F. Wyndham Colonel Estcourt, T. G. 13, Maclean , ontld Yorke. E. T. Farnham, E. B. ' M i Neill Duncan Yorke, R. H. Flower, Sir James Manners, Lord J. Young, John Follett, Sir W. W. Martin, C. W. Flolliot, John Muter, 'l'. W. TSLLZIS. Forster, biatthew Masterman, John Fremantle Sir T. Fuller, A. E. Maxwell, J. P - Baring, H. B. Ortskell, J. AL Meynell, Captain • ' MINORITY-NOES, 3b. Barron, Sir Henry Feildes , I Seholefield, J. Bernal, Captain French, F. Scott, Robin biewitt Reginala Gibson, T. M. Stock, Sergeant bodkin , John James Gore, Robert Strickland, Sir O. nowring, Dr. Hume Joseph ' Tattered, H. W. Rr otherton, J. Langst i on, J. H. Villiers, Charles P. h e t t,, , feild, William Hunts, G. F. Wakley, Thomas Dl tti *. H. R. Murphy, F. S. Wallace, Robert Wito . Du i ,...' , . F. V. Murray.' A. Wood, B. D -- s't , ibe, T. S. Pattaondames Ei n V ; 3l . A.dmital Flumridge, Captain TRLLE U. .k.' r"'Nrone„ Howard Rawdon, J . D. Crawford, W. R I nonde, Sir L hoebuck, J. A. O'Conor Don WI LL of the LATE MR. THOMPSON, OF THE PRIORY, HAMPSTEAD. PREROGATIVE COURT, Fin. 2. LE DAS L. GREGORY. Pr, pre 4 deceased in this case was Mr. John Thompson, of the ` ) rY n , Hempstead, who died on the 6th of M w arc ll h, left B43 by , c 4, a widower. 11 question related to ou a i , dated March 5,' 1843, which was pro pou nded (there t u r n & no executor or residuary legatee p appointed p andtherein) wasobp y_ -rs ' Margaret Le Bas, a niece of the deceased, Posed by Mr. Barnard Gregory, in the character of executor, zi allued in an alleged will of the deceased, bearing date the dof February, 1843. The will in quest ion was contained ,tu three sheets of paper, in the handwriting of the . deceased, Tat in a very imperfect form. The first sheet contained onl y . v erY few lines; the second was full of writing, but crossed "tr, as if with the intention of cancelling; the third had t ill Y a few lines, and at the conclusion were the following o :--+' l, John Thompson, do declare this to be my.last rand testament. Witness my hand this sth of March, Signed and published by the above-name d Joh n Au - -Paen, in , our presence, Sarah inompson, fl' ar „ ln The names of these witnesses (who were servanti deceased) were written in pencil, as they stated, by the direction of the deceased. There was, moreover, a want of t „ °ll ,t4huity in the three sheets. The purport of the w . as t'„u r equeath various legacies, and amongst others 401. a 3 ear Le as;b u t .Irs. B .the residue was undisposed of; whereas, the will o f F e b ruary , th e res idue was given to Mr. Barnard Gr e g or 843 y,. who was wholly exclude d b y t h e w ill o f March, , as o r i g i na lly c ontained in the three sheets. The two tluscribin g witnesses proved that they witnessed the will, and r..tkinos Gann asolicitor, proved that he received from th dece ased,, the three sheets, which contained alterations, for the t L'lPuse of drawing thenc e ' a new will, one of the alterations , : It IEC the insertion of a legacy of 1001. to Mr . Barnard dceaerdGaadree ,l°l.Y. Bef ore th e new will was executed, h owev er, h Ted- Dlr. Gann in his examination, produced a letter from the Z c eased . , in a" which the latter informed him that he had mad . e L: he, : t w h i r il, ee .hi c h h a d been witnessed by his two servants in 'r a t, eil, " Is so that it could be altered," and Mr. Gann identified sheets of paper now produced as the papers which 'deceased delivered •to him as instructions for the new I , lr. Gann further stated that when he brought the that he -e w will to the heeddecased, Mr. Gregory was preser l i r t 'Gre gory, l 'ead it over to eceased in the presence of .3 . 411 ), d likewise gave, at the same time, one copy of t he ill to t . o read, an . d that the latter made no objection p rev l e o position, nor did he or the deceased advert to the Previous will ofFebruary. Af ter heaiin Curteis and Dr. Bayford in supgort will .of .ef. Mich, 1843, and Dr. Harding and Dr. R. rlicnou (9.position to the paper, 11°ir H. Jenner lust said, there were some circumstan ces in 14 cave which were very extraordinary. It, was clea 0 _ thieeflcts, that whatever might turn out to be the will f_ thi s as a pro ii "ceased, it was his intention to execute s'-i ni nal will, and to consult his solicitor abouting F eb ru ar y , new „/%,-•• Now, it would apear that on the 22d _ -*Y the deceased had had prepared and had which he had made a very different, _Wars tsi..tien of his property giving an annuity of 2001 : t o M as (instead of 40/. 1 , and the whole residue of his estate,. estpreuavrotio:nhecalftiptersonal, to Ir. B. Gregory, "in testimony of ex h a is . 0 4 t of .w h tu is . co N nd ow uc , t ;" and he appointed h im . sole 0 a it was extraordinary, in so ; Pace of time, that the deceased should have determin ?th ed rt _to a eke a perfectly different will, by which Mr. Gregor y had breY of i..attly 100/., and that only after a cminnunica o ty? r. we thisen caus the:ec w eas oe ed and his solicitor. According t c i r da ll , when he attended the deceased with the now will, lq dr awn from the three sheets, Mr. Gregory, the other party t the di spo , ye p t r i ese tw nt, aB and he nooaryobcjirecoumtione. tare t h at when he found himself. sit down for a legacy . ot ' 'n l Y. which had been inserted on the suggestion of Mr. the deceased had forgotten his friend Mr. Gregory, hoot When the deceased said, " Set him down for 100/.,"—it was _.sextraordinary that Mr. Gregory should have made no ervation at the time, and that not the slightest reference tr D ruid have been made, either by the deceased or Mr. Gre eiftY, tu a will executed only ten days before. He (the lieti judge) protested he could not understand this h u fl` e, and why that will should never have been the wreciel l eat4h3er°lne conversation. The identity of the papers ditliculty in the case ; another was as to the ection of the witnesses of the manner in which the will _,?seexecuted. But, according to the evidence, there were r testainexaary papers in existence, and he should not t.l_,Pose of this case till those papers-were brought in, which a ug a ht elucidate the present case, which he thought was not badstate d tpoabered.ispcNied of till there was some information be f ore th e Court as to whether or not there was any other tie He should defer his decision, therefore. • - that information. c, 11, ;' relax, JAN. 28.--Tier Maje s ty th e Q ueen h as b een dot e Dullettit ► e, ! tt "he‘l by quiet sleep in the night, and is now tonveleecent i no therefore, will tow Ire blued IRELAND. THE STATE TRIALS. SEVENTEENTH DAY. COURT OF QUEEN'S . BENCH. DUBLIN, FRIDAY, Fait. 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 o'clock. Mr. Whiteside rose to resume his speech. The 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 gallery 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 cannot 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 now, 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, and much dwelt upon by my friend, 'the Attorney- General, in his address to you. I apprehend it would astonish you very much if any of you were pre vented serving on this jury ou 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 submit 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'a 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 bound 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 compounding i of the dispute by accepting a compensa tion n the gross without entering into articles and items, which it yis 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 counsel 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 providad 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 the matter in dispute is under 201., the arbitration awards are relieved from stamp duty. The statute law recommends arbitration to be adopted wh ere it makes no positive enactment on the subject. (The Learned gentleman here referred to the Friendly Societies' Act, and several authoritiei 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 "lived 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 auy 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 my 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 the 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. Gentlemen, the next charge brought against the traversers is that of endeavouring to excite•disaffection and discontent 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 mainta:sed 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 e 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 be guilty of a crime so horrible and atrocious. It was the topic of general observation. Mr. O'Connell inci dentally, in the course of his speeches, made some allu sion to it; and a clergyman of the name of Power. also wrote a letter en the subject, which was published in the Pilot. Of that letter 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, I am aware there is not. What I meant to convey was, there is counsel here for the gentleman who is responsible for the publi cation of that letter. That letter may, perhaps, be fairly enough adduced in evidence against Mr. Barrett, but I deny that it can be adduced, in evidence against the other traversers; and what I complain of is, that the 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 it as his opinion, that sergeants ought to be more fre quently promoted to co mmissions. But, Gentlemen, were patience, i I t not couldth a ci t u l ote do y onotu extractswi s h to a v ;IT infinitum i o t l u nn t your works, written by officers in the army, in which the same doetrii.e is distinctly propounded. For my part, I pass no opinion upon the subject, but I cannot see , why theright of other parties to do E 9 should . be disputed. . r gii_Ny,:i . JD r Sifil6W, MONT) IN G. PE WRU A R 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, I at' 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 Mtn ; 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. Ihe publication of a song has been charged against him, and anything more monstrous than the manner in which that part of the charge i s 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 and 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,nwhich I • s T I i n el Attorneytak e the l G i tr o t which, I admit, su gges t ot h er cons id era ti o ns, y ral o p f ro bringing proposes o establish unde our 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 prejudice 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, whether 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. Duff'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. verdict on such grounds ? Gentlemen, it is not fair—it is not chivali ous—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 '9l, 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 Athenceum, 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 .Athenaum:—" 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 hast 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 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 au thor of the " Memory of the De a d." Let the Solicitor-General tell how the Government of England punished Mr. Moore for poems not a whit 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 -s uc h 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 Erinj 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 solicited to bring 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 therm 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 interests wire 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 hid shoulder, for it would not fit under any man's arni.—(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 war 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 he; 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 magnan imous people. I object to reviving 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 —to show the people the 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 of 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 fur. lie finds fault= with us fur 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 lreland—a very lucrati% e office. He sat in the House ..f Commons at the time, and hear what he says—" Posterity w ill 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 prerogative 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, I 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. Such a com • 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 ? Will 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 ist'-, but the United Irishmen. Nine out often 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 noprovision 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 fur 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 for 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, Gentlemen, 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 tot 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 times in this country, and hold her Imperial Parliament in it, ,which 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 saying 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 was 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 should be 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 wits 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 be conducted his argumeat, but they found their verdict of not guilty, and the Lord CH' Justice said he approved of their decision. Therefore, if Mr. O'Connell said her Majesty may dispense with the Ilouse 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 Parliainent, 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 theborough of Newark, and it was decidsd 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 the power to create 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 power of the Sovereign, and that learned writer says it is in the power of the Crown to create boroughs as they did before. Mr. Justice PEnem—What is the date of that work ? Mr. WUITESIDE—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. .Putfy wilt pardon me, for I'don't think he has read sufficiently on the subject—he adopted his opinions ? EENTH DAY , - DUBLIN, SATURDAY, FED. 3, ,The Court sat at the usual hour. .111 r. O'ConsaLL—My Lord, I respectfully submit to the Court, as the line of .observation which it will be my duty to take will not be precisely that taken by any other Counsel, and as I knovr:the materials Mr. M.Donongh 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 it your Lordships would hear me on Monday, and not call on me, this day. I can promise the Court that in what I have to say—and it is not much--I shall condense it still more, by , knowing I shall be called upon on Monday. , CitiEr JukricE—Certainly, Mr, O'Connell, we shall com ply wlih your application. I wish ,t 9 know whether Mr. Steele intends to address the Court ? Air. O'ColtszLL....No, my Lord. errors of their forefathers—and by the warning teach f Mr. M‘Dosoudsr* resumed his address—My Lords, the in. how to shun them. Let silence for ever cover—let dark- dulgence you are kind enough to l grant . will not be abused by ness hide them—let no hand withdraw the veil that con- j me, and I shall not prolong my at dress in censequenee. I beg leave,*Gentlemen of the Jury, to direct your attention to the teals them —or, if it touch them, let it be for a holy and imbibe useful purpose—to morality and pea , ..e from the evidence. The next meeting to which I shall call your atten lessons of the past. Gentlemen of the jury, I have no tion is the, meeting of the 6th of August, 1843 -the Ihltinglass ' meeting—and the witnesses named Godfrey, Twigs, Lenahan, more to say upon that part of the case. I admit that H ug h es , and T a yl o r, all constables of police. There inomee strong language has been used, and I regret it. The term thing in the evidence of Godfrey exceedingly suspic io us. This " Saxon" has been applied to Englishmen. Mr. O'Con- man was not ordered to take notes at all ; and when he was nell has entirely renounced it at the request of an questioned on that point, he hesitated for a long time before he English gentleman—l believe he borrowed it from gave an answer in the negative,' because he knew that Moore. Moore was wrong to have used it. Yet pro- the fact of , a policeman doing a, duty that he was not bably when the trials are over, if I elided upon the ordered to do was calculates] to excite surprise. In the Learned Gentleman (pointing to the Solicitor-General) I opening speech of the Attortei-Generel, he stated that one should find " MoOr e ' s M e l o di es ," and "The Irish Gentle_ person at the meeting .at BaltingliA I, was ~ heard to _say that Father Lalor told them in the chapel, It was too far gone man in Seaich of a Religion" upon his table—yet,perha , if he knew who knocked at the door he would, like the now; but they would get it, but not without bloodshed." That statement was made, of course, from the instructions re lady in the play, thrast one into a drawer, and put the ca l ve d b y t h e A t t orne y-G en e ra l ; yet that statement has not other under the table.—(Loud laughter.) The last . clocu- been sustained by evidence. The next witness was Henry ment to which I shall refer is, " The Morality of War," Twin. who took no notes at all, and he gave you some which the Attorney-General has dwelt upon so eloquently, expressions that fell from the crowd. * They said, - wait and translated with not a little freedom into "The: Mora- patiently fur two months. That this expression did not mean that lity of Rebellion." [After referring to that document - the the people should be quiet for two months before breaking out Learned Gentleman thus concluded his long speech] ::-- in disturbance, time has proved. He saw no inclination, on I will say that the true object of this unprecedented the part of the people, to riot or disturbence. The next wit nos - prosecution is to stifle the discussion of a great public...?, 14 Lenohan. This witness reported one sentence of Mr. O s-onnell's speeeh. He said he heard Mr. O'Connell tell 'the question. Reviewed in this light, all other considera- people that he was glad to see them there, and he hoped to see tions sink into insignificance ; its importance becomes them when he next came there. That produced great vas t indeed. A nation's rights are involved in the issue, laughter, and yet that hutnourous ex; re-sion is changed into a nation's liberties are at stake—that won—what pre- a sort of assignation to meet again for an outbreak and serves the precious privileges you possess? The ex- massacre. John Taylor. also a constable, and of the lowest ercise of the right of political discussion—free, uritratn. grade, is the next witness. He, not having taken any n ot es ,• melled, bold. The laws which wisdom framed—the i n . . affects to give one or two • short sentences of M r . &c ore . stitutions struck out by patriotism, learning, Or*genhis— nell's le spe s e t ch ; 's to ne h Lae s la: h se e m :ro e u i ld t get l r a e n p d e l a e l rd i s f the 'can they preserve the springs of freedom fresh and pure? r te e m " meted to prevent the people from coming to the meet .No ; destroy the right of free discussion, and you dry up ing p ; but still they did come, and if he wanted them the sources of freedom. By the same means by which your again they would come to him.' The object of Mr. O'Connell WAS liberties were won can they be increased or defended. to impress on the people union 'and perseverance. It was rne- Do not quarrel with the partial evils free discussion lancholy to reflect how Mr. O'Connell's meaning had been per creates, nor seek to contract the enjoyment of the verted. He would next refer to the testimony of Johnson, greatest privilege 'within the narrow limits timid men from Longford. The testimony of such men is naturally subject prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extrava- to.great suspicion; it was their trade—their duty—to seek out ganee, contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped for anything that would criminate a Repealer. Notwithstand on man. Free discussion aroused the human mind ing all their diligence, they could find nothing criminal—they from the torpor of ages—taught it to think, and c? e uld discover M _n_ o plot.• The Learned Counsel then read from n shook the thrones of ignorance and darkness. Free Eveningail of January 19, that which had been given in evidence. t The Learned Counsel, in support of his position, discussion gave to Europe the Reformation, which then quoted several passagei from the speech of Mr. O'Coo- I have been taught to believe the mightiest nell at the Tara meeting, to the effect that, althmigh the Act event in the' history of the human race—illuminated the of Union was really a nullity, yet, so long as it was'the law, world with the radient light of spiritual truth. May it it should be obeyed, and that its repeal should be sought by shine with steady and increasing splendour'. Free dis- peaceable . and constitutional means. He also read the speeches cussion gave to England the revolution, abolished tyran- of Mr. Boylan. Mr. Grattan, Mr. Smith O'Brien, and others, ny, swept away the montrous abuses it rears, and esta- to show that the same peaceable doctrines were held forth by blished the liberties under which we live. Free discus- them also. The next meeting Was held in Loughrea on sion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved the 10th of September, 1843. It was riot convened by the but purified our Constitution, reformed our laws, reduced Association, but was one of those springing out of our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence il ii rrtsi s t s io a n tie nd ed en a ti n r t e l ly it in t d s e o p h e s n e d rv elo e f !tat whenever t o m r h ee e ting to every portion of our political system. The spirit of ara no second witness is produced, not even a newspaper. inquiry it . creates has revealed the secrets of nature-- c r here is but one exception, that of the Mullaghmast meeting, explained the wonders of creation, teaching the know- where Mr. Hughes attended, and he, allow me to observe, is a ledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, science, fair specimen of a manly and an honest witness. But I will civilization, freedom, pure religion, are its noble show you that Mr. Ross's notes, by their own intrinsic evi realities. Would you undo the labours of science, ex- dente, are not to be relied on. 'Mr. Ross, with his topical tinguish.literature, stop the efforts of genius, restore notes—(Laughter)—he himself told you that Mr. - O'Connell ignorance, bigotry, barbarism—then put down free dis- did not mean to say what he read, fr:, his notes. Suppose cussion,. and you have accomplished all. Savage con- that man Rosa had died—suppose in that his notes could have querors, in the blindness of their ignorance, have scat- been made evidence, by their having been translated, be would have made Mr. O'Connell say what be himself swears Mr. tered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a great O'Connell did not say—that is. did not mean. He would have antiquity. Those who make war on the sacred put treason into Mr. O'Connell's mouth. Mr. Barrett slid net rights of free discussion, without their igno- attend that meeting ;in fact, be did not attend any meeting. ranee, imitate their fury. They may check the CHIEF JUSTICE—I think you are mis-stating, Mr. expression of some thought, which might, if uttered, I.l*Donough. redeem the liberties or increase the happiness of man. Mr. M‘Donoticin—No, my Lord, lam not; it is a fact The -insidious assailants of . this great prerogative of on which I intend to rely. 'Mr. Barrett did not attend d. aly intellectual beings, by the cover under which they ad- meeting in the open air; and his sole crime is for having dined vance, conceal the character of their assault upon the two or t o hreemes teith the Repeater s. ppotofhe ros e e x c P u e ti l o se n. Mr. liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the .sgsrstet got t obtain L evidencelnquiries were l n su instituted in ') all parts of the liberty to discuss—blame only its extravagance, pro- country, and the police were on the alert; they are seat -bounce hollow praises' on the value of freedom of speech, tered over the face of the land; they are to be found in and straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy every l hamlet in the country, watching the develope• it.' The open despot avows his object is to oppress or to anent of some treasonable act, but which they Signally failed enslave—resistance is certain to encounter his tyranny, to discover—for this plain reason, that it did not exist. and perhaps subvert it. Not so the artful assailant of a The next meeting was that at Mullaghmast, and the witnesses nation's rights—he declares friendship while he wages to that meeting are Mr. B. Hughes, his assistant Mr. Latham, war, and professes affection for the thing he hates.— Mr. Charles Ross, and Healy, the pol;ceman. They were not State prosecutions, if you believe them, are ever the examined at the same time. Hughes was called first, and fastest friends of freedom. They tell you peace is dis • Mealy in some days after. Mr. Hughes went openly ; he ap turbed,,order broken, by the excesses of turbulent and prised the parties that he came there to watch their proceed seditious demagogues. No doubt there might be a In i ft s ; g i ven was received with cordiality ;he an oth e e v r e ln a d, ei y h im o . e his no es. seeming peace—a deathlike stillness—by repressing the Mr. Ross was recognised ;as a person connected with and feelings and passions of men. So in the fairest portions representing a Liberal paper. who had been previously in of Europe this day, there is peace, and order, and troduced to the Association by a gentleman belonging to the 'submission, under paternal despotism, ecclesiastical Evening Post. He should, therefore, be regarded as a per su'td civil. That peace springs f rom t error , th a t son who was treated familiarly by those on the platform sebmission from ignorance, that silence from de- and in the pavilion, and ho had an opportunity of judging of 'spair. Who dares discuss, when with discus- their conduct and intentions, which Mr. Hughes might not siOn and by discussion tyranny must perish ? Corn- be supposed to have, who bad openly proclaimed himself as a • G p4re the stillness of despotism with the healthful ani- o l ve e r a nmen e t n reporter. Agai e zh e Healy w e as sent from th t e south , of nlation, the natural warmth, the bold language, the He r ie l i xn:ld with t d he was sele tse he was a s ranger. e people, an d d heard their expressions, and pikiud bearing, which spring from freedom and the what does he prove he heard them say, but to shout for consciousness of its possession. Which will you pre- the Queen and repeal of the Union? Every one of for ? Insult not the dignity of manhood by suppos- those witnesses concurred in characterising that meet ing that contentment of the heart can exist under ing as one of the most peaceable'-description and tendency. despotism. There may be degrees in its severity, and The witness Healy said that he saw temperance bands so degrees in the sufferings of its victims. Terrible the there, but not at all so numerous as at some of Father dangers which lurk beneath the calm surface of despotic Mathew's pr ocessions in the south of Ireland, where, on one power. The movements of the oppressed will at times occasion, he saw forty-five bands dressed, as Mr. Roes pro , disturb their tyrant's tranquillity, and warn him their day, terly called them, in fancy, dresses. Such was e meeting at ' lattendedthereinh . ' aghmast. Mr. 0 Centre I of vengeance or triumph may be nigh. But in these r h- o l b u e ll s, with several otherl aldermen and town-councillors Of happy countries, the very safety of the State consists in Dublin, and the first resolution proposed was a declaration of freedom of discussion. Partial evils in all systems of loyalty and attachment to the Queen. The Learned amuse] political government 'there must be ; but their worst then proceeded to read a variety of extracts from Mr. O'Con effects are obviated when their cause is sought for, • nell's speech on occasion of the Mullaghmast . Repeal demon discovered, considered, discussed. Milton has taught stration, and alluded especially to the ' circumstance of the a: great political truth, in language as instructive speaker having repudiated, in language Most distinct as his sublimest verse:—" For this is not the liberty and emphatic, the idea of the 'repeal movement which we can le pe, that no grievances ever should arise . being susceptible of any sectarian complexion. intended Wil-s fo a r national movement, which . was designated , . and in the commonwealth—that let -no man in this world the express benefit of all Irishmen, irrespective of political or expect ; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply religious considered, and speedily reformed—then is the utmost differences. The Learned Counsel read from the Freeman's Journal the report of Mr. Barrett's speech on thei bound of civil liberty . . obtained that wise men look for." occasion of the Mullaghmast demonstration. He would now Suffer the complaints of the Irish people to be freely come to the next meeting, which was intended to have taken heard. You want the power to have them speedily re- place—he alluded to the intended meeting at Clontarf, and he formed. Their case to-day may be yours to-morrow. would more particularly refer to the substituted meeting, which, Preserve the right of free discussion as you would cling was held at Calvert's Theatre, on the 9th of October. It vas to life. Combat error with argument, misrepresentation proved by Mr. relßoonnd Hughestthat a meeting was toan announced on by fact, falsehood with truth. " For who knows not," take _place at Clo n tarf, bu t t he even i ng previous . saith the same great writer, " Lord-Lieutenant, by the advice, of course, of his law ad to the Almighty. One needs no policies nor strata- visers, prohibiting that meeting. That was the first gems to make her victorious—these are the shifts interposition of the Government, and it was obeyed with a error uses against her power." •If this demand for a promptitude worthy of commendation. Well, the Clontarf native Parliament rest on a delusion, dispel that de- meeting did not take place, but the resolutions prepared for Clon lusion by the omnipotence of truth. Why do you love turf were approved of at the meeting on the following day in -+-why d o o th er n e tions honour England? Are you— Abbey-street, It was well that meeting was held, because it are they—dazzled by her naval or military glories, the evinced what the peaceable: objects of the intended Clontarf splendour of her literature, her sublime discoveries in meeting was. The first two resolutions adopted at the smence, her boundless wealth, her almost incredible Abbey-street meeting asserted the right of petitioning for No the repeal, and perfect allegiance to the Queen • the third was labours in every work of art and skill ? Isio ; a vote of -con - fidence in Mr. O'Connell, ' d the fourth You love her—you cling to England because she was to the effect that a petition be forwarded - tr the Houses of has been for ages past the seat of free discussion, and, Lords and Commons for a Repeal of the Legislative Union. therefore, the home of rational freedom, and the hope Mr. O'Connell ma de a spe ec h u p on th a t occasion, in which he of oppressed men throughout the world. Under' the said he had two objects ; one of which was to proclaim to Ire laws of England it is our happiness to live. They laud that there was but one way of obtaining the repeal, and breathe the spirit of liberty and reason. Emulate this that was by obedience to everything bearing the form of legal day the great virtues of Englishmen—their love of authority ; resistance was not right until legal 'authority was fairness—their immoveable independence, and the sense done away with, and the iron and dread hand of power was of justice rooted in their nature—these are the virtues raised against them. There were certain other charges sought which qualify jurors to decide the right of their to be made, and one of these was a short article, introducing a fellow-men. D eser t e d b these of what avail is report of a meeting which was held in America, and at which y , Mr. Tyler, the son of the President of America, attended. and the tribunal of a jury ? It is worthless as the made a speech. The sentiments made use of by Mr. Tyler human body when the living soul has fled. Prove to were absolutely attributed to Mr. Barrett. He proceeded to the accused, from whom, perchance, you widely differ read certain passages frets the speeches made at the meeting in opinion —whose liberties and fortunes are in your in America :—I shall now call your attention to the sth and hands—that you are there not to persecute, but to save. 6th Vic., entitled an Act to amend the law relating to defame. Believe me you will not secure the true interests of Eng- tor, libels. land by leaning too severely on your countrynien. They The SOLICITOR-GENZRAL—Iint not seditious libels. say to their English brethren, and with truth—We have Mr. M•Dorroueu—l sun speaking generally on the subjett,. been at your side whenever danger was to be faced The Learned Gentleman then read an extract front the Aet of or honour won—the s corc hi ng sun o f th e E a st and Parliament. the pestilence of the West we have endured to CHIEF .IUSTICE—Is that in Imperial Act? Mr. M‘Dorrouon—Yes, my Lord. spread your commerce—to - extend your empire—to Judge err — Extending to Ireland ?. uphold your glory. The bones of our countrymen Mr..M‘Dosouren—Yes, my Lord. The Solicitor-General whitened the fields of Portugal, of Spain, of suggests that a seditious libel is not referred to in that France. Fighting your battles they fell—in a nobler statute. This Act only just now occurred to me, and lam cause they could not. We have helped to gather your not prepared to say that be is not right, and from his greater imperishable laurels. We have helped to win you im- familiarity with the Act of Parliament, he may be so. But mortal triumphs. Now, in time of peace, we ask you to suppose the word " seditious" libel is not there, parties be restore that Parliament you pl an t e d h ere w i t h y our may indicted for conspiring to defame another just as laws and language, uprooted in a dismal period of our certain as if a conspiracy, by seditious papers, to effect a history, in the moment of our terror, our divisions, our h e e rt e a s i t n ah p li u s r h p e ose ; and insteadany precedent o i‘fat h e ri proseco n tor a , o i t f i t o h o is ofd fa ii weakness, it may be, our crime. Re-establish the Com- tins, indict a d , pa ra rt a Pfor a conspiiac n y g t7d a efame him.. It was mons on the broad foundation of the people's choice— the settled law of the land that when a man was accused of any replace the peerage, the Corinthian pillars of the offence, whether conspiracy, or anything else, it was absolutely capitol, secured and adorned with the strength necessary that the jury, before they returned a verdict of guilty, and splendour of the Crown—and let the Monarch should be satisfied that the evidence adduced, on the part of of England, as in ages. past, rule a brilliant and united the prosecution was such as to bring guilt home to him be empire• in solidity, magnificence , and power.- When goad the 'possibility of • doubt. Something. : had been said at the privilege of the English Parliament were invaded the commencement of the . present trial in allusion to the construction of the jury; but this was a topic upon which that people took the field, struck down the Ministry, be would not touch ; for he. would never utter a word that 1 and dragged their Sovereign to, the block. This could be by poisibility construed into an expression of doubt Prosecution is not essential for - ihe maintenance of on his part that the respectable and enlightened gentlemen .the authority and prerogaiyes of the Crown. Our who: he had the honour: to address, would discharge their duty gracious . Sovereign needs not State . prosecutions with fineness, propriety, and diScretion. If. they, had upon to secure her prerogatives or preserve her power. their minds any rational doubt of the alleged conspiracy She has the unbought loyalty of a chivalrous and having been substantially proved by the evidence that had gallant people. The• arm of authority she been adduced on behalf of the Crown, they should not—they requires not to raise. The glory of her gentle reign will could*not—find the traversers guilty. If the jury could, con. be—she will have ruled, not by the sword, but by the sistently with the . maxims of law, and the dictates of their affections ; that the true source of her power has been, own consciences, find a verdict of acquittal, he bad no doubt that that verdict would do more to attach the people of this not in terrors of the law, but in the hearts of her country td the administration of justice, and to convince them people. Your patience is exhausted. If I have spoken of the purity of the legal tribunals, than anything that had suitably to the subject, I have spoken as I could have occurred 'for centuries past. Those who advocate the repeal wished ; but if, as you may think, deficiently, I have are no despicable faction—they are the majority of the Irish spoken as, I could. .Do you, from what has been said, people. Whatever may be our speculations as to the result of and from the better arguments omitted, which may be your verdict, I cannot better conclude the observations I have well suggested by your manly understandings and your had occasion to make to you, than by-humbly imploring Pro honest hearts, give a verdict consistent with justice, vidence to lead your minds to a just conclusion. yet leaning to liberty—dictated by truth, yet inclining Mr. HENN, Q. C., then rose to address the Court for Mr.' Thomas Steele—lt was with unfeigned regret he felt himself to the side of accused men, struggling against the . . compelled to obtrude himself upon their notice at that stage of weight, and power, and in fl uence of the C rown, and pre- the proceedings. He was not himself aware, until a xerrshort Judice, more overwhelming still—a verdict undesired bY time previously, that the duty would devolve on him. He felt a' party, but to be applauded by the impartial monitor that everything that eloquence, wit, and sound reasoning could within your breasts, becoming the high spirit of' Irish do had been already done, and in the observations he should gentlemen, and the intrepid guardians of the rights and have to make, he would endeavour to abstain as much as pos. liberties of a free people. ‘Vhn Mr. Whiteside:con- sible from going over the same topics that had been dis eluded his address, which was listened to with intense cussed with so much more ability than he could approach attention,,he sat doWn amidst a burst of applause, which them with, and he should, if possible, introduce new the presence ofthe Court could not suppress. matter. He implored the jury to recollect that they Mr. MtllostouGH, Q.C., next addressed the jury, as were not now empanelled to try whether repeal was politic, counsel for Mr. Barrett, the proprietor-of the Pilot, but o w r h w et h h e e t r he t r he it d 7 s •o ( u ua ld be beneficial to this country or not, or sion of it be beneficial to this country or had not finished his speech when the Court rose. h re- not. He begged ' to impress that upon their minds, because ). lated to reports of speeches and comments on the diffe- he knew that at this moment there were hundreds out rent meetings which appeared in that paper; but, as far of that . Court who believed that that was the question they as we can judge from the introductory part, contained no were trying. He knew before they were empanelled that new arguments. , there were hundreds, aye, thousands of their fellow-citisens 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 bad not firmed 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 . &yer diet of " guilty ." He had heard it over and over aga .a in ey, sta ted and that was perfectly true. But he did not thi nk that this indictment charged nothing but . a nk co ti i:: as yet had been had heard it said that a conspiracy to point in question. They itself . . rat attention effect a criminal object. was a crime , called with sufficient accuracy to the il.a.d actual it also laid down that a conspiracy to effect a lawful obj ect by criminal mea ns was itself a crime. Now, be thought s tI It a W. - • - • - • oe for. all the fiurposes f this trial, they mighe- • f e s proposition in point of law, and then the simpl - flss-73 is that a conspiracy to do a criminal act is itself sqn that the. two propositions he had stated resolved tgentie ve r-J-LT into that one ; b ecause a .com bi nat i on to e ff ect a lagfßeVe l el r ' 170 pose, such as to . proeuret the repeal of an Act of Parliement, Was not itself a crime . ; knit if the parties combined to effect that by the commission of criminal acts then it was a crime. The question si m ply - was - not th e com bi n ati o n t o p rocn ie lawful effect, but the combination to use the criminal means. To use constitutional means was not a criminal stet, therefore that could not constitute a conspiracy ; it was cca binizig to do the, illegal act that constituted a consisiracy."'" He hoped the jury would keep - the fret strongly in mind, that there was no - principle in the law, as' laid &Sin, that a party could be guilty of a conspira c y, before i &ear proof of the fact • was established. There should 'be clear proof that the party conspiring--that tbe act sets' the act of all—and then it . might be given in evidence against all of them. 'With these opening observations he would call their attention to - the charges which had been preferred against t g ai o ns p t utig tb e et h ra t v ve. er r ae. go s ti s ; ou Tte e Cr owntri trial, and prosecrhy had' teorslavaleio put-thou on thought _ the-files of that Court a doctimenti in the form of an indictment,. which Might well be termed a monster indictment. It had vast Variety of charges set opt on the face of it, and also a vast variety of what com plain: was termed overt acts. He did not co plain:of what was put on the indictment, but he must say that the defendants were put to egreat 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 eat 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 it 'all ? lie would ask them, ' was it not a repeal of the union that' hey sought, and that they were not guilty of the charge Uttibuted to them at all Seeking fer a repeal of the union was the reel 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 be had put such a charge in the, indiettrient, it_, Would 'not" stand one moment in that Court, as it was, sto crime in law. You see the way it was raised by those .who framed the indictment. Instead of charging them with the. real fact, the Crown presecuters allege that the defendanti 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 ma they be warranted; On their oaths, •in convicting them of a combination or confederacy, and the crime of conspiracy to raise discontent and disaffection in the minds of her Majesty's subjects ? And inthis cese,,sup e pose one of thein did use illegal means to effect a repeal of the union, that would not affect the 'other traversers in :tile least degree. Why, the charge wu so preposterous, to vague, - and so absurd, when it was said that such would be a charge of conspiraiy. and a criminal offence, that' it really deserved : ,,, not the . least attention or consideration, for any person sam o i, what 'the real intent 'was, and how the alleged charge endea veered to evade it . A conspiracy to raise discontent l What was the meaning of that charge ? Was it to be supported in a Court of Justice that all free discussion was to he put down ? If so, there would be an end to all constitutional law. Was he to be gravely told that men were to be rut on their trial for a criminal offence. bemuse they bad 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 thit disaffection was ro use d among her Majesty's sub jects? Was there a charge of disaffection to the Queen, which, he would admit, was an offence? No. Was there , a charge of disaffection to the Government, or to the Constitu tioo ? No 'such ithing. No, it was among the liege, subjects ; of ber-Blajesty, and in a case of the present nature the charge shout m e plain and intelligible t o the commonest understand- e 'would ask, a ft er all th ey had heard from th o s e e l e -_, Oda tiers'Ons Who had . Preceded him, as to those meetings, -. way To the real object to convince the Government of the - • -Country as to 'what were the - real sentiments of the Irish people. ' ! lttr. O'Connell's whole. life belied 'the charge — that was al so . clear during the . Whale Tp!ogrese of.. that agitation which ended in the eucerresful issue of emancipation, and which proved to him 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 and 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 submit their disputes to their fellow-men, that that was calms laten to bring into disrepute the constituted Courts of the: laud. That was as absurd as to say that to make a complaint egotist thp 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 Attorney-General mainly rely? He said, " True it is these meetings were all very peseeabletrue it is there was no outbreak—true it is there was no indication of the slightest breach of the peace- but I say that • the object was different . from that prop ounded .' True it i s th at as yet,no mischief has ensued., :1 Why . Bemuse fortunately, I have put a stop to . agitation. knew. that 'there would be ad outbreak,end so by a Crown prosecution I prevent it." He 1 (Mr. Henn) recollected hearing of a Learned Gentleman once stating,. in addressing ;jury, " Gentlemen,. I smell 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 of Datiiel O'Connell, and he would not permit hira to stand there as his advocate, were he not now, on his past, t o r e p ea t the assertion. What was the charge preferred against - Mr. Steele. That of. making a certain speech on the 3rd of October, in 'which he seconded a certain resolution. The conclusions to which the counsel for the prossecution had come were as legitimate ea, any ever pronounced by the splendid Dogberry bimself.—(Laughter.) • Dogberry had been put into his (Mr. Henn's) mouth, by *bat 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 is play of Shake.. speare s called . MucAadoabout 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 Attonsey-General.— (Laughter. ) " Sedition," says the- milder Solicitor, a n d " black burglary," says Mr. hoirewster..l-(Great laughter. ) Having first determined on finding the traverser. guilty ef a seditious conspiracy, the scissors vreie put in requisition ; and by transplanting to this indictment, from the ephemeral pre.- ductions of the day,. the . speeches 'of the defearlants, itn rnortality was conferred upon them, - He could well con- - ceive with what feelings the clerk' employ e d on th e occas i on performed his duty. The recording angel certainly mast have blushed • when be gave it in-- - (Laiighter)—and monstrosity as well as the. eruel nature of the charge, Must have induced him, it he had the smallest. amount of sensibility, to shed a tear upon the occasion and .blot it put for ever.— . (Laughter.) The Learned Gentleman 'then observed, that as the preceding speakers had touched - upon every topic that required notice, he should net,trouble them much further by going over the same ground. He was convinced of their integrity and impartiality, and that by their verdict they would not raise the question Whether the trial by. jury—that palls,- diem of British liberty—Was only a vainglorious boast, but that'they would prove that there was not, on the f art o f th e whole earth. a country in which .a person would be more cer - taM of obtaining justice Ulan Ireland, and f rom a j ury of Irish Protestents, !dr. -Humes, on behalf of the junior bar; made a request to their Lordships, that as the space was not sufficient for theifae- .. commedation, they should have access to the gallery. He did not think it right-that the gallery should 'be confined to Olds* only who had tickets. - The junior bar were more particular in thisreeuest, as Mr. O'Connell was to speak on Monday. he Cis me JUSTICE said it appeared very reasonable that. the bar should have every accommodation which they. might procure. 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 like.; cadence certainly in the place appropriated fur the bar, pro vided they went there in their professional dress ; bat 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"ea there saw several Peers of the realm standing in the et titW . • J allotted to them. • 'lke Hrou Sneerer requested pertnissien to explain the rangements he had Made: The members of the bar bad, 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 Neis arid' their families, and there would •be a great number of them in attendance on Monday; and the directions he had given t o the' police were' net to allow barristers as such, in their professioual costume, to CI the gallery to the exclusion of the general public. The gentlemen : of the bar had a habit, be supposed a proper 'one , of asserting their privilegei by' going Wherever they liked when.they had their caps •and gowns on—(Laughter)—in fact, they seethed - to expect that wearing their caps and gowns— Cater J USTICE. =Their wigs and gowns.—( Laughter. ) , Hien .SIIIERUF—AII I, can say is, that I have had the greatest di ffi culty in 'keeping order among the gentlemen Of the j unior bar.--(Renewed laughter. ) -11e.r. Justice BuILTON expressed his opinion, consorting with the, regulations of the Sheriff. At. four o'clock the Court adjourned till ten on Monday morning. . DRITRY.q.AXE THEATRE.—The 'following high so ciety have visited this theatre within the last few days to see Richard the Third and - The Bohemian Gi r l 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, Marehloneet of Conyngham, Earl. and Countess of Wilton, Countess of Dunmore; Ladies Somerset; Carrington, Wharnclitle, Cecelia 'De Vaux, Lenfiard, Gardiner, Broke Vere, Caroline Cocks, Graham, Walker •, Viscount Hawarden, Earl of Errol ; Lords Hillsborough, Gifford, Torrington, .Alfred Paget; A. Fascia rence, Castlereagh, Manners, Stanley, Eliot, George Paget, Henry Lennox, Charles Wellesley, Soaliam,-Auckland, Wen- Duncannon ; Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart. ; General Sir Arthur Clifford, Bart.; Sir Thomas Lennard, Bart.; Sir Simon Clarke, Sir Thomas Gage, Bart. ; Colonel Wylds, General Meade,. Hon. Paul , Methuen, Hon. Miss Devaux, lion. Mrs. Scarlett, Count De Wenitta, Count Kielinanseggs, Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart.; lion. Mr: Griurstone, ecc.; &e, &C- Mr. Wilson has quite recovered from the attaok.of hoarseness under which he laboured .last Monday, and Iv y *, observe that he is to appear at head-quarters to-nightztn Music-hall. During last week Mr. Wilson gave hrn cetet. tertainmentof Mary, Queen' Scot., - at Itrirtl, and Cheltenham, with ' great success, crowded audiences greetifig him in those towns. ' CuLLOStrVoir.--The raillay works at this plVe , are proceeding with gre at rapidity-. Vie double rail is I down for a considerable is mnce westward - from the tovll: The buildiUgs-for the but little doubt o !Lion are progreising rapidly, and bt the opening of the line there' can . I.f . e - no!r Times. t l F,:ceter in April.— IP - este/ . Little did the Crown lawyers Trig s:TATE tl4y cotiimence4 their ill-starred prosecution, that to , entire terms would lie consumed; or of the pro now h*:oming violent, that it would no t b e t roug h t to a close ; for a fortnight after the present writing. Solos, iadeed, suppose that it will go on to AU Fool's-day,valga,tly designated the I§t of. April. We - confess, however, we arts not . of that ittanher—ltuntan efghirame- has its' limits. Even the Mt6rney=Getieiar Minot lleht out,—Widilis Evening Post,