The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

of conspiracy against two or more persons was brought for-
ward. The offence was considered to consist in purposing by
the combination of several persons to convict an innocent per..
son by a perversion of the law ; but, Gentlemen, it has been
very properly stated that the ancient law has been extended far
beyond the cases mentioned. I need not multiply instances in
which that extension of the law has been established and acted
on by courts of justice. It is by no means necessary that
treachery or secresy should form an ingredient in the crime of
conspiracy as the law now stands. Now, Gentlemen, having
told you to take the law from a certain report. and having'
explicitly shown what the law of conspiracy is, and what
it is not, I forbear troubling ou with such cases respect.
ing a subject in which I and the rest of my brethren
concur in opinion. Having thus stated to you what it
is the traversers are accused of, I think it will be right for me
also to lay dOwn a few other rules with regard to conspiracy,
that you may afterwards see the proper beating of this case.
Iu order to convict the traversers, or any of them, of the
charge of conspiracy, it is necessary that you should be satis-
fied— I do not mean to say that you should have ground to sur-
mise, but that you should have such evidence before you as
would convince your consciences that the traversers, or some of
them, did respectively and in common combine or agree to do
an unlawful act, whether that act be unlawful in itself, in its
original design, or whether it became so by the unlawful means
by which it was agreed it should be brought about. That is one
observation. Another observation is this—that, to constitute
the crime of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the unlawful
thing agreed to should be effected—the crime of conspiracy
is complete, though, in point of fact, the criminal end was
never obtained. I will also lay down this—that, if you are
satisfied that an unlawful agreement has taken place of the
nature I have stated, either to do an act unlawful of itself, or
cause it to be done by unlawful means, though the act
itself, per se, should not be criminal; but if you be once
sati,fied that such an agreement—a criminal agreement—
has taken place, and from thenceforward the acts of each one
associating in that conspiracy are, respectively, evidence
against the other, ii conducive to the same criminal end,
though it be not proved that each and all of the several con-
spirators have either participated in each individual act, or
though it be not proved that each and every of the several
traversers charged with the conspiracy have been guilty of
the perpetration of any particular act towards the common
illegal end. I will go further, Gentlemen, and lay down
another rule for you: —" h is not necessavy"—and I am
now using the language of a very eminent English Judge,
in one of the late trials, which took place in 1837, in giving
his charge to the jury—" It is not necessary that it should
be proved that the several parties charged with a common
conspiracy met to concoct this scheme, nor that they
should have originated it. Who the parties were who
met to concoct the illegal agreement, it is not necessary
should be absolutely proved to you ; it i 3 enough for you
to see whether, from the acts that have been proved, you
are satisfied that those defendants were acting in concert
in this matter. If you are satisfied that there was a con-
cert between them (that is, an illegal concert), I am bound
to say, that being convinced of the conspiracy, it is not
necessary that you should find both the traversers doing
each particular act, as, after the fact of the conspiracy is
once established in your mind;, whatever is either said
or done by either of the defendants, in pursuance of the com-
mon design, is both in law and common sense to be considered
the act of bath." I will lay down another rule which you will
also bear in mind, as bearing, perhaps; more particularly upon
the instance of the Rev. Mr. Tierney than any body else. It
is not necessary that it should be proved that those defendants
went to concoct this scheme, nor is it necessary that they
should have originated it. It is said of Mr. Tierney that he
did not join the Association until the 2d of October. If a
conspiracy be already formed, and a party joins it afterwards, he
is equally guilty—certainly he is equally guilty if he adopts the
already formed conspiracy, as it then stood. Idon it by any
means impugn the doctrine of Judge Coleridge, in the general
way in which he laid down that proposition ; but you have to
decide the question whether or not Mr. Tierney, who does
not appear to have joined the Association until the 23 of Oc-
tober, is or is not to be visited with the previous acts of that
Association. I would put this to you on that subject—did he
adopt those acts when he j iined that Association ? You will
recollect this, that almost all the charges of crime for which the
several traversers are here upon their trial, as imputed to them,
were, for the most part, committed before the 2d of October,
1843. The general way in which Judge Coleridge has laid
down the proposition which I have read to you, would, as a
matter of course, involve the party in the previous guilt who
had not joined the Association till a late time. If you are sa-
tisfied that he (Nlr. Tierney) did join them, did lie at that time
adopt the Association as it then stood, with all its acts and cri-
mitialities, if such existed, as they then did exist ? I might as well
here make that observation with regard to Mr. Tierney, because
I find, on reading the judgment of judge Coleridge in this
case of the Queen v. Murphy, that I might make whit I may
call a qualification—l do not mean of what Judge Coleridge
has said—but in this case I should prefer now leaving it to you
to consider and pronounce whether or not the qualification ap-
t:isotfo
tthhee
traverser v. 111 e '
s..
at 1'
large.er n y
11\1'4%, wy
you
u comeiave tto.
ktehne
downqu
es-
those observations which I laid down to you with regard to
the law of conspiracy. Before I go into the observations
in this particular case, I would like to read you some ob-
siev.r aqt iaodnosp
tfraosmmayno
wa unt;h
it
tr iitsyfrqoimi quotedo by
caselN I ro.f St
hhee i
K 1 ,
jawt d g
a gwch
ahi
ni
Kirwan—Mr. Peter llurrowes was counsel for the defendant.
fullyl
ade
concerning
Ny i
tt re
gardt teomt statementsnent
man.
have
be
en,
made observation,een
which I shall read to you, is not inapplicable to the present
ca e. In page 203, in his address to the jury, he says —" That
to assume such a right as to represent the people, or any part
of them, would be an encroachment on the exclusive pre-
rogative of the House of Commons, and that any person
who should exercise the function, legislative or judicial,
would bu guilty of a high misdemeanour." Now, Gentle-
men, I fully subscribe to that position. These are sound con-
sti.utional principles, thus inculcated by an eminent man
and constitutional lawyer. He is no more now, but he has
left these behind. Mr. Sheil—and I thank him for
it—has referred to this speech in his very able
speech, no doubt as having his assent to the principles in-
culcated by this eminent man. What is the law and the
circumstances which we are called upon to bring into
judgment ? The law as its exists—the law as it has existed
for the last forty-three years—the law which her gracious
Majesty is by her coronation oath bound and sworn to main -
tain? Gentlemen, I will read you the coronation oath, at
least part of it, as I find in Blackstone's Commentaries,
page 2-41 r--" The Archbishop or Bishop shall say Will you
solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this
kingdom of England and the dominions attached thereto be-
longing according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and
the laws and customs ofithe same ?"Ile Queen or King shall
say, I solemnly promise and swear.'" This, Gentlemen,
is the coronation oath. Now, with regard to this country
and its connection with Great Britain, are the Statutes
which she bath sworn by her coronation oath to abide
by, administer, and preserve, applicable to this country.
We have heard a monstrous deal of assertion —we have
heard a monstrous deal of declamation —we have
a monstrous deal of complaint of grievances—and we have
heard a great deal of what the law ought to be. We have
heard ou called upon to decide whether such a law ought to
continue, as if you had any power on the subject at all. The
law of the realm as it stands and is settled by the Act of Union,
until that Act is repealed, is the only law you can take into your
consideration on the subject. This is the Act which the Queen,
by her coronation oath, has sworn to preserve; and it is idle
to say that the Queen, if she thinks proper, may depart from
this law, and call a Parliament of her own in Ireland,supposing
her own desire accorded with the people, and set up a new law
and new constitution for this country, in direct violation of the
Act of Union, which I shall now state to you. This is the Act,
the 40th George
.111., c. 38:—

" An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland :
" Whereas, in pursuance of his Majesty's most gracious
m H o
zecomendation to the two (louses f
Parliament in Great
Britain and Ireland respectively, to consider of such measures
as knight tend to strengthen and consolidate the connexion
between the two kingd ms, the two Hous of Parliament of
Great Britain and the two Houses of Parliamentse of Ireland
have severally agreed and resolved that, in order to promote
and secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland,
and to consolidate the strength,
power
British empire, it will be advisable to concur,and resources of the
in such measures
as may best tend to unite the two kingdom; of Great Britain
and Ireland into one kingdom, in such manner, and on such
terms and conditions, as may be established by the acts of the
respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland."
There is the recital of the national compact called the union
of he
two
by t
countries
respectiventrie LegislaturessofGreatßritad Ireland, and sanc-
tioned
in the same solemn
way in which the Act of Union between Great Britain and
t
Scotland had been transacted and confirmed at a former
period :
" And whereas, in furtherance of the said resolution, both
Houses of the said two Parliaments respectively have likewise
agreed upon certain articles for effectuating and establishing
the said purposes in the tenor following :
" Article First—That it be the first article of the Union
of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said
kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first
day of January, which shall be in the year of our Lord
1801, and for ever be united into one kingdom, by the name
of the United Kingdom of Grert Britain and Ireland, and that
the Royal style and titles appertaining to the. Imperial Crown
the
ensigns, the said United Kingdom and its dependencies. and also
ensigns, armorial flags, and banners thereof, shall be such asl
his Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation, underthe,,great seal
of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint. In pass-
ing the Act of Union the kingdom of Great Britain ceased to
exist, and the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist; and instead
of these two there was formed one united kingdom, under the
style and title of the United Kingdom of Groat Britain and
Ireland. It was not that there should he one King having
thereafter two kingdoms for his dominion, but one King
having one kingdom ; and to say that the King or Queen
of Ireland may be treated as the King or Queen of a separate
kingdom, this is absurd—seditious. Until the law be al-
tered by the proper authority—and I don't say that it
may not—but while the law remains as it is—and it has been so
during the whole of the year 1843 and the preceding years
which have intervened since the enactment of the Act of
Union—there is one King over this kingdom, incapable by
himself of treating with any class of his subjects, except
through'; the Legislature, with regard to a new constitution
or new laws, with respect to any part of the United Kingdom.
I say, moreover, that whichever of his subjects would
take upon himself to inculcate—toproclaim among the
subjects of this part of the United
.Kingdom that he or any-
body else abstracted from the Legislature the power, either
separately or by himself, or jointly by himself and a
portion of the inhabitants of this part of the United King-
dom, that Ile or they, independently of the Legislature,
had a power of treating with the Queen far an abro-
gation of the existing law, and to put in its place a new law,
such as we heard suggested, is guilty of a great offence—he is
guilty of the crime of sedition. Scotland as well as England
are a party to this Act of Union, as appears from the third ar-
ticle of union. The Judges of our Courts are bound to admi-
nister the law as they find the law constructed by the proper
authorities, and are sworn to preserve the law, to administer
justice according to that law, and we have no power, if we had
the disposition, to take upon ourselves—nor have you, Ge tle-
men of the jury, to take upon yourselves—the power of altering
that law which had been passed by the King, the Lords, and the
Commons of the country, as by law established. It would be
productive of wildness, anarchy, and confusion, if every man,
or set of men, abstractedly from Parliament, were permitted to
say " we do not like this law as passed by our Legislature—we
think it was not properly passed.—we think there were reasons
which should prevail against it,: and therefore we are not
bound i
in conscience to obey t.
.Any man who would in-
culcate that doctrine publicly, is guilty of sedition ; it is not
for us, or for you, or any act men, or any individuals abstracted
from Parliament, to take that power and responsibility on
themselves. The law permits it to nobody except the lawful
Legislature of the country, which consist of the Queen, Lords
and Commons, as settled by the Act of Union. Then, Gentle-
' men, the fourth article goes on to regulate the number of re-
' presentatives, Lords spiritual and temporal, and the repre-
sentatives of the House of Commons, which should thencefor-
ward be returned and sit in these respective Houses—so many
for Ireland, so many for England, and so many for Scotland.
It provided all these essential articles
of agreement on the
basis of which these three great c iuntries, England, Scot-
and, and Ireland agreed to together to become one great
empire, under the denomination of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland. I need not go over the other
articles which regulate other matters thus formed between the
two parties—all these have been duly enumerated; a Al these
articles being recited in the Bth article, the whole were de-
clared to be the Articles of the Union of Great Britain and
Ireland, and the same shall be enforced and be in effect for

ever from the Ist January, 1891. That Ad was, of course,
carried into effect. This is the law announced and ratified by
the King, the Lords, and the Commons of both countries, and
that is to be for ever the law of the land—what her Majesty
the Queen, by her coronation oath is sworn to preserve;
and let no man presume to attempt an alteration in this
law by illegitimate or violent means—by threats of
violence—or other such shifts which may be resorted to. Rea
col'ect the doctrine of that constitutional lawyer, Mr. Bur-
rowes. that " the omnipotence of the Legislature must be ad-
ministered in any regular state." Mr. Shiel required me,
when I should charge you in this case, to advert to the doc-
trine of Baron Alderson, in his charge to the grand jury in
the case of the Queen against Vincent, given in a volume of
Carrington and Payne's Reports, page 93. r Having stated the
case, his Lordship thus proceeded j —Now, Gentlemen of the
jury, there is the constitutional laws as laid down by this very
eminent constitutional lawyer, Baron Alderson, than whom no
man was more highly respected and esteemed.
Mr. FITZG BBON—The parties were acquitted of the charge.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Yes, but that is not what Baron Al-
derson said. What I was indeed going to observe was this,
that I fully concur with Baron Alderson, both as regards his
charge to the grand jury and his charge to the petty jury.
Now it is no crime for a man to state a grievance ; it is no crime
for a man to make a mistake with regard to his political posi-
tion, in respect to the alleged grievance ; he has a right freely
to communicate his sentiments on the grievance to his fellows
similarly circumstanced. He has a right to make the
communication, not merely to his friends or fellows, but to
strangers; he lies a right to make his complaints wherever
he goes, should he think proper to do so, even if he should
attend a public meeting, however large, the mere fact of
its being a public meeting is no reason why a man who has
a grievance, or thinks he has, should not attend that meeting,
malting a statement of what he conceives he has a right to
complain of, and so, on the principle of free discussion, endea-
vour to get by peaceable means as many advoca'es in support
of his alleged grievances as he can procure. That is the mo-
rality of the law as stated by Baron Alderson, and concerning
which he said, " God forbid the country should ever be without
it," and so say I, too. But, in order to disseminate those
grievances, he must take care not to infringe upon the rights
and privileges of others, and he is the more bound to be careful
as to the effect of what he does, if the assemblage which he at•
tends is assembled and congregated in such masses and multi-
tudes, as to excite terror and alarm amongst the neigh-
bouring people, or amongst those who are bound to watch
over and preserve the peace and constitution of the country.
If he goes with arms, it is the more likely that the law will be
infringed; but if he goes without arms—which is the case
always here—it does not, therefore, follow that that meeting has
been lawful. I do not mean to say that the mere attending a
meeting is unlawful ; on the contrary, the mere attending a
meeting, however large and numerous it may be, if no breach of
the peace be committed, nor a tendency to a breach of the peace,
at the time or immediately ensuing the meeting, I do not mean
to say that so attending a meeting, under such circumstances will
be necessarily unlawful—l do not mean to say that it would be
necessarily lawful. I shall explain that. But there is nothing
in the mere fact of the asemblage of the people that ren-
ders that an illegal act. Now, in order to make a meeting un-
lawful it would not be necessary that in point of fact the peace
should be broken. It does not follow that because there is no
breach of the peace the parties attending the meetings are not
guilty of the offence of exciting terror and alarm among her
Majesty's subjects. If meetings to which parties went unarmed
have been attended with demonstrations of physic 1 fore that
would reasonably have excited fear, terror, or alarm, amongst
the peaceable subjects of her Majesty, they are whether
they consist or not of an unarmed mass. A multitu'lle of per-
sons
assemble, and if persons are alarmed and terrific I by that
multitude so assembled, by the terror so caused, they would be
shown to have been an illegal assembly, and for whatever
terror the parties so assembling would be answerable. But it
is not necessary that that should have been the state of things
in order to make that an unlawful assembly. Suppose the
parties all went to those great meetings, in ever such great
misses and multitudes—suppose they went without arms—
suppose they conducted themselves with great propriety—sup-
pose no breach of the peace was committed—and suppose there
was no tendency to a breach of the peace ; all these facts might
concur towards the establishment of the innocence of that
meeting, but, Gentlemen, of the jury, that meeting might have
been an illegal assembly, and every party who went to that
meeting might be convicted, if they concurred in the objects of
the meeting. Suppose the object of collecting those hundreds
and thousands of persons was not for the purpose of com-
mitting a breach of the peace—suppose it had an ulterior
and more remote object—suppose it was fir the purpose, not of
terrifying the neighbours by what was done, or in-
tended to be done, by the persons assembling at
that meeting—but suppose that the persons who had
collected that mass and multitude together, did so for the
purpose of making a demonstration of immense force and phy-
sical power, guided and actuated by the will and command of
the person who had caused that multitude to assemble—sup-
pose they had no intention of disturbing the peace, but that they
met for the purpose of exhibiting to those with whom they had
to do, to those who were the legal legislators of the country, and
that his object in calling all those people together—hit object in
assembling, dispersing, and calling them, was to do that with the
greatest psssible notoriety. Suppose he did it in the open dal ,
when all the world could see and hear him, and that his object
was to overawe the Legislature, who are likely to have to consider
certain political subjects in which he was interested, and for
the purpose of deterring the Legislature and the Government
of the country from a free, cool, and deliberate judgment on
the subject— if that were his oiject in causing and pro-
curing that demonstration, then, Gentlemen, I say, that that is
an illegal object in him and in all who concur and agree with
him in the procuring of such means. I have not ventured to
say that I suppose that any of the traversers are yet proved to be '
guilty, but I am merely explaining to you what I take to be
the clear and incontestible law on this subject. I admit to the
fullest extent the principle of full and free discusion—of the cool
and deliberate consideration of any given subject. I admit
that warm arguments might bs used in support of every-
thing advanced—they might not only be admissible but abso-
lutely necessary for the information of all who were present,
and for enabling them to come to a conclusion as to the course
which they should advise her Majesty to take with regard to
the subject under consideration. I should be glad to know if
the Parliament of the country, the Queen's Ministers, or
those who are interested in the management of State affairs,
are they to be the only persons in the country whet are not to
have the benefit of free discussion—the benefit of fair, open, and
impartial deliberation ? Are they to be influenced and led astray
by intimidation, and fear, and demonstrations of physical;force ?
If they think proper in their judgment to come to a difference
of opinion on this or that political subject, are they the
only persons who are not to have the advantage of free and
full discussion ? Are they to be told this—" Here are hun-
dreds of thousands of fighting men; they are all peaceable;
there is no breach of the law ; they coalesce with no illegal
bodies ; they are warned and advised to keep out of secret
societies ; they have been guilty of no breach of the law ;
they have not appeared in arms, but they are the finest pea-
santry in the world; they stand No. 1 in the class of nations.
Differ from me if you like ; but take care that, at the first step
you make, these masses that are now dissolving at my com-
mand, like the snow under my feet, will re-assemble at my call,
and then what will be the step that you take? Take care of
that !" If you be of opinion that their object was not what
they profess, to consider a grievance —to discuss which, in
order to lay a petition before that Parliament, the legitimacy
of whose existence they are denying—if you believe that that
was riot the object, but on the contrary, that it was for the
purpose of procuring by intimidation and overawing of
the councils of the Legislature, an alteration in the govern-
ment of the State. I am of opinion that that latter
object was unlawful—and if more than one concurred
in pursuing it by unlawful means—they are guilty of the act
of conspiracy. I lava already said, Gentlemen of the jury,
that the doing of such things by one is not enough to prove a
conspiracy ; there must be the concurrence of two or more.
Before we go to the consideration of particular causes, I will
make some further observations which seem to me to apply to
the case of all. The traversers are persons who conscientiously
entertain the opinion that repeal is best suited to the exigencies
of this country. They say that perhaps on that account they
have grievances I will not now enter into the allegation
which is put forward, and with which this Court was occue
pied for several days, as to the grounds and the means by which
the Act of Union was carried. It is forty-three years ago
since the Lords and Commons of the two countries passed
that Act of Parliament ; and by their common concurrence
the Act of Union has continued in force, and is in force in
this year. Very many Acts of Parliament have been passed
in the last forty-three years by the United Parliament. In
those Acts of Parliament the Members who were returned
for Ireland, and the Members who were returned for Scot-
land, and the Members for England have had their share,
and they all voted, or they had an opportunity of voting
and speaking, or free discussion in every sense of the word,
Very many of the most important Acts of Parliament have
passed—pissed according to the deliberative judgment of
the United Parliament—where an individual did not act for
another—where one part of the kingdom did not act for
another—but where the entire Parliament, under the sanction
and concurrence and co-operation of the King or the Queen,
make their decisions on the political subjects which come
under their consideration, and passing the Legislature,
received the Royal assent. I need not say that among
these was the Act of Catholic Emancipation, by which every
Roman Catholic of Ireland is entitled or would be entitled to
the p'tsiti,n in which he or they now stand, to the rights which
he enjoys ; and were it not for that Act of Parliament which
was passed, conferring those rights on those persons—passed
by a Parliament which it is now alleged to be utterly incapa-
ble of passing an Act of Parliament—that would be so
if the Act of Union were void. The Reform Act, with a
variety of other Acts, with which we are more or less con- I
versant, were also passed ' • and observe, also the Reform Act
for England and Scotland. The Irish Members, sent from I
this country under the Act of Union, gave their voices
and their votes—or they might have done so—they condemn 1
that Act of Parliament which was so passed. If the proposi•
tion be true, which I have heard so often contended for
that the Act of Union was a nullity—and if Mr. O'Connell
was right in proclaiming that to the hundreds of thousands
assembled at Mullaghmast and elsewhere, the result would have
been that Mr. O'Connell himself would never have sat in the
English Parliament, nor could any emancipated Roman Catho-
lics have become entitled, as free citizens, to the rights and pri-
vileges which they ought to enjoy as such. Now, Gentlemen of
the jury, they are all accused of forwarding—whether by means
legal or illegal, will be the question for you—the repeal of that
Act of Parliament, which, if what the last proposition states to
you were correct, would render it perfectly uselesss for these
persons, or any of them, to take such a step. If the Act
be void, w here is the necessity of seeking for the repeal of such
an Act? The two things are inconsistent, when seeking the
repeal of the union, in the eye of reason and common sense.
Pre-suppose the existence of the Act of Union—we have no right
to discus the merits of that Act ; it is in full force, and if you had
the power, which you have not, of interfering, directly or indi-
rectly, it would be difficult for me to tell you the consequences
which would follow the exercise of that power. A great many
years ago Mr. O'Connell appeared to entertain a strongly
grounded opinion against the propriety of the Act of Union. He
has given in evidence that he attended a meeting in Dublin, re-
gularly constituted, and regularly assembled, at which he ade
a • speech, and declared these sentiments in public. That was
a subject of free discussion; nobody prevented him
doing so. Everybody did not agree with him. That, per-
haps, is another matter. He had a right to deliver those
sentiments ; but what has that to do with the question whe-
ther he is guilty or not of what took place in 16613, something
more than 13 years after his attending that meeting in which
he made that speech. In 1810 he attended another meet-
ing, 10 years after the Act of Union. This meeting was a
meeting regularly called, not by irresponsible authority, but
by the High Sheriff or Sheriffs of the city of Dublin, where
every freeman and freeholder was entitled to attend
for the purpose of free discussion, either to petition
for the repeal of the Act of Union or the contrary.
As far as he confined himself to such discussions, without
giving any undue offence to any person, he had a right to
deliver himself as he did. But what has that to do with
his defence? It is the first time I ever heard, in the year
1844, a man seeking to justify himself from the charge by
putting forward what he had done forty or at least thirty
years before. " Oh !" says Mr. Sheil, " what a man has ex-
pressed in political discussions at any time may be given in
evidence." As to his opinions in support of his argument
he referred to the case of Horne Tooke. But what is that
ca-e? Horne Tooke wrote a book of very questionable
matter, and; he was permitted to give in evidence his pre-
ceding writings for the purpose of proving continuity of
purpose, and to give a colour—a true one, perhaps—to the
matter thus tried. But what is the case here? Mr.
O'Connell puts in two speeches made at public asse 1 blies.
convened by the High Sheriff, when petitions were ,

ea,lepted aed presented to the city representatives ; hut
were ael of these meetings convened magisterially? I do
not in as to say that there were not magistrates present,
but were any of these meetings convened by the order
of a inseistrate? At least lam not so informed. Were
any of tin in convened by order of the Repeal. Association ?
Why, we have the distinct acknowledgment that they were
from Mr. O'Connell's own lips. Between the cases, then,
there is n o analogy—existing circumstances arc quite different.
I have no objection that that word continuity of purpose should
go to tar jure anti that you [ Addressing Mr. Shell] should
t.
have the fol. benefit of it. Sir Colman O'Loughlin was anxious
that I should take notice that an alteration took place in the
name of the Association—namely, that the word loyal was in-
setted, thereby -11,wirig that they always maintained the duties
of loyalty and allejiance to the Queen. Now lam quite ready
to give them the merit of that. The Attorney-General brings no
accuse' i )0 aeainst Mr. O'Connell, or the members of the Repeal
Associned re —he makes no charge without knovring whether there
be guilt 0, not. flis position is, I don't inquire as to what took
place before the year 1843. Gentlemen of the jury, you will
bear in rend that the crime imputed commences in 1843.
Mr. O'ii einell and the other traversers avow that they
attended el procure the repeal of the union by such modes as
the law and the constitution warrant. Mr. Solicitor-General
says---I say nothing as to the proposition until we come to
1813 inc union is what you consider to be a grievance, and
you bait a right, by free discussion, by petitioning Parlia-
ment, and by adopting every other legal and constitutional step,
to cedeavour to relieve yourselves from those grievances, and
thereby procure a repeal of the union. Now what the tra-
verser: profess and state they were doing was this—following
those means which the law allowed to secure their object.
The. Crown says that in the beginning of the year 1843 a
great change took place in the affairs of the Repeal As-
soeiati el, and Irons thenceforth the means by which the
member' a tempted to effect a repeal of the union (if that were
their ol•ject) became illegal. Now, Gentlemen, such is the
proposition of the Crown, and it lies on them to maintain it.
It appears that from some time in 1843 —the precise time or
place is immaterial—Mr. O'Connell said something to this
effect, " how could I prove an alibi." Why, it is not neces-
sary to do so. lie has had the bill of particulars, and he has
had overt act, placed in the indictment, but without proving
as to the direct time or place in which the agreement was
concocted between the traversers, it is for the jury to say,
whether they are satisfied, from the facts laid before them, but,
although the actual time of the commencement of the conspi-
racy is not stated, yet that such a conspiracy as imputed must
have taken place. Gentlemen, you must be satisfied as to
whether their guilt has been proved, that is to say, that satisfac-
tory evidence has been given to you of the existence of the al-
leged conspiracy—of the alleged agreement—of the common
design between the several traversers, or some of them, and if
you are not convinced—if you have any reasonable doubt on
the subject, it will be your duty not to convict. No, Gentle-
men, you must not convict on presumption—you must convict
on proof. I pass over, without more particular detail, the
evidence given on the part of the traversers. It will be for
you to say whether you are satisfied or not with the mode in
which the Crown would prove its case. Excuse me, Gentle-
men, far a few minutes. I want to say a word or two to my
brother here. [I he Chief Justice and Mr Justice Crampton
then retired for a short time. On their return, his Lordship
resumed his address, and thus continued] I
.think
there is evidence to support the statement, that some-
time in the beginning of 1843 a material alteration
took place in the regulations of the Association. It had
before that time become a very great body—l mean in
point of numbers—and I believe a considerable sum of
money had been sent to them in the way of contributions from
various parts of this country, from Great Britain, America, and
perhaps from France, but lam not sure of that. They had
extensive communications, and, I believe, in 1843, proceeding's
were adopted for ren teeing those communications more exten-
sive and efficacious. A plan or new method was also adopted
for the admission of persons desirous of becoming members of
the Association—classes were created, into which the members
were distributed under the names by which they were to be
known. There were three classes—the general class were
called associates. Every person who subscribed a small
sum of money, amouating only to a shilling a-year,
was c Table of becoming an associate, and was ad-
mitted by a certain kind of card to this society. Every
person who paid a pound a-year was entitled to admission
as a member. The third class were called volunteers, and they
subscribed ten pounds, or procured subscriptions to that
amount ; and one and all of these persons were, by a certain
form, to be adrni ted into the Society and enrolled on its books.
Now, here was certainly a very strange—l was going to say
formidable—mode of organisation, which was adopted by the
Society in 1343. Mr. O'Con.:ell said, at more than one meet-
ing, " That in one way or other he had three-fourths of
the male per ulation enrolled members of that Society." A
compu ation, taking the lowest member at a shrilling
a-year, would show what a large sum of money this So.
ciety became possessed of. I don't absolutely say that that
was illegal ; but if it was intended to extend it, and ramify
itself in any such way, and to collect a sum of money from
each person, about the application of which they knew nothing,
but collecting from ca. •11 person a sum of money to
be laid out for the objects and purposes of the Association,
whatever they might be, that appears to me to be a dangerous
state of things. About the same time resolutions were passed
with regard la the appointment of officers of this Society. They
appointed what they called inspectors; but we have no par-
ticular account of them; but there is evidence that these officers
did exist, and that they were spread over the country. Repeal-
wardens were also appointed in the year 1843, some time
about the period when the arrangement was adopted for the
admission by cards of the several members of this Society.
You will see, Gentlemen of The jury, whether or not there
was any discipline in the way in which the repeal-wardens
conducted their business. They were instructed in the
duties prescribed to them, and all their acts were the acts
of the Association. Committees were appointed to report ;
reports were adopted and acted on by the creation of a system
of repeal-.wardens all over Ireland. The charge of particular
districts was given to them, and they regularly transmitted re-
ports to, arid received orders from the Repeal Association re •
lative to their respective duties. That, with the assistance of
a repeal inspection, amounting to something very like a well re-
gulated police—in calling them police I only call them what the
Association themselves called them—there was no part of Ire-
land into which that system was trot introduced. The duties
of the repesl. wardens was to see that every adult male in their
respectise riots should become a member of the Associa-
tion. They lied another duty imposed upon them—he would
be very mach obliged to the gentlemen on the other side, if he
mis-stated at all, that they would correct him ; it was quite
necessary fe- the ends of the law that he should be so—that
they should t ike care that newspapers should be supplied to
their Asseei,tions, and should be read to them. These papers
were the Pilot, the Nation, an 1 the Freeman. The owners of
these papers were three of the traversers at the bar.
Mr. Fr re -; BbON begged permission to say a few words.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Of course, Mr. FitzAibhon, I should be
extremely sorry to prevent you.
Mr. Preen macre-then said that there was no evidence be-
fore the Court that Dr. Gray was the proprietor of the Evening
or Weekly Freeman.
CHIEF JUSTlCE—Gentlemen, I was--.
ATTOR NEY •GENERAL and Mr. Sergeant WARREN—It has
been distinctly proved, my Lord, by Mr. Vernon, that Dr.
Gray is the proprietor of all the papers published under the de-
nomination of the Freest in.

CHIEF JUSTICE-It is of very little consequence, but these
papers were circulated for the purpose of indoctrinating the
people into the system and the objects of the Society—no
doubt for the diffusion of the Association. It is, however, ne-
cessary for me to refer to this card. You will see from its
general nature that it is a statement, and an enumeration of
many circumstances.
Mr. Moons, Q.C.—I wish to be understood, on the part of
the traverse, s, that we do not consent to that card being sent up
to the jury. I make the observation now that we may not be
precluded from adopting any course which we may think right
at the conclusion of your charge. Unless I made that obser-
vation now, it might be thought that we did consent.
CHIEF JusricE—Mr. Moore, you are quite right, and I
have no right to assume that these documents are laid before
the jury ; but I shall make a few observations on them. My
intention is not to enter into the minuteness of detail, but
to give you g.trmrally a correct notion of what they are, and
to leave the subject to your consideration. If I mistake their
present object, t'ne gentlemen here are ready to correct me.
The general object of this member's card is apparent upon the
face of it. We have certain things done : it is itself of a green
colour. We have on it an enumeration of our population, and
a stateniont of the ability of Ireland to have a Parliament
of her own, and the Association has taken upon itself to
disseminate through every part of the country those cards,
which contain a statement of matters upon which they (the
members of the Association) had no right to make any de-
cision. They may give their opinions—they may circulate
these opinions—they may endeavour to support them, they
have a right to enlist popular opinion in favour of what they
call their grievances ; by all fair means they are entitled to
do so ; but is it to be so considered, when they are enrolling
the whole country under stated officers, under repeal-
wardens and inspectors, and that these cards are given
and circulated, to be placed by these officers in the hands
of persons whom we find gathered as conscripts? Gentle-
men of the jury, the intention of such enrolment is for your
consideration. Is it with a fair intention of free discussion
—of midi.' and deliberate opinion—or is it with a view
of banding the persons through whom cards are distributed,
and that newspapers are desired to be circulated? Are they
banded, I say, in favour of the particular political views enter-
tained either by Mr. O'Connell or by the members of that As-
sociation—is that the intention? Or is the intention to pro-
mote free d.scussion by the enrolling of members to be con-
federated in one universal object, the nature of which they
themselves do not know, and to which they subscribe while
they are igs. rant of the purpose ?
The CHIEF JUSTICE then intimated that he would postpone
the further consideration of the case till to-morrow.
The C iurt was then adjourned till ten o'clock the following
morning.

There wai great excitement in the Court, and large crowds
in the vicinity.

ROYAL EXCHANGE.—We are glad to see that the
architect of the Royal Exchange has availed himself of the
resource.; of science fur the security of this fine building, by
protecting the spire with lightning-conductors. They are
erected under the superintendence of Mr. Charles V. Walker,
whose researches on this subject are sufficient security thr
their being arranged most efficiently. We observe that they
commenced by a pointed rod, rising from the back of the
grasshopper; and that the whole mass of metal constituting
the vane, &c., is associated into the system. Every precau-
tion will be taken, in carrying them downward, to provide a
safe and ready escape for the most powerful discharges. And
we shall be glad when we have the opportunity of
layinr, before our readers the general plan which
has been adopted ; because these conductors may be taken
as a good model for others. How is it that architects have
heretofore been so slow in introducing these very valuable
appendage 3 to elevated structures? The cost is a mere frac-
tion compared with the security they afford. That they
need not interfere with the general contour of a building is
admirably shown by the manner in which these are placed.
We, in common with many of our readers, have repeatedly
looked at this tower, and were not aware of their presence
until our attention was directed to the vane. It is to be
hoped that the time is at hand when a lightning-conductor
will be considered part and parcel of every lofty building. Is
the Castle, and is the Palace of our Sovereign protected? Do
lightning-conductors form part in the contract for the new
Houses of Parliament ? Which of our church spires are
protected.—Po/gtecimic Review.
THE ITALIAN OPERA.—The programme of the
engagements fur the forthcoming season has just been issued by
Mr. Lumley. It contains the names of Grid, Favanti, and Per-
siani, Mario, Fornasari, Lablache ; and in the ballet department,
Carlotta Grist, Adelaide Frasi, Fanny Ellsler, Cerito, and
Taglioni. The Opera will open in the first week in March, with
Fornasari and Persiani, rn Herold's opera of Zamitra. A brilliant
season is expected.

The next mails for Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, and
the lonian Islands, will be made up on Thursday morning,
the 15th inst., and for Egypt, India, Hong-Kong, and China,
on the morning of the Ist of March, via Southampton. The
overland closed mail to India, via Marseilles, on the evening
of the 4th of March, if not detained. The West Indies, Ma-
deira, Bermuda, St. Jago de Cuba, and Venezuela, on the
morning of the lith instant, to be forwarded by the Clyde
steamer, via Southampton. Sydney, New South Wales, on
the morning of the 29th inst., to be forwarded by the Supe-
rior, via Gravesend. British North America, Bermuda, and
the United States, on the evening of the 4th of March, to be
forwarded by the Caledonia steamer, via Liverpool, Halifax,
and Boeton. •..