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

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 passed according to the deliberative judgment of
the Limited Parliament—where an individual did not act for
antaf,her—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,
=eke their decisions on the political subjects which come
-under their consideration, arid 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 position 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-
versant, were also passed ' • and observe, also the Reform Act
for England and Scotland. The Irish Members, sent from
4141 country under the Act of Union, gave their voices
and their votes—or they might have done so—they condemn
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, where 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 made
_ 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 1843, 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 (to with
his defence ? It is the first time I ever heard, in the rear
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- i
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
case ? Herne 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 i blies.
convened by the High Sheriff, when petitions were
adopted and presented to the city representatives ; but
were any of these meetings convened magisterially ? . I do
not mean to say that there were not magistrates present,
but were any of these meetings convened by the order
of a magistrate? At least I am not so informed. Were
any of them 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 no analogy—existing circumstances arc quite different.
I have no objection that that word continuity of purpose should
go to the jury, and that you [ Addressing Mr. Shell] should
have the full benefitof 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-
serted, thereby showing that they always maintained the duties
of loyalty and allegiance to the Queen. Now I arm quite ready
to give them the merit of that. The Attorney-General brings no
accusation against Mr. O'Connell, or the members of the Repeal
Association—he makes no charge without knowing whether there
be guilt or not. His position is, I don't inquire as to what took
place before the year 1843. Gentlemen of the jury, you will
bear in mind that the crime imputed commences in 1643.
Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers avow that they
attended to procure the repeal of the union by such modes as
the law and the constitution warrant. Mr. Solicitor-General
says—l say nothing as to the proposition until we come to
1843. The union is what you consider to be a grievance, and
you have a right, by free discussion, by petitioning Parlia-
ment, and by adopting every other legal and constitutional step,
to endeavour to relieve yourselves from those grievances, and
thereby procure a repeal of the union. Now what the tra-
versers 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-
sociation, and from thenceforth the means by which the
members at tempted to effect a repeal of the union (if that were
their object) became illegal. Now, Gentlemen, such is the
proposition of the Crown, and it lies ox, them to maintain it.
It appears that from some time in 1843—the precise time or
place is immaterial—Nlr. O'Connell said something to this
effect, " how could I prove an a'ili." Why, it is not neces- .
sary to do so. He has had the bill of particulars, and Le has
had overt acts 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,
*ether 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, for a few minutes. I want to say a word or two to my
brother here. [f 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 front
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, proceedings
were adopted for rendering 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, amounting only to a shilling a-year,
was capable 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 admitted 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 1843. Mr. O'Connell said, at more than one meet-
ing, " That in one way or other he had three-fourths of
the male population enrolled members of that Society." A
computation, taking the lowest member at a shilling
a-year, would show what a large sum of money this So.
tele), 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,
'out collecting from each person a sum of money to 1
he 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. Abont the same time resolutions were passed
with regard to 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 exis', and that they were spread over the country. Repeal-
wardens were also appointed in the year 1813, some time
about the period when the arrangement teas 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, and 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 1 only call them what the
Association themselves called them—there was no part of Ire-
land into which that system was not introduced. The duties
of the repeal-wardens was to see that every adult male in their
respective districts should become a member of the Associa-
tion. They had another duty imposed upon them—he would
be very much obliged to the gentlemen on the other side, if he
obis-stated at all, that they would correct him ; it was quite
necessary for the ends of the law that he should be so—that
they should. take care that newspapers should be supplied to
their Associations, and should be read to them. These papers
were the Pilot, the Nation, ant the Freeman, The owners of
these papers were three of the traversers at the bar.
~ Mr. FITZGISEON begged permission to say a few words.
Cuter JusTice—Of course, Mr. Fitzgibhon, I should be
extremely sorry to prevent you.
Mr. FITZGIBBON then said that there was no evidence be-
fore the Court that Dr. Gi ay was the proprietor of the Evening
or Weekly Freeman.
CHIEF JUSTlCE—Gentlemen I was-_.. 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 Freeman.
CHIEF JUSTICE—II 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. Mooaz, Q.C.—I wish to be understood, on the part of
the traverser!, that we do nut 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 JUSTICE—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 generally a correct notion of what they are, and
to leave the subject to your consideration. If I mistake their
present object, the gentlemen here are ready to correct me.
iEwc2_,Tliek
Of
object of- this member's card is apparent upon the
„..._, lice Of it., TWe have certain things done :it is itself of a green
eels tls_-_-----,..796 r. . e.:,,;;Nre\have on it an enumeration of our population, and
/ ,'".':=::;-... 4_ • esitrept,d( the ability of Ireland to have a Parliament
A.; :„..,:.,,::,„,i-s'ak ,
.-Aitg:%iitild the Association has taken upon itself to
..,(-,-,-4, )0,- ' ' - ~(4 cough every part. of the country those cards,
—'
' 11148';---C----''' )7-;
(
c 4 -4,_ „v. • --' t.r: iti ,
.--..,.
..........

ba b

------