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

Membersaleenimtehnithings
el;r
defoe England have had their share,
i . i
071: 7
.‘., .
:: , .
It: , ,
ii4701,-,..,d: ~: seen dge
certain
rnt
tht
and they ail voted, or they had an opportunity of voting
srandt
ot speaking,
toyo your
rr c
ofree i d
edriasctiuosns.inn
lifn I every
mistake
theirs e o f the word,
Very many of the most important Acts of Parliament have
passed—passed 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 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 i
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
this 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 Ilullaghmast 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 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
case ? flame Tooke wrote a lo.ok 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 asses 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 lam not AO 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 i Addressing .llr. Shed] should
have the full 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 legal was in-
serted, thereby showing that they always maintained the duties
of loyalty and allegiance to the Queen. Now lam 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 withoutknowing 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 1843.
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—fol:owing
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 attempted 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 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. He has had the bill of particulars, and he 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,
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 pew- 1. less, e•e,, ewes's., see?. 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. [The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Crampton
then retired for a short time. Oa 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, 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 bee ening 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
Ssciety 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-
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 front
each person, about the application of which they knew nothing,
but collecting from each 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 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 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, and received orders from the Repeal Association re,
dative 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 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
anis-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, and the Freeman. The owners of
these papers were three of the traversers at the bar.
Mr. FrezatFlßON begged permission to say a few words.
CHIEF 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. Gray was the proprietor of the Evening
or Weekly Freeman.
CHIEF JUSTlCE—Gentlemen, I was--
ATTORNEY-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 Freeman.
CHIEF JUSTICE—It is 01 very little consequence,
but these
papers were circulated for the purpose of indoctrinating the
Feople into the system and the objects of the Society—no
doubt for the diffusion of the Association. Itwiisi,howeycr,ne-
eessary for me to refer to this card. You
general nature that it is a statement, and an elnusmeeerfartLmn itsof many circumstances.
i'lli. Montle, Q.C.—I wish to be understood, on the part
the traversers, that we do not consent to that card berninag
sent
not up
be of
to the jury. I make the observation now that we
precluded from adopting any course which we may think right
at the conclusion of your charge. Unless I made that obser-
yahoo now, it might be thought that we did consent.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Mr. Moore, you arc quite right, and I
baste no right to assume that these documents are laid before
the jury j, but I shall make a few observations on them. My
irousigs_la.teot to enter into the minuteness of detail, but
711( to - orally a correct notion of what they are, and
rites}
oanree. ready to correct me.
. Lir Drat
. *Wet, of this member's card. is apparent upon the
It Is itself of a green
0.7-4 ' i,,.. Me . nit an enumeration of our population, and
4,..-1-74`ititesnant or, the ability of Ireland to have a Parliament
f
. .
Alt '`., 4F-Ass 'own, and the Association has taken upon itself to
&alining's though every part of the country those cards,
- .N._...-_
Al

which contain a statement of matters upon which they (the
i 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
Ihave a right to enlist popular opinion in favour of what they
call their grievances; by all fair means they are entitled to
I 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
iof 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 candid 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 discussion 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 ignorant of the purpose ?
The CHIEF JUSTICE then intimated that he would postpone
the further consideration of the case till to-morrow.

The Court was then adjourned till ten o'clock the following
morning. . . _

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

TWENTY-FOURTH DAY.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, SATURDAY,

THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
Their Lordships having taken their seats on the bench at
10 o'clock,
The CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded with his charge to the jury,
and commenced by recapitulating the observations with
which he concluded yesterday, respecting the sums of
money contributed to the funds of the Association by these
and other countries. Very large sums came not only from
America under the British dominions, which might have an
interest in what was goins, on in this country, but also from
the United States of America,' which, in reference to Great
Britain and Ireland, were foreign countries. Those sums of
money were handed in in large amounts ; and they had in-
controvertible evidence that Mr. O'Connell spoke then of
the forces he had at command and acting under his control ;
and that at one meeting he said he would lake the opportu-
nity the next day of handing into the Association several
sums of money, amounting in all to about 1,1001., all from
America, and for the purposes of the Association. The Asso-
ciation was thus provided with funds for the purpose of
working out the ends and objects for which that Association
was formed. Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers con-
tended that this was all legitimate, and that they had a
right, by all legal and constitutional means, to get rid
of the union if they could. So far the Attorney-General
concurred with them ; but the question between them was
this—whether the means resorted to by the traversers were
or were not legal ? or whether, in pursuing their object in
the manner they had adopted, they had agreed to transgress
the law in the manner charged in the indictment under which
they were then on trial? As far as he knew, the only legal
means to obtain a repeal of the union would be by addressing
petitions to the Queen or to Parliament, as by law esta-
blished ; nay, there might be more than that—there might
be the introduction of free and fair discussion to ascertain the
opinions which were entertained by the people generally on
the question of the union. But there must be nothing done
inconsistent with free and fair discussion—no threats for the
purpose of intimidating the Ministry and the Queen ; and
still less should the traversers take the law into their own
hands, and endeavour to alter the constitution of the coun-
try from what it was made by the Sovereign and Legislature.
He would How procoed to lay before the Jury some of the
acts of the Association in furtherance of what they called
their legal intentions ; and the first document to which he
should call their attention, was one submitted to the Associa-
tion on the 22d of August, entitled " A Plan for the Renewed
Action of the Irish Parliament." He had already explicitly
told them, that as the Act of Union remained unaltered by
the proper authority, the Queen was bound by her corona-
tion oath to support it—and no set of persons had a right in
themselves to attempt any alteration in that Act, except
those legally authorised—the Sovereign and Parliament of
the country; yet here was a plan for making new laws and
a new constitution for that part of the United Kingdom
called Ireland. It commenced by stating, first, that " the
Irish people recognise, acknowledge, and maintain, and will
continually uphold and preserve upon the throne of Ireland,
her Majesty Queen Victoria, whom God protect—Queen by
undoubted right, and by hereditary descent, of Ireland—and
her heirs and successors for ever." Now, from the time of the
passing of the Act of Union, and up to the present, she had
ceased to be the Queen of Ireland. The King at that time
was King of Ireland, but since the passing of that Act lie
ceased to be so, and the title merged in that of King of the
United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland—in fact, thence-
forth, the King or Queen was Kingor Queen of Great Britain
and Ireland. That process, therefore, was one for an entire
alteration in the constitution of the country as by law esta-
blished ; and to propose in lieu thereof to place her Majesty
on a separate throne, which could not be done without the
consent of the Legislature of the United Kingdom sanc-
tioned by the Throne itself. The plan went on, secondly, to
state that " the people of Ireland will acknowledge, and
will maintain and preserve, the privileges, hereditary and
otherwise, of the peers of Ireland ; together with the legis-
lative and judicial authority of the Irish House of Lords,"
&c. Now they (the jury) would have to say was that the
language of petition to the Parliament and King or Queen of
the United Kingdom—or was it a petition at all ? Was it
not rather a demand, than the language used in a petition ?
The fourth plan (the Chief Justice went on to observe) was
for the increase of county members ; the sixth provided for
a right of voting by virtue of household suffrage ; the seventh
provided for voting by ballot ; the eighth provided that the
monarch of England de
_facto should be monarch de jure
of Ireland ; and the ninth acknowledged the connexion be-
tween Great Britain and Ireland, by means of the authority
of the Crown, to be perpetual. He did not see how much
such a plan as that proposed by Mr. O'Connell, being as it
was a direct violation of the coronation oath as at present
existing, could possibly be carried into effect according to
law. It is impossible, then, to repeal the union in the exist-
ing state of things ; but the union might be altered if
the Legislative wisdom of the country, together with
the Crown, should think fit to adopt, and if the Par-
liament of the united kingdom, with the concurrence and
sanction of the Crown, thought proper to pass a new Act
of Parliament, either repealing the union or modifying it
as it at present stood with regard to the connexion
between Ireland and England. That was the legitimate
mode of doing it ; but as long as the law continued as it now
was, there was the Queen's coronation oath to be violated,
and the statute of the 40th of George 111. to be outraged,
before the plan laid down by the Association could possibly
be carried into practical effect. There was no attempt made
to petition the Queen in this plan suggested by the Associa-
Iron ; nor was- mere any retommtniktion in it that the Re-
peelers should petition the United Legislature. This plan or
manifesto of the Association was put forward as the demand
of the Irish people, organised and disciplined as they were to
have their objects carried into effect according to their own
wishes and desires—by whom or how, he (the Chief Justice)
did not know, nor did the plan specify. However, this plan
was laid before the Association, and there was no statement
whatever that it was rejected. What was the Association
doing in the meantime, while the authoritative demand on
behalf of the people of Ireland was thus placed upon their
records? They thought right to have meetings held in dif-
ferent parts of Ireland. Now, although it had not been ad-
mitted in that Court that he or the Association had convened
more than a few of those monster meetings, yet it would be
seen by the repeated declarations of Mr. O'Connell himself, in
the Association, or out of doors, that he or the Association had
called all of them. It would be for the jury to say, whether
these meetings were held for the purpose of petition and free
discussion, or whether they were called together in order to
make a display of the physical force and powerful strength
of the Irish nation, banded together by the ties of the Asso-
ciation for effecting their objects by the agency of such
means as had been imputed to them by the Attorney-Gene-
ral. He was not inclined to lay much stress upon the fact of
there being bands of music at those meetings ; there were
bands almost in all instances—perhaps in every instance, and
those bands were in great number, 30 or 40 of them being at a
single meeting. There were flags, and banners, and inscrip-
tions, but to all this he was not inclined to attach much im-
portance. Although it was true that in some cases violence
of expression might appear in some of their mottoes and de-
vices, they went but a little way to establish the crime im-
puted, namely, that the traversers intended, by intimidation
and demonstration, by physical force, to overawe the Govern-
ment of the country. These bands were something, no doubt,
contributing more or less to the existence of physical force,
but they constituted, after all, but a slight ingredient in the
case. The striking feature in these meetings was the immense
masses in which the people were collected, and the nature
and violence of the speeches which were delivered to
the assembled multitudes on that occasion. Generally
those speeches were made by Mr. D. O'Connell ; but that
gentleman was not by any means the only person to address
the meetings. There were other persons also, some of whom
were included in the number of the *traversers, who took the
opportunity of making their feelings known to the face of the
assembled multitudes. It was for the jury to decide, from the
tone and tenor of those speeches, whether they were delivered
by men who were acting in pursuance and promotion of a
common design, and that a criminal one. From a few of
these speeches he would take the liberty of selecting 'one or
two passages for the consideration of the jury. The first he
would refer to was the meeting held at Mullingar on the 15th
of May, and which was attended by Mr. O'Connell and Mr.
Barrett. In the presence of that assemblage, composed of a
multitude of persons amounting to hundreds of thousands.
Mr. Barrett thought proper to express himself in language
which he should read from the Pilot of the 15th of May, Mr. '
Barrett's own paper. Mr. Barrett could disown whatever there
might be of criminality or violence in the speech, by the asser-
tion that what he uttered escaped from him unpremeditatedly
and in the excitement of the moment—that it was a hot effusion
—but that the thing should be passed over, inasmuch as it
was not preconcerted or premeditated ; but there was not a
particle of evidence to show that Mr. Barrett's speech de-
served to be so characterised. It was a deliberate speech,
and not only did Mr. Barrett utter it at Mullingar, but it was
to be presumed that he wrote it down, and when he had ar-
rived in Dublin he had it printed and circulated in his paper,
the Pilot. His Lordship then read an extract from the
speech, concluding as follows :—" We will crouch, but it will
be the crouch of the tiger, ready to take a terrible spring,
and clutch our independence. Come what may, the dye is
cast—repeal must be successful. We have a leader worthy of
our people, and a people worthy of such a leader—a people
sober, forbearing, resolved, and possessing all virtues which
will enable them to obtain, by showing that they are worthy
of, national independence." That speech was delivered on
the 15th of May. See how simultaneously the operations
of the Association, the meetings, and all these proceedings
went on together. He now came to the Pilot of the 31st
of May, and they would see that in that paper Mr. Bar-
rett gave a report of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the great
Longford repeal meeting. The jury remembered what
was stated at that meeting by Mr. O'Connell with respect
to an English Roman Catholic Nobleman, Lord Beaumont.
He (the Chief Justice) would not go into the particulars of
the dispute between the two individuals, but he alluded to
this speech as showing the opinions which Mr. O'Connell
ittered in presence of the populace with respect to what he
,honght might take place in England if opposition were
made by the Government to his plan and that of the Asso-
ciation. (His Lordship proceeded to read that passage from
Mr. O'Connell's speech at Longford where he alluded to the
sensation which would be created in the popular mind to-
wards England, in case coercive measures were used against
this country.) It would be for the jury to say, whether they
thought the use of such language as this a fair and legitimate
mode of exercising the right of free discussion, and bringing
the mind of the people to bear constitutionally on political
questions. What was this man of Ireland, of whom Mr.
O'Connell spoke ?—something existing only in the imagi-
nation, of Mr. O'Connell, who framed and fabricated this
story for the purpose of having its effect. No such story
ever existed ;it was a supposition—a kind of novel invented
by him upon the occasion ; and for what purpose ? To
have free discussion of the subject of the union, or to have
portion of the people of this
excited against another, and violence,
of
, l
"hears as
rt o
and r i e s
cioolunentcrye,
provoked by the introduction of
unfoundedce, and deedsan
fit of this nature. The speech was received with ,
cheers ;" and that was the way in which stories of the kind
were received by those multitudes of loyal men. Its Lordship

then proceeded to read Mr. O'Connell's speech at Mallow,
observing to the jury, the word " enemy" occurs very often
in very many of the speeches made here and elsewhere by
Mr. O'Connell, either in the presence of some of the traversers
or others, and was also made use of by other persons among
the traversers in their speeches. Whether it be the word
" enemy" or " Saxon" it will be for you to say to whom the'
designation is attached. Can it have the meaning or any
other description than that of English ? It is for you to say,
(His Lordship having proceeded with the reading of the
speech, when he came to the words—" We will violate no law ;
but you are much mistaken if you think that they will not
assail us.") Gentlemen, it is true, as I have before observed,
that not only at the meetings of the Repeal Association, but
also, I believe, with scarcely one exception, at every public
meeting that was called to aid the objects which the tra-
versers had in view, there was a most industrious inculca-
tion to the people not to violate any law. "He who com-
mits a crime gives strength to the enemy." That is
their maxim. It will, however, be for you, Gentlemen,
to consider whether in the whole of the conduct and de-
meanour of the the traversers they had actually in view
the preservation of the public peace, or whether those
warnings and this advice were given for a particular pur-
pose—the keeping back any violation of the law—the
keeping back all violence and resistance to the law until the
time should arrive when they would be prepared to make such
use of their existing forces as their particular circumstances
might then suggest. In his speech Mr. O'Connell stated that
the only Englishman who subdued Ireland had sent away
80,000 of the people as slaves, all of whom perished in the
short space of twelve years ; whether that statement is a
true one or not, I cannot tell—but with what object was it in-
troduced? " Yes," continued Mr. O'Connell, " Peel and
Wellington may be second Cromwells ; they may have his
blunted truncheon." And recollect, Gentlemen, that this
portion of the evidence was proved on the part of the tra-
versers by Mr. Fitzgibbon.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—I beg your Lordship's pardon ; that is a
mistake.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I would not have made the asser-
tion, but that I find in my own handwriting a note to that
effect.
Mr. Close said he had taken a note of what took
place, and the paper was given in evidence by the Crown.
The CHIEF JuancE—l may be mistaken, but certainly I
made an entry at the time in my own handwriting. I will
not dispute with Mr. Fitzgibbon on the point; and you will,
therefore, take it that the paper containing a report of this
meeting at Mallow was proved by the Crown. What is the
language of Mr. O'Connell, and to which I had been advert-
ing? He says—" They"—that is, " Peel and Wellington—
may get the blunted truncheon of Cromwell, and may, oh,
sacred Heaven ! enact upon the fair occupants of that gallery
the murder of the Wexford ladies.—(Oh, oh.) But lam
wrong; they never shall." The report adds, that here the
entire company cheered and waved handkerchiefs. Now,
Gentlemen of the jury, was that speech made in the spirit of
fair discussion, and as an appeal to the reason ? The Chief
Justice then commented , on another part of this address, in
which Mr. O'Connell stated that the massacre of the Wexford
ladies was no mere appeal to the imagination, for that 300 of
them, old and young, maidens and matrons, taken in a
part of the town called the Bull-ring, appealed to the
humanity of the English, and were cruelly slaughtered.
The effect of this address was manifested by cries of " Oh,
oh," and great sensation. Now, Gentlemen, what is
the meaning of the introduction of such language, and of
details of this nature? If there was a word of truth in this
story, the event must have taken place 260 years ago ; and
for what purpose is such language used? Is it, you will ask
yourselves, for the purpose of free discussion upon a political
question, or is it for the purpose of exciting, by this detail of
horrors, the animosity and hatred of the Irish towards the
English ? " May not," adds Mr. O'Connell, " such atrocities
be enacted anew ? But no, we were a paltry remnant then ;
we are nine millions now." That is not the only occasion
upon which the assembled multitudes were treated with
stories of such a nature and of atrocities perpetrated by the
English on the Irish. Among other very remarkable meet-
ings was one held at Tara, in the county of Meath, on the
15th of August last. The place was one considered deserving
of particular veneration. It is a place religione sacer, and
selected upon that account, as well as for its historical
associations. Captain Despard, who attended that meeting,
estimated the numbers present at 300,000, while Mr. O'Con-
nell and those in the interest of the Association as infinitely
the most numerous of any of the meetings. According to
some accounts a million of persons were present, and Mr.
O'Connell estimated them at a million and a half. And,
Gentlemen, there was a dinner in the evening, as on pre-
vious occasions ; and let me now read some of the ways in
which the conviviality of the evening was enlivened by the
speech of Mr. O'Connell. (His Lordship then read extracts
from the speech of Mr. O'Connell, until he came to that por-
tion of it where mention was made of the massacre of three
hundred females in Wexford, when his Lordship continued ;)
Now, Gentleman of the jury, you have here the same hor-
rible and revolting story of most astonishing barbarity and
cruelty again repeated before another of those vast assem-
blages of persons, who are told of British cruelty and bar-
barity committed 260 years ago, with an intimation that such
scenes may occur again. (His Lordship then proceeded to
read another extract from the speech, and went on as rol-
lows :)—Now, Gentlemen of the jury, it was the constant
practice of Mr. O'Connell, at most or all of the meet-
ings, to call on the assembled multitudes to obey his
call, to be ready to come again when he should think
proper to call on them, and that was one of the occasions
on which
,he made use of that language. He said that
when he should want them, the people would not be
found to have melted away like snow, should an English
army invade this country ; that the people would be found
together again, inspired, no doubt, by the tale of the bar-
barity inflicted on their ancestors by the people of Great
Britain, of which he more than intimated the threat of a re-
currence. After commenting on the speeches made at other
meetings, his Lordship came to that held at Mullaghmast,
and said persons began to assemble early in the morning, and
to march by different ways to the centre of attraction, the
Rath of Mullaghmast. Great numbers came from Dublin,
having, no doubt, been apprised of the meeting, and prepared
for the occasion by the circulation of the placards, printed by
Browne under the direction of the Repeal Association. It
appeared, too, that there were a great number of those who
came from Dublin who had wands and repeal tickets stuck in
their hats, upon which was written, " O'Connell's Police."
You have heard a great deal about the power of these police
in preserving the peace wherever they were ; but it does not
always happen, Gentlemen, that the absence of riot and the
appearance of tranquillity is a proof of the absence of guilt.
You have heard a good deal about the placard that was cir-
culated at the Mullaghmast meeting ; but I should like to
know, Gentlemen, how it has come to pass that none of the
O'Connell police ever attempted to stop the vending and circu-
lation of that infamous production ? I will now read it for you,
Gentlemen, and you will see if it does not pretty nearly
agree in spirit and in meaning to what has been
said at Mallow, Tara, and other monster meetings, where
the traversers, or some of them, were present. (His Lord-
ship then road the document in question.) That, Gentle-
men, is the conciliatory, argumentative, peaceable, tranquil
way in which the people who assembled at that meeting
were to be addressed. I have said that no attempt was made
by any of Mr. O'Connell's police to prevent the circulation
of this placard. Now, Gentleman of the jury, so far were
they from putting down, or attempting to put down, the cir-
culation of this story and the horrible statement I have just
read, that you will find in the speeches made by Mr. O'Con-
nell—one of which was before the assembled multitude in
the open air, and the other at the dinner or banquet on the
same evening—the same story was repeated; not exactly,
perhaps, in the same words, but in substance and in spirit
it was altogether the same which was repeated and de-
livered by Mr. O'Connell to all who came that day to lis-
ten to him. What object had they who had attended him
on that occasion, and who took part in his deliberations,
some of whom repeated in their own language the self-
same story and sentiments ? The history of what took
place at Mullaghmast is given by an unimpeached witness,
Mr. Frederick Bond Hughes, who described the banners
that were there to have had these mottoes on them
" The man who commits a crime gives strength to the
enemy"—that, Gentlemen, is their favourite motto; "Ire-
land must be a nation ;" " Repeal ;" " A country of nine mil-
lions is too great to be dragged at the tail of any nation."
Gentlemen, is that argument or threat ? Mr. O'Connell, when
called upon at the dinner, spoke these words—(here the Chief
Justice read extracts from the speech alluded to). The
Queen's Speech that was here alluded to by Mr. O'Connell
we have not now before us ; but.l find from the context that
it must have been a speech disapproving of the steps of the
repealers. Because that speech was presumed to be spoken
by the Queen and composed by her Ministers, therefore that
is the reason, as alleged by Mr. O'Connell, for calling to-
gether again this enormous meeting at Mullaghmast. "
thought," says Mr. 'O'Connell on that occasion, " that the
monster meetings had demonstrated the opinion of Ireland
but when the Queen's Ministers' speech came, out, we saw it
necessary to do more. Accordingly, we called a monster
meeting at Clifden, we called another at Lismore, and we
are now at Mullaghmast." Now, Gentlemen of the jurv,
mark these words : " I chose it for an obvious reason. We
are on the precise spot on which English treachery—aye,
and false Irish treachery too—consummated a massacre un-
equalled in the crimes of the history of the world until
the massacre of the Mamelukes by Mehemet Ali. It was
necessary to have Turks to commit a crime in order to be'
guilty of the crimes of English. We are assembled here ells'
day to express our determination in open day not to be mis-
led by any treachery." Is that, or is it not, of a piece and
in unison with the printed paper circulated all over Mullagh-
mast in the course of the same morning ? The Chief Jus-
tice then commented on Mr. O'Connell's statement as to Dr.
Gray and his son having held a petty session of their own,
and that they would select chosen judges in the room of the
magistrates, who were unjustly deprived of their offices.
This is the reason he gives for setting up the arbitration
courts ; not with a view of putting a stop to the taking
of oaths—not with a view of assimilating themselves to the
Quakers—not with a view of assimilating themselves to the
usage of the Ouzel Galley, who act upon process directed
from the superior courts—but with the view of appointing
to those courts magistrates dismissed by the Government
for attending repeal meetings. Again, he said, " That
with those courts they would see justice realised in Ire-
land ;" and was not that saying that justice was not ad-
ministered at present in Ireland ? 'Was that statement made
to bring into disrepute the courts of law, as now established ?
The Chief Justice then adverted to Mr. O'Connell's allusion
to the rebellion of 1798 as " premature and rash." (His
Lordship then read the resolution adopted at the meeting,
and entitled, the " Leinster Declaration." Those resolutions
have already been published in the course of the proceedings.
The Court then adjourned for a few minutes.

At the resuming of business his LbRDSHIP continued to read
Mr. Barrett's speech to the end and continued :—That
was Mr. Barrett's part in the drama performed at
Mullaghmast. At the banquet which followed Mr. Daniel
O'Connell made pother speech. Was there any difference
in its tone and manner from that previously addressed to the
multitudes in the morning? I will read it in order that the
jury may judge for themselves. (The Lord Chief Justice here
read copious extracts from the speech of Mr. O'Connell on
that occasion. It referred especially to the supposed slaugh-
ter on the Rath—precisely the same story that was circulated
among the people assembled at the meeting, and it was said
that their Saxon masters would not dare to attack them again.
Not, let it be observed, that they would not, but that they
dare not again attack them. He admitted that they were
there not by accident but by design ; and in reference to the
arbitration system he said, "We want to get the adminis-
tration of justice out of the hands of the enemy," and that he
wished to show the nations of Europe that they were able to
do their own judicial business, and that they required not the
Saxon or the stranger to do it for them.) Now, Gentlemen,
I will ask you, is this free discussion ? Ask yourselves, is it
right or proper to circulate such a narration of bygone
deeds, the truth of which the narrator could not be ap-
prised of, and which he knew he could not? I will ask you,
Gentlemen, is is not a proof of the hatred of the speaker
towards England, and that such language was uttered
with that gall and bitterness which were sought to be
excited in the minds of one portion of her Majesty's sub-
jects against the other. Mr. O'Connell made a second
speech that day, into which he introduced the same subject,
and here again he dwelt upon the cruelties of England to-
wards Ireland. (His Lordship read a portion of this speech,
and then continued by saying :)—I will now, Gentlemen, call
your attention to the meeting at Tullamore, where Mr.
O'Connell spoke, and the evidence with regard to which was
given by a trustworthy, because an unimpeached witness,
that is John Ulich Macnamara. (His Lordship read a por-
tion of ur. ounnelre speech, which has already ap-

THE VERDICT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was about addressing
Court, when
exeiftimed:—.lfrr9.
Mr. MOORE, interrupting him,
let the jury retire, Mr. Attorney, before you sPea''
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that other CO
had addressed the Bench while the jury were inoo $
000
and (the jury having retired) continued to makes,
observations on the first count, which he wish'
have laid before the jurors.
• Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said he had ahead/ er
plained the nature of that count to them. the
Mr. MOORE said that he had, on the part °
der.
traversers, to object to the directions which he Oil
the
stood his Lordship to have given to the jury °l' ua
ground that he had directed them to give a findille,e
every count, whereas they could not do so on tu
whereon they were not agreed.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—They do not disagree
any part, Mr. Moore.
oint'
Some further discussion ensued upon this P
when, at a few minutes before 12 o'clock, be
be
that
thought ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said, --_, 0.
thought that the Court should be adjourned till I".°lit
day morning, as after 12 o'clock on Saturday re":ed
he apprehended that the verdict could not be recelote
by the Court. He therefore thought it right to state
that he thought the Court should adjourn.
-ass not
:4.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, observing that
vee,
12 o'clock, directed the jury to be summoned at °
tdj
and asked was it quite certain that the verdict c°
not be received after that hour ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply said, that iDI3
case of such importance, for fear any doubt ah°l:o
arise, he certainly did think thelCourt should ati.teullii
The Jury entered their box, and the foreman°
that they were not yet quite ready. 'a
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON advised them to be lo
hurry, as it was close to twelve o'clock, and
retired hastily, followed by a peal of derisive lang'f
:vg
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—This noise and lanro,
is extremely indecent, and I must exercise the 3
thority of the Court if such a breach of order 900.
decorum be again committed. His Lordship
v'et
pealed to both sides to know if some consent conia.4
be arrived at to receive the verdict, or to let the .1
go hoine.
Mr. HATCHELL would reserve any point thatllligActt
arise upon receiving the verdict after twelve e'L'a n
in favour of the traversers, and , pot
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he con'
agree to permit of the jury separating. to
Mr. Justice -CRAMPTON made another atteuiv
bring matters to an issue, and asked the Att°ll' ,14
General if he was perfectly sure that theYerdie!'s
not receivable after twelve o'clock ? he
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not know;
not aware of any precedent upon .the point, Iglu
~;41,01ii
not go the length of saying that the verdict to
not hold ; but he thought it the safer tour
adjourn.
‘,O,
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, for his own part, svlifs
object to receiving it upon his own respons'
though he could not say if he had ever taken aloe
diet after 12 o'clock on Saturday night, but wris
that he had done so on other occasions. He -/c19,1111
everything to be done according to law, but he tia)."'ilei
both sides should consider the great inconverileof
that would result to the 12 gentlemen on the 3oe
from being confined the whole of that night na j
following day until Monday morning. To selle
them it might be fatal. He wanted to know if
erd
was a necessity for such measures, for they
not at all advisable if there was no necessity ? o
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL persisted in his cze
for the adjournment of the Court.
tigo' Mr. Justice CRAMPTON several times rep" •e•
request to be informed if the adjournment and
quent confinement of the jury were necessary,
did not elicit any answer on the point from tirel,
torney-General, and, turning to Mr. Moore, 1190
" What do you say ?"
Mr. MooRE--4cothing, my Lord (tittering). wit
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—You do not much e°l''
yourself, Sir.
Mr. HENN, Queen's Counsel, after some ectaltir
tion with his learned brethren, said that he '3l"
object to a verdict being received after 12 o'clock'
nor yet did he consent to it.
oki
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON complained that he eo
get no information from either side. to
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was wilMor
give all in his power, but the case was a aiub'-,
one, and lest an objection should be raised lIP-to
after, he thought it the safer plan for the Coe
adjourn.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said he would not disenw-;
the jury, as it seemed to be against the opiiLinil
both the Crown and the traversers.
Mr. MOORE--Not ours, my Lord ; we say n
His LORDSHIP repeated his remark, which was
ij
pudiated by the traversers, and said that he ou
dor
adjourn the Court till eight o'clock on Men
morning.
Mr. MOORE—What hour, my Lord ?
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—Eight o'clock on
as it is only fair to release the jurors as $OOll
possible.
d
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Perfectly so, mY Lo ed'
However, after some grumbling, it was OP°, noe
that the Court should stand adjourned tib
o'clock.
ho
Mr. MONAHAN, Queen's Counsel, on bellal.% of
traversers, handed in a written objection, valleb to
understood to be to the competency of the e°urt
adjourn after twelve o'clock on Saturday night**
The jury were then summoned.
port 4
Mr. Floyd (a juror) entered and said, XL,. ste
we have been twice summoned when it aPr
were not wanted." -
ea ye,
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—YOU are wanted
Sir.