The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-31 00:00:00

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS.

THIRTEENTH DAY.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS

DUBLIN, MONDAY, JAN. 29,
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN v. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The Court sat at ten o'clock. The names of the tra-
v ersers and jury having been called over, they answered
respectively to their names, with the exception of Mr
Duffy, who appeared by his attorney, Mr. Gartlan.
Mr. J. O'CoNsrELL rose and said—My Lord Chief
Justice, something dropped from my Counsel in his ad
mirable speech in ray behalf on Saturday, which I fear
is calculated to create a serious apprehension in the
mends of the jury with regard to me, and I therefore beg
you will allow me to offer a few words in explanation.
I wish to say, gentlemen of the jury, that I have always
been the advocate, and always will be the advocate, of a
full, entire, and perfect restoration of the legislative
liberties of my country; therefore, I am not one of those
of whom my counsel spoke as persons who would accept
the occasional'or even annual visit of the Imperial Parlia-
ment to Dublin, or any measure short of that of which I
speak. I don't know whether this will prejudice me in
your minds, gentlemen of the jury, but, if it does, I
would infinitely prefer it should prejudice me, rather
than be supposed to compromise what I consider the
inalienable right of our country to an independent Par
liament.—(Applause.)
Mr. Moore, Q.C., then rose and proceeded to say—
My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am Counsel on
behalf of one of the traversers—the Rev. Thomas Tier-
ney—and, gentlemen, it now becomes my duty, as the
next Counsel in seniority to my friend Mr. Sheil, and in
Asat right, and in that character alone, to lay before
you the facts and circumstances of my client's case.
Gentlemen, the facts and circumstances are such, that I
do, with very respectful confidence, anticipate your ver-
dict of acquittal in favour of my client. Gentlemen of
the jury, I very unfeignedly feel the great disadvantage
that I must labour under in having to address you after
the able and brilliant and eloquent display of my friend
Mr. Shed. If that disadvantage was to be merely per-
sonal—if it could not in the slightest degree affect my
client—it would not be deserving of one second's consi-
deration. And though, gentlemen, I must acknowledge my
perfect inability either to arouse you by wit, or delight you
by eloquence, as my Learned Friend did—although I
must acknowledge my inability to address to you one
of those affecting appeals that ho made to you ; yet, I
confidently hope that you will exend to me while I am
laying before you the facts of my client's case the same
patience, and the same attention, which I have observed
you invariably to bestow on every branch, and every feature
of this most important case. Gentlemen of the jury, there
is one observation that was used by the Attorney-General
in his opening statement in which I fully concur, and
from which I think no man could dissent. He told you,
gentlemen, that this was a momentous case. He might
have added, that it comes before you under momentous
circumstances, and in momentous times ; and, certainly,
gentlemen, when we consider the great and important
ekuestion—l mean the Repeal of the Union—out of which
this prosecution has undeniably arisen ; when we con-
sider the deep and all-pervading interest that that ques-
tion has excited through every part of Ireland, from one
end to the other ; when we consider that hundreds of
thousands--I may say millions--of your countrymen
have unequivocally, but peaceably, expressed their
opinion in favour of that measure; when we consider
that one of the traversers at the bar is a gentleman pos-
sessing the unlimited confidence of those millions, exer-
cising and possessing a greater degree of moral influence
over the minds of his countrymen than any individual
ever possessed before over the minds of a free people, in
a free country ; when we find that man brought to the
bar of this Court, and branded, or sought to be branded,
with the crime of conspiracy ; when we consider that in
every part of this country there is the most feverish and
restless anxiety with regard to the result of your ver •
diet, the Attorney-General may well, indeed, say, that
this is a momentous case. Gentlemen of the jury, I cannot
concur with the Attorney-General in thinking. that the
prosecution whish he has instituted is one that, either
in its circumstances, in its nature, or in its conduct, is
calculated for this momentous case. The Attor-
ney-General, gentlemen, has not condescended to
tell you what were his motives in instituting this prose-
cution—he has not explained to you what were the be-
nefits he expected to result from it. He would, perhaps,
have told you his object was to bring to justice a person
who violated the law ; but, if such should be his motive,
I will be able presently to show to him, and, I hope, to
you, that there never was a case less adapted for that
purpose than the present prosecution. If the Attorney-
General expected that the effect of this prosecution
would be to allay that feeling of irritation and animosity
that subsist throughout the land, never was there a
more unfortunate expedient devised or resorted to than
the prosecution. No man can shut his eyes to this fact.
From first to last of this prosecution—from its original
institution down to the moment I am addressing you,
the conduct of the prosecutor and the Attorney-
General was such as to create a greater degree of
bitterness and animosity than ever existed in this
country before. Is it the expectation of the Attor-
nay-General that the effect of this prosecution is to
put down the discussion of the repeal of
the union ? Is that the hope or expectation of the Go-
vernment that he serves? Gentlemen, if that be what
he expects to result from it, I must confess, that in my
judgment, a more empty or idle chimera never
crossed the mind of an Attorney-General. The At-
torney-General has entered into an argument on the
question of the repeal of the union. I do not mean to
follow his example. He has held out to you what he
considers to be strong grounds to make you believe that
it was impracticable and unattainable. If the repeal of
the union—that important question which now per-
vades in its interest every portion of this land—if that
question be so destitute of merits as the Attorney-Ge-
neral wishes to represent to you—if it be so imprac-
ticable and unattainable as he wishes to represent to
you, gentlemen, that question does not want the aid of
prosecution to put it down. If it be so destitute of
merits as he would make you believe, that ques-
tion must speedily fall by its own weakness—it, on
the other hand, that question has merits, and those
merits that hundreds, and thousands, and millions
of your countrymen are of opinion it possesses, how
idle the hope or expectation to crush it by the prosecu-
tion of an Attorney-General ! On that great question I
mean to intimate or express no opinion of my own ; but
this I will say, without any hesitation, that let the merits
or demerits be what they may, I trust the time never
will arrive when it will be in the power of any Attorney-
General, or in the power of any Government, to crush or
stifle the discussion of any great public measure. Gen-
tlemen of the jury, it appears to me to be of importance
in this question that you should very distinctly carry in
your minds the nature of the charge that is preferred
against the traversers at the bar. That charge is con-
fined to a single one, and that is the charge of conspiracy.
I beg you to carry in your recollection that there is no
indictment against any one of the traversers for having
attended an unlawful meeting. There is no indictment
against any of the traversers for having put forward
to the world a seditious publication ; but the single
-charge that is brought and preferred against the
traversers at your bar is, that they are guilty of con
spiracy. How, gentlemen, is that conspiracy sought to
be made out? By the allegation that there were meet-
ings that were unlawful attended by some of the tra-
versers—by the allegation that seditious speeches were
spoken and published. But does it not at once occur to
you that if the object of the Attorney-General was to
bring to justice those who, in his opinion, violated the
law, that there was the most easy, and simple, and ob-
vious, and direct course for him to take, if the meet-
ings of which you heard so much in detail were un-
lawful? If they are unlawful now, they must have been
unlawful at the time they took place. If those
speeches are seditious now, they must have been se-
ditious when they were uttered ; and how, then, does
it happen that those meetings took place for a period
nine months? Those speeches were uttered from
day to day, and almost from hour to hour, during that
period of time—how does it happen that the Attor-
ney-General never yet ventured to prefer an indict-
ment against any one of the individuals that attended
those assemblies, that he seeks now to brand as un-
lawful? or institute a prosecution against any one in-
dividual that uttered those speeches that he now tells
you are seditious and unlawful? On behalf of my client
in particular, and on behalf of all the traversers, I have
strong reason to complain of the course taken by the
Attorney-General. It is attempted to make one man
responsible for the acts and conduct of another. If he
says
,those meetings are illegal, or the speeches sedi
tious, what is more easy than for him to indict any one
that attended them or uttered those speeches? Let me
take, for instance, Mr. O'Connell. Suppose he indicted
him for having attended an unlawful meeting, could any
thing be more simple or easy than the proceedings on
the part of the Attorney-General? That the meetings
took place, and that Mr. O'Connell attended them, is
undeniable. The material and important facts of the
case are established to the hand of the Attorney-Gene-
ral ; and, if the meetings were unlawful, as he alleges
they are, he had nothing to do but to brand the
character of those meetings which took place, and
satisfy the Court that they were unlawful, and in
that way brought the matter to issue in a
single moment, and at a single point. But have
1 not reason to complain, on the part of my client,
of the course which has been adopted by the law officers
of. the Crown in the present unprecedented prosecu-
Nous? The Attorney-General has abandoned the ease,
itr:less, unencumbered course which was open to him
to have adopted—the course which I have described to
you as .the simplest and ,most obvious that could have
been pursued by him, lie flings all the traversers
headlong into one indictment—he
entangles them, one
prosecution
and all, within the meshes of acon-
spiracy; for and although it has appeared in evidence that
my client never was in connexion with any of the
traversers until the third of October,
after all the monster meetings had ceased, he endeavoursnnotwdithl-
standing, to make him responsible for all antec
'acts of men with whom it was impossible e
thatt
be could have acted in concert. He seeks to visit
him With the consequences of meetings which he never
attended ; of speeches which he never listened to ,
and of publications which he never read ! Is this;
fair ? Is this candid ? Is this ingenuous ? The At-
torney-General lies in ambuscade for months—he then
suddenly rushes at, and avails himself of, the peculiar
doctrines of the law as regards the crime of conspiracy.
Contrary to the principles of justice, which delare that
a man is only to be made accountable for his own
works and his own acts, he endeavours to hold my client
responsible for the thoughts, the words, and the actions
of other melt ! My Lords, and Gentlemen of the jury