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 y 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'CONNELL rose and said—My Lord Chief Justice, something dropped from my Counsel in his ad mirable speech in my behalf on: Saturday, which I fear is calculated to create a serious, apprehension in the m.:nds of the jury with regard to me, and I therefore beg you will allow me to off. r 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, it' 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 liarnenL7(Applause.) Mr. Mooiti, Q.C., then rose and proceeded to say — My birds and LoGentlemen 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 that 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. Sheil. 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, Imust 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 he 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 fthink no man could dissent. Ile 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 question—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 exc'ted through every part of Ireland, from one end to the other ; when wa consider that hundreds of thousands—l may say millions—of your countrymen have sire Ituivocally, 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 . sensing 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 rest'ess 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-Generale in thinking that the prosecution which be 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 be 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 be his motive, . 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 laud, 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—if, 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 the power of 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, ,rrentlemen, is that conspiracy sought to he made out? By the allegation that there were meet ings that were unlawful attended by some of the true 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 of 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 strung 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 leaving 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 establish e d to the hand of the Attorney-Gene ral ; and, if the meeting s were unlawful, as he alleges they are, he had nothin g 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 t h e matter to issue' in a tingle moment, and at a single point. But have I not reason to complain, on y the art of in - client, of the course which h a s b een adopted the l officers of the Crown in the pr esent impreeedente r Cons? The Attorney-General h as abandoned I;l:e°secily artless, unencumbered course which was open to to have adopted—the course which I have described to you as the simplest and most obvious that could have been pursued by him. He flings all the traversers headlong into one indictment—he entangles them, one and all, within the meshes of a prosecution for con spiracy; and although it has appeared in evidence that my client never was in connexion with any of the traversers until the third of October, after all the monster meetings had ceased, he endeavours, notwith standing, to make him responsible for all antecedent acts of men with whom it was impossible that he could have acted in concert. lie seeks to visit him with the consequences of meetings which he never attended ; of speebhes which he never listened to ; and of publications which he never read ! 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 men 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 con - duct 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 fur you 'a number of speeches which were delivered at meetings, which he declared were seditious ; and healso directed your attention to certain extracts from articles which appeared in newspapers, and which he likewise characterised as illegal ; but, gentlemen, it certainly did appear to me that the Attorney-General in making these statements to you, was most unwittingly, and most unconsciously, pronouncing the severest philippic that it was possible for the mind of man to conceive, against hinismlf 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 jacked 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 ha 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 ; hut, gentlemon, 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 committei—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 commission 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 suchcharge against them ; but I must say that the spech of the Attornay-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 fairly attributed to another cause; and 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 strong in that position as to venture to bring it single handed under the consideration of any court or any jury. Let the result of the present prosecutions be what it may, it is still open for the Attorney-General to adopt this course. Let him select any of the meetings he pleases ; let him bring into the Court of Queen's Bench aly or all of the persons who attended that meeting, and let him try the ques tion fairly, and take the opinion of a jury as to whether the meeting was or was not illegal. If that had been done, we could not be in the dark—we could clearly see our way ; but that has not been done. The cause, I think, is obvious. The Attorney-General was a lawyer, and he could not tell the Government that the meetings were illegal. I have no doubt but that, in the conscien tious discharge of his public duty, he would have at once pressed upon the Government the illegality of the meetings, if his mind had been made up on that ille gality. If he had a deep-seated conviction that the meetings were against the law, he surely would have lost no time in declaring that conviction to the Government—that he could not bear to look upon such practices as were of daily recurrence in this 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 he was not . during nine months able to b r i ng hi mse lf to t h e con clusion that the meetings were ill ega l, i s h e now to b e 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 !Hegel, 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 than in hearing him 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 he 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 lie 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 am unacquainted with the eircumstances 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 l ea d ers , an d to d o w h atever t h ey migh tthink right. On the other side, you had an unarmed and defenceless multitude. Gentlemen, had a collision under such circumstances taken N p v l h a l F c e h , hmadightthe havesli angrypghtesrtovoked it—hadword even an been said accident occurred which might lead to it—you would have had the armed battalions of this country, in the full plenitude of thei r s t rengt h , arrayed against the un armed, helpless, and, I may add, defenceless multitude. It is really frightful to conte m plat e w h at the conse- . quences might have been ; and the plains of Clontarf, but for the exertions of Mr. 9'Connell, might h ave b een a second time deluged with the blood of his countrymen. Mr. O'Connell stopped that meeting, not, as I said, be cause he considered it illegal, but because he foresaw the fearful consequences that might have resulted, and in my judgment he is entitled to the warm gratitude of every friend of humanity for his conduct on that occasion; *4_ I will further add, that there is not an individual in the com munity who owes him a deeper debt of gratitude than the Attorney-General himself: Gentlemen of the jury, I 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 —I would not select his great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci pation, or the consummation of that great measure 'by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all his countrymen ; but 1 would select his conduct on the occasion of this Clontarf meeting as doing most honour to his feelings, most credit to his humanity, and by which he saved the country from the dreadful consequences of a collision, which it was only owing to his exertions did not take place. Gentlemen of the jury, let me now advert for one moment to the nature of the charges preferred against the traversers in this indictment. They are charged, in the language df 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 consciences, 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? % hoever 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 ltrely 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 tit 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 ha 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. Shell, called your attention to the indictment in this case, and he de scribed it, as I think he well might have done, as a " monster indictment." It has been called so with pe culiar propriety. It is in accordance with the expres sions of the Attorney-General himself, for I think I heard him use the word at least a hundred times in the course of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will call it what I think it deserves to be called - -a mon strous indictment—for I do not believe a prieddent 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 considering the bill, and then the Attbrney-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 eac h d ay, 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 a t th e en d o f t h at t i me t h at you will not understand it better than you do at the present moment. The Attorney-General, after his speech of eleven hours and his proofs of eight days durations, after laying his mass of facts before you, is satisfied that there is a constructive conspiracy made out against the traversers, and he then tells you you have a right to come to the same conclusion, namely, that because he is satisfied that there is a case of constructive conspiracy made ont against them that you ought to come to the same conclusion. There never was a more dangerous doctrine than the doc trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of it. There was now an effort made to charge the de fendants with constructive conspiracy, and to satisfy yoti 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. The mode of proceeding in that and the present case was the same, and that case was the precedent for the present Attorney-General He founded a case on it, and carried out the details in the same manner as they had been carried out in that case. The then Attorney-General produced evidence of a number of meetings, a large quantity of publicati o ns, 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 Ale of Horne Tooke as in the case of Hardy, and a like result was come to in the case of Hunt. In all those cases the juries came to the conclusion that they would not be act ing fairly, or conscientiously, or constitutionally, by put ting a constructive conspiracy on the party charged. I trust you will imitate the example set by those persons, and, although I am sure you are always ready to bring to justice all parties who may violate the law, yet I am sure you will not, on your oaths, come to the conclusion which the At torney-General has arrived at, and that is a con structive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew the fact, and why did not he go by that case ? Had he produced any respectable person on the table to prove that an agreement or conspiracy existed between the parties; and are you to assume, and adopt that assumption, that such• was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact was clear ; and, thereore, 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 ever existed at all, but I deny that there was any such thing. It is necessary for me to tell you who m y c li ent i s. He i s the Roman Catholic priest of the parish of Clontibret, in the county of Monaghan. He is a gentleman of the most exemplary character, both as a private individual and a Christian clergyman. He had filled the office of clergy man to that parish for several years, and was highly re spected. 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 THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY al, 1544. 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 pint, and he also had a right to express his sentiments relative to that measure. Is there any man who will tell me he has not a right to his opinions ? It was the right of every man to speak out openly and fairly what he felt to be his honest convic tion; and it was, moreover, his duty as a good citizen to do so. Every honest Irishman who has brought his mind to the. honest conviction -.that any measure has been injurious, is bound by every principle to do away with it by honest and legitimate means ; and if a man honestly believe that the ,union has sacrificed the independence and prosperitY of Ireland, he is bound to use all legitimate means to set it aside. I am not now using any argument for or against that measure. It is not my province or yours to• do that ; but I say every man ought to act up to his own holiest 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 !he language of those eminent individuals. Gentlemen, I will read a stronger passage of Saurin's to you “ You may make the union binding as a law, but you cannot make, it obligatory on conscience. It will be obeyed as a law as long as England is strong ; bat resistance to it will be in the abstract a duty, and the exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of prudence." Take any of the numerous publications laid before you in evidence, and it will not be found so strong as this passage. I ask you have you any reason to doubt the sincerity of those eminent men I alluded to—of Mr. Bushe, whom in common with every one who knew him, I regret is no longer amongst us, whose memory, I May say with perfect truth, will remain for ever in the hearts of his countrymen. Who can doubt of the sincerity of Lord Plunket? I rejoice that he is still amongst us, and still commands and possesses the love, respect, reverence, and admiration of 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 ins', 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 A ttorticy-C-eneral endeavoured to convince you that the repeal of the union was impracticable and unattainable. Gentlemen, after what we have seen in our own days, I think it would be difficult to say that any measure, whatever difficulties may exist against it, is impracticable and unattainable. There is the slave-trade, which was denounced by Mr. Pitt as the greatest stain that ever disgraced mankind The abolition of that trade had the support of his mighty in tellect, as also that of Mr. Fox. It was recommended by every feeling ofhurnaniry and justice, yet it took years to coun teract the prejudices which existed against the measure. But at length it became the law of the land. Again, there is the measure of Catholic Emancipation. We all know the difficulties it had to struggle against, so great—that to many it appeared impracticable. Yet it became the law of the land. There is the still more recent measure of Parliamentary Reform. We know how long it took before it became the law of the land, and therefore I say that you cannot donitt the sincerity of those persons in advocating a repeal of the union, though great, and, perhaps, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties may exist against it. The Attorney-General also referred to the opinions entertained by eminent statesmen with regard to the measure. I never expected to hear the Attorney-General refer to the speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but he cited them on this occasion, as also the more congenial opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Deke of Wellington. To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is due; but I deny that any man is to be bound or controlled by the opinions of other men, however eminent they may be. The opinions of statesmen are not immutable; they are at liberty—and why should they not—to change their opinions, if they see grounds for it. I may refer to one of those eminent individuals in precf of what I say. You cannot but recollect, when the question of Catholic emancipation was brought before Parliament, in 1828, that Sir Robert Peel expressed an une quivocal and decided opinion against it. Do you doubt of his sincerity ? 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, be found reason to alter; and instead of displaying the pertinacity and obstinacy of a fool, he yielded to altered circumstances and greater experience, and, therefore, recommended and carried, in 1829, the measure he opposed in 1828. If, then, you believe that the Rev. Mr. '1 ierney honestly believes that the union has been injurious, you will give him the credit for it,—and refer to honest motives whatever acts he has done. And I now come to the acts imputed to him. If I understand the 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 M'Cann, who was produced as a witness. This conversation is said to have taken place on the 10th of June, and it is better that I should read to you, from what 1 believe is a correct report of his evidence, this conversation, which took place two m onths p re vious to the meeting in ques tion, M'Cann said he received instructions to ge to the R ev . Mr. Tierney to kn ow at what time the reported meetin g that accordingly h e went, and that Mr. all the inform a ti on h e could, and that he p r ecise day on w hi c h the meeting was to (M'Cann) sa id th at M r. nio " n ll ; e he repeat e d th a t it wa s frau tdTwaiiodkeuerltploeltYatcakgekna.eovwePl:thlah:iCemelann told you he h a d a conversation with him, d wT u hi e l i e rne n h t e l y y la c d a w ; rielirletdend;ohviteo s trh a e i ea d d i u' t was not binding ; he represented it as a nullity and not binding on conscitnce; he spoke of the feel caa oi n nu n could trhaydm e not . done." ot be easily b roug ht t o sp ill t h e feel ing on repeal becomi n g g eneral, an d extending itself to the army, that they were favou rable to re p eal, that they partook of the en thusiasm rememb er h e re f erre d t o w iba o Now, on the a utho r ity of Mr. Tierney, I say t hat he absolutely and positively d e nie s hotd t ohfe o their r the m y fellow - countrymen, in o , o p ws l d that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried on between them. He acknowledges 'bat M'Cann came to him for information about the meeting, that he gave him that information, but that he had with him this conversation he positively and unequivocally denies possesses any particle of truth. lan not able to produce any witness to sustain this assertion, and why ? Because, according to the testimony of M'Cann, there wasno one presentbut himself and Mr. Tierney. But for the sake of truth I am glad to be able to convict M'Cann out of his own mouth, in such a manner that it is im possible to attach one particle of credit to what is said b y that officer. In the first place, is it not improbable, if such a conversation took place, that a common policeman should have been able to recollect the terms of it, which he read to you— that he would be able to detail to you the apparently eloquent language in which the conversation seems to have been carried on ? He was a policeman, was not even one of the flock of the Rev. Gentleman—he came on business—he came dressed in his, uniform ; was it likely that a gentleman of rank and station would have held such a conversation with a common policeman ? There is great danger in acting on conversations so reported ; you will also remark that the witness said he kept a diary, but he never kept any notes of any portion of that conversation. You will recollect that one part of this conversation was alleged to be, that Ir. 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 June. 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 volt 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 19;h or 20th ; it was, therefore, an impossibility that a poli ceman i n t h e coun t y o f Monaghan could have in formation of what trick 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 c h arge , an d 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 moat useful assistance in leading the jury to believe that he had done so. But if lam right in my dates, as you will find by reference to the papers that I am, you will see that there was no revolt in the Spanish army till the llth, yet here is this wretched policeman on the Nth, in the county of Monaghan, talking as if he wails 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 yen to dismiss from your minds altogether this al leged, and untruly alleged, conversation. I now come to the meeting at Clontibret, which took place on the 15th of August. And who were the persons brought forward to give you an ac count of what took place at these meetings ? The only evidence adduced is that of two policemen. You have heard from them there were magistrates present—that two stipendiary magistrates were present. Why had not either of them been produced ? Was it not the duty of the Crown, if it wanted to represent the meeting at Clontibret as an illegal meeting, to have produced those who were calculated to give the best information on the subject. Though these two stipendiary magistrates were pre sent, though they were in the pay and service of the Govern ment, and under its control, though there was not a particle 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; Anew not its motives, I knew not its reasons for so" doing--but I thick I am justified in saying this, that from their non-productioii might be drawn this plain and simple inference, that they could not have said anything that would have served the prosecution, and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it. That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual of Vie 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 Queens Bench has been a mot ille gal meeting for the last fortnight.—(Laughter.) There had .certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your peculiar situation—(Laughter)—you are guarded and pro tected from it,— no other portion of the Court, not even the judgment-seat (Laughter) but has been invaded, and the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed " by those whom they have found it impossible to resist.— ( Great laughter.) Yet this meeting you are called on to pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the alleged conspiracy. I say with conitlence that there is no particle of evidence by which the meeting at Clontibret can be pronounced illegal. (The Learned Gentleman here read the object of the meeting, the resolutions adopted at it, and the petition to Parliament which was carried, and having pointed out the perfectly legal and constitutional nature of the proceedings, said—Mr. Tierney is charged with attending a meeting pf the Repeal Association on the 3d of October. Up to that time there is no evidence to show that he ever had any communication with the other traversers, or that he had ever read or heard of their speeches or proceedings. On that day he was first brought in connection with the Association. It is true that on that day he became a member of it. Gentlemen, I shall certainly never forget the withering and concentrated sneer with which the Attorney-General read the name of this Association when he came to the word" Loyal," Loyal Repeal Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of its disloyalty. What be dared not venture to express in _plain terms he has struggled to give vent to by a sneer." lam no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the ,attempt. Some of the wisest, the a bl es t, th e b es t, anal mo-t 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 sale to sneer, and to cast indirect imputations; but the Attorney-General has not dared, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to in 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 Attorneys General has not dared to put down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. Pb:ney not merely attended those meetings, but 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 furtherznce 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 ba 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 lor 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 fur 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 loy a lty o f a peop l e — an d , b y in fusing his own peculiar ideas into hi m , cause t h e M arquis of Weetminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client, the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetingi of the Association ; I confess he slid so. He is accused of having handed in contributions—l confess it. He made a speech, too, which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length in the indictment, I suppose for the purpose of handing down that specimen of legal skill to posterity. 1 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 ! 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-Genera', " 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 tpo 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-be able to justify to your country now, and to your God hereafter. Mr. HATCHELL, Q.O , then rose and said—May it please your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury— CHIEF JusTice—Whom do you a.spear for? Mr. HATCHELL—I am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray. Gentlemen of the Jury —I consider, notwithstanding what you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge nerally with repect to the charges that are made against them all, and particularly with respect to their own clients —I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have heard with respect to the law and facts of the case, still to address to you, on behalf of my client, a few observations. Gentlemen, I think you must feel that the ground has been pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in the facts and law of the case, and the powerful and able observations of my fri en d M r . foore 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 yeu, 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, hadjoined 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 which 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 net to try whether he be 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, arra nge d, 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 intent. 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 exclusire province and duty to decide this upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those persons interfered in those transactions ? They were the actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to the opinion of the eminent Judge who charged the grand jury in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in calling the attention of the jury to the question they had to try, said— Judge Bo RTON — What de you take that from? Mr HATCH ELL — From the State Trials," vol. 24. Your Lordship will find it in page 203. You are aware, gentle men, from what has been already stated, that the 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 purpose of any of these 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 ease 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 lam' to he innocent before his guiet is clearly established and, as already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if there he a cri minal intent all, ged, and if there be a legal intent to which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, com mon justice—the spirit of the British law—requires that his acts should be attributed to the legal and innocent motive, and not, by straining, to a criminal intent. Gentlemen of the jury, you have a right to go further— accordine to the spirit of the British law if it be question. able to what those motives are attributab'e—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, yon 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 ha 3 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. Hew is an individual to be competent to prepare hanaelf for his defence against such multiplied accusa tions—for though th 'y 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 present case has been adopted, you have heard. You have been told that no precedent can be found for such a prosecution as the present. Gentlemen, there is but one case on record which bears any analogy to it, and that case is one which is a blot on English history, and one which has challenged the indignant animadversion of all intelligent men who have ever considered it—the ease of Warren Hast ings. When, on occasion of Hardy's trial, Mr. Erskine, the eloquent advocate of the accused, came to speak of the in dictment in that case (which falls fifty degrees short of the perplexity and injustice of the indictment on which the present traversers have been given in charge) he expressed himself in language of no common force. Lord Erskine, in page 890, of the " State Trials," expressed his sentiments upon such pro secutions as the present in no ordinary language. He began by quoting the sentiments of Lord Hale upon constructive trea son, which are as follow :—" And third, how dangerous it is by construction and analogy to make treasons where the letter of the law has not done it, for such a method admits of no limits or bounds, but runs as far and as wide as the wit and invention of the accusers and the detestation of persons ac cused will carry men." " Surely (continued Mr. Erskine) the a :monition of this resplendent lawyer ought to sink deep into the heart of every judge and every juryman who is called to administer justice under this statute ; above all, in the times, and under the peculiar circumstances, which assemble us in this place. Honourable men, feeling as they ought for the safety of Government and the tranquillity of the country, and naturally indignant against those who are supposed to have brought them into peril, ought, for that very cause, to proceed with more abundant caution; brit 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 eesult 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 thp 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 anti wisest in the nation. I know them indeed so well as o 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 or what is not? Many have car ried what they knew to their graves, and the living have liveti 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 his 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 impssioned Erskine in comparing the proceedings in Hardy's ease with the proceedings which had been instituted against Warren Hastings, and yet I have no hesi tation in avet ring that in H ar dy' s case t h e part i es charged were few, and the circumstances were few, as compared with the num ber of the accused, and the abundance of the accusations in the present unprecedented prosecution. How monstrous is the injus tice to which my client has been made a victim in being called upon to become responsible for the words and actions of other men, beside himself, during the period of seven months. Gen tlemen, the task is indeed arduous which the Crown has im posed upon you. You are called upon to jump at the conclu 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 pervert the laws and injure the Constitution of the country. That you are sworn to try : at that conclusion you are required to arrive. Gentlemen, I feel embarrassed in addressing you ; I confess that I am adverse to going over the same ground that Mr. Moore has traversed in his eloquent remarks, for I am apprehensive that a repetition of the same topics liy me, instead of being of value to you, or to my client, would rather have the effect of weakening the im pression that most have been produced upon your minds by the admirable speech of my Learned Friend. But I can not avoid offering a few remarks to which I would fain at tract your most serious attention, in reference to the particular case of my client, Mr. Ray. Gentlemen, look at the position in which my client is placed, and have regard to the circum stances by which his particular case is characterised. Gentle men, Mr. Ray is a humble man with a large family, who look to him alone for support. He has no other pursuits than those which are connected with his avocation or office. He was made Secretary to the Repeal Association on its forma tion in the year 1840, and from the day of his appointment to the present hour his time and attention have been totally engaged by the discharge of the duties incidental to his situa tion. He has not given me the slightest instructions to say that the repeal movement did not enlist his good wishes in . its favour—or that ho 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 Isis 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 Asso 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 evidence 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 hii acts are not to be attributed to the discharge of his duties— are not to be viewed as the deeds of a paid servant who is anxious to give value for his salary ; but that they are rather to be attributed to a fell purpose existing in his mind to outrage the laws and trample on the Constitution You are called upon by the Crown to view his case in this artificial light. You are called upon to come to this conclusion ; but as honest men—as intelligent men—as men who love justice, and prize the independence of the mind—l ask you, can you come to that conclusion ? In my humble judgment, it was a mon strous thing to include Mr. Ray in this indictment. He ought never to have been included in the present charge ; and I cannot forbear from expressing it as my opinion that the Crown, in having proceeded against him, have not pursued a candid, ingenuous course, either towards him or towards the other traversers. They have indicted the members of a certain society for a criminal conspiracy, and they have included in the indictment Mr. Ray, the salaried servant of the Asso ciation. I will not apply hard names to this proceeding, I w ill 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 aecused parties, by including the witnesses in the indictment. I do not mean to impute any unworthy mo tive to my friend the Attorney-General, but I am surely at liberty to call your attention to the disastrous effect which re sults to the rest of the traversers from the circumstance of my client being included in the indictment. While I repu diate the idea of attributing an unworthy motive in any quarter, I am surely at liberty to demonstrate how the effect of such a proceeding as has been adopted is exactly similar to that which would have resulted if the paltry ma noeuvre 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 officer of the Society—he had in his possession the authenticated books and documents of the Society, written in his own hand-writing— he knew the working and machinery, so to speak, of the Society, and was the only man competent in law to prove the honest and perfectly legal intentions of its members. He could have proved their objects—he could have clearly demonstrated the means that were resorted to by them for the constitutional purpose of procuring the repeal of a statute which they conscien tiously believed was a grievance to their country—all this he could have made as clear as sun-light ; but he (the man who was in a position to prove all this) has been silenced, and is incapacitated from acting as a witness by being included in the indictment. The Crown might have brought Mr. Ray upon the table—they might have called for his books, anti examined the man who made the entries, an d t h us have furnished themselves - with primary evidence of the most au thentic character, but this they had not do ne , an d they were accordingly obliged to avail themselves of th e or di nary news paper reports, which did not publish all the transactions of the meetings; hut 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 t o ma k e 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 cou rse ta k en at the trial of Hardy and of Horne Tooke ? Wh o was t h e Attorney-General of Enee land in that day ? The late L or d Eld on, then Mr. Scott. Who was the Solicitor •Gene ra l o f t h at d ay ? The late Lord . Redesdale, subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Mr Alitford. How did th ey proceed against Horne Tooke and the ether members of those associations which it was the object of those prosecutions t o p ut d own? Who was the first witr.ess examined against Horne Tooke ? Daniel Adams, who was sworn and examined by the counsel for the Crown. And what did he prove ? Th a t h e 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 can depose to facts appertaining to the prosecution, and then to give the traversers the benefit of their cr oss - exam i na ti on . Mr. Ray is included in this indict ment ; he cannot be a witness at all. I cannot call him f or himself—th e o th er t ra versers cannot examine hire on their be half. In H ar dy' s c as e the Crown did not indict the secr e t ar y ;" he was the first witness to prove the objects, the intent, and the tendeney of the associaticn, Horne Tooke was entitled to the cross-examination of the witness produced by the Crown ; he had the secretary of the society on the table to interrogate him as to the intent and object of it. One of the questions was,. " Were the members armed with pikes or muskets ?—No. Did you ever hear anything said in the society about pikes or muskets ?—No, never in my life. Was there such a thing as a secret Committee there ?—Never. Was not everything conducted openly and publicly? Was there anything ever took place which could lead you to believe that the members intended to depose or kill the King ?—Oh, no, never." Would I not, gentlemen, have been entitled to ask him, if be was a witness on the table, " Had you any reason to suppose that the members of the Loyal Na ions! 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 1" 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 dissensioes at home among the people of England. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of that day put the Secretary of the Association upon the table in order that he might prove the facts—in order that the truth might be ascertained. The truth prevailed,.and Horne Tooke was acquitted. What more questions were put to him?—" What do you think was the object or intention of the greater part of' the members of that Society 7—To obtain Parliamentary re form." Do you think there are many among them who meant more than what they said ?—I do not know; I believe they meant what they said." Gene' tlemen of the jury, I will not go further with this exa mination. Observe its application to the case of my clients, the Secretary of the Repeal Association, who discharged his official duties in the ordinary way that the officer of any public society was bound to do? Why is he included in this indict ment, or why is he now called upon, after having been per mitted for seven months past to go on discharging the duties of his situation, to answer here as a conspirator—as one re sponsible for all the sets, speeches, and publications of which you have heard so much? Can you on your oaths, as honest and honourable men, say, in the face of the c oun t r y, that Mr. Ray, the official f a legal, a recognised Association, did not discharge his duties as secretary, in accordan ce w ith th e direc- • tions of those by whom he was employed; but that be ex ceeded his instructions, and combined in doing all those overt acts which form the charge of conspiracy against him You are called upon to say he did not do these things with the intention of discharging his duty, consist ently with his principles; bat that he was engaged in a pre.* concerted plot—in a settled conspiracy formed between those gentlemen, for you are to swear upon your oath that you be lieved such to have been his intent before you can give a ver dict against him, and I am to get your answer to that plain question out of your jury-box. Gentlemen of the jury, it may be said that Mr. Ray went beyond the regular course of his duty ; it may be said that he &el not confine himself to attend ing the regular meetings of the Association in the capacity of :secretary. Gentlemen. I am ready to admit, on the part of Mr. Ray, that wherever there was a meeting of the Association,. as of the Association itself, he attended and officiated there as se cretary, and that gets rid of all questions upon the indictment upon that head. But it may be alleged that he was present at Tara and at Mullaghmast. Now, on that saject I have ascertained the fact, that those were the only two country meetings at which he was ever present. The rneetine at Tara took place the 15•11 of August; it was I believe cliefly an assemblage of persons from that immediate neighbouemod ; but a con siderable portion of them were from the minty and city- of Dublin, many attracted there from curiosity, and many more of course from an identity of feeling with the object for which it was convened, and from which to give expres sion to their feelings on the question of tepee. Thousands went out there in carriages, gigs, and cars totes what took place on the 15th of August at the hill of Tea. I don't know whether you are aware of it, but I believ, the fact is notorious, that from the number of persons who were going out of Dublin that day, it was regrded as a species of holiday through the city. Mr. Ray went here with his family, with the females of his family, and in comany with the members of another gentleman's family, of who( one or two were females. He did nothing there ; he made n speech there ; he did not act as secretary to that meeting • anetaking that fact - alone, you might as well have includes every other person who attended there as Mr. Ray. Theresan be no doubt but thousands went there from a mere feEng of curiosity. However, we now find Mr. Ray at Tara, nd, as far as I can see, with respect to Mr. Ray as a traverser, a that head I have nothing requiring me to justify on hispart. He may have gone there with a sympathy for the e l ects of the meeting; but does that attach to him the chatter of a conspirator? I shall not go into any of the partidars of that meeting, fer its peaceable character has been depose to by the magistrates and policemen who were present—they live told that there was no riot, no breach of the peace, no tendesy to anything like it there. To be sure Captain Despard tes examined, but what was his evidence ? Why was it gives'? I will tell you ; it was in order to give a certain colourir to this case—a colouring of illegality to that great meeting and that you might draw inferences from the evidene after obtaining a colouring for it. Well, then, Walker was examined, and what did he prove? That he saw people walking, heard bands playing, and saw a few flags or tanners, and that was all he saw. Was there anything illegal in that? Walker was examined by the Crown on all that he was suppose' to know. Well, Captain Despard, who, it will be recollected , had no great regard or esteem for Mr. O'Connell—for whit reason, I suppose, be knows best himself—but it was gull clear that, from his manner and evidence, he had a very etrotg feeling against Mr. O'Connell and the meeting. This Captain Despard comes from Trim, and he swears he heard the people" say " Keep the step !" I asked him did they keep the step, a 1 he said they did not. I mus t h ere remar k t h a t ever y police" , man who was examined did, either by design or accidente„ endeavour in the strong es t manner t o give a colouring, whiP they were not warranted in giving, to the whole character o f the proceedings. Captain Despard said the people cams in marching order to the meeting, and by that word he wanted to impress something on your minds - relative to military array. He was obliged to admit that the people did not keep the step, nor did they know hew to keep it. He was a military man, and he at once committed himself in his anxiety to colour the case, ant give a turn to the whole proceedings, which were totally different from the facts. • It was most disingenuous in Despard to use a military term for the purpose of throwing it into your box; but at the same time it only proves the nature of his temper, and the bias of his mind, and his partisanship on the subject. I will ask, are men to be branded with being foul conspirators—are their lives, liberties, and fortunes to be at stake in consequence of such evidence as this that I have shown you ? The gallaot Captain Despard and Major Westenra le ere taken for foreigners , ' because," says the captain, "Major Westenra had a mous tache, and I had a curl in my lip."—(Laughter. ) Well, he ge t ' into a conversation with come lump of a fellow from Stoneybatter or thereabouts, who was waiting to see Mr. O'Connell psis' and because of this conversation the meeting was stigmatised as illegal. The man told him he came from Wexford, ea u therefore the meeting was illegal, and the traversers guilty di; foul conspiracy.—( Laughter.) Thi s a ll ege d conve rsation Oen' have been sustained by evidence, but I think the Attorney' General knew nothing at all about it when he opened the clef' or if he did I think he did well to leave it out and not contse e '; Date his case, bad as it w as , w ith suc h tras h as I a ll u d e to. am Attorney-General did not allude to 20,000 Shilmalier men' who marched to Tara. Oh, no, he knew it would be really t 4 l. farcical to do so . Th e conversat i on to which he referre d, if ever such took place at all, most be treated as a cock-and-a-bqll storfs or a humbug. Walker was examined before Capt. Despard, in the country, and it was said also that he was near him when the eel!: versation took place yet there was not a word about it, as it wq too equivocal. Oh I but the 20,0(0 Wexford men sould be forgotten by Capt. Despard. Oh, but that was done for a purpose—to give a co l our i ng t o th e case ; an d we ll the ot her side knew that. Why was not Walker asked abotit it? might have corroborated the story. It was disgraceful to btu*: such a case as that forward, in order to sustain the prosec uri° ,77 Why was not Westenra produced to corroborate, the end He was not. And well the Attorney-General knew it 1100 , 0 be a disgrace to the case to introduce such an episode into e t. opening statement. It is not my intention to -make all f r ill y marks relative to the other meetings, because Mr., attended only that at Tara and Mullaghmast, or will leave them to other hands. Why do I ine,n, 4 to those things but to show that You ought to come cowl the consideration of this awful" case, as I am convinced 320, will. I would not have mentioned the f a ct s related h ere , but if I left them untouched it would be giving them of weight which they are not entitled to, or which they do o. possess, and a different construction mi g ht b e put.on " The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the eviden t .. of Mr. Despard, as follows :—Walker was in coloured clotheo .' Westenra was there also, and is alive at present. as far esi; I know ; a man asked him to take off his hat ler O'CAn n i er e he was surprised when he h ear d o f th e 20,000 Wel - bis men ; and when I asked him did he b e li eve the man, tha t es answer was, " I had only his word f o r it." I ask, ie n . evidence in this case ? Th ere was th e case ma de by m the pard of the great t reasona bl e d es i gn concocte d against be peace of the country, because he met a man who told him it came from Wexford ! Th e on ly ot h er meet i ng a t which ' 11 . : ,e Ray attended was th a t at Mullaghmast. He went there! vi' in his capacity of s ecre t ary to t h e A ssoc i at i on, b ut on an to ne tation which was conveyed to him from the Committee. that was at the dinner whi c h t oo k p l ace i n t h e even i ng; and ton was the only place in the wh o l e hi story o f t h e transac' ue that Mr. Ray made a speech or said a word. Well, let i b e see under what circumstances he went th ere, and snod e ev ie speech. Everything done at that di nner was g i ve n in: t be dente, except that speech of M r . R ay ft`;. the c ourse 01 _et evening certain toasts were propose . !, and amongst the r was the " Loyal National Repeal Association." M r ' leo 1 spoke to the toast, but how ? Did h e vo l un t eer t o speak to y he did not ; he was called on to reply to the to a st as the se t a e of A te e Association, and he made so me o b serva tions on the oy t ject, but of so little importa nce were th ose o b serva tions that jos s were forgotten. The spee c h was no t reporte d, nor was , i 9l„eee in evidence on the table—it was mere l y state d t h a t Mr. n•J i be turned thanks on the part of the Association, and that 11Ile onlftsl made e t a i p e e i e n c t h h . e i n s tsopreyaok speaking e of t w h h e o l e meeting transaction that Mr' . think this is the time to make a few observatio at new lu i l t i li ag re b g in 7 --lA :f t : something which occurred at that meeting. I thin k "0 has reason to complain of the mode in which the prosecatio de been conducted, and my client complains of being , s %%le' party to what occ urre d t h ere—t h at was t h e first ove rt tion moved at th e meeting, which is one a the t. Acts laid as disclosing the criminal intents of the parti excite disaffection among her Majesty's subjects. 400 Learned Gentleman here read the first and second resoT eal o f agreed is at the meeting.) You have had a great 1 3 ce of evidence laid before you as to the numerous asseterNmee persons who came together at Mullaghmast, but though s ,gaS rous, it was proved that this meeting, like the others, eat peaceable and orderly, and that there was not the ".1. tendency to commit a breach of the peace. B ut get deemed necessary, as in the case of Tara, c ct er hara some species of evidence reflecting on the objef o t e t b ° i o of the meeting, and on the designs and those who were assembled there. I tall attention es s fact, because •it is one which, I regret to beyabsent eeoln management and distorting which ought to a trial of this description when everything board and brought forward. What do I allude t ;n o 11 to the catch-penny ballad or placard published and prig o f the should s .n . r l s u e de a person named Hanvey, whom it was theebounden o nu Crown to have poodueed. If it were a case Le t e e t t ril li e assault, where there might be a struggle fora .c .w . 1 .1 4 why ling verdict to carry damages, I would one , 6 _‘f e he was not produced, but in a State prosecution , be L us bt cularly in a State Crown prosecution, I deny that _ ne e tuts to be kept back. When the Attorney-General or ru i n ob• case, be said that seditious, infamous, and disg race ee t hou' lications were circulated by themselves and tens a. nst the sands for the purpose of exciti n g one nation a a nd other, and that my client f a b r i ca ted the d° "G m gnerents al r ° - had it circulated. 'Why sh ou ld no t the Attorney -e es cer; duce the person who circulated them, that we n:;,ge objected ta n where he got them, and who paid for them ? reduce d to the document, we thought it unjust to be te P snake e aC evidence on a conspiracy, when it was sought seire tore. co-conee _ A ty conspirator responsible for the acts of his eirculatest Was it to be endured that such a documents _ veneer for this person, whose chi-raster was blackened a e__ e , inr , 1 seditious publications, in the outskirts of the per e profit and hire, should be received in evidence, who nu wa , the son r s e o g n ul h a i r m and self recognised nrodu p e r e i printer the directions for the repeal wardens, and a variety of t ments for which he was paid—the green . ' P,„" eeera s close of his' evidence; but why did - the Attlifterr s ".".: w ools& his case, having this document in his posse Tf et them ? er of the A B s ro so w c n i; calling the person who sold them to show how P C ticanr,T.,hoofprdionciltecti T 1 ), Mr, four t 1 kil ev , tfttii i t l Yi Is 4 th e ti , it t Qr ' b4i t ( &as' da 3 fo r lia. I.ii