The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING FEBRUARY 5, 1844.

Gentlemen, the Attorney-General has called the tra-
versers severely to task for having adopted the resolu-
tion of the old volunteers, and for having quoted in
their speeches the words f some illustrious men, now
no more, who expressed it as their opinion that in point
of constitmtional principle and upon constitutional
reasoning, the Union was null and void. He told you that
what is stated by Members of Parliament against an
Act before it becomes law cannot justify a man in op-
posing that Act of Parliament after it shall have be-
come the law of the land. That is certainly true to a
certain extent ; but I cannot help thinking that the
Attorney-General is endeavouring to push the principle
somewhat too far. He finds fault with us for having
quoted the words of that distinguished man, Mr. Saurin,
but I do not think that he had any right to call us to
task for having done so. Why should not Mr. O'Con-
nell refer to Mr. Saurin's words ? They are public
property—they are the property of the Irish people.
Gentlemen, I will trouble you with one word more—it is
the declaration of the Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who at
the time was prime Sergeant of Ireland—a very lucrative
office. He sat in the House of Commons at the time, and
hear what he says—" Posterity will inquire into the means
by which this Union was carried. If the question had never
been made, I should have declined the discussion of it; but
as it has I must declare that it is not, in my opinion, within
the moral competence of Parliament to destroy and ex-
tinguish itself, and with it the rights and liberties of
those who created it. I acknowledge the competency of
the English Parliament to adopt the union with Scot-
land, because the number of the representatives and the
Peerage only was increased, which, as the Crown, by its
prerogsative may do, so may the act of the Legislature.
But after the Union the constitution of England conti-
nued, but the constitution of Scotland was dispersed. And
of this opinion must the great advocate of constitutional
establishment have been. The • House of Lords was
not competent to dissolve the House of Commons,
nor even to dissolve itself, nor to abdicate if it would
its proportion in the legislation of the king-
dom ; that though a king may abdicate in his
own person he cannot abdicate for the monarchy.
The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold
their public faith with each other. Sueh a corn
pact may, with respect to Great Britain, be a union,
but with respect to Ireland, it will be a revolution.
The Scotch Parliament was elected with a notice to the
people that such a measure would be submitted to their
discussion. How different the present case. Will the
measure proposed benefit the country and remove the
causes of the discontent ? In my opinion not. It will,
on the contrary, increase the agitation of the one, and
aggravate the other ? f: ill it tranquillise this great
metropolis, which, so lately as the last summer,
by its valour and spirit, preserved this country
to ourselves and to Great Britain, while the
Government of the country lay shuddering in the
Castle ? Whom, then, will it gratify ? Not the loyal-
ists, but the United Irishmen. Nine out of ten of the
men execrate the measure—the women are unanimous
against it. Would to God that they would emulate the
Athenian ladies, and subject the man who would vote for
it to the ban of their displeasure. Will it give you any
stronger claim on Great Britain ? No ; and lam satis-
fied that the honour of the British nation would reject
such an insinuation. Would Great Britain, that arms
for the deliverance of Europe, that seized Prussia, Sar-
dinia, the Emperor, and guarantees his loans, that
makes Egypt an object of his care—will she refuse her
protection to Ireland ?" He concludes—" Posterity
inquire into the means by which this Union is car-
ried." Gentlemen, yon see what that man clearly foresaw.
After numerous references to authorities the Learned
Gentlemen continued:—lt is curious, too, that the Act
of Union contains no provision that its finality should not
be discussed; and, therefore, the Attorney-General's ar-
gument against the right of the traversers to do so fails.
He then read an extract from Molyneux's book on the
state of Ireland, quoted the passage in which the writer
questioned the right of the English Government to de-
prive the Irish people of their ancient privileges, which
they had possessed for 500 years, and proceeded to say:
—The English were so unable to get over the arguments
contained in that book, that they ordered it to be burned
by the common hangman—a circumstance which in-
creases very much my estimation of the work.—(A
laugh.) I will next call your attention to the considera-
tion of what Mr. O'Connell has asserted about the
revival of the Irish Parliament, and I will first, how-
ever, dispose of his proposition fur the "Renewed
action of the Irish Parliament." Mr. O'Connell in that
extraordinary document sets forth the whole of the
Irish population, and states his opinion, that household
suffrage is the best. Why, Gentleirien, that is the
suffrage we have at present in Dublin. Every man who
has a house worth ten pounds possesses a vote, and there
are very few houses in Dublin that are not worth 101.
The Duke of Richmond, who was examined by Mr.
Erskine on the trial of Hardy, was of opinion that the
whole system of the franchise was corrupt, and that
every man who had not committed a crime ought to
have a vote ; and that there ought to be Annual Parlia-
ments, Vote by Ballot, &c., all which was very well for
a duke. And in his letter to Colonel Sharman he (the
Duke of Richmond) states that he is of opinion that the
two nations should have but one Parliament, provided
the Sovereign of England should reside a reasonable
time in this country, and hold her Imperial Parliament
in itAwhich he said her Majesty could do with a scratch
of her pen—and, Gentlemen, I hope she may. It is a
positive insult to the understanding of any man to say
that such a state of things would not be a positive
benefit to the country, improve her trade, her manufac-
tures, and her resources. Even our own profession
would be benefited by it; for the residence of her most
Gracious Majesty in this country would be no bar to her
loyal subjects to go to law.—(Laughter.) The
Attorney-General adopted the Socratic doctrine
in his argument with us : he put questions to
us. Now, I am not to be held accountable for the
doctrines propounded by others who have spoken
before me. But it can be said, as was alleged, that
it is revolutionary to state that every town possessing
10,000 inhabitants should have a representative? Why,
that is but the principle of the Reform Bill. Mr.
O'Connell also says that every man who marries shall
have a vote. I think there can be no objection on that
score—and that the conspiracy on that ground may be
abandoned ; and certainly such a question could not be
submitted to a more favourable jury, for you are all
married.—(Laughter.) Has Mr. O'Connell said that her
Majesty was to be pulled from her throne—the House of
Peers to be abolished—and the House of Commons ex-
tingushed? No. What then has he done? He has
been guilty of the monstrous proceeding of extending
the Royal prerogative? The Attorney-General—the
legal champion of the Crown—charges it as a crime
against Mr. O'Connell that he said the Queen has a
larger, wider, and more extended prerogative than her
Majesty possesses. Where is the authority in which it
is laid down that the man who propounded such a propo-
sition is to be charged as a conspirator? What authority
is there for sayine, that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Steele, or any
one else, is to be charged with conspiracy, because when
they heard such a proposition they did not say to the per-
son propounding it cite us some authority—cite us your
case? Suppose Mr. O'Connell, instead of saying that
Parliament should be reformed—that a Parliament
should be given to Ireland—said, Sir, I am of opinion
that Parliament is a humbug—a nuisance ; that her
Majesty has a perfect right to rule, independent of
either House of Parliament. Why, what would be the
consequence ? I cite a case in point. A celebrated writer
in England wrote a book, in which he said that the
House of Commons might be dispensed with. That aas
voted to be a scandalous and seditious libel by. the House,
and the Attorney-General of the day was directed to
prosecute the writer. He was accordingly prosecuted,
and the case is to be found in Peake's cases in the King's
Bench. It is called the King v. Reeves. Lord Kenyon
there laid it down that the power of free discussion was
the right of every subject of this country—a right to the
free exercise of which we were indebted, more than to
any other claimed by Englishmen, for the enjoyment of
all the blessings we possess—for the Reformation
the Revolution—and our emancipation from the ty-
ranny of the Stuarts, &c. &c.—and that in a free coun-
try like this the productions of a political writer should
not be hardly dealt with. He directed the jury to read
through the whole book, and then form their judgment
on the entire work. That was his charge, and do you
wonder that the people of England should be so much
attached to the judicial system under which they live,
when you hear laid down by the Lord Chief Justice of
England a doctrine so constitutional—so favourable to
freedom and the right of the subject as that doctrine?
The jury in that case retired; they had the book
before them; and though they decided that the book
was improper, yet, nevertheless, they thought
that he was not actuated by any bad inten-
tion; and Lord Kenyon said he approved of
their verdict. That was the doctrine pro-
pounded from the Bench, and the jury having looked
with the eye of men of sense, qualified their verdict by
saying they deprecated what was said by the defendant,
the mode in which he conducted his argumeat, but they
found their verdict of not guilty, and the Lord Chief
Justice said he approved of their decision. Therefore, i f Mr.
O'Connell said her Majesty may dispense with the House
of Lords he would be safe according to the authority of
that case. Gentlemen, the power and prerogative of
the Crown to issue writs seems to have been a very ex-
tensive power—at least, as it was formerly exercised.
In the reign of Elizabeth, she, wishing to have a majo-
rity, sent the writs to only fifty boroughs and left out
ten. There are very remarkable instances where the
Crown have withheld writs from places entitled to send
representatives to Parliament, as to numbers. Looking
to the Parliamentary history, we find the most
elaborate discourse ever spoken. It was by Sir
John Davies, the Attorney-General to King James the
First, and was to be found in Leland's " History of Ire-
land." In that discourse you will see the right King
James the First had for what he did—to create forty
boroughs in the north of Ireland in one day. It was
questioned in that Parliament whether he had a right to
do so—the question was discussed—carried over to Eng-
land, and it was decided in favour of his right, and those
persons so elected under his writs sat in Parliament to
the period of the union. The last instance of the kind
was the issuing of a writ for the borough of Newark, and
it was decided in the House of Commons, by a very
large majority, that the Sovereign had a right to create
the borough. Mr. O'Connell's argument was this, that
the Sovereign has still the power to create boroughs in
England. Chitty, in his work on the prerogatives of the
Crown, enters into that question, and says there was
nothing to take away the prerogatives of the Crown in
that respect. Then, if it does exist, the union is in the
andm.n thattocrleeaatn
is
iwne it-hoef
power
Sovereign,er o f th r
o the Crown
learned writer
boroughsas says y i
they
s t
did before.
Mr. Justice PERRIN—What is the date of that work
Mr. WHITESIDE—It was published in the year 1820
—.
since the union. Whether the argument be right or wrong,
which is not the question before you, is a man to be
branded as a conspirator because, without knowing
whether Mr. O'Connell was right or wrong—and Mr.
Duffy will pardon me, for I don't think he has read
sufficiently on the subject—he adopted his opinions ?

It now remains for me to say but a few words in re-
ference to the particular acts charged against my client,
Mr. Duffy. Gentlemen, lat once admit that he is a
Repealer—that he is of opinion that the union
ought to be repealed ; but he never attended any one
of those meetings. His state of health did not per-
mit him ; his inclination did not permit him ; his
business did not permit him ; and the only occasion on
which he attended a meeting of the Repeal Association
he handed in some subscriptions, and did nothing
more. You are yet called upon to hold him re-
sponsible for everything that was said and done at those
meetings—for the speech made at Clifden, as well as
that at Mullaghmast, Mr. Duffy is to be held accountable.
What, then, is the separate evidence against him ? I
shall apply myself very briefly to it. The publication
of a song has been charged against him, and anything
more monstrous than the manner in which
that part of the charge is introduced into
the indictment it is scarcely possible to con-
ceive. The charge against Mr. Duffy, I should
observe, is under two distinct heads—the publica-
tion of reports of speeches, and the original articles and
observations upon them. With respect to the reports I
apprehend that you cannot find him guilty of any charge
of conspiracy. He reprinted in his weekly paper, though
not at such a length, the reports of proceedings for the
previous week, compiled from perhaps ten or a dozen
other journals in which they originally appeared. The
remaining question, then, is as to the original publica-
tions, which, I admit, suggest other considerations,
which I shall take the liberty of bringing under your
notice. The Attorney-General proposes to establish the
crime of conspiracy, by picking out three or four articles,
published at different periods, and suggested by passing
events, culled from the publications in a weekly newspa-
per, extending over a period of nine months, and read to
the Court as being calculated to phjudice the minds of the
people against the Government of England ; and, observe,
that all the intervening quotations, which might qualify
or explain them, are passed over, although the Learned
Gentleman ferretted out everything else that could serve
his purposes, whethei in large type or in small. The
song on which they rely is entitled " The Memory of
the Dead," and was published in the Nation or. the Ist
of April, 1843—a very proper day for the publication
of that which is now selected by the Crown as evidence
of a conspiracy. Are you to visit this act of Mr.
Duffy's on Mr. O'Connell, or to presume that it was
published in pursuance of a common plan between the
traversers? That song was written by some clever
young man, and I took the liberty of reading to you
another song published in the same paper on the same
day, and which it was certainly as agreeable to
hear as many of Mr. Attorney-General's state-
ments. These very sweet, agreeable verses were read
from the very same paper. Are you to be
asked to believe that Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Steele
knew beforehand that some young man, perhaps within
the walls of Trinity College, animated with that poetic
fire which illumined his imaginative soul, would write
that song and send it to the proprietor of the Nation
to fill up a corner in his paper ? Are you to believe
that all this was done in pursuance of a common object,
and in furtherance of a conspiracy ? Is it come to this,
that the Government of England is not safe—that the
constitution of England is in danger, because some
young men, gifted as the writer of that song un-
questionably was, adverted, in poetic language,
to the mistaken views of men who lived in former
days ?—or will any twelve honest, or intelligent,
or experienced men, he asked to found a verdict
on such grounds ? Gentlemen, it is not fair—it is
not chivalrous—it is not generous thus to take a young
man to ask for the ardent and warm-hearted effu-
sions of his early youth. The writer whom, of all
others, I most admire—the writer who, in my opinion,
has, by his writings, done more than any other author
to uphold our social system—to mend the morals and
improve the mind—Robert Southey himself, commenced
his career by writing that memorable work, " Wat
Tyler," but the tone and temper of his mind were
changed when a sounder judgment and more extensive
knowledge of the world taught him to view men and
manners by the calm light of cool, dispassionate reason.
Alas ! Mr. Solicitor, am Ito be told that it is worthy of
a wise and enlightened Government to bear down
with the full current of a State prosecution upon
the writer of that enthusiastic little song, writ-
ten with the ardour of thoughtless youth, and
that, too, after the lapse of nine months from
the time of its composition ? Gentlemen, in the
disastrous and criminal movement of '9B, amongst the
most prominent of the leaders were two ill-fated mem-
bers of my own profession—Henry and John Shears.
In a review which recently appeared in a re-
spectable literary publication, the Athenmum, of
the " Life and Writings of the late William
Taylor, of Norwich," I find this remarkable fact noticed,
that the first letter of a long correspondence between
Taylor and Southey transmits an elegy on the fate of
those unhappy young men. I will read for you an ex-
tract from the review in the Athenceum:—" In 1798
William Taylor became acquainted with Robert Southey,
then rising into fame, and a correspondence ensued be-
tween them which extended for many years. It is sin-
gular that Taylor's first letter should transmit an elegy
on the fate of Henry and John Shears, who had just
been executed for high treason in Dublin ; Taylor cele-
brates them as martyred patriots. The passage in which
their mother is introduced, bidding them farewell in the
dungeon, will give a general notion of the spirit which
pervades the whole :
Sons, 'twas for this I bore you—die as men,
To whom your father's country and your offspring
Deserved to owe the good
Ye struggled to obtain.
Thy wife, son, cannot speak— she loves thy children ;
And in her poverty shall thank her God
That thou hest boldly dared
Devote them for thy country.
Thou needest, John, thy mother's counsel not.
If the few weeks that ere we meet, roll by,
Worthy of thee I spend,
Well pleased mine eyes shall close.
And, Gentlemen, am I to be told that the man who
penned that touching verse is to be brandedfor ever more
as a conspirator, because he commisserated the unhappy
end of any ardent and misguided men who loved their
country, " not too wisely, but too well ?" No, Gen-
tlemen, such a proceeding would be scandalous and
disgraceful ; and equally unworthy is it of the great
and distinguished Government which prosecutes in the
present instance, to direct the thunders of their indig-
nation against the enthusiastic young author of the
" Memory of the Dead." Let the Solicitor-General tell
how the Government of England punished Mr. Moore
for poems not a whit more indicative of conspiracy (if
conspiracy indeed there be) than the stanzas which have
been read to you. Let him tell you how Moore was
punished for writing such lines as these in the " La-
mentation of Aughrim" :
Could the chain for an instant be riven
Which tyranny flung round us then,
Oh ! 'tis not in man nor in heaven
To let Tyranny bind it again.
But 'tis past ; and though blazoned in story
The name of our victor may be,
Accursed is the march of the glory
Which treads o'er the hearts of the free.
He will tell you how the bard was punished for penning
the song of " Rourke, Prince of Breffny," and of in-
serting in it such lines as these --
Already the curse is upon her,
And strangers her valleys profane ;
They come to divide—to dishonour;
And tyrants they long will remain.
But onward !—the green banner rearing,
Go flesh every sword to the hilt :
On our side is Virtue and Erin ;
On theirs is the Saxon and Guilt.
Yes, gentlemen, the author of the "Adventures of an
Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion," and of the
" Memoirs of Lord Edward Fitzgerald," was punished.
But how was he punished ? He was punished by a
pension from the English. Government—yes, Moore
was punished with a pension for his sedition; and you,
Gentlemen of the jury, are now solicited to bring a
verdict of " guilty" against the writer of this song, and
to declare your conviction that the emanation of a mind,
young, ardent, poetical, and imaginative, though mis-
taken, was written in furtherance of a common plan and
design of the most infamous nature! However ardent
the youth of Ireland may be, it should never be forgotten
of them that they never forgot their loyalty to their
Sovereign—even when in 1715 and 1745 the best blood
of England and of Scotland bedewed the scaffold, in con-
sequence of the mad, and well-nigh successful attempt
to dislodge the present Royal family from the throne
of these countries, the Irish were faithful even to the
death. Are not the free subjects of a free state to be
permitted to raise their voices in constitutional protes-
tation and remonstrance, when they think that their
interests are endangered or injured ? Scott, the most
cautious of writers, was once called upon to decide
between his attachment to his party and his love of
Scotland. The British Ministry declared their inten-
tion to introduce—regardless of the feelings of the
Scottish people, who considered that their in'erests
were vitally concerned—a Bill in reference to the joint-
stock banks of Scotland. The Scotch thought that
they would be injured by the contemplated Bill ;
and Sir Walter Scott, fired with indignation at the idea
that the Act should be introduced without con-
sulting the wishes and feelings of his countrymen,
wrote under the signature of " Malachi Malagrouther"
a series of letters which excited such a flame of indig-
nation in the country, from north to south, from east to
west, that the Minister of the Crown was obliged to fly
away with his obnoxious Bill under his arm, just as
the Attorney-General would be forced to fly off with his
monster indictment on his shoulder, for it would not fit
under any man's arm.—(Laughter.) The British Mi-
nister failed, for the Scotch said, "we must get our
joint-stock banks"—aye, and they did succeed in getting
them; and are we not a country as good as Scotland,
that succeeded in wringing from the British Minister
their rights in what they considered a mercantile point
of view? Was that to be done in a cold and servile man-
ner? Do you think Scott did it in that cold and mawkish
manner, and said, as we lawyers say, "Oh! I respect-
fully submit?" Not be; he too well knew that he might
as well be whistling jigs to a milestone—(Laughter)—
and, therefore, he went boldly about the task, and Sir
Walter Scott succeeded in making his country—which
contained about one quarter of the number of inhabitants
that Ireland did—he succeeded, I say, in making her
happy, respectable, and great, while we remain a poor,
pitiful, pelting province. lam not ashamed to say this.
I hope that the people of Ireland will combine in the
one cause, and that is the cause of their common coun-
try—for the common good of that country—for the good
of this ancient kingdom, that she may once again
flourish in the world's history. There is one
article more I shall trouble you with; but I
must remark that I cannot approve of the unjust and
intemperate observations which were sometimes made
upon the English nation—for they are a great, free, and
magnanimous people. I object to reviving the recollec-
tions of past struggles and contentions. They can only
be usefully recalled for one purpose, and I hope and be-
lieve it was for that purpose-0 show the people the

errors of their forefathers—and by the warning teach
how to shun them. Let silence for ever cover—let dark-
ness hide them—let no hand withdraw the veil that con-
ceals them—or, if it touch them, let it be for a holy and
useful purpose—to imbibe morality and peace from the
lessons of the past. Gentlemen of the jury, I have no
more to say upon that part of the case. I admit that
strong language has been used, and I regret it. The term
" Saxon" has been applied to Englishmen. Mr. O'Con-
nell has entirely renounced it at the request of an
English gentleman—l believe he borrowed it from
Moore. Moore was wrong to have used it. Yet pro-
bably when the trials are over, if I called upon the
Learned Gentleman (pointing to the Solicitor-General) I
should find " Moore's Melodies," and " The Irish Gentle-
man in Search of a Religion" upon his table—yet, perhaps,
if he knew who knocked at the door he would, like the
lady in the play, thrust one into a drawer, and put the
other under the table.—(Loud laughter.) The last docu-
ment to which I shall refer is, " The Morality of War,"
which the Attorney-General has dwelt upon so eloquently,
and translated with not a little freedom into " The Mora-
lity of Rebellion." [After referring to that document the
Learned Gentleman thus concluded his long speech] :
I will say that the true object of this unprecedented
prosecution is to stifle the discussion of a great public
question. Reviewed in this light, all other considera-
tions sink into insignificance ; its importance becomes
vast indeed. A nation's rights are involved in the issue,
a nation's liberties are at stake--that won—what pre-
serves the precious privileges you possess? The ex-
ercise of the right of political discussion—free, untram
melted, bold. The laws which wisdom framed—the in-
stitutions struck opt by patriotism, learning, or genius—
can they preserve the springs of freedom fresh and pure?
No; destroy the right of free discussion, and you dry up
the sources of freedom. By the same means by which your
liberties were won can they be increased or defended.
Do not quarrel with the partial evils free discussion
creates, nor seek to contract the enjoyment of the
greatest privilege within the narrow limits timid men
prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extrava-
gance, contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped
on man. Free discussion aroused the human mind
from the torpor of ages—taught it to think, and
shook the thrones of ignorance and darkness. Free
discussion gave to Europe the Reformation, which
I have been taught to believe the mightiest
event in the history of the human race—illuminated the
world with the radient light of spiritual truth. May it
shine with steady and increasing splendour ! Free dis-
cussion gave to England the revolution, abolished tyran-
ny, swept away the montrous abuses it rears, and esta-
blished the liberties under which we live. Free discus-
sion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved
but purified our Constitution, reformed our laws, reduced
our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence
to every portion of our political system. The spirit of
inquiry it creates has revealed the secrets of nature—
explained the wonders of creation, teaching the know-
ledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, science,
civilization, freedom, pure religion, are its noble
realities. Would you uado the labours of science, ex-
tinguish literature, stop the efforts of genius, restore
ignorance, bigotry, barbarism—then put down free dis-
cussion, and you have accomplished all. Savage con-
querors, in the blindness of their ignorance, have scat-
tered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a great
antiquity. Those who make war on the sacred
rights of free discussion, without their igno-
rance, imitate their fury. They may check the
expression of some thought, which might, if uttered,
redeem the liberties or increase the happiness of man.
The insidious assailants of this great prerogative of
intellectual beings, by the cover under which they ad-
vance, conceal the character of their assault upon the
liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the
liberty to discuss—blame only its extravagance, pro-
nounce hollow praises on the value of freedom of speech,
and straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy
it. The open despot avows his object is to oppress or to
enslave--resistance is certain to encounter his tyranny,
and perhaps subvert it. Not so the artful assailant of a
nation's rights—he declares friendship while he wages
war, and professes affection for the thing he hates.—
State prosecutions, if you believe them, are ever the
fastest friends of freedom. They tell you peace is dis•
turbed, order broken, by the excesses of turbulent and
seditious demagogues. No doubt there might be a
seeming peace—a deathlike stillness—by repressing the
feelings and passions of men. So in the fairest portions
of Europe this day, there is peace, and order, and
submission, under paternal despotism, ecclesiastical
and civil. That peace springs from terror, that
submission from ignorance, that silence from de-
spair. Who dares discuss, when with discus-
sion and by discussion tyranny must perish ? Com-
pare the stillness of despotism with the healthful ani-
mation, the natural warmth, the bold language, the
proud bearing, which spring from freedom and the
consciousness of its possession. Which will you pre-
fer ? Insult not the dignity of manhood by suppos-
ing that contentment of the heart can exist under
despotism. There may be degrees in its severity, and
so degrees in the sufferings of its victims. Terrible the
dangers which lurk beneath the calm surface of despotic
power. The movements of the oppressed will, at times,
disturb their tyrant's tranquillity, and warn him their day
of vengeance or triumph may be nigh. But in these
happy countries, the very safety of the State consists in
freedom of discussion. Partial evils in all systems of
political government there must be ; but their worst
effects are obviated when their cause is sought for,
discovered, considered, discussed. Milton has taught
a great political truth, in language as instructive
as his sublimest verse:—"For this is not the liberty
which we can hope, that no grievances ever should arise
in the commonwealth—that let no man in this world
expect ; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply
considered, and speedily reformed—then is the utmost
bound of civil liberty obtained that wise men look for."
Suffer the complaints of the Irish people to be freely
heard. You want the power to have them speedily re-
formed. Their case to-day may be yours to-morrow.
Preserve the right of free discussion as you would cling
to life. Combat error with argument, misrepresentation
by fact, falsehood with truth. "For who knows not,"
smith the same great writer, " that truth is strong—next
to the Almighty. One needs no policies nor strata-
gems to make her victorious—these are the shifts
error uses against her power." If this demand for a
native Parliament rest on a delusion, dispel that de-
lusion by the omnipotence of truth. Why do you love
—why do other nations.honour England? Are you—
are they—dazzled by her naval or military glories, the
splendour of her literature, her sublime discoveries in
science, her boundless wealth, her almost incredible
engseat of free discussion, and,
labours in every work oftearEt
ngalnandd skhileel
e
freedom, and the hope
a?u s e No
oh
has
eh
felooernvee,
for h
theeargh—egs
my
poeaus
of
fct
rationalcling
of oppressed men throughout the world. Under the
laws of England it is our happiness to live. They
breathe the spirit of liberty and reason. Emulate this
dythegreatvirtues
of Englishmen—their love of
fairness—their immoveable independence, and the sense
of justice rooted in their nature—these are the virtues
which qualify jurors to decide the right of their
fellow-men. Deserted by these, of what avail is
the tribunal of a jury ? It is worthless as the
human body when the living soul has fled. Prove to
the accused, from whom, perchance, you widely differ
in opinion—whose liberties and fortunes are in your
hands—that you are there not to persecute, but to save.
Believe me you will not secure the true interests of Eng-
land by leaning top severely on your countrymen. They
say to their English brethren, and with truth—We have
been at your side whenever danger was to be faced
or honour won—the scorching sun of the East and
the pestilence of the West we have endured to
spread your commerce—to extend your empire—to
uphold bones of our countrymen
glory.fie Thldsoef Portugal, of Spain, of
whitened
the fields
France. Fighting your battles they fell—in a nobler
cause they could not. We have helped to gather your
imperishable laurels. We have helped to win you im-
mortal triumphs. Now, in time of peace,_ we ask you to
restore that Parliament you planted here with your
laws and language, uprooted in a dismal period of our
history, in the moment of our terror, our divisions, our
weakness, it may be, our crime. Re-establish the Com-
mons on the broad foundation of the people's choice—
replace the peerage, the Corinthian pillars of the
capitol, secured and adorned with the strength
and splendour of the Crown—and let the Monarch
of England, as in ages past, rule a brilliant and united
empire in solidity, magnificence, and power. When
the privilege of the English Parliament were invaded
that people took the field, struek down the Ministry,
and dragged their Sovereign to the block. This
prosecution is not essential fur the maintenance of
the authority and prerogatives of the Crown. Our
gracious Sovereign needs not State prosecutions
to secure her prerogatives or preserve her power.
She has the unbought loyalty of a chivalrous and
gallant people. The arm of authority she
requires not to raise. The glory of her gentle reign will
be--she will have ruled, not by the sword, but by the
affections ; that the true source of her power has been,
not in terrors of the law, but in the hearts of her
people. Your patience is exhausted. If I have spoken
suitably to the subject, I have spoken as I could have
wished ; but if, as you may think, deficiently, I have
spoken as I could. Do you, from what has been said,
and from the better arguments omitted, which may be
well suggested by your manly understandings and your
honest hearts, give a verdict consistent with justice,
yet leaning to liberty—dictated by truth, yet inclining
to the side of accused men, struggling against the
weight, and power, and influence of the Crown, and pre-
judice, more overwhelming still—a verdict undesired by
a party, but to be applauded by the impartial monitor
within your breasts, becoming the high spirit of Irish
gentlemen, and the intrepid guardians of the rights and
liberties of a free people. When Mr. Whiteside con-
cludect his address, which was listened to with intense
attention, he sat down amidst a burst of applause, which
the presence of the Court could not suppress.
Mr. WDONOUGH, Q.C., next addressed the jury, as
counsel for Mr. Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot, but
had not finished his speech when the Court rose. It re-
lated to reports of speeches and comments on the diffe-
rent meetings which appeared in that paper; but, as far
as we can judge from the introductory part, contained no
new arguments.

EIGHTEENTH DAY.
DUBLIN, SATURDAY, FEE. 3..
The Court sat at the usual hour.
Mr. O'CoNNaLL—My Lord, I respectfully submit to the
Court, as the line of observation which it will be my duty to
take will not be precisely that taken by any other Counsel, and
as I knowsthe materials Mr. 11I6Donongh has will take a con-
siderable part of this day, if it were not interfering too much
with the course of the trial, I should be glad if your Lordships
would hear me on Monday, and not call on me this day. I
teJoih JUSTlCE—certainly
to
can promise the Court that in what I have to say—and it is
not much—l shall condense it still more, by knowing I shall be
callod upon on Monday.
CHIEFein icz--Cert
Steele com-
ply with your application. I wish to know whether Mr.
Ste
address theainlyco,
uAr. O'Connell, we shall
rle
Mr. O'CogtaLL...No, my Lord.

Mr. M‘Doisotion resumed his address—My Lords, the in-
dulgence you are kind enough to grant will not be abused bjt,
me, and I shall not prolong my address in consequence. I beg
leave, Gentlemen of the Jury, to direct your attention to the
evidence. The next meeting to which I shall call your atten-
tion is the meeting of the 6th of August, 1843—the Baltinglass
meeting—and the witnesses named Godfrey, Twiss, Lenahan,
Hughes, and Taylor, all constables of police. There is some-
thing in the evidence of Godfrey exceedingly suspicious. This
man was not ordered to take notes at all ; and when he v: as
questioned on that point, he hesitated for a long time before he
gave an answer in the negative, because he knew that
the fact of a policeman doing a duty that he was not
ordered to do was calculated to excite surprise. In the
opening speech of the Attorney-General, he stated that one
person at the meeting at Baltinglass, was heard to say that
Father Lakor told them in the chapel, "It was too far gone
now; but they would get it, but not without bloodshed."
That statement was made, of course, from the instructions re-
ceived by the Attorney-General; yet that statement has not
been sustained by evidence. The next witness was Henry
Twiss, who took no notes at all, and he gave you some
expressions that fell from the crowd. They said, wait
patiently for two months. That this expression did not mean t hat
the people should be quiet for two months before breaking out
in disturbance, time has proved. He saw no inclination, on
the part of the people, to riot or disturbance. The next wit-
ness is Lenahan. This witness reported one sentence of Mr.
O'Connell's speech. He said he heard Mr. O'Connell tel the
people that he was glad to see them there, and he hoped to see
them when he next came there. That produced great
laughter, and yet that humourous exi re-sion is changed into
a sort of assignation to meet again for an outbreak and
massacre. John Taylor, also a constable, and of the lowest
grade, is the next witness. He, not having taken any notes,
affects to give one or two short sentences of Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech; one was, that he would get repeal if the
people stood to him—that some of the landlords at-
tempted to prevent the people from coming to the meet-
ing ; but still they did come, and if he wanted them
again they would come to him. The object of Mr. O'Connell was
to impress on the people union and perseverance. It was me-
lancholy to reflect how Mr. O'Connell's meaning had been per-
verted. He would next refer to the testimony of Johnson,
from Longford. The testimony of such men is naturally subject
to great suspicion; it was their trade—their duty—to seek out
for anything that would criminate a Repealer. Notwithstand-
ing all their diligence, they could find nothing criminal—they
could discover no plot. The Learned Counsel then read, from
the Evening Mail of January 19, that which had been given in
evidence. The Learned Counsel, in support of his position,
then quoted several passages from the speech of Mr. O'Con-
nell at the Tara meeting, to the effect that, although the Act
of Union was really a nullity, set, so long as it was the law,
it should be obeyed, and that its repeal should be sought by
peaceable and constitutional means. He also read the speeches
of Mr. Boylan. Mr. Grattan, Mr. Smith O'Brien, and others,
to show that the same peaceable doctrines were held forth by
them also. The next meeting was held in Loughrea on
the 10th of September, 1843. It was not convened by the
Association, but was one of those springing out of
a requisition, and entirely independent of it. At that meeting
Mr. Ross attended, and it is observable that whenever he ap-
pears no second witness is produced, not even a newspaper.
There is but one exception, that of the Mullaghmast meeting,
where Mr. Hughes attended, and he, allow me to observe, is a
fair specimen of a manly and an honest witness. But I will
show you that Mr. Ross's notes, by their own intrinsic evi-
dence, are not to be relied on. Mr. Ross, with his topical
notes—(Laughter)—he himself told you that Mr. O'Connell
did not mean to lay what he read from his notes. Suppose
that man Ross had died—suppose that his notes could have
beers made evidence, by their having been translated, he would
have _made Mr. O'Connell say what he himself swears Mr.
O'Connell did not say—that is, did not mean. He would have
put treason into Mr. O'Connell's mouth. Mr. Barrett slid net
attend that meeting ; in fact, he did not attend any meeting.
CHIEF JUSTICE—I think you are mis-stating, Mr.
M'Donough.
Mr. M‘Dosrotro is—No, my Lord, I am not; it is a fact
on which I intend to rely. Mr. Barrett did not attend any
meeting in the open air ; and his sole crime is for having dined
two or three times with the Repealers. No expense was
spared to obtain evidence in support of the prosecution. Mr.
Ross got 4001. Inquiries were instituted in all parts of the
country, and the police were on the alert; they are scat-
tered over the face of the land ; they are to be found in
every; s hamlet in the country, watching the develope•
ment of some treasonable act, but which they signally failed
to discover—for this plain reason, that it did not exist.
The next meeting was that at Mullaghmast, and the witnesses
to that meeting are Mr. B. Hughes, his assistant Mr. Latham,
Mr. Charles Ross, and Healy, the policeman. They were not
examined at the same time. Hughes was called first, and
Healy in some days after. Mr. Hughes went openly ; he ap.
prised the parties that he came there to watch their proceed-
ings ; yet he was received with cordiality, and every fa-
cility given him to take his notes. On the other hand.
Mr. Ross was recognised las a person connected with and
representing a Liberal paper, who had been previously in-
troduced to the Association by a gentleman belonging to the
Evening Post. He should, therefore, be regarded as a per-
son who was treated familiarly by those on the platform
and in the pavilion, and he had an opportunity of judging of
their conduct and intentions, which Mr. Hughes might not
be supposed to have, who had openly proclaimed himself as a
Government reporter. Again, Healy was sent from the south
of Ireland, and he was selected because he was a stranger.
He mixed with the people, and heard their expressions, and
what does he prove he heard them say, but to shout for
of
inthe h a
rUa
entieorni
s?i n
gEvery one
meet-
of
The witness Healy said that he saw temperance bands
oneeitenneosfs eatsnh de
ittnhhg as
eeseQwu
there, but not at all so numerous as at some of Father
emornoeesptueraPeedaceable description and tendency.
Mathew's processions in the south of Ireland, where, on one
occasion, he saw forty-five bands dressed, as Mr. Roos pro-
perly called them, in fancy dresses. Such was the meeting at
Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell attended there in his civic
robes, with several other; aldermen and town-councillors of
Dublin, and the first resolution proposed was a declaration of
loyalty and attachment to the Queen: The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to read a variety of extracts from Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech on occasion of the Mullaghmast Repeal demon-
stration, and -alluded especially to the circumstance of the
speaker having repudiated, in language most distinct
and emphatic, the idea of the repeal movement
being susceptible of any sectarian complexion. It was a
national movement, which was designated and intended for
the express benefit of all Irishmen, irrespective of political or
religious differences. The Learned Counsel read from the
Freeman's Journal the report of Mr. Barrett's speech on the
occasion of the Mullaghmast demonstration. He would now
come to the next meeting, which was intended to have taken
place—he alluded to the intended meeting at Clontarf, and he
would more particularly refer to the substituted meeting, which
was held at Calvert's Theatre, on the 9th of October. It was
proved by Mr. Bond Hughes that a meeting was announced to
take place at Clontarf, but the evening previous to the day on
which it was to be held, a proclamation was issued by the
Lord-Lieutenant, by the advice, of course, of his law ad-
visers, prohibiting that meeting. That was the first
interposition of the Government, and it was obeyed with a
promptitude worthy of commendation. Well, the Clontarf
meeting did not take place, but the resolutions prepared for Clon-
tarf were approved of at the meeting on the following day in
Abbey-street. It was well that meeting was held, because it
evidenced what the peaceable objects of the intended Clontarf
meeting was. The first two resolutions adopted at the
Abbey-street meeting asserted the right of petitioning for
the repeal, and perfect allegiance to the Queen ; the third was
a vote of confidence in Mr. O'Connell, and the fourth
was to the effect that a petition be forwarded to the Houses of
Lords and Commons for a Repeal of the Legislative Union.
Mr. O'Connell made a speech upon that occasion, in which he
said he had two objects; one of which was to proclaim to Ire-
land that there was but one way of obtaining the repeal, and
that was by obedience to everything bearing the form of legal
authority ; resistance was not right until legal authority was
done away with, and the iron and dread hand of power was
raised against them. There were certain other charges sought
to be made, and one of these was a short article, introducing a
report of a meeting which was held in America, and at which
Mr. Tyler, the son of the President of America, attended, and
made a speech. The sentiments made use of by Mr. Tyler
were absolutely attributed to Mr. Barrett. He proceeded to
read certain passages from the speeches made at the meeting
in America :—I shall now call your attention to the sth and
6th Vic., entitled an Act to amend the law relating to defama-
tory libels.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—But not seditious libels.
Mr. MsDorrouGn—l am speaking generally on the subject,
The Learned Gentleman then read an extract from the Act of
Parliament.
CHIEF JusTreE—ls that an Imperial Act?
Mr. M'Donoucw—Yes, my Lord.
Judge CRAMPTON—Extending to Ireland?
Mr. M‘DoNotion—Yes, my Lord. The Solicitor-General
suggests that a seditious libel is not referred to in that
statute. This Act only just now occurred to me, and lam
not prepared to say that he is not right, and from his greater
familiarity with the Act of Parliament, he may be so. But
suppose the word "seditious" libel is not there, parties
may be indicted for conspiring to defame another just as
well as if a conspiracy, by seditious papers, to effect a
certain purpose ; and any private prosecutor, if this precedent
be established, may, instead of bringing an action of defama-
tion, indict a party for a conspiracy to defame him. It was
the settled law of the land that when a-man was accused of any
offence, whether conspiracy, or anything else, it was absolutely
necessary that the jury, before they returned a verdict of guilty,
should be satisfied that the evidence adduced on the part of
the prosecution was such as to bring guilt home to him be-
yond the possibility of doubt. Something had been said at
the commencement of the present trial in allusion to the
construction of the jury ; but this was a topic upon which
he would not touch ; for he would never utter a word that
could be by possibility construed into an expression of doubt
on his part that the respectable and enlightened gentlemen
whom he bad the honour to address, would discharge their duty
with firmness, propriety, and discretion. If they had upon
their minds any rational doubt of the alleged conspiracy
having been substantially proved by the evidence that had
been adduced on behalf of the Crown, they should not—they
could not—find the traversers guilty. If the jury could, con.
sistently with the maxims of law, and the dictates of their
own consciences, find a verdict of acquittal, he had no doubt
that that verdict would do more to attach the people of this
country to the administration of justice, and to convince them
of the purity of the legal tribunals, than anything that bad
occurred for centuries past. Those who advocate the repeal
are no despicable faction—the) are the majority of the Irish
people. Whatever may be our speculations as to the result of
your verdict, I cannot better conclude the observations I have
had occasion to make to you, than by humbly imploring Pro-
vidence to lead your minds to a just conclusion.
Mr. HENN, Q. C., then rose to address the Court for Mr.
Thomas Steele—lt was with unfeigned regret he felt himself
compelled to obtrude himself upon their notice. at that stage of
the proceedings. He was not himself aware, until a very short
time previously, that the duty would devolve on him. He felt
that everything that eloquence, wit, and sound reasoning could
do had been already done, and in the observations he should
have to make, he would endeavour to abstain as much as pos-
sible from going over the same topics that had been dis-
cussed with so much more ability than he could approach
them with, and he should, if possible, introduce new
matter. He implored the jury to recollect that they
were not now empanelled to try whether repeal was politic,
or whether it would be beneficial to this country or not, or
whether the discussion of it be beneficial to this country or
not. He begged to impress that upon their minds, because
he knew that at this moment there were hundreds out
of that Court who believed that that was the question they
were trying. He knew before they were empanelled that
there were hundreds, aye, thousands of their fellow-citizens
who were convinced that was the question to be tried. He
knew that the case was prejudged by thousands of honest
and conscientious men; and he felt convinced that, before the
facts of that case were opened, and before the law applicable
to it was stated, that there were not to be found in the
city of Dublin ten men who had not formed their opinions
on this case—no, not two—he doubted if there was one. He
was convinced that there was not a single Repealer who did
not pronounce the traversers " not guilty ;" and that there
was not a man opposed to repeal that did not pronounce a ver-
dict of " guilty." He had heard it over and over again stated
that this indictment charged nothing but a conspiracy, and
that was perfectly true. But he did not think their attention
as yet had been called with sufficient accuracy to the a2tual
point in question. They had heard it said that a conspiracy to
effect a criminal object was itself a crime ; and they had heard
it also laid down that a conspiracy to effect a lawfill object
by criminal Main was itself a crime. now, he thought

for all the purposes o f this trial, they might simplify. the
aotsi taiencoionsppi
roaincyt
toof
dl aowa, aceridmitohaeln
actth eissiimbpelief
apreois zmoses,tioson
that the two propositions he had stated resolved themselves
into that one ; because a combination to effect
fa lawful put:-
nPeadr Parliament,
oc,t,
pwut-
ease, , sucht
iitself
f toa pertluer e; the
but
that by the commission of criminal acts then. it was a crime.
repeali poafratinesAccotmobi
iTahwefol4euffeestcito,nbsoitmtibley
combination
bninoattitoloie
tcooomsbeitnbaetiesnrimtoiniaslroincueraeosa.
To use constitutional means was not a . criminal act, and
therefore that could not constitute a conspiracy ; it was com-
bining to do the illegal act that constituted a conspiracy.
He hoped the jury would keep the fact strongly in their
mind, that there was no principle in the law, as laid down,
that a party could be guilty of a conspiracy, before a clear
proof of the fact was established. There. should
clear proof that the party were conspiring—that. the act was
the act of all—and then it might be given in evidence
against all of them. With these opening observations he would
ll their attention to the charges which had been preferred
against the traversers. The Crown prosecutors have thought
fit to put eight persons on their trial, and they had also put on
indictment,
which files of that Court a document, in the form of an
which might well be termed a monster indictment. It had a
vast variety of charges set out on the face of it, and also a vast
variety of what was termed overt acts. He did not com-
plain of what was put on the indictment, but he must say that
the defendants were put to a great deal of expense with regard
to the overt acts, not one particle of which was even given in
evidence of the offence of which the defendants stood charged.
The jury must be all satisfied, however, that every single overt
act was proved, or they could not find a verdict of guilty, nor
could they necessarily come to the conclusion of guilt without
that. Had the jury any doubt whatever about the common
object of the parties (the traversers)—if common object they
had at all ? He would ask them, Was it not a repeal of the
union that they sought, and that they were not guilty of the
charge attriboted to them at all ? Seeking for a repeal of
the union was the real offence of which they were guilty ;
but that was not charged in the indictment, and for this rea-
son—the Attorney-General well knew it was not an offence,
and that if he bad put such a charge in the indictment, it
would not stand one moment in that Court, as it was no
crime in law. You see the way it was raised by those who
framed the indictment. Instead of charging them with the
teal fact, the Crown prosecutors allege that the defendants
are guilty of a crime ; but if you are satisfied that their
object was a repeal of the union, alone to be accomplished by
legal means, then he would defy them to convict the
traversers. How could they be warranted, on their oaths, in
convicting them of a combination or confederacy, and the
crime of conspiracy to raise discontent and disaffection in
the minds of her Majesty's subjects ? And in this case, sup
pose one of them did use illegal means to effect a repeal of the
union, that would not affect the other traversers in the
least &Rice. Why, the charge was so preposterous, so vague,
and so absurd, when it was said that such would be a charge
of conspiracy and a criminal offence, that it really deserved
not the least attention or consideration, for any person saw
what the real intent was, and how the alleged charge endea-
voured to evade it A conspiracy to raise discontent ! What
was the meaning of that charge ? Was it to be supported in a
Court of Justice that all free discussion was to be put down?
If so, there would be an end to all constitutional law.
Was he to be gravely told that men were to be gut on
their trial for a criminal offence, because they had made
certain speeches? Was their object a legal one? If so,
such a charge as is preferred here cannot be for
a moment sustained or entered into, Was there a particle of
evidence that disaffection was roused among her Majesty's sub-
jects? Was there a charge of disaffection to the Queen,
which, ho would admit, was an offence? No. Was there a
charge of disaffection to the Government, or to the Constitu-
tion? No such
,thing. No, it was among the liege subjects
of her Majesty, and in a case of the present nature the charge
should be plain and intelligible to the commonest understand-
ing.. Be would ask, after all they had heard from those elo-
quent persons who had preceded him, as to those meetings,
was not the real object to convince the Government of the
country as to what were the real sentiments of the Irish people.
Mr. O'Connell's whole life belied the charge—that was also
clear during the whole progress of that agitation which
ended in the successful issue of emancipation, and which
proved to biro the great and beneficial effects following from
the preservation of peace. He was not there to answer for
the validity of Mr. O'Connell's reasons ; but let them be
answered by something else rather than a State prosecution.
Let the Parliament of Great Britain decide on the merits.
Let the assembled intelligence of Britain do so—but such a
prosecution as the present would not do it, for he felt firmly
convinced that the result of that prosecution would be—no mat-
ter what it would be in that Court—to promote, rather than to
repress what it was intended to effect. He trusted, whatever
were the results, that he should not live to see the day when
free discussion would be put down by means of a State prosecu-
tion. The next charge was that the traversers conspired
to bring into hatred end contempt the Courts, as by law
established in Ireland for the administration of jus-
tice. He then alluded to the Arbitration Court. It
was absurd to say that to recommend men to subm
their disputes to their fellow-men, was calculated to
bring into disrepute the constituted Courts of the land.
That was as absurd as to say that to make a complaint
against the superior Courts was a crime. He begged the jury
to keep in mind the fact, that before they pronounced a ver-
dict against any one of the traversers, they must be satisfied,
beyond all reasonable doubt that the said traversers did con-
spire together, not merely to procure a temporary repeal of the
union, but to do those illegal acts specified in the indictment.
On what did the Attorney-General mainly rely? He said,.
" True it is these meetings were all very peaceable—true it is
there was no outbreak—true it is there was no indication'
of the slightest breach of the peace ; but I say that
the object was different from that propounded. True it is that
as yet no mischief has ensued. hy ? Because, fortunately,
I have put a stop to agitation. 1 knew that there would be
an outbreak, and so by a Crown prosecution I prevent it." He
(Mr. Henn) recollected hearing of a Learned Gentleman once
stating, in addressing a jury,
." Gentlemen, I smell a rat, I see
it brewing in the storm ; but if it please God I will crush it in
the bud "—( Laughter.) But, now to make more particular
reference to his client. Mr. Steele avowed that it was
his highest privilege to approve of every act of Daniel
O'Connell, and he would not permit him to stand there
as his advocate, were he not now, on his part, to repeat
the assertion. What was the charge preferred against Mr.
Steele. That of making a certain speech on the 3d of
October, in which he seconded a certain resolution. The
conclusions to which the counsel for the prosecution had
come were as legitimate as any ever pronounced by the
splendid Dewberry himself.—(Laughter.) Dogberry had
been put into his (Mr. Henn's) mouth, by what at college he
was taught to call a concatenation of ideas. There had
been so little proved in the present case, and so much said
and premised, that he was reminded of a play of Shake-
speare's called Much ado about Nothing.—( Laughter.) In that
play Dogberry cut a distinguished figure. On one occasion a
witness says—" I heard him say he received 2,000 ducats for
defaming the character of a certain lady." "Black burglary,"
says Dogberry. And when the Counsel for the Crown read
those speeches—" Treason," says the Attorney-General.—
(Laughter.) " Sedition," says the milder Solicitor, and
" black burglary," says Mr. Brewster.—( Great laughter.)
Having first determined on finding the traversers guilty of a
seditious conspiracy, the scissors were put in requisition ; and
by transplanting to this indictment, from the ephemeral pro-
ductions of the day, the speeches of the defendants, im-
mortality was conferred upon them. He could well con-
ceive with what feelings the clerk employed on the occasion
performed his duty. The recording angel certainly must
have blushed when he gave it in—(Laughter)—and the
monstrosity as well as the cruel nature of the charge, must
have induced him, if he had the smallest amount of sensibility,
to shed a tear upon the occasion and blot it out for ever.—
(Laughter.) The Learned Gentleman then observed, that
as the preceding speakers had touched upon every topic
that required notice, he should not trouble them much further
by going over the same ground. He was convinced of their
notintegrityt
diumnot raise
e British
thea n dimpartiality,
liberty—was
question
whether and
only
nht
blaye a t by
trtvtaahlienibr.
ygvi
oe
ri jury—that
ycu
_ts theytbboaats
boast,
aolul
ual
d
that they would prove that there was not, on the face of b
the
whole earth, a country in which a person would be more cer-
tain of obtaining justice than Ireland, and from a jury of Irish
Protestants.
Mr. Hoes!res, on behalf of the junior bar, made a request to
their Lordships, that as the space was not sufficient for their ac-
commodation, they should have access to the gallery. He did
not think it right that the gallery should be confined to those
only who had tickets. The junior bar were more particular in
this request, as Mr. O'Connell was to speak on Monday.
Ihe CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared very reasonable that
the bar should have every accommodation which they might
pressure. He was aware that the High Sheriff had taken
great pains to accommodate all classes of the public who
wished to hear what took place on that extraordinary trial,
and he had given admirable accommodation to that class of
gentlemen who gave publicity to what took place in that
Court—they claimed it as their right, indeed, and it was at
once conceded to them. The gentlemen of the bar had pre-
cedence certainly in the place appropriated fur the bar, pro-
vided they went there in their professional dress ; but he was
of opinion they had no right of precedence whatever over the
public in any other part of the Court. There was a gallery
set apart for persons of distinction, and he apprehended he
there saw several Peers of the realm standing in the station
allotted to them.
The HIGH SHERIFF requested permission to explain the ar-
rangements he had made. The members of the bar had, of
course, the exclusive right to that portion of the Court set
apart for them : the side gallery and the two rows in the
front gallery were set apart for Peers and their families, and
there would be a great number of them in attendance on
Monday; and the directions he had given to the police were
not to allow barristers as such, in their professional costume,
to fill the gallery to the exclusion of the general public. The
gentlemen of the bar had a habit, he supposed a proper one,
of asserting their privileges by going wherever they liked
when they had their caps and gowns on—(Laughter)—in fact,
they seemed to expect that wearing their caps and gowns—
CHIEF JUSTICE.—Their wigs and gowns.—(Laughter. )
HIGH SHERIFF—AII I can say is, tbat I have had the
greatest difficulty in keeping order among the gentlemen of
the junior bar.—( Renewed laughter )
Mr. Justice BURTON expressed his opinion, concurring with
the regulations of the Sheriff.
At tour o'clock the Court adjourned till ten on Monday
morning

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—The following high so-
ciety have visited this theatre within the last few days to see
Richard the Third and The Bohemian Girl :—Her Most Gra-
cious Majesty, Prince Albert, and suite; the Duke and Du-
chess of Beaufort,-Duke of Sutherland, Duke of Brunswick ;
Marquis of Douro, Marquis of Worcester ; Earl of Chester-
field ; General Espartero ; Marchioness of Sligo, Marchioness
of Conyngham, Earl and Countess of Wilton, Countess of
Dunmore; Ladies Somerset, Carrington, Wharncliffe, Cecelia
De Vaux, Lennard, Gardiner, Broke Vere, Caroline Cocks,
Graham, Walker ; Viscount Hawarden, Earl of Errol ; Lords
Hillsborough, Gifford, Torrington, Alfred Paget, A. Fitzcla-
rence, Castlereagh, Manners, Stanley, Eliot, George Paget,
Henry Lennox, Charles Wellesley, Seaham, Auckland, Wen-
lock, Duncannon ; Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart. ; General Sir
Arthur Clifford, Bart. ; Sir Thomas Lennard, Bart. ; Sir
Simon Clarke, Sir Thomas Gage, Bart. ; Colonel Wylde,
General Meade, Hon. Paul Methuen, Hon. Miss Devaux,
Hon. Mrs. Scarlett, Count De Wenitts, Count Kielmansegge,
Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart. ; Hon. Mr. Grimstone, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Wilson has quite recovered from the attack of
hoarseness under which he laboured last Monday, and we
observe that he is to appear at head-quarters to-night—the
Music-hall. During last week Mr. Wilson gave his new en-
tertainment of Mary, Queen of Scots, at Bristol, 'Worcester,
and Cheltenham, with great success, crowded audiences
greeting him in those towns.
CULLOMPTON.—The railway works at this place
are proceeding with great rapidity. The double rail is laid
down for a considerable distance westward from the town.
The buildings for the station are progressing rapidly, and
there can be now but little doubt of the opening of the line
to Exeter in April.—Western Times.
TILE STATE TRIALS.—Little did the Crown lawyers
imagine, when they commenced their ill-starred prosecution,
that two entire terms would be consumed; or of the pro-
bability now becoming violent, that it would not be broughe
to a close for a fortnight after the presenetewsri-ttian,g.vultml4
indeed, suppose that it will g, to All n
however, we are
designated the Ist of April.
not of _that. number—human \enedurance has its limits.
Even the Attorney-GeWO canna hold out.—Dublin
Evening Poat.