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

IRELAND. THE STATE TRIALS. THIRTEENTH DAY. (FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS DUBLIN, MONDAY, JAN. 29, COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. THE QUEEN v. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. The Court sat at ten o'clock. The names of the tra v ersers and jury having been called over, they answered respectively to their names, with the exception of Mr Duffy, who appeared by his attorney, Mr. Gartlan. Mr. J. O'CoNsrELL rose and said—My Lord Chief Justice, something dropped from my Counsel in his ad mirable speech in ray behalf on Saturday, which I fear is calculated to create a serious apprehension in the mends of the jury with regard to me, and I therefore beg you will allow me to offer a few words in explanation. I wish to say, gentlemen of the jury, that I have always been the advocate, and always will be the advocate, of a full, entire, and perfect restoration of the legislative liberties of my country; therefore, I am not one of those of whom my counsel spoke as persons who would accept the occasional'or even annual visit of the Imperial Parlia ment to Dublin, or any measure short of that of which I speak. I don't know whether this will prejudice me in your minds, gentlemen of the jury, but, if it does, I would infinitely prefer it should prejudice me, rather than be supposed to compromise what I consider the inalienable right of our country to an independent Par liament.—(Applause.) Mr. Moore, Q.C., then rose and proceeded to say— My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am Counsel on behalf of one of the traversers—the Rev. Thomas Tier ney—and, gentlemen, it now becomes my duty, as the next Counsel in seniority to my friend Mr. Sheil, and in Asat right, and in that character alone, to lay before you the facts and circumstances of my client's case. Gentlemen, the facts and circumstances are such, that I do, with very respectful confidence, anticipate your ver dict of acquittal in favour of my client. Gentlemen of the jury, I very unfeignedly feel the great disadvantage that I must labour under in having to address you after the able and brilliant and eloquent display of my friend Mr. Shed. If that disadvantage was to be merely per sonal—if it could not in the slightest degree affect my client—it would not be deserving of one second's consi deration. And though, gentlemen, I must acknowledge my perfect inability either to arouse you by wit, or delight you by eloquence, as my Learned Friend did—although I must acknowledge my inability to address to you one of those affecting appeals that ho made to you ; yet, I confidently hope that you will exend to me while I am laying before you the facts of my client's case the same patience, and the same attention, which I have observed you invariably to bestow on every branch, and every feature of this most important case. Gentlemen of the jury, there is one observation that was used by the Attorney-General in his opening statement in which I fully concur, and from which I think no man could dissent. He told you, gentlemen, that this was a momentous case. He might have added, that it comes before you under momentous circumstances, and in momentous times ; and, certainly, gentlemen, when we consider the great and important ekuestion—l mean the Repeal of the Union—out of which this prosecution has undeniably arisen ; when we con sider the deep and all-pervading interest that that ques tion has excited through every part of Ireland, from one end to the other ; when we consider that hundreds of thousands--I may say millions--of your countrymen have unequivocally, but peaceably, expressed their opinion in favour of that measure; when we consider that one of the traversers at the bar is a gentleman pos sessing the unlimited confidence of those millions, exer cising and possessing a greater degree of moral influence over the minds of his countrymen than any individual ever possessed before over the minds of a free people, in a free country ; when we find that man brought to the bar of this Court, and branded, or sought to be branded, with the crime of conspiracy ; when we consider that in every part of this country there is the most feverish and restless anxiety with regard to the result of your ver • diet, the Attorney-General may well, indeed, say, that this is a momentous case. Gentlemen of the jury, I cannot concur with the Attorney-General in thinking. that the prosecution whish he has instituted is one that, either in its circumstances, in its nature, or in its conduct, is calculated for this momentous case. The Attor ney-General, gentlemen, has not condescended to tell you what were his motives in instituting this prose cution—he has not explained to you what were the be nefits he expected to result from it. He would, perhaps, have told you his object was to bring to justice a person who violated the law ; but, if such should b e hi s mo ti ve, I will be able presently to show to him, and, I hope, to you, that there never was a case less adapted for that purpose than the present prosecution. If the Attorney- General expected that the effect of this prosecution would be to allay that feeling of irritation and animosity that subsist throughout the land, never was there a more unfortunate expedient devised or resorted to than the prosecution. No man can shut his eyes to this fact. From first to last of this prosecution—from its original institution down to the moment I am addressing you, the conduct of the prosecutor and the Attorney- General was such as to create a greater degree of bitterness and animosity than ever existed in this country before. Is it the expectation of the Attor nay-General that the effect of this prosecution is to put down the discussion of the repeal of the union ? Is that the hope or expectation of the Go vernment that he serves? Gentlemen, if that be what he expects to result from it, I must confess, that in my judgment, a more empty or idle chimera never crossed the mind of an Attorney-General. The At torney-General has entered into an argument on the question of the repeal of the union. I do not mean to follow his example. He has held out to you what he considers to be strong grounds to make you believe that it was impracticable and unattainable. If the repeal of the union—that important question which now per vades in its interest every portion of this land—if that question be so destitute of merits as the Attorney-Ge neral wishes to represent to you—if it be so imprac ticable and unattainable as he wishes to represent to you, gentlemen, that question does not want the aid of prosecution to put it down. If it be so destitute of merits as he would make you believe, that ques tion must speedily fall by its own weakness—it, on the other hand, that question has merits, and those merits that hundreds, and thousands, and millions of your countrymen are of opinion it possesses, how idle the hope or expectation to crush it by the prosecu tion of an Attorney-General ! On that great question I mean to intimate or express no opinion of my own ; but this I will say, without any hesitation, that let the merits or demerits be what they may, I trust the time never will arrive when it will be in the power of any Attorney- General, or in th e p ower o f any Government, to crush or stifle the discussion of any great public measure. Gen tlemen of the jury, it appears to me to be of importance in this question that you should very distinctly carry in your minds the nature of the charge that is preferred against the traversers at the bar. That charge is con fined to a single one, and that is the charge of conspiracy. I beg you to carry in your recollection that there is no indictment against any one of the traversers for having attended an unlawful meeting. There is no indictment against any of the traversers for having put forward to the world a seditious publication ; but the single -charge that is brought and preferred against the traversers at your bar is, that they are guilty of con spiracy. How, gentlemen, is that conspiracy sought to be made out? By the allegation that there were meet ings that were unlawful attended by some of the tra versers—by the allegation that seditious speeches were spoken and published. But does it not at once occur to you that if the object of the Attorney-General was to bring to justice those who, in his opinion, violated the law, that there was the most easy, and simple, and ob vious, and direct course for him to take, if the meet ings of which you heard so much in detail were un lawful? If they are unlawful now, they must have been unlawful at the time they took place. If those speeches are seditious now, they must have been se ditious when they were uttered ; and how, then, does it happen that those meetings took place for a period nine months? Those speeches were uttered from day to day, and almost from hour to hour, during that period of time—how does it happen that the Attor ney-General never yet ventured to prefer an indict ment against any one of the individuals that attended those assemblies, that he seeks now to brand as un lawful? or institute a prosecution against any one in dividual that uttered those speeches that he now tells you are seditious and unlawful? On behalf of my client in particular, and on behalf of all the traversers, I have strong reason to complain of the course taken by the Attorney-General. It is attempted to make one man responsible for the acts and conduct of another. If he says ,those meetings are illegal, or the speeches sedi tious, what is more easy than for him to indict any one that attended them or uttered those speeches? Let me take, for instance, Mr. O'Connell. Suppose he indicted him for having attended an unlawful meeting, could any thing be more simple or easy than the proceedings on the part of the Attorney-General? That the meetings took place, and that Mr. O'Connell attended them, is undeniable. The material and important facts of the case are established to the hand of the Attorney-Gene ral ; and, if the meetings were unlawful, as he alleges they are, he had nothing to do but to brand the character of those meetings which took place, and satisfy the Court that they were unlawful, and in that way brought the matter to issue in a single moment, and at a single point. But have 1 not reason to complain, on the part of my client, of the course which has been adopted by the law officers of . the Cro wn i n the present unprecedented prosecu- Nous? The Attorney -General has abandoned the ease, itr:less, unencumbered course which was open to him to h a ve adopted—the course which I have described to you as .the simplest and ,most obvious that could have been pursued by him, lie flings all the traversers headlong into one indictment —he entangles them, one prosecution and all, within the mesh es of acon spiracy; for and alth oug h i t has appeared in evidence that my client never was in connexion with any of the t ra versers until the thi r d o f October, after all the monster meetings had cea se d, h e endeavoursnnotwdithl standing, to make him resp ons ibl e for all antec ' ac ts of men with whom it was impossible e tha t t be could have acted in concert. H e seeks to visit him With the consequences of meetings which he never attended ; of speeches which he never listened to , and of publications which he nev er rea d ! Is this; fair ? Is this candid ? Is this ingenuous ? The At torney-General lies in ambuscade for months—he then suddenly rushes at, and avails himself of, the peculiar doctrines of the law as regards the crime of conspiracy. Contrary to the principles of justice, which delare that a man is only to be made accountable for his own works and his own acts, he endeavours to hold my client responsible for the thoughts, the words, and the actions of other melt ! My Lords, and Gentlemen of the jury in my humble judgment, a public prosecutor, and more especially one who holds the high and dignified position of an Attorney-General—the first law officer of her Ma jesty—has no right to abandon the direct and obvious path which lies before him, and to adopt the tor tuous and complicated course of a prosecution for conspiracy, with a view to implicate one man in the acts and designs of others; and in adopting such a course of proceeding I have no hesitation in charac terising his conduct as equally unfair, oppres sive, and unjust. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General took up all the meetings seriatim. He began with them according to their dates, and gradually came down to the latest of them; and he assured you, in emphatic language, that they were one and all illegal. He read far you a number of speeches which were delivered at meetings, which he declared were seditious ; and he also directed your attention to certain extracts from articles which ac t a e r i red a red a s i i l n l e g n a e l w ; s P b a u P t e , r g s 'e n ana t ena e w n hi , c i it chhe certainly likewised id s a t p a p t e e a m r e t n o t st o you, u was met that t e mostA ttorney-Generalw gy d most unconsciously, it unwittingly, n i n l m k a i n ng these ost unconsciously, pronouncing the severest philippic that it was possible for the mind of man to conceive, against hinseelf and the Government that he serves. For, gentlemen, am I not entitled to view this matter in the calm light of common sense ? Am I not entitled to ask a question which presses itself irresistibly on the mind of every man who dispassionately regards the con duct of the Crown prosecutors in the present extraor dinary proceedings? Those meetings lasted for nine months—if they were, indeed, illegal—if it was, in deed, true, that the people were lured into outraging the law of the country—if language of a seditious character was indeed uttered by the Repeal leaders from day to day, and from hour to hour—how, I ask, can the Attor ney-General reconcile it to his own conscience —how, I ask, can he reconcile it to the duty which he owes to the country and to the Government whose servant he is, that for such a length of time he should have ut terly neglected the great and paramount business of his office—the bringing to justice those who violate the law and the constitution? Did he lie designedly by, in order that crime might accumulate, and that, when at length he shook off his lethargy, he might be able to encompass whole masses of cri minals within the meshes of the law ? Was this, I ask, his object ? Was this the object of the Government whose officer he boasts to be? Gentlemen, it is the obvious duty of a Government to bring to punishment those who violate the law ; but, gentlemen, they have a yet more important duty to perform—a duty with the due performance of which the best interests of the common weal are yet more inseparably identified, and that duty consists in preventing the commission of crime; and if it was the deliberate opinion of the At torney-General that the meetings were illegal—and if he declared that opinion to the Government, and if the Go vernment felt that the meetings were illegal, and the speeches seditious—if, I say, they knew all this, and knowing all' this, lay designedly by in ambuscade while they saw crime committed—while they saw the infatuated people rushing in masses into the perpetration of crime—if this, I repeat, was their design, I have no hesitation in branding such a design, on the part of any Goveroment, as an act of the greatest—the blackest—the most unparalleled baseness. What! Look calmly on while they saw the people rushing by thousands into the comnaiksion of crime ! Was it their design to look calmly on with folded arms till they had a whole nation within their meshes, in order that the Attorney-General might then pick and choose such of the criminals as he pleased, and immolate what victims he liked upon the altar of the law ? But, my Lords and gentlemen, let me not be mis understood—let no man say that I impute any such design to the Government. Far be it from me to bring any such charge against them ; but I must say that the speech of the Attorney-General, and the fact of the Government having lain by for such a length of time. afford ground for making some charge against some quarter. I, for my part, do not make any such charge against the Government—l impute to them no such design—nor is anything more remote from my thoughts than the desire of attributing so nefarious an intention to the Attorney-General (for nefarious it would, indeed, have been, had it been entertained). I cannot bring myself to believe that any Government in these countries, whether composed of men who are, po litically speaking, my friends or my antagonists, could be guilty of baseness so execrable—so detestable. No, I impute no such crime to them. I know that there are members of the Government (with two of them I am in timately acquainted) who are men of the highest ho nour, of the most unimpeachable integrity—men who would fling their high places indignantly to the winds before they would stoop to such a course. I, therefore, do not impute to the Government any misconduct—l do not even charge them with a criminal negligence. Their conduct may be f a i r ly a tt r ib ute d to another cause; and I this I will at once proceed to demonstrate. It is a fair principle of charity for one man to extend to wards his fellow, that when you can find a good mo tive to which to refer the conduct of your neighbour, it is to that pure motive, and not to any sinister design, that his actions ought to be attributed. I willingly concede the benefit of this virtuous maxim to the Go vernment ; but may I not be pardoned if I respectfully insist on the application of the same principle to the case of my client ? The honest conviction of my soul is, that although the Attorney-General has at length brought his courage to the sticking-place, although he now enters Court with an undismayed front, and declares that the meetings were illegal, he never yet felt himself so stron g in that position as to v en t ure t o b r i ng i t single handed under the consideration of any court or any jury. Let the result of the present prosecutions be what it may, it is still open for the Attorney-Geni , ral to adopt this course. Let him select any of the meetings he pleases ; let hi m b r i ng i nto t h e C ourt o f Queen's Bench any or all of the persons who attended that meeting, and let him f try the ques tion fairly, and take the opinion of a jar- , as to whether the meeting was or was not that had been done, we co u ld no t b e i n th e dark"—we could clearly see our way ; but that has not been don'', The cause, I think, is obvious. The Attorney-General was a lawyer, and he could not tell the Government that the meetings were illegal. I have no doubt but thet, in the conscien tious discharge of his public duty, he would have at once pressed upon the Government the illegality of the meetings, if his mind had been made up on that ille gality. If he had a deep-seated conviction that the meetings were against the law, he surely would have lost no time in declaring that conviction to the Government—that he could not bear to look upon such practices as were of daily recurrence in this country—that he could not bear to see men rushing in thousands into the commission of crime—and that he accordingly thought that his duty imperatively demanded that he should institute prosecutions to put the meetings down. But it is my firm belief that the Attorney-General, not being able to reconcile the alleged illegality of the meetings with his own know ledge of law, was never prepared to go to such lengths— he could not sanction any such proceeding, and this is the reason why the meetings were permitted to go on without interruption for nine months consecutively. What is the use I make of this fact ?It is this—if the Attorney-General was doubtful in his own mind that any violation of the law had been committed—if ho was not during nine months able to bring himself to the con clusion that the meetings were illegal, is he now to be permitted to come into Court and to require a jury to as sert their illegality, after thousands and hundreds of thou sands have attended the meetings, in the full conviction that in so doing they were violating no law, is he now to come forward and include millions of Irishmen in the charge of having been guilty of illegal practices? He could not make up his own mind that the meetings were illegal, and yet he calls upon twelve men to assert their illegality. Whenever you find an Attorney-General abandoning the obvious and easy course which lies be fore him, in order to adopt a tortuous and complicated one, you ought not, nor ought any jury, to lend him as sistance in carrying out such a project. The Attorney- General having gone seriatim through all the meetings, came at length to the contemplated meeting of the Bth of October, at Clontarf, and never did I experience a greater degree of surprise th an i n h ear i ng hi m as sert that the intended meeting was abandoned from a conviction of its illegality. I am sure the At torney-General entertained that opinion or lie would not have expressed it ; but I am equally certain there is not another individual in the community, who knows anything of the facts and circumstances relating to that meeting, that for a moment thinks that the cause of its abandonment was from any conviction of its ille gality. Does the Attorney-General forget, or does. he expect that the people of this country will forget, the ex ' traordinary circumstances which occurred with regard to that meeting ? Does he forget the almost breathless haste and precipitancy with which the Lord Lieutenant ' came over to this country, on the day, or the day but one before that meeting? Does he forget that far-famed proclamation, issued the night preceding the day on which the meeting was to have been held, or does he forget the exertions that were made on the part of the Govern ment to suppress, to put down that meeting by the force of the sword, the bayonet, and the cannon? And does the Attorney-General after all that pretend to express to you his opinion that that meeting was abandoned on account of its illegality ? No, gentlemen of the jury, that was not the cause of its abandonment. I am not finding fault with the Government for its interference with those proceedings. I adi unacquainted with the circumstances under which that proclamation issued, and I will not impute any blame where I am unacquaint ed with the facts ; but I must again declare that it was through no conviction of its illegality that meeting was abandoned. To what then was it owing ? To the act of one of the traversers at your bar—to his strong sense of justice, and to his strong feelings of humanity. The abandonment of that meeting was owing to the sense which that gentleman entertained of his high duties as an honest citizen. He knew the fearful consequences that might have resulted had that meeting taken place ; and picture to yourselves for a moment what might have happened had it been gone on with. How does the matter stand ? On the one side were the armed batta lions of Britain, under the direction of their most expe rienced leaders—armed with every weapon of defence, and of offence, and ready to act in obedience to the commands of those leaders, and to do whatever they !nigh tthink right. On the other side, you had an unarmed and defenceless . multitude. Gentlemen, had a collision under such circumstances taken place, had the slightest angry word been said which might have provoked it—had even an accident occurred which might lead to it—you would have had the armed battalions of this country, in the full plenitude of their strength, arrayed against the un armed, helpless and, I may add, defenoeless m u ltit u d e . It is really frightful to contempktte what the conse quencesght have b een ; an d t h e pla i ns of Clontarf, utfor the exerti ons o f M r. O'Connell, might have been a_secon time delu ge d w i t h the blood of his countrym en . Mr. O'Connell stopped that meeting, not, as I said, be cause he considered it illegal, but have resulted, h e f oresaw t h e judgmentfearfuleon h se e e e n n e t e i thats tlea t is i the nih warm ave gratitu e an o d f i e n v lny y friend of humanity for hi s conduct on that occasion; antdr-I N, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, .JANUARY 31, 1844. will further add, that there is not an individual in the com munity who owes him a deeper debt of gratitude than the Attorney-General himself. Gentlemen of the jury, 1 I hesitate not to say, that if I were to select the act of Mr. O'Connell's life which, in my judgment, was most deserving of praise—that act of his which I would most wish to send down to posterity—l would not select his great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci pation, or the consummation of that groat measure by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all his countrymen ; but I would select his conduct on the occasion of this Clontarf meeting as doing most honour to his feelings, most credit to his humanity, and by which he saved the country from the dreadful consequences of a collision, which it was only owing to his exertions did no t take place. Gentlemen of the jury, let me now advert for one moment to the nature of the charges preferred against the traversers in this indictment. They are charged, in the language of the indictment, with combining, and conspiring, and confederating together, for the several purposes, for the bad and atrocious purposes I acknow ledge, but which, I think, are unjustly and untruly at tributed to them, in that indictment. If you separate the charge of combination and conspiracy from the high sounding phraseology given to it in that indictment, you will find that a conspiracy, in point of law, is nothing more nor less than this--an agreement between two or more persons, either to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means. The very instant that agree ment is entered into the crime is complete; and if a man once agrees to do an illegal act, he may be put on his trial for conspiracy the very hour and moment he en tered into that agreement. It is not necessary that there should be any act done, or any outrage committed, for the ofFence arose when the agreement was entered into; and therefore, before you can convict my client, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, or any other of the traversers, you must be satisfied in your own minds, from the evidence you have heard, that they did enter into an agreement for the purposes stated in that indictment. Gentlemen, on the part of the Rev. Thomas Tierney, I controvert the assertion altogether. I deny that any such agreement was entered into by any of the traversers. I dispute altogether the facts of the charge of any such agree ment or conspiracy, and I also dispute that if any such agreement or conspiracy ever did exist, which I deny, that you have any one particle of evidence on which it would be possible for you to say, in justice to yourselves, or to your conscieaces, that my client, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, was in any manner implicated. Gentlemen, let me ask you this plain and simple question—hare you even the shadow of legal evidence that he ever did enter into such an agreement? Whoever heard him, or any of them, say that there was such an agree ment entered into ? There is no evidence of any such thing. I do not mean to say that it is abso lutely necessary that you should have direct evidence to that effect; the charge may be made out without the pro duction of direct and positive testimony; but what tes timony of any kind have you upon which you could say that this agreement which would constitute a conspiracy only took place. He the Attorney-General, ventured to suggest a period at which this alleged agreement took place. He lays before you a period of nine months over which these proceedings extended. Did it take place before the first, or second, or third, of those meetings, or when did it take place ? You have got the full period of nine months, and it is left to you to pick out whatever period you please on the date of the existence of the alleged conspiracy. He has not told you even where the agreement took place. The meetings were held in every part of Ireland. Did the agreement take place in the north or in the south, in the east or in the west? Is there a single item in the evidence which would fix it as having taken place at any time ? The Attorney- General read to you in evidence innumerable speeches and publications, an extract out of this, and out of the other newspaper, and he flings them all into the jury box, and calls on you, as you best can, to construct a conspiracy out of them. I trust you will never do it, when you recollect that the Attorney-General had a plain course before him to vindicate the law, and when he might have indicted every one of those traversers, within the period after that agreement had been entered into, in a less time than it took him to address you ; and. therefore, I am sure you will not aid him in ex tracting from this heap of extracts the materials of a conspiracy against my client. Gentlemen of the jury, my Learned Friend, Mr. Sheil, called your attention to the indictment in this case, and he de scribed it, as I think he well might have done, as a " monster indictment." It has been called so with pe culiar propriety. It is in accordance with the expres sions of the Attorney-General himself, for I think I heard him use the word at least a hundred times in the coarse of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will call it what I think it deserves to be called—a mon ctrous indictment—for I do not believe a precedent for it is to be found in the records of our Criminal Courts. It is truly a monster, and it well deserves to be put down as the Frankenstein of the imagination of her Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland. Is it not a monstrous indictment ? You have an accumulation of meetings of speeches, and of publications, and from them all the Attorney-Ge neral asks you to extract the material which would substantiate a charge of combination and conspiracy. Gentlemen, you have seen,but we have not heard the in dictment in question read over by the Attorney-General; I don't say it would afford you much pleasure to have heard it read : you may think it necessary, in the dis charge of your important duty to read it ; but if you had heard it read over twenty times over, and that you even had the memory of a Paschal, you would be puzzled with the multitude of matter relative to facts contained in it. It was in this case, as in all others of the kind, it being a principle of all criminal cases that the jury are called on to take into their considera tion all the facts of the case ; and I ask you by what power of unnatural reasoning are you called on to extract facts from the indictment which it does not contain ? The Attorney-General wishes you to extract from it that which you cannot do. It was publicly known that the indictment was pre pared and sent before the grand jury, and every person was aware that that respectable body of gentle men were occupied in the consideration of it for several days: to be sure they ultimately found the bill, but it was notorious, as one of them stated in the box, that they were not unanimous in the finding of that bill. The duty of the grand jury was to read over the indictment, and it took them several days to get through it, and before they had made up their minds on the subject, and even then on their oaths they could not come to an unanimous conclusion. Well, several days were taken up by the grand jury in considering the bill, and then the Attorney-General comes to state the case to you; and he occupies you no less than eleven hours in doing so. We all know the power of the Attorney- General—we are all aware of the talent he possesses (suppressed laughter in court) ; and yet, with all his ability, talent, and sententious brevity, and concentrated condensation, he could not get over the case in less than eleven hours. What more did the Learned Attorney- General do After making a long speech of eleven hours, what time did he take up to produce his proofs of the terrible conspiracy which he led them to believe had been hatched by the traversers at the bar ? He took eight long days, of from seven to eight hours each day, to lay his proofs of the charge before you. You have eleven hours of a speech, eight days taken up in proving the case, and if yop now take up the indictment and have it read, it will cost you several weeks' labour to do so, and I am bound to say at the end of that time that you will not understand it better than you do at the present moment. The Attorney-General, after his speech of eleven hours and his proofs of eight days durations, after laying his mass of facts before you, is satisfied that there is a constructive conspiracy made out against the traversers, and he then tells you you have a right to come to the same conclusion, namely, that because he is satisfied that there is a case of constructive conspiracy made out against them that you ought to come to the same conclusion. There never was a more dangerous doctrine than theAoc trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of it. There was now an effort made to charge the de fendants with constructive conspiracy, and to satisfy you that there was an agreement entered into be tween the traversers to commit the offence with which they stand charged. There were various attempts of the present nature made in England, in order to charge parties with constructive conspiracy, but they failed. There was the case of Hardy, tried in 1794, which was a case of alleged high treason, and where the overt act was constructive conspiracy. , Tho mode of proceeding in that and the present case was the same, and that case was the precedent for the present Attorney -General. He founded a case on it, and carried out the details in the same manner as they had been carried out in that case. The then Attorney-General produced evidence of a number of meetings, a large quantity of publications, extracts from speeches, and the like, and from this precedent the present Attorney-General proceeds to do the same. The case I allude to at last came before an English jury—a jury who were ready at all times to punish any man who violated the law ; but the English jury in that case had no hesitation in saying :that they could not find a party guilty of constructive conspiracy, as it was not their business to put a construction on the man's ac tions. The same thing took place in the case of Horne Tooke as in the case of Hardy, and a like result was come to in the case of Hunt. In all those cases the juries came to the conclusion that they would not be act ing fairly, or conscientiously, or constitutionally, by put ting a constructive conspiracy on the party charged. I trust you will imitate the example set by those persons, and, although I am sure you are always ready to bring to justice all parties who may violate the law, yet I am sure you will not, on your oaths, come to the conclusion which the At torney-General has arrived at, and that is a con stniciive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew the fact, and why did not he go by that ease ? Had he produced any respectable person on the table to prove that an agreement or conspiracy existed between the parties; and are you to assiftnss and adopt that assumption, that such was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact was Blear ; and, therefore, you must come to the con clusion that there was not, and return a verdict of acquittal on that point. I will now come to the second branch of the case as regards my client, and there is not, I am bound to say, the slightest ground for charging him with con spiracy, if such a thing as a conspiracy e►er existed at all, but I deny that there was any such thing. It is necessary for me to tell you who my client is. He is the Roman Catholic priest of the parish of Clontibret, in the county of Monaghan. Ho is a gentleman of the most exemplary character, both as a private individual and a Christian clergyman. He had filled the office of clergy ' man to that parish for several years, and was highly re spected. He was an educated man, and a man who had read and studied the history of his country. I say it is no imputation either to his character as a gentle man, or a clergyman, to have read, studied, and formed opinions relative to his country and her wrongs. Every man has a right to form his own political opinions, and my client has no right to be charged with a crime for having done so. Mr. Tierney is a man of talent, and deeply interested in the welfare of his country, and, as such, he had read about, and formed his opinions on, the union. Whether these opinions were right or wrong, he had come to the conclusion that the union was a measure fraught with disastrous conse quences to this country, and the question was, is he right or not? You may differ with him in political sentiments, and in the view he takes of the question, but still you cannot shut your eyes -to the facts which I state, and which cannot be contradicted. Does any man attempt to tell me, or to say my client had not a right to form his opinions and speak his sentiments on the sub ject of the Act of Union ? Is there anything in the Act of Union to put a stop to such free discussion ? No, there is not ; and it should also be recollected that the Act of Union was an Act the same as any other Act of Parliament, and could be repealed or altered in the same manner. Mr. Tierney had a right to enjoy his opinions on this point, and he also had a right to express his sentiments relative to that measure. Is there any man who will tell me he has not a right to his opinions ? It was the right of every man to speak out openly and fairly what he felt to be his honest convic tion; and it was, moreover, his duty as a good citizen to do so. Every honest Irishman who has brought his mind to the honest conviction that any measure has been injurious, is bound by every principle to do away with it by honest and legitimate means ; and if a man honestly believe that the union has sacrificed the independence and prosperity of Ireland, he is bound to use all legitimate means to set it aside. I am not now using any argument for or against that measure. It is not my province or yours to do that ; but I say every man ought to act up to his own honest convictions. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General, in order to make you doubtful of the sincerity of those who advocate a repeal of the union, took a line of argu ment which is often resorted to in trials, and he re ferred to the opinions of Bushe, and Plunket, and Saurin, which he knew would be resorted to by counsel for the traversers. And why should they not resort to them ? Where are the Irish people to resort for wisdom if not to luminaries such as these ? I will not trouble you by reading the opinions of those eminent men ; but if any person compares their language with the language used by any of the traversers, eloquent and strong as it has frequently been, it will fall short of the lang;nage of those eminent individuals. Gentlemen, I will read a stronger passage of Saurin's to you : " You may make the union binding as a law, but you cannot make it obligatory on conscience. t will be obeyed as a law as long as England is strong ; but resistance to it will be in the abstract a duty, and the exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of prudence." Take any of the numerous publications laid before you in eridence, and it will not be found so strong as this passage. I ask you have you any reason to doubt the sincerity of those eminent men I alluded to—of Mr. Buslie, whom in common with every one who knew him, I regret is no longer amongst us, whos e memory, I may say with perfect truth, will remain for ever in the h ear t s o f his countrymen. Who can doubt of the sinc er ity of Lord Plunket? I rejoice that he is still amongst us, and still commands and possesses the lore, respect,reverence, and admiration of all who have the honour of his acquaintance. Who doubts of the sincerity of Mr. Saurin ? You heard the opinion of Mr. Sheil, who may be considered his political opponent, as to his character. He might have many faults, but, as Mr. Sheil told you, hypocrisy was not among them. And when you find these eminent men —not enthusiastic boys, but in the full maturity of their vigorous interests—adopting those views and ex pressing those opinions with regard to the union without any reason to doubt their sincerity, I think you will agree with me, and 'tis all I ask of you, that the same reasons which influenced them might exist in the mind of my client, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, when he brought his mind to the conclusion that a repeal of the union was necessary for the salvation and renovation of his country. With the same object the Attorney-General endeavoured to oonvince you that the repeal of the union was impracticable and unattainable. Gentlemen, after what we have seen in our own days, I think it would be difficult to say that any measure, whatever difficulties may exist against it, is impracticable and unattainable. There is the slave-trade, which was denounced by Mr. Pitt as the greatest 'tails that ever disgraced mankind The abolition of that trade had the support of his mighty in tellect, as also that of Mr. Fox. It was recommended by every feeling ofhumanity and justice, yet it took years to coun teract the prejudices which existed against the measure. But at length it beeame the law of the land. Again, there is the measure of Catholic Emancipation. We all know the difficulties it had to struggle against, so great—that to many it appeared impracticable. Yet it became the law of the land. There is the still more recent measure of Parliamentary Reform. We know how long it took before it became the law of the land, and therefore I say that you cannot doubt the sincerity of those persons in advocating a repeal of the union, though great, and, perhaps, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties may exist against it. The Attorney-General also referred to the opinions entertained by eminent statesmen with regard to the measure. I never expected to bear the Attorney-General refer to the speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but he cited them on this occasion, as also the mere congenial opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is due; bat I deny that any man is to be bound or controlled by the opinions of other men, however eminent they may be. The opinions of statesmen are not immutable; they are at liberty—and why should they not—to change their opinions, if they see grounds for it. I may refer to one of those eminent individuals in procf of what I say. You cannot but recollect, when the question of Catholic emancipation was brought before Parliament, in 1828, that Sir Robert Peel expressed an une quivocal and decided opinion against it. Do.you doubt of his sincerity ? I believe he was perfectly sincere ; yet, in twelve short months, that same question, opposed by Sir Robert Peel, became the law of the land, and was introduced by Sir R. Peel himself. Do I find fault with him for this change of opinion ? On the contrary, I think his conduct upon that question is the most glorious portion of his political life, and that it does him infinite credit. It is the part of a sorry and wretched statesman to say that because he at one time entertained such and such opinions he is immutably bound by them. The opinion he entertained, conscientiously, in 1828, he found reason to alter ; and instead of displaying the pertinacity and obstinacy of a fool, he yielded to altered circumstances and greater experience, and, therefore, recommended and carried, in 1829, the measure he opposed in 1828. If, then, you 'aeliera that the Rev. If , 9 iernev honestly believes 0-1 t the union nz.:, been injurious, you will give him t , ,e credit for it,—and refer to honest motives whatever acts he has done. And I now come to the acts imputed to him. If I understand the evidence right, those acts are two; one was, attending a meet ing at Clontibret on the 15th day of August, 1843 ; the other, attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d day of October, in the same year; and if he be, by your verdict, branded and convicted as a conspirator, it will be on one or both of those acts to which I have referred. Before going to the meeting of the 15th of August, I must refer to a portion of the evidence given before you, with regard to an alleged conversation between him and 111•Cann, who was produced as a witness. This conversation is said to have taken place on the 10th of June, and it is better that I should read to you, from what I l: the an n )meeting said that w" Mr to. believe is a correct report of his evidence , this conversation, which took place two months previous to ft: meeting in ques tion, M'Cann said he received instructio ns t o go to t h e R ev. Mr. Tierney to know at what time th e reporte d meet i ng would take place, that accordingly he w en t, an d t h at Mr. Tierney gave him all the information he cou ld , an d that he did not know the precise day on which take place. , M'Cann told you he had a conversat i on with him which to the union ni ‘ on ;He e (M'Cann) rep ea t e d t h at i t was liici frau dulently carried ; he said it was not bindi ng ; h e represented it as a nullity and not binding on conscience ; h e spo k e o f t h e feel ing on repeal becoming general , and extendi ng i tse l f to t h e army, be easily b roug ht t o sp ill t h e blood of their fellow -countrymen. I rem em b er h e re f erred to wbat the army in Spain had done." N ow , on t h e aut h or i ty t h that u s they asmof were th e favourablepeople a n d to co repeal, ul th a t t h ey partook of the en dnot of Mr. Tierney, I say that he absolutely and positively denies that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried on between them. He acknowledges 'h at M'C ann came to hien for information about the meeting, th a t h e gave hi m that a g b i l i e i" to aeY produce any wit ness to susta i a this denie s possesses any particle of information, but that he had with him t hi s conversation he tproustiht amnot o andune t assertion, and why ? Because, according to the testimony of M'Cann, there was no one present but himself and Mr. Tierney. But for the sake of truth I sin glad to be able to convict APCann out of his own mouth , in such a manner that i t is im possible to attach one particle of credit to w h at i s sa i d by that officer. In the first place , is it not imrobable, if suc h a conversation took place, that a common policeman should h ave been able to recollect the terms of it, which h e rea d to you— that he would be able to detail to you the apparently eloquent language in which the conversation seems t o h ave b een carried on Rev. ?li G em eweanstlaP°alni—"Lan; was not even one of the flock of the came on business—h e came dressed in his uniform ; was it likely that a gentleman of rank and station would have held such a conversation with a common policeman ? There is great danger in acting on conversations so reported ; you will also remark that the witness said he kept a diary, but he never kept any notes of any portion of that conversation. You will recollect that one part of this conversation was alleged to be, that Mr. Tierney spoke of the great things that the army had accomplished in Spain. Tne army has done a great deal lately in Spain ; it has abandoned the constitutional au thorities, and set up by force a government of its own ; the object, then, of bringing forward this conversation was to sup port the charge of the traversers tampering with and endeav ouring to seduce the army. This conversation was alleged to have taken place on the 16th of Juno. Now, the first indica tion of revolt given by the army in Spain took place on the , 11th of June, in the city of Valencia. The first demonstration took place on that day. The next demonstration did not take place till the 12th, at Barcelona; and the most important re voit of the army in Spain did not take place till the close of the month of June.. Of these movements there was no account in this country, as will appear by reference to the newspapers of the time, till the 19th or 20th; it was, therefore, an impossibility that a policeman in the county of Monaghan could have in formation of what took place at Valencia on the 11th, so soon as the 16th. There is then the strongest reason for contending that this must be a fabrication on the part of the policeman. He had sense and cunning enough to be apprised of the impor tance of the charge, and there was an obvious advantage in connecting one of the traversers with an alleged attempt on the army, and he thought that bringing the Rev. Mr. Tierney to speak with approbation of the revolt of the army in Spain, might be a most useful assistance in leading the jury to believe that he had dose so. But if lam right in my dates, as you will find by reference to the papers that I am, you will see that there was no revolt in the Spanish army till the 11th, yet here is this wretched policeman on the ltith, in the county of Monaghan, talking as if he was already apprised of it. I need not waste more time on this part of the case. I only ask you to agree with me that—independently of the danger of acting on a conversation of this description, or the improba bility attending it, and with this clear proof that no such conversation took place—l am not asking too much when I request of you to dis m i ss f rom y our minds altogether this al leged, and untruly all ege d, conversa tion. I now come t o th e meeting at Clontibret, which took place on the 15th of Augu s t. And who were the persons b roug ht forward to give yo u an ac count of what took place at these meetings ? The only ev id ence adduced is that of two policemen. You have heard from them there were magistrates present—that two stipendiary magistrates were present. Why had not either of them been produced ? Was it not the duty of the Crown, if it wanted to represent the meeting at Clontibret as an illegal meeting, to have produced those who were calculated to give the best information on the subject. Though these two stipendiary magistrates were mpre sent, though they wer e i n th e pay an d service of the Govern..ent, and unde r it s con t ro l, t h oug h there was not, a parti c l e of difficulty in the Government, if it thought fit, producing them, yet not one of them had been called in order to give an account of the character o ithe meeting at Clon tibret but two policemen the magistrates who were pre sent were passed by. Ido not wish to cast an imputa tion on the Crown for so doing; Jknow not its motives, I know not its reasons for so doing—but I think I am justified in saying this, that from their non-production might be drawn this plain and simple inference, that they could not have said anything that would have served the proocution, and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it. That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual of the traversers present at it, with the exception of Mr. Tierney. There was not one iota or particle of evidence to connect him, up to that time, with any of them. Yet he was represented as having entered into a conspiracy or agreement with them. Are there any grounds for saying that this meet ing was an illegal one? Was there any act of violence com mitted at it ? Not one ! Was there anything done that could show this meeting to be an illegal assembly ? Not I There was not a single act of riot or disturbance at it ; it was characterised by that which cha racterised all the other meetings—perfect tranquillity, per fect peace—not a finger was held up—the utmost that was alleged was, that some people were crushed, and among the rest a policeman, If that is to be the means of attaching the charge of illegality to that meeting, I must say that the Court of Queen's Bench has been a most ille gal meeting for the last fortnight.—(Laughter.) There had certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your peculiar situation—(Laughter) —you are guarded and pro tected from it,—no other portion of the Court, not even the judgment -seat (Laughter) but has been invaded, and the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed " by those whom they have Issued it impossible to resist.— (Great laughter.) • Yet this meeting you are called on to pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the alleged conspiracy. I say with confidence that there is no particle of evidence by which the meeting at Clontib re t can be pronounced illegal. (Th e Learned Gentleman here read the object of the meeting, the resolutions adopted at it, and the petition to Parliament which was carried, and having pointed out the perfectly legal and constitutional nature of the proceedings, said—Mr. Tierney is charged with attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d of October. Up to that time there is no evidence to show that he ever had any communication with the other traversers, or that he had ever read or heard of their speeches or proceedings. On that day he was first brought in connection with the Association. It is true that on that day he became a member of it. Gentlemen, I shall certainly never forget the withering and concentrated sneer with which the Attorney-General read the name of this Association when he same to the word " Loyal," Loyal Repeal Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of its disloyalty. What he dared not venture to express in plain terms he has struggled to g ive vent to by " a sneer." I am no member of th a t b o dy, but I repel with indignation the attempt. Some of the wisest, the ablest, the best, and meet eminent of the land, are amongst its members. They may be wrong, but they are not disloyal. One million of men, at least, were members of that Association in October ; and is the loyalty of one million of men to be sneered away? Are you to brand them with disloyalty from a sneer of the Attorney- General ? I deny their disloyalty. I assert the legality of the Association, and I will prove it by an authority which the Attorney-General must acknowledge, My authority is the Attorney-General himself. That Association has gone on for the last three years without interruption, openly and publicly, and every person in the community might be present at their proceedings for the paltry sum of a shilling. Yet the Attorney-General sneers at their loyalty. Has he dared to put it down? No; and he would not hesitate to do so if it were illegal. It may be very safe to sneer, and to cast indirect imputations ; but the Attorney-General has not dared, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to ini peach its legality. Is a respectable Roman Catholic clergy man to be charged with a conspiracy—a conspiracy of the worst kind--merely because he has attended meetings of a body which the Attorney-General has not dared to put down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. TOtrney not merely attended those meetings, bat he gave in contributions. Yes, he gave in contributions, but is that illegal ? Does the Attorney-General mean to say that a man may not hand in contributions to a fund collected for the furtherance of the repeal of the union ? and when I say that it is lawful to do so I suppose he would willingly accuse me of ignorance. The Attorney-General cannot be ignorant of the present state of England, and the existence of the Anti-Corn law League. It is matter of history—it cannot be denied —and their contributions amount to a large sum. Is there any prosecution instituted there? The Marquis of Westminster has written a letter and has contributed 5001. to that fund. Has he been prosecuted for it? Perhaps I am wrong in suggesting that he is not to be prosecuted for subscribing that amount. The meeting of Parliament is approaching; the Attorney-General, of course, will be there to attend to his duties, and he may recommend a prosecution to the English Attorney-General. He owes him a deep debt of gratitude for his recent assistance—a debt which was never before due by an Irish Attorney- General to an English one—and he has now an opportunity to repay him for the assistance he received. He can from his own experience instruct him in the law of hypocrisy—teach him to " sneer away" the loyalty of a people—and, by in fusing his own peculiar ideas into him, cause the Marquis of Westminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetings of the Association ; I confess he did so. He is accused of having handed in contributions--I confess it. He made a speech, too, which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length in the indictment, I suppose for the purpose of handing down that specimen of legal skill to posterity. I find in it a long historical al lusion to the parish of Clontibret. He had, it seems, a lively interest in whatever concerned it. He felt as much for the events which occurred there—they were as interesting to him, as those of Blenheim or Waterloo. He delivered himself of much lore in the history of the parish of Clontibret. Oh 1 but says the Attorney-General, "he talked of using hand and heart." Yes he did. But you must know that in all ordinary occasions the expression hand and heart is used. But, said the Attorney-General, " he must have meant by deeds, deeds of hands with arms in them." What right has the Attorney. General so to construe the expression ? It is not for you or for me to descend into the mind of any man; that is the province of the Almighty only. When man judges he should only attribute and come to conclusions from facts of which he has the cognizance of his senses. Gentlemen, I have detained you too long. I have laid before you the facts and circumstances on which I rely for your verdict of acquittal, and I am confident of this, that if you agree with me in the view I have taken, and come to a conclusion that my client is entitled to a verdict of acquittal, I feel that this is a verdict that you will he able to justify to your country now, and to your God hereafter. Mr. HATCHELL ' Q.C, , then rose and said—M a y it pl ease your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury-- CHIEF JUSTICE—Whom do you appear fur ? Mr. HATCHELL-1 am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray. Gentlemen of the Jury—l consider, notwithstanding what you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge nerally with repect to the charges that are made against them all, and partieularly with respect to their own clients —I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have ncs.iu woe ses r ese. vv iiie saw and facts of the case, still to address to you, on behalf of my orient, a few observations. Gentlemen, I think must feei that the ground has been pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in the facts and law of the case, and the powerful and a bl e observations of m y f r i en d Mr. loore on the general charge and circumstances under which the indictment has been pre ferred. Still, gentlemen of the jury, there are circum stances, peculiar to the situation of each of the traversers, which it is considered right should be laid before you, in judging of the share each of them appears to have been charged to have taken in those transactions, and to see if you can bring your minds, as fair, honest, and impartial jurors, to come to the conclusion, from the criminal intent charged by the indictment, that those traversers, and each of them, had joined in the preconceived plan of, I may say, overturning the Government of the country. Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Ray, is peculiarly circumstanced in relation to this charge. He is the Secretary of the Repeal Association. Before 1 call your attention to the charge, as contained in the indictment, and which you have to try, permit me to call your attention (al though I believe it has been already closely drawn to the ques tion by the counsel that preceded me) to the real, substantial question, which you have to try. Permit me, before Ido that, to remind you of what you have not to try. Gen tlemen, you are not to try Mr. Thomas M. Ray, as has been already observed, for having attended an illegal assembly. He denies that any assembly with respect to whistle evidence was given before you on this trial, was illegal ; and, if I had to defend him on that charge, I could do so. You are not to try whether Mr. Ray, at any one of those assemblies, at any time or place, uttered a seditious speech or published a seditious libel. If such a charge was preferred against him, I am satisfied I could perfectly justify him from such a charge. He never published a libel in his life. He never uttered charge or accusation against any man, or against the Government. Gentlemen, you are not to try whether he he a Repealer or not. I must admit that, if you were to try him on that charge, I could not defend him. He is, and has been a Repealer, and is, and has been the secretary to the Repeal As sociation for several years. He has been the secretary and paid officer of that Association since its institution. He be came the officer, and salaried officer, of it, approving of its objects, mixing himself up with its proceedings, in ac cordance with the principles which he professed, and to sustain his opinion in that question of which you have heard so much. But, gentlemen—and consider that when you come to try the question as to what intent Mr. Ray was a member of the Association—as to what intent he did the acts connected with that Association—as to whether he was guilty of a criminal intent, or entered into a preconcerted conspiracy —it is important to consider the position in which he stood, and the relation which he bore towards that Association. Gen tlemen of the jury, I need not repeat to you again, and to im plore you not to permit your minds to be diverted from, or your attention distracted from, the consideration of the real ques tion attempted to be drawn from you. The question you have to try on your oath is, did Mr. Ray, in conjunction with all or any of the traversers, enter into a plan preconcerted, arranged, preconceived, and laid with the criminal intent of exciting dis affection against the Government or Constitution, and with the other criminal intents which are charged in this indict. ment. Gentlemen of the jury, it is a question peculiarly for you—the question of intent—with what intention those proceed ings took place—what was the intention of the parties who committed or did the acts which are charged as evidence of that intention ; it is your peculiar province to judge of that ;ntent. The Court, the judges who preside here, it is for them to say whether the acts given in evidence are acts that ought to go before you for your consideration ; they are the judges of their illegality, or whether these facts shall go before you ; but it is your sole and eaclusire province and duty to decide this upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those persons interfered in those transactions? They were the actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to the opinion of the eminent Judge who eharged the grand jury in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in calling the attention of tho jury to the question they had to try, said-- Judge BußTON—What do you take that hem ? Mr. HATCHELL — From the " State Trials," vol. 24. Your Lordship will find it in page 205. You are aware, gentle. men, from what has been already stated, that the objects of the societies of that day—the professed objects of the socie ties of that day—for being members of which Hardy and Tooke were prosecuted—that there the indictment was for a conspiracy in the nature of constructive treason. And in charging the grand jury in Hardy's case, Chief Justice Eyre said—" If there be ground to consider the pro fessed pu r p ose o f any o f t h ese Associations a reform of Par liament as mere colour, and as a pretext held out in order to cover deeper designs—designs against the whole Constitu tion and Government of the country—the case of those em barked in such designs as that which I have already consi dered,—whether this be so or not is a mere matter of fact, as to which I shall only remind you that an inquiry into a charge of this nature, which undertakes to make out that the ostensible purpose is a mere veil under which is concealed a traitorous conspiracy, requires cool and deliberate considera tion, and that the result should be perfectly clear and satis factory. In the affairs of common life no man is perfectly jus tified in imputing to another person a meaning contrary to what he himself expresses, but upon the fullest evidence." Gentlemen, no man has a right to impute to another that he is not intending what he professes to do, unless there is clear, satisfactory, and unambiguous evidence to show the contrary. Every man must be presumed to be acting according to his declared intentions until the contrary is proved. Every man is presumed by the law of the land to be innocent before his guilt is clearly established • and, as already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if th ere be a cri minal intent alleged, and if there be a legal intent to which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, coin mon justice—the spirit of the British law—requires that his acts should be attributed to the legal and innocent motive, and not, by straining, to a criminal intent. Gentlemen of the jury, you have a right to go further_ according to the spirit of the British law if it be question able to what those motives are attributable—if there be doubt upon your minds in judging of the transaction, the parties accused are entitled to the benefit of such doubts, and their acts are to be attributable to honest and just motives, and not to criminal design. Now, gentlemen of the jury, you have heard with great force of expression, and great power of argument, an observation made to you already on the nature of this proceeding. It has been already characterised a " monster indictment" unprecedented in the annals of English justice or English injustice. No precedent can be found in the records of the law of England for such a proceeding as this, charging almost traitorous intentions against the parties—mix ing them up in the transactions of nine months of their lives— fixing the acts of one upon the others—making each responsible for the acts of the whole, and combining those charges in a volume of overt acts—accusations which I say are unequalled in the history of the law. How is an individual to be competent to prepare himself for his defence against such multiplied accusa tions—for though they all tend to one, or two, or three charges of conspiracy, yet all the overt acts stated in this indictment are charged as illegal acts to sustain the ultimate charge of conspiracy with a criminal intention of assailing the State and Constitution ? Of the injustice of such a course of proceeding as in the pre sen t case h as b een adopted, you have heard. ' You have been told that no precedent can bo found for such a prosecution as the present. Gentlemen, there is but one case on record which bears any analogy to it, and that case is one which is a blot on English history, and one which has challenged the indignant animadversion of all intelligent men who have ever considered it—the case of Warren Hast ings. When, on occasion of Hardy's trial, Mr. Erskine, the eloquent advocate of the accused, came to speak of the in dictment in that case (which falls fifty degrees short of the perplexity and injustice of the indictment on which the present traversers have been given in charge) he expressed himself in language of no common force. Lord Erskine, in page 890, of the " State Trials," expressed his sentiments upon such pro secutions as the present in no ordinary language. He began by quoting the sentiments of Lord Hale upon constructive trea son, which are, as follow And third, how dangerous it is by construction aad analogy to snake treasons where the letter of the law has not done it, for such a method admits of no limits or bounds, but runs as far and as wide as the wit and invention of the accusers and the detestation of persons ac cused will carry men." " Surely (continued Mr. Erskine) the admonition of this resplendent lawyer ought to sink deep into the heart of every judge and every juryman who is called to administer justice under this statute ; above all, in the times, and under the peculiar circumstances, which assemble us in this place. Honoarable men, feeling as they ought for the safety of Government and the tranquillity of the country. and naturally indignant against those who are supposed to have brought them into peril, ought, for that very cause, to proceed with more abundant caution; but they should not be sur prised by their resentments or their fears. They ought to advance in the judgments they form by slow and trembling steps—they ought even to fall back and look at everything again, lest a false light should deceive them, admitting no fact but on the foundation of clear and precise evidence, and deciding on no intention that does not pesult with equal clearness from the fact. This is the universal demand of justice in every case—how much more especially, then, in this, when the judgment is every moment in danger of being swept away into the fathomless abyss of a thousand volumes, where there is no anchorage for the understanding, where no reach of thought can look round in order to compare their points —nor can any memory be capacious enough to retain even the imperfect relation that can be collected from them. Gentlemen, my mind is the more deply affected with this con sideration by a very recent example in that monstrous pheno menon which, under the name of a trial, has driven me out of Westminster Hall for a large portion of my professional life. No man is less disposed than I am to speak lightly of great State prosecutions, which bind to their duty those who have no other superiors, nor any other control, least of all am I capable of even glancing a censure against those who have led to or conducted the impeachment, because I respect and love many of them, and know them to be amongst the best and wisest in the nation. I know them indeed so well as to be persuaded that, could they have foreseen the vast field that was to open, and the length of time it was to occupy, they never would have engaged in it—for I defy any man, not enlightened by the divine Spirit, to say with the pre cision and certainty of an English Judge deciding upon evidence before him, that Mr. Hastings is guilty or not guilty ; for who knows what is before him er what is not? Many have car ried what they knew to their graves, and the living have lived long enough to forget it. Indeed, I pray to God that such another proceeding may never exist in England, because I consider it a dishonour to the Constitution, and that it brings, by its example, insecurity into the administration of justice. Every man in civilised society has a right to hold his life, liberty, and reputation under plain laws, that can be well under stood, and is entitled to have some limited specific part of Ills conduct compared and examined by their standard ; but he ought not fur seven years, no, nor for seven days, to stand as a' criminal before the highest tribunal until judgment is bewildered and confounded, to come at last, perhaps, to defend himself, broken down by fatigue, and dispirited with anxiety." Such was the language of the acute and impasioned Erskine in comparing the proceedings in Hardy's case with the proceedings which had been instituted against Warren Hastings, and yet I have no hesi tation in averring that in Hardy's case the parties charged were few, and the circumstances were few, as compared with the num ber of the accused, and the abundance of the accusations in the presentunprecedented prosecution. How monstrous is the injus tice to which my client has been made a victim in being called upon to become responsible for the words and actions of other men, beside himself, during the period of seven months. Gen tlemen, the task is indeed arduous which the Crown hes im posed upon you. You are called upon to jump at the conclu sion, but everything that my client did in his capacity of paid officer to the Society, he has done, not in the conscientious dis charge of his duties as a paid servant, but with a criminal intent So pervert the laws and injure the Constitution of the country. That you are sworn to try : at that conclusion you are required to arrive. Gentlemen, I feel embarrassed in addressing you ; I confess that lam adverse to going over the same ground that Mr. Moore has traversed in his eloquent remarks, for I am apprehensive that a repetition of the same topics liy me, instead of being of value to you, or to my client, would rather have the effect of weakening the im pression that must have been produced upon your minds by the admirable speech of my Learned Friend. I3ut I can not avoid offering a few remarks to which I would fain at tract your most serious attention, in reference to the particular case of my client, Mr. Ray. Gentlemen, look at the position in which my client is placed, and have regard to the circurne stances by which his particular case is characterised. Gentle men, Mr. Ray is a humble man with a large family, who look to him alone for support. He has no other pursuits than those which are connected with his avocation or office. He was made Secretary to the Repeal Association on its forma tion in the year 1840, and from the day of his appointment to the present hour his time and attention have been totally engaged by the discharge of the duties incidental to his situa tion. He has not given me the slightest instructions to say that the repeal movement did not enlist his good wishes in its favour—or that he did not, to the fullest extent, sympathise with the leaders of the agitation—but what he did he did in the discharge of the duties connected with his official character —what he did he did in compensation for his salary, as in duty bound—and yet, gentlemen, you are called upon to view him in the light of a conspirator, and you are told to attribute every act of his—which he has performed in requital for his emoluments—as an act planned and achieved with the design of subverting the law and the Constitution. If the Association were an illegal society, and if it had been cha racterised as such by the Crown, then indeed my client might fairly have been made responsible for all his actions in the capacity of secretary ; but no such doctrine as this has been ever propounded—nobody has presumed to say that the Assos ciation is illegal—nobody could say that it is illegal. You find my client, Mr. Ray, en principle, no doubt, a Repealer, and incidentally a member of the Association ; but you also have distinct evideuce to show that he is the paid officer of a per. fectly legal association—such is the character in which he truly appears before you. You find him discharging the routine du ties of his office, and yet you are called upon to say that his acts are not to be attributed to the discharge of his duties— are not to be viewed as the deeds of a paid servant who is anxious to give value for his salary ; but that they are rather to be attributed to a fell purpose existing in his mind to outrage the laws and trample on the Constitution I You are called upon by the C rown t o v i ew hi s case in this artificial light. You aro called upon to come to this conclusion ; but as honest men—as intelligent men—as men who love justice, and prize the independence of the mind—l ask you, can you come to that conclusion P In my humble judgment, it was a mon-, strous thing to include Mr. Ray in this indictment. He Ought 4 never to have been included in the present charge ; and cannot forbear from expressing it as my opinion that the Crown, in having proceeded against him, have not pursued a candid, ingenuous course, either towards him or towards the other traversers. They have indicted the members of a certain society for a criminal conspiracy, and they have included in the indictment Mr. Ray, the salaried servant of the Asso ciation. I will not apply hard names to this proceeding, I will not go so far as to say that they were guilty of a dishonest intention, or that they could be capable of the common, paltry, pettifogging manoeuvre, of cutting the ground from the feet of the accused parties, by including the witnesses in the indictment. Ido not mean to impute any unworthy mo tive to my friend the Attorney-General, but I am surely at liberty to call your attention to the disastrous effect which re sults to the rest of the traversers from the circumstance of my client being included in the indictment. While I repu diate the idea of attributing an unworthy motive in anyi quarter, I am surely at liberty to demonstrate how the effect of such a proceeding as has been adopted is exactly similar to that which would have resulted if the paltry ma- , nceuvro to which I have alluded had indeed been deliberately had recourse to. By including Mr. Ray in the indictment, they have deprived the other traversers of the benefit of his services. He was the acknowledged dicer of the Society—he had in his possession the authenticated books and documents of the Society, written in his own hand-writing— he knew the working and machinery, so to speak, of the Society, and was the only man competent in law to prove the honest and perfectly legal intentions of its members. He could have proved their objects—he could have clearly demonstrated the means that were resorted to by them for the constitutional purpose of procuring the repeal of a statute which they conscien tiously, believed wa s a gr i evance t o th e i r eountry — all this he; could have made as clear as sun-light; but he (the man who was in a position to prove all this) has been silenced, and is incapacitated from acting as a witness by being included in the indictment. The Crown might have brought Mr. Ray upon the table—they might have called for his books, and examined the man who made the entries, and thus have furnished themselves with primary evidence of the most au thentic character, but this they had not done, and they were accordingly obliged to avail themselves of the ordinary news paper reports, which did not publish all the transactions of the meetings, but only such as appeared at the time of public in terest. They thus were obliged to resort to a species of se condary evidence, and in order to make out evidence ad missible they were obliged to have recourse to the left handed management of including in the indictment the editors of the different newspapers in which these reports were pub lished. What was the course taken at the trial of Hardy and of Horne Tooke ? Who was the Attorney-General of Eng land in that day ? The late Lord Eldon, then Mr. Scott. Who was the Solicitor-General of that day ? The late Lord Redesdale, subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Mr. Alitford. How did they proceed against Horne Tooke and the ether members of those associations which it was the object of those prosecutions to put down ? Who was the first witness examined against Herne Tooke ? Daniel Adams, who was sworn and examined by the counsel for the Crown. And what did he prove ? That he was the secretary of this society or association—that he had held that office for ten years—that he had made the entries in the books. But the Crown may say to use here—" Oh ! do you expect we should call a co-conspi rator? do you expect that we should give to your counsel the benefit of his cross-examination ? ' Gentlemen, I hold it to be a principle —a high, a noble, and inherent principle-- of a Crown prosecution, and more particularly of a State prosecution, I hold it to be the duty of those who manage it not to discriminate, to judge, to calculate, to criticise in what way the evidence may be likely to affect those who are to be prosecuted ; but it is the duty of the Crown to call all those witnesses who van depose to facts appertaining to the prosecution, and then to give the traversers the benefit of their cross-examination. Mr. Ray is included in this indict ment ; he cannot be a witness at all. I cannot call him for himself—the other traversers cannot examine him on their be-. half. In Hardy's case the Crown did not indict the secretary ; he was the first witness to prove the objects, the intent, and the tendency of th e assoc i at i cn . Horne Tooke was entitled to the cross-examination of the witness produced by the Crown I he had the secretary of the society on the table to interrogate him as to the intent and object of it. One of the questions was, " Were the members armed with pikes or muskets ?_N O . Did you ever hear anything said in the society about pilot or muskets?—No, never in my life. Was there such a thing as a secret Committee there ?—Never. Was not everything conducted openly and publicly? Was there anything ever took place which could lead you to believe that the members intended to depose or kill the King ?-01i, no, never. Would I not, gentlemen, have been entitled to ask him, if he was a witness on th e tabl e , " Had you any reason to suppose that the members of th e Loyal National Repeal Association intended to excite disaffection towards the Government , Or to corrupt the army, to affect the administration of justice, or to overthrew the Government ?" Why have we not the opportunity of asking those questions, which we might have done if we had the benefit of his testimony. Such was the course that was taken when those prosecutions were being carried on in England, at a time when the armies of France were sweeping the Continent of Europe, and when, there were great dis sens i ons at h ome among the peo ple et England. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of that day put the Secretary of the Association upon the table in order that he might prove the facts—in order that the truth might be ascertained. The truth prevailed, and Horne Tooke n a : acquitted. What mor e questions were pot to him?—" wha t do you think was th e o bj ec t or i ntent i on of the greater par t 0f the members of that Society ?—To obtain Parliamentary re form." Do you think there are many among them who meant m or e th an w h at they sa id ? — I do not know; I believe they meant what they said." Ge" tlemen of the jury, I will not go further with this sae' mination. Observe its application to the case of my client!, the Secretary of the Repeal Association, whim discharged his offieial duties iu the ordinary way that the officer of an society was bound to do? Why is he included in this indict ment, or why is he now c a ll e d upon , a f ter having- been per' mitted for seven months p as t t o go on discharging the dative 0 his situation, to answer h ere as a conspirator—as one re sponsible for all th e ae t s , speec h es, and publications of whi c you have heard 30 much? C an you on your oaths, as honest and honourable me n , say , i n t h e f ace of the country , that Mr. Ray, the official of a l ega l, a recogn i sed Association, did n°t discharge hi s d u ti es as secretary, i n accordance with the direc tions of those by w h om h e was emp l oyed; but that be ex ceeded his i ns t r u c ti ons , an d com bi ned i n doing all those overt acts which f o rm th e c h arge o f consp i racy aga i nst hint r You are call e d u p on to say he did not d o the!! things with th e i n t en ti on o f di sc h arg i ng his duty, tonsil'- any public ently with his prineiples ; but that he was engaged in a Pe e. concerted plot—in a settled conspiracy formed between those gentlemen, for you are to swear upon your oath that you h e ' lieved such to have been his intent before you can give a vet: - diet against him, and I am to get ' , our answer to that Plate question out of your jury.box; Gentlemen of the jury, it m a y, s be said that Mr. R a y wen t b eyon d t h e regular course o f h duty ; it may be said that h e did no t con fi ne hi mse lf to attend', ing the re gu l ar mee ti ngs o f t h e A ssoc i at i on i n the capac ity secretary. Gentlemen, I am ready to admit, on the part of Air' Ray, that wherever there was a meeting of the Association, a' of the Association itself, he attended and officiated there as Se' eretary, and that gets rid of all questions upon the indictment upon that head. But it may be alleged that he was present at Tara and at Mullaghmast. Now, on that subject I have ascertained the fact, that those were the only two country meetings at which he was ever present. The meeting at Tara took pia°. the 18th of August ; it was I believe chiefly an assemblage of persons from that immediate neighbourhood ; bttt a cm'' siderabl e p ort i on o f t h em were from the county and city of Dublin, ma n y a tt rac t e d t h ere f rom cur i osity, and many snort of course from an identity of feeling with the object for which it was convened, and from which to give eepre sion to their feeli ngs on th e quest i on of repeal. Thousan ds fr went out there in carr i ages , g i gs, an d cars to see what tie; .. place on the 15th o f A ugust at the hill of Tara. I Ilf°l`. know whether you a re aware o f i t, b ut I believe the fact "" notorious, that from th e num b er of persons w h o wer e going out of Dublin that day, it was regarded as 4 species of holiday thr oug h th e c i ty. M r. Ray went there lc h his family, with the fe m al es o f hi s f am il y, and in company with the members of anothe r gen tl eman ' s f am il y, of whom on e s two were females. H e did no thi ng th ere ; b e made no s peech there ; he did not act as seeretary to that meeting ; and, taking that fact] alone, you mi g ht as we ll h ave i nc l u d e d ever' , other person who attended there as Mr. Ray. There 000 no doubt but thousands went there from a mere feeling curiosity. However, we now find Mr. Ray at Tara, and, a; far as I can see, with respect t o M r. R ay as atraverser, on ths!,.. head I have no thi ng requ i r i ng me to j ustify on his part' He may have gone there with a sympathy for the objsat' of the meeting; but does that attach to him the character of a conspi ra t or ? I s h a ll not go i nto any of the part i cu late . of that me e ti ng , f ur i ts peacea bl e character has been depose d to . by the magistrates and policemen who were present—they hats' told that there was no riot, no breach of thepeac e , n o tendency to anything lik e it there. To be sure Captain Despard examined, but what was his evidence ? Why was it givers I will tell you ; it was in order to give a certain colonel's' to this case—a colouring of illegality to that great meeting' fr' and that you mi g ht d raw i n f erences from the evidence obtaining a colouring for it. Well, then, Walker Nv7: examined, and what did h e p rove ? Th at he saw pe ople walking, heard bands playing, and saw a few flags or banne rs ' and that was all he sa w . W as th ere anything illegal in tha t? Walker was exa m i ne d b y th e C rown on all that he was suppo sed to know. Well, Captain Despard, who, it will be reco llected , had no great r egar d or es t eem f or M r. O'Connell—for wh.,„e reason, I suppose, he kn ows b es t hi mse lf—b ut i t was et"' clear that, from his manner and evidence, he had a very strong feeling against Mr. O'Connell and the meeting. This CaPt e r Despard comes f r o m T r i m , an d b e swears he heard the pe ople say " Keep the s t e p !" I as k e d hi m did they keep the step , and he said they did not. I must here remark that every police' man who was ex am i ne d did, either by design or acciol t endeavour i n th e s t rongest manner to give a colouring, wh' ch they were not warranted in giving, to the whole character of the proceedings. Captain Despard said the people cal: in marching order to th e meet i ng, and b y that wor d n wanted to impress something on your minds relative ; military array. He was o bli ge d to adm i t that the po op)' did not keep the st e p, nor did t h ey k now hew to k ee p , He was a military man, and he at once committed himself 1 his anxiety to colour the case, and give a turn to the arboi.e. proceedings, which we re t o t a ll y diff erent f rom t h e f ac t s . 1 ` was most disingenu ous i n D espar d to use a m ili tary ter m f°'• .. the purpose of throwing it into your box; but at the Sault time it only proves th e na t ure o f hi s t emper , an d t h e bi as ° f his mind, and his partisanship on the subject. I will as" are men to be branded with being foul conspiranors--ors their lives, liberties, and fortunes to be at stake in eonnequeno of such evidence as this that I have shown you? The g allant Captain Despard and Major Westenra o ere taken for foreigneres because," says the captain, o Major Weetenra had a mous tache, and I had a curl in my lip." — (Laughter.) Well, he get s into a conversation with some lump of a fellow from Stoneybattet or thereabouts, who was waiting to see Mr. O'Connell palm and because of this conversation the meeting wag stigmatised as illegal. The man told him he came from Wexford, and therefore the meeting was illegal, and the traverser! guilty Of 4 foul conspiracy.—( L aug ht er .) Thi s a ll eged conversat i on co uld have been sustained by evidence, but I think the Attorney' General knew nothing at all about it when he opened the case , or if he did I think he did well to leave it out and not contalni nate his case, bad as it was, with such trash as I allude to. Tlge Attorney-General did not allude to 20,000 Shilmalier mews who marched to T ara . Oh, no, h e knew it would be really t'J farcical to do so. The conversation to which he referred, if 'ev er such took place at all, must be treated as a cook-and-a-bqilltorYt or a humbug. Walker was examined before Capt. Despard, in the country, and it was said also that he was near him when Vise ea' versation took place, yet there was not a word about it s as it was too equivocal. Oh I but the 20,000 Wexford men could 51 °' be forgotten by Capt. Despard. Oh, but that was done f°r a purpose—to give a colouring to the case ; and well the other side kn ew th a t. Wh y was not Walker asked about it? 06 might have corroborated the story. It was disgraceful to bring such a case as that forward, in order to sustain the prosecution; Why was not Westenra produced to corroborate the story ? It He was not. A n d we ll t h e A ttorney-General knew it istini be a disgra c e t o th e case to i ntro d uce such an episode into "' opening statement. It is not my intention to make any re. marks relative to the other meetings, because Mr. Ref attended only that at Tara and Mullaghmast, and will leave them to other hands. Why do I enentioss these things but to show that vou ought to come coolly Pe the consideration of this awful case, as I am convinced I° o will. I would not have mentioned the facts related here' " but if I left them un t ouc h e d i t would be giving them -" weight which they are no t en titl e d to, or which they d o not possess, and a different construction might be put on them., The Learned Gentle man th en procee d ed to read the ev idence' . of Mr. Despard, as follows :—Walker was in coloured clothes:. Westenra was there also, and is alive at present. as far a° I know ; a man a s k e d hi m t o ta k e off his hat for O'Connell; he was surprised when he heard of the 20,000 Wellbsd f ,., men ; and whe t I ask e d hi m did h e b el i eve the man , , answer was, " I had only hi s wor d f or i t. " I ask, is th at ' evidence in this case ? There was the case made by pard of the great treasonable design concocted aga i ns t the'' peace of the country, bec ause h e met a man who t o ld him be* came from Wexford ! The only other meeting at which Ai r. ; Rae attended was that at Mullaghmast. He went there , nr in his capacity of secretary to the Association, but on an it'll; tation which was conv e y e d t o hi m f rom the Committee. at; was at the dinner whi c h t oo k p l ace i n the evening ; and that was the only place in th e w h o l e hi story of the tr a nsaction , that Mr. Ray ma d e a speec h or sa i d a word. Wel l , let 4. see under what circumstances he went there, and made speech. Everything done at that dinner was given in e v dente, except that s p eec h o f M r. R ay. In the courseof the evening certain toasts were proposed, and amongst the was the " Loyal National Repeal Association." Mr. Rat No''spoke to the toast, but b ow ? Did h e vo l unteer to speak ? he did not ; he was called on to reply to the toast asthe s ecretary ' of the Association, and he made some observations on the subs_ ject, but of so little impo r t ance were thoseobservations that ts: were forgotten. The spe ec h was not reported, nor was it give in evidence on the table—it was merely wasstated that Mr. Raf, r r es turned thanks on the part o f the Association , and that a 3 only time in the history o f th e w h o l e transact i on t h at M r . Bei made a speech. In speaking of the s meeting at Mullarglonal,t, think this is the time t o ma k e a f ew observations with regal'" . 0 something which occurred at th at meeting. I think we Dt„ reason to complain of th e mo d e i n which the prosecution been conducted, 'and my client complains of being ma de 6 party to what occurred there—that was the first reoleur; tion moved at the meeting, which is one of the ,°° Acts laid as disclosing the criminal intents of the parties excite disaffection among her Majesty's subjects. Learned Gentleman here read the first and second resolution, agreed to at th e meet i ng. ) You have had 'a great deal of t evidence laid before you as to the numerous assemblage persons who came together at Mullaghmast, but though pi n ge . rous, it was prov e d t h at th i s meeting, like the others , r st. peaceable a n d or d er l y, and that there was not the sligh te st tendency to co mm i t a b reach of the peaee. But it ;ee deemed neces sar y, as i n the case of Tara, " T e r some species of evidence reflecting on the charts , € of the meeting, and on the designs and object o s,,9 o ` those who were assembled there. I call attention t " 4 „, fast, because it is one which, I regret to say, disc los , e r s oni management and distorting which ought to be absent 1 a trial of this description when everything should bes allude' to board and brought forward. What de I allude to ? by to the catch-penny ballad or placard published and Psint7 the e ' a person named Hanvey, whom it was the bounden duty of Crown to have produced. If it were a case of CO. _shine assault, where there might be a struggle for ling verdict to carry damages, I would understan d he was not produced, but in a State prosecution, and cularly in a State Crown prosecution, I deny that Re to be kept back. When the Attorney-General 0p0,5,11 ibis ease, he said that seditious, infamous, and p ub' disgrnettr suus lications were circulated by themselves and Uses o:r" the sands for the purpose of exciting one nation alai's: . and other, and that my client fabricated the documen t , pros had it circulated. Why should not the Attorney "sert facer duce the person who _ circulated them, that we ni . f_h ob;acted tam where he got them, and who paid for them ? "7, uc s' e d a for t ? . to the document, we thought it unjust to be produced ch evidence on a conspiracy, when it was sought to make ... ra ters• conspirator responsible for the acts of his co-conspire Was iperson,tto zneeting, seditious üblications, in the outskirts of the b w e ho e s n e du ch re a d rac t t h e a r t wsuaschbalacdkoeenumedenast, eairyeue.nladteerdfbooYrf sprofiton h i a m n s d e lf hire, regular and recognised printer of the Association,. who pd or_ the directions for the repeal wardens, and a variety of n ber.etit o s t ho p u ro ld du b e e ed re ? ceiv; i d r. inßervoiwdnen,cew, haond:_tah:e !at:her-de ments for which he was paid—the Crown had clos e of his evidence; but why did the Attorney-Gene ral his case, having this document in his posseate with calling the person who sold them to show bew as et theme , • I voi, till tka vier of j tria epn Le lten. tO.l of t Was uf I dro 41 t