The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-27 00:00:00

E VI4`,NING EDITION.

pocket of one of his companions and fellow-pri-
soners, the Rev. Mr. O'Quigley, a Roman Catholic
priest—in this the Attorney-General corn pletely
failed, and the overt acts charged, not being in
themselves treason, O'Connor was acquitted.
Now, gentlemen, mark well what I am going
to tell you, and behold what time brings to light,
for you will find that upon this occasion a guilty
man was saved, and an innocent man was convicted.
In less than two years O'Connor, to get out of
an Irish prison and save his life, confessed his
treasons in the face of many of the Whig nobility
and gentlemen of England, who had come forward
and declared upon their oaths their confident belief
that O'Connor was incapable of entertaining a
treasonable intent.

The poor priest, O'Quigley, had no Whig party,
or any other party at his back, to swear in his favour.
He sat unmoved during the whole trial, and after
the disgraceful scene that took place in the Court
at midnight, the moment after Mr. Justice Buller
had finished passing the then horrible sentence of
high treason, O'Quigley sat like a stock through all
the confusion, while O'Connor was trying to
run
. out of Court, till he was knocked down at the door
by Judge Buller's coachman. Now, Gentlemen,
the whole conduct of this Rev. Gentleman had so
occupied my attention, that though he was not Iny
client, I was beginning in my address to the Jury
to defend him, when I was stopped by his own
Counsel and by the Court ; but not many years
ago my old friend, the late Lord Commissioner of
the Jury Court of Scotland, better known by the
name of Willy Adam, who was one of the Counsel
for the Crown in these trials, declared to me that
he thought O'Quigley had not been properly de-
fended, and that if I had been allowed to go 00,
and had defended him as well as I did my own
client, O'Leary, I should have got him off: 1
could not agree in this high compliment of mY
good friend, for though the treasonable paper was
not in O'Quigley's hand-writing, and there was no
evidence how he came by it, yet it was found in
his pocket amongst his most sacred papers--such
as his letters of ordination, and I dispaired of induc-
ing the jury to believe that it had been put there by
any body but himself.
Now time proved, what was unknown to any
body but himself, and which this noble-minded
man kept secret till after his conviction. This
paper was all a hoax (of a Dr. Crossfiel d, who had
himself been tried for blob treason. He was the
author of the song, " Plant, plant the tree," ece•
He and O'Quigley had met at a tavern the night
before he set off for France, and there Crossfield
wrote this invitation to the ccench to invade Eng-
land, and desired O'Quigley to get it put in
Moniteur, and said " it would make Will Pitt
-- his breeches."
Thus time has shown that a treasonably guilty
mind was saved, and an innocent mar; hanged ; for,
except this hoax, there has been no evidence, that
I ever heard of, of the treasonably guilty
O'Quigley to this hour.
Now, in this case, the overt acts laid are the
meeting on Newhall-hill and the Petition of Right
passed there in December 1830. As to the
meeting, though the Duke of Wellington called
mind of
the great county meeting on Penenden Heath,
"a county farce," in a sort of a " word-of command"
fashion, Lord Holland has declared such meetings
to be " as much a part of our Constitution as the
meeting of the House of Lords," and so undoubt-
edly they are, and have been ever since the mickle-
gemotes of our Saxon ancestors.
There is no treason, therefore, in this overt act
of attending the meeting. Then as to the other
overt act—the Petition of Right.
Gentlemen, as an old lawyer, I advised every
one of the seven demands there made; and I defy
the Judge upon the Bench to tell you that he can-
not put his finger in the books upon every one
of those demands.
What then, is it high treason to demand a resto-
ration of the old laws and Constitution of England ?
Away with such nonsense ; but let us see what Sir
Vicary Gibbs said upon the trial of Mr. Tooke.
" Must it be attributed to Mr. Tooke that he
wishes to pull down the nobility because he says
they should not shackle the hands of the Sovereign
whilst they debase and plunder his subjects
not
" Gentlemen, Mr. Tooke entertains, I know
whether singularly, but I think he reasons admir-
ably well upon the subject of the different branches
of the Legislature—he is of opinion that bolt the
King and the people are represented in this Gov era-
ment by those who are responsible for their acts to
those who appoint them to the situation which theY
hold, The people are represented by those thef
send to Parliament, and the Members of
Parliament are responsible to those who send them
to Parliament, for their acts: The King is repre-
sented by those he appoints, namely the great Offi-
cers of State, they are responsible for him, he can
do no wrong ; but they are responsible for their
conduct to him who appointed them—that is the
opinion of Mr. Tooke. His complaint is, that the
defect in the Constitution is this, that the people
are not duly represented in the House of Commons
by those they send there, and who ought to -be
responsible for the House of Commons. He
thinks that corruption has found its way into
the House of Commons, and that by that means
improper persons are sent there, and the effect of
that is, that not only the people are improperly
represented in the House of Commons, but that it
trenches upon the other parts of the Legislature ;
for he is of opinion, that by means of them, impro-
per men are sent into the House of Lords, and by
that means the House of Lords is corrupted ; and
he thinks that the King is not left to the free
choice of his servants, which ought to be left in his
breast. Is not the plain tendency of that to sup-
port the King in that branch of the Constitution
to which he is entitled by the laws of the Consti-
tution ? These are Mr. Took's opinions.
Gentlemen, previously to this famous speech, Mr.
Tooke had offered to give a paper in evidence that
had been signed by Mr. Pitt (vol. 2, p. 59.), when a
harp encounter took place between Mr. Tooke and
Chief Justice Eyre, upon the nature of evidence to
show a treasonable mind, which is well worthy
your attention.
The paper was objected to.
" Lord President EYRE.—As far as it tends to
show your mind it is material ; but as far as it
tends to show Major Cartwright's, it is perfecly im-
material.
" Mr. TOOKE.—I thought the minds of the
people with whom I am connected, were proof
against me, supposing my mind to be the same as
theirs.
" LORD PRESIDENT.—That is with respect to
accusation
what is charged against you ; this
makes no part of the charge against you, does it ?
"Mr. TOOKE.—No, but it must appear by what
means we are entangled, and how it
.comes that
evidence which would
ad
not be admissible m any other
case, is compelled to be mitted •here ; where a
charge is made against a man ignorant of a court of
justice, I should have thoug
osteriorht myself threvious
pr
evious
in e last man
But in
rcoadsuec et h
declarations of that which is imputed to be crimi-
nalp prosecutors have driven 1
us to that sort of evidence that any man, however
used to courts of justice, would have blushed to pro-
duce, namely the overt acts laid, which have com-
pelled the prosecutor to produce evidence never before
produced, and which has com ell d this Court to
sit from day to day and introducee that train of
evils in which I
am, an unfortunate sufferer. Thus'
we stand in every s
on of charge, except this charge
of compassing the death of the King ; the inclina-
tions of men are taken to be valid until they are
proved not to be so. How is the case here ? Yod
will find throughout the whole of this case there
is an attempt not to punish the bad actions of nlani
but a man's inclinations ; here lays the misehioen
all the evidence seems to endeavour to prove
roan
men certain inclinations which are either republican
or anti-monarchical ; a man may be a rephes
and yet do no act offensive. The law Pu's
an offence if the law supposes an inclination
evil ; it is to be restrained by that Pd
but here
ment which the law sanctions,
happens a charge, namely, the intention of com-
passing the death of the King ; the overt act is the.
intention ; here is an intention charged as a crime)
and your Lordship knows the necessity of an overt
act to be laid, because the intention or inclination
must be shown. Suppose we had an overt act
.
charged of an intention to go to, Church ; if it had
been stated in the indictment that an intention was
had of going to Church for the purpose of compas-
sing the death of the King, it would be just as hail
to me as an overt act charged, not of a meeting had,
but a desire that certain persons should meet toge-
ther, and that at that meeting they should propose
something improper to be done, would that be proofo