The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-08 00:00:00

V

. .
ter. "I his is the real question to be tried. You,.th,,
that no men could have stronger motives for proving 4
the fullest extent. Why, then, did they fail in prodUC .
to show the sc2ret plans of a ccnspitacy ? The reason"
because they had nothing to betray. It is iinpossibW
ment could have failed to discover all the secrets atid,Pj
existed. They had influence enough to induce persot
They had the patronage in the Post office, in the rev

and especially in the constabulary, to offer for information. Tut
they procure none. Why 7 Because there was nothin; tti betray
—and you know it. Well, then, what is the evidence: 'Well, if
there was nothing new, what seas the old evidenc'e The lif of an

old coat, they say, is a new button.—;Laughter.:. They have•stltched
up their case with the nevrvaper, which they hive flung before
you. If you had heard it charged that I had entered into a pri.
vale conspiracy, you might have said that I had entered into a
private conspiracy in my old days, calculating on being ,avcd by
the secresy and fidelity of my co.conspira ova. But there is
nothing of a private conspiracy charged against me. I therefore
ask—not only those who know my sentiments better than you can—
but I ask you, who know me principally by the calumnies of those

opposed to me—if, from your opinion of my character, you deem
me such an idiot or blockhead as to enter into a conspiracy to the
run of a cause dear to my heart, and for which I refused, my
Lords, the appointment of Master of the Rolls ? It was a (pies-
tion whether I had not refused the office of Chief Baron before it

Was offered to me--(Laughter)—but as to my having been offered

the appointment of Master of the Rolls there is no dispute. No ;
it was not to be supposed I would compr.anise the c,luse to whirl
I am devoted, now just at the closing years of my life, and on the
eve of eatering into eternity, where I shall receive that ass ful
judgment which cannot now be long postponed. You cannot be.
lieve that I would have the cruelty to enter into a conspiracy—the
folly to enter into a conspiracy—the absurdity to enter into a
conspiracy—l ask you as Irish gent emen to put your hands to
your hearts, and say if you can believe it of me. No;
your verdict may imprison me—but it will not take from me the

consciousness of My own inn,cence, and the conviction that there
is not a man would pronounce that verdict who would not be

convinced of his mi take. Perhap, the Attorney -General want,
you to believe this—that I was a conspirator without knowing it. I
say without knowing it, tbr there it wis in open day. Yes, you
must, to believe anything against me, believe that I was, a rut,
spirator ignorant of the conspiracy; and that is the question
for which you are selected to try me. In the technicalities of
law I could say, eve❑ in that there could be no guilt, for there
is no guilt without a guilty intention. But I acorn to make

points of law upon matter s's plain to common sense—so obvious,
and, I trust. I may say, so irresistible. There is something curi-
ous in this sweeping conspiracy of the Attorney-General. Gen-
tlemen, it has been so powerfully put to you, that I should
not repeat it—that there would be an end to every great move-
ment of human institutions if you were to concede to the At.
torney-General that conspiracy which he has neither stated nor
proved. It is a new kind of conspiracy. Some exceedingly saga-
cious person has dreamed of it—this imaginary conspiracy re,t-
ing upon your conscientious imagination, but having no other so-
lidity whatsoever. Would the slave trade have be. 11 ever abolished

if the prc,ent Attorney-General's doctrine of conspiracy had been
law—if the Judges sitting in the King's Bench had given their sane.
tion to it ? Never did a more formidable party exist than the Wu.t
Indizsn party. Government might have searched all the newspa-
pers of the day and found evidence of their guilt, of their accumu.

lated guilty. If their acts had been aletinspirac ~, ally were they
not indicted for a conspiracy ? Why .vas not Will erforce ind cted
for a conspiracy ? Ile might ha:e stood, as the humble individual
before you studs now, accused of a conspiracy, because he put an
end to the slave-trade. Blessed be Heaven ! the messure was not
suffered to be carried until I had some p irt in it. Well, next to
abolition of slavery, what was done? NVhat would have become
of Reform in Parliament ? is there a man of the Whig aristocracy
—were there not meetings held in Birmingham and elsewhere—
were there not hundreds of meetings held—would the reform in
Parliame :t have gone as far as it had done—would the additions
promised in the King's speech have gone as far as they have gore,
if the meetings had ,mot assembled in several thousands, to petition
for it ? There is then Catholic emancipation. There was a most
eminent lawyer at the head of the profession at that day ; and the
present Attorney-General will not suppose that I mean any d s-
respect to him when I say that he was superior to him—cer-
tainly he was his equal. Ile was an eminent lawyer, and he
had as conscientious an antipathy to Catholic emancipatio i
as any man could have. I do not believe there was a more
decided opponent to that measure—l do not believe there
was a more decided opponent to it than was William Saurin. He
was an eminent lawyer, and he watched and saw, as he thought, the
law violated. He was deteated in one trial, but succeeded in
another ; but did the wildness of his imagination call Catholic
emancipation a conspiracy ? I was prosecuted for words spoken
by me ; my Learned Friend near me (Mr. Shell, who sat next to
Mr. O'Connell) was prosecuted for words spoken by him ; but tbat
Attorney-General never dreamed of terming the alleged offence a
conspiracy. Yet were not the ingredients used in agitating far
Catholic emancipation the same as for repeal? Had we not our
county meetings, our provincial meetings, and a simultaneous meet-
ing ? On the 13th of January, 1829, did not all the Catholic
parishes in Ireland meet on one day ? Why, indeed, that could
have been wrested into evidence of a conspitacy, if anything could.
for upon one day, every parish in Ireland met, and upon one day
they all expressed their determination to persevere in their exer-
tions until they obtained religious equality. No mail dreamed of
turning that into a conspiracy. It was reserved for the glory of the
present Attorney-General to introduce this doctrine. He has found
out what none of his predecessors could possibly find out. At the
present moment there is a very serious question in agitation in Eng.
land. There was the Anti. Corn League; they say, and I say, that
their object was to produce cheap bread for the poor, and to in-
crease the number of persons employed. But lam not going into
that question, we have enough of our own; we know that they
and the Anti-Slavery Society collected money from abroad, as well
as at home—that they have used the boldest language, language
for which he said that the Rev. Mr. Fisher accused them of two
crimes—pi omoting assassination and incendiarism. Gentlemen,
we are free from even tile accusation of this. But what is this
precedent to be given for ? Is it to be said men with the autho-
rity of this Coutt, or any part of the Court, are to be sent over to
England to put down the glorious struggle there, which
would give men markets, and give corn in exchange for
manufactures, and give cheap bread to the poor ? is that to
be turned into a conspiracy ? Ah, no! The Englishmen were
safe in the glorious integrity of the jury.box. There there would
not be a single juror sworn upon such a trial as this who had been
educated in strong opposite opinions to the accused. In England,
whoever differed with violence and upon principle with the tra-
versers would not lee sworn upon the jury. No, they are safe.
The angel's wing mounting from the pure jury-box protects
i them from it. I should be mocking you in telling you that
the English would be in danger; and do you protect us as an
English jury would protect them, and I will be satisfied. Now let
us come to the machinery of the evidence brought forward to sus.
fain this case. I told you there were two classes of evidence—if
1 am not wrong in u3ing the word—brought forward by the At.
torney-General—monster meetings and newspaper publications. I
will take each separately. lam not here to deny that those meet.
ings took place—on the contrary, I admit that they did, and that
they were monster assemblages, consisting of tens and hundreds of
thousands. It has been somewhere said, that the magnitude of a
meeting alone would make it illegal ; but I give so little of weight
to such an assertion, that, not thinking it worthy of refutation, I
shall not stop to discuss it. But lat once admit that those ewe.
ings took place, and I will ask you, Gentlemen of the Jury, was the
life of any man, woman, or child—nay, of any animal—lost at
them ? You unanimously answer there was not. Was any one
struck or injured in the slightest degree at those meetings ? You
unanimously answer " No." Was any female, young or old, ex-
posed at them to any outrage or indelicacy of conduct? You
answer, " Not one." Was there one shilling's worth of property
belc.nging to any individul destroyed or injured ? You also answer
unanimously in the negative. Oh yes—l forgot—l have, perhaps,
exaggerated here; for a policeman, in coloured clothes, was put on
the table, who swore that at Tara the crowd went near committing
the violence of overturning an old woman's gingeibread-stand.—
(Laughter.) Now, is it not strange, an extraordinary thing, to tell
ine that I infuriated the people to such an extent by those assem-
blages, that they were on the very verge of rebellion, while their con-
duct is so exemplary, and their courtesy to each other such, that not
even an accident occurred on any of those occasions ? There is
not, Gentlemen, a country in the world, except our own, where such
meetings could have taken place with the same results ; and there
is not in the world a people who could have conducted themselves
in such an exemplary manner, except the persecuted and calum.
Mated people of Ireland—that " filthy and felonious multitude,"
as the Times called them. Gentlemen of the Jury, they will abide
your verdict patiently. They may disapprove of it, as men usually
do of a verdict adverse to their feelings and wishes ; but there will
be no violation of the law, whatever your verdict may be, and
whatever may be the fate of the humble individual who addresses
you, and who boasts that he is the educator of the Irish people in
the lesson of legal, peaceable, and continuous political exertion. But
it is said, Gentlemen of the Jury, that large meetings necessarily
lead to intimidation. Do they? Gentlemen, ask yourselves that
question. Were not all the magistrates of the various districts in
which those meetings occurredwitnesses of them, and most of those
who remain in the commission of the peace, and unfavourable to
repeal ; and why were they not produced P Why were not all
the clergymen of the Established Church—why were not all the
most timid persons, whether in pantaloons or petticoats, produced
to bear testimony to this intimidation ? Why, because they
could not conscientiously swear that they had endured the
slightest apprehension. Thus, with the most ample opportunities
of adducing the most abundant proofs of intimidation if it existed,
there was an utter absence of evidence, anti did not that absence of
evidence speak trumpet-tongued ? I tell the Attorney-General,
that having at his command witnesses of the most unimpeachable
character, if those meetings were productive of any dread to any
portion of the public, he utterly neglected his duty in not producing
them, if they could have deposed to such a statement. But not a
particle of such evidence has been produced, for the sufficient
reason—that it did not exist. If those meetings were dangerous to
the public peace, why not proclaim them ? If we were seditious,
why not warn us? And, when they wore at length proclaimed,
after having been permitted for months to proceed without a hint
of illegality, was not the proclamation at once obeyed ? Yes, we
were branded as conspirators—yes, conspirators, obeying the law
and enforcing it. These meetings were not illegal ; they were
peaceable meetings, suited to the purposes for which they were con -
vened. If it had been at one, or two, or three, or ten of these
meetings this peaceable conduct was observed—if it had been
only at a few of them that this conduct distinguished the be-
haviour of the people—it might be said to be casual. But,
no, it was the same at them all; they were peaceable by de-
sign. We have received the same answer—peace—in reference
to every one of them. The Government knew of those meetings ;
everybody knew of them ; and why were they not impeded if they
were illegal ? I am not one of those who say that the Attorney-
General endeavoured to entrap persons into criminality. I say no
such thing. Ido him more justice. Ido not say that he did not
prosecute or interfere, because there was no ground for prosecuting,
because there was no ground for interference. Ido not utter one
word of reproach or calumny to him. I aim told, my Lord, that a
few minutes ago I used the equivocal word " design," in reference
to the peaceableness of those meetings, but I only used it in its
true meaning. The design to be peaceable existed before one of
those meetings took place. It exists now, and it will continue to
exist on the part of the people. When I spoke of design, I spoke
of the education of the Irish people—that education which taught
them that the only way to obtain valuable ameliorations was by
acting peaceably and in strict conformity with the law. • I have now
done with those meetings, and I ask you, Gentlemen f the Jury, t
what evidence are they of the existence of a conspirac I leave that
matter to your consciences—to your integrity, as my countrymen.
What care I about your political opinions—what4reare I about
your political sentiments ?—you all know teat you must
answer before your Maker for your verdict. WAI, as I said be-
fore, I will leave those meetings and come to the ilext evidence as
to this conspiracy, which is, the newspapers. ' Don't imagine I
am going to detain you canvassing the sentences in them ; that
has been very ably done already. Thera is not the least proof that
I ever saw any one of those newspapers—there is not the least
proof of any connexion between me and any of those newspapers.
It will be seen by their dates that at the time the very harshest
paragraphs appeared in them I was not even in town. But it is
proved that at the Association I distinctly disavowed that any news-
paper was the organ of our body. It is said that we circulated
those newspapers, but the effect of that evidence amounts to this
only—that those who subscribed a certain sum of money allocated
a part of that money to the choice of a newspaper—they selected
what newspaper they pleased. The newspaper sent to
their own choice, and you will recollect, Gentlemen, it
was
Yattionf It
claimed that not one of them was the organ of the Association.
e not the
is also said they contained libels ; if they did,
we sent those newspapers, according to the .
were subject to the libel
proprietors of them punished ? Yeu will recodl:ereeecniecytsTtdes., wtoheur:
by the parties, those. newspapers
was
the
province of the Attor-
ney-General ; if there was libel in them,
hbeuftaiettitson, ottheprAovttedorntheya.t
wn cey G ee
circulatedeat t othpartotsvetzthe
was
1 ihetle publishersus.
T:
General would have prosecuted its thesecases, if he had thought
it worth his while, and he did not. W hat, after all, have those
newspapers done? Of what have they been guilty ? Of pub-
halting a parcel of speeches, which I question if any of them
would be remembered if it was not for this trial. It is giving
fictitious and absurd importance to these newspapers. But they
arc charged with exciting the people to tints vieleUCet slid ttllntilt.

)1:4 ‘,l
c. 4
ovo.
•-.
ctitisft&
if
)10 N—Lictrar.',..m.Ok