The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-27 00:00:00

IRELAND.

(From the _Dublin Morning Post of Tuesday.)
Yesterday was the first day of Hilary Term, when the
extt aord Mary circumstance was witnessed of a Chancellor,
two Chief Justices, a new Attorney and Solicitor• Gene-
ral, and Sergeant, appearing in Court on the same diy, the
first since their elevation to office.

This novel occurrence, as well as the great public in-
terest txcited by the case of Mr. O'Connell, and the other
gentlemen, charged with a conspiracy, and who were
bound to appear on the first day of term to discharge their
bail, ems, d an unusual throng within the precincts of the
Cow ts, even before the doors had been thrown open for
the general admission of the public. The latter cite=
stance did not take place till somewhat later

Lan the

customary hour ; when it did, the rush into the hall was
tremendous, and the Court of King's Bench soon became
crowded almost to suffoc ttion.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

At about a quarter to one o'clock Messrs. Liwless,
Dwyer, Redmond, Reynolds, Steele, Cioney, and Barrett,
entered the Court, and were for some time accommodated
with places in the inner bar. As, however, the King's
Counsel began to come in, the traversers' bar was ordered
to be cleared for them, and they took their seats there
accordingly. ►
Mr. O'Connell appeared as usual in his wig and gown
in the outer bar. In a short time after he had come in,
considerable bustle was observable amongst the dense mass
of spectators in the passage set apart for the King's
Counsel. The cause of the confusion, for a moment un-
known, unless in the circle where it immediately occurred,
was quickly explained by Mr. O'Connell repeatedly and
loudly calling out, " make way for King's Counsel ;" and
emerging from the crowd through which he had been
making, or perhaps more probably speaking, "fighting
his way," Mr. Sheil made his appearance amid loud and
general peals of laughier, intermingled with a partial buzz
of disapprobation. Shortly after one o'clock Judge Van-
deleur took his seat on the Bench, that the Oath of Alle-
giance should be administered before him to some of the
young gentlemen who had been just called to the Bar in
the Court of Chancery. That ceremony over, the Learned
Judge retired, and it was not till half-past two that all the
Judges came into Court, and took their seats on the Bench,
the Attorney-General following immediately after. The
following Grand Juries were then sworn :
CITY GRAND JURY.
Alderman Alexander Montgomery, Foreman
Alderman Sir Thos. Whelan John Lloyd
Arthur Perrin Joseph Lamprey
Wm. Dixon . James Moore
A. Morrisson William S, arrow
Samuel Warren John S. Taylor
George Hoyte George Tuthill
William Scott James White
John Semple David Henry
William Long James Ferrier
Charles Thorpe D. Osborne
Henry Cooper John Atkin'on, Esqrs.
COUNTY GRAND JURY.
Sir Robert Shaw, Foreman.
Thos. Richard Needham Robert Tyndall
William Rathborne Edward Croker
Richard Manders John Power
Anthony Strong Hussey William Poole
Daniel M'Key Robert Haig
Francis Savage Henry M.Manus
Benedict Arthure Robert Shaw Brownrigg
Joseph Smith Francis Smith
William P. Hoy Arthur Needle
William Thompson Richard Wilson
John William Stubbs John Hone, Esqrs.
The Juries having been sworn, Judge Jxan addressed
he City Grand Jury as follows :—Gentlemen of the City
Grand Jury —it appears by informations returned to the
Crown Office, that certain persons are charged with a
breach or breaches of an Act of Parliament, entitled,
" An Act for the Suppression of Dangerous Assemblies
or Associations in Ireland." The Court are given to un-
derstand that it is the interition of the law officers of the
Crown to send up bills of indictment to you, grounded on
these informations for breaches of this Act of Parliament.
Gentlemen of the Jury, as this.is the first time which any
Court has been called on to consider this Act, or to charge
any Grand Jury before whom bills are to be sent, it is ne-
cessary that I should explain it to you (which I do with
the concurrence of the entire Court) and give such con-
struction to it as we think it ought to bear, for your as-
istance, when you come to consider the evidence that
shall be laid before you, and apply it to such counts in
the indictment as apply to the persons charged. The
second section recites, that " divers statutes }lave
from time to time been passed for the suppression of
dangerous associations and assemblies in Ireland,
but the same have been by various shifts and de-
vices evaded : and whereas in the present state of Ireland
it is expedient that, for the time to be hereby limited, a
power should be vested ifl the Lord Lieutenant, or other
Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by his or their
proclamation or order to prohibit or suppress any associa-
tion, assembly, or meeting of persons in Ireland, which
Ite.or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace
or safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of
the law ;" it then enacts, " that it shall and may be law-
ful for the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or
Governors of Ireland, by his or their proclamation or
order, to prohibit or suppress the meeting of any associa-
tion, assembly, or body of persons in Ireland, which he
or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace or
safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of the
law, or any adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued
meeting of the same, or of any part thereof, under any
name, pretext, or device whatsoever." You see, gentle•
men, that under this section the Lord Lieutenant is em-
powered by proclamation to do two things : first to prohi-
bit the assemblage of any assembly or association of
people, which he in his wisdom shall consider inju-
rious or dangerous to the public peace, or inconsistent
with the due administration of the law. He is likewise
empowered to suppress any meeting that shall take place
—notwithstanding the proclamation. Now the infor-
mations I have read, charge the persons named therein
with breaches of this act in two particulars. They are
charged in the first instance with having met and assem-
bled together, contrary to the Lord Lieutenant's procla-
mation. It is charged that the Lord Lieutenant did, on
certain days, by his proclamations bearing certain dates,
prohibit the meeting of certain assemblages of p-rsons gist
on one day, then on subsequent days ; that by three seve-
ral proclamations lie prohibited the assemblage of
associations or assemblies, bearing certain names,
according to the terms of the Act of Parliament ;
and then, the informations of those persons who
have sworn them, state, that certain persons therein
named did, notwithstanding these proclamations, on cen-
t iin days which are mentioned, assemble for the pur-
pose mentioned in the summons or notice calling them to-
gether, for the purposes of those associations or assem-
blies, in breach and in opposition of the proclamations,
consequently in breach of the act. That is the first
breach of the law that is alleged to have been committed,
and which the testimony of the persons who have sworn
those informations goes to establish. The construction

the Court gives to the Act of Parliament is this, that if
the Lord Lieutenant shall, by his proclamation, have for-
bidden the assemblage of a number of persons who have
signified their intention of assembling under a particular
name or denomination—if he have forbidden such meet-
ing or assemblage, and that the persons shall, notwith-
standing it (with the knowledge of such proclama-
tions), assemble and meet together for the purposes
of their associations or assemblages—if they meet
as such assembly or association, so forbidden and
so prohibited by the proclamation from assem-
bling, they thereby have committed a breach
of the Act of Parliament, and are an unlawful assembly
subject to indictment, as having constituted an unlawful
assembly, and are subject to the punishment awarded by
common law to persons guilty of a misdemeanour. Gentle-
men of the Jury, the Act, as I have stated, gives the
power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit these meetings
it has described, and alto to suppress them if they should
meet, and for this purpose it gives directions to the civil
power to disperse the persons so assembled together con-
trary to the proclamations; and if they shall not disperse
within the time limited, then another breach of the law
is committed ; for this breach the Act provides a specific
punishment, namely, imprisonment for three calendar
months, which the Magistrates are empowered to award
in a summary manner. Gentlemen of the Jury, in
order to constitute the first breach of the Issv—namely,
the assembling contrary to proclamation, it is not necessary,
in order to constitute that offence, that the persons
so assembled and net, should have committed a fur-
ther breach of the law, by refusing to disperse at the re-
quisition of the Magistrate or the civil power. The
offence of assembling is committed by meeting contrary to
the proclamation, though they should not be called on by
the Magistrate to disperse,
and though being called on
they should obey the requisition of the civil power, and
separate within the prescribed time. If.they meet there
together contrary to the proclamation. there is a breach
of the Act in that respect, and the persons meeting are
subject to indictment as being members of an unlawful
assembly—an assembly made unlawful by an Act of
Parliament and by proclamation, and subject to such pu-
nishment, if found guilty, as is applicable to cases of mis-
demeanour; therefore, if the witnesses who shall be sent
tip to you shall satisfy you that persons did assemble and
meet together, constituting that assembly or meeting
which had been prohibited by the proclamation of
the Lord Lieutenant, it is immaterial to consider whe-
ther they were called on afterwards to disperse or