The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-10 00:00:00

4 e_
04.
4 4de
„ IRISTIE TRIALS.
- _ • 4
~ NW, , . Clia • NA,
•
0‘
c 8
TWENTY-FIRST DAY.
"tea
4-1. ,
1.0 1A.,11111 e . 4116.1164
1 1 J THE QUEEN V. DANIEL OCONNELL AND OTHEItt3.
;
Ape rV Ilk At"
•
TWENTY-SECOND DAY.
, • •
• /T. r's'

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—THIIRSDAY.
At the usual hour, the Judges took their seats ()n the
Bench.

The SoLicrron-GENEnaL resumed his address, And
said—Since addressing the Court on the previous day,
he had looked more particularly into the case of We
King against Hunt, and found it was an authority in
support of that part which charges as conspiracy to
excite discontent and disaffection among his Majesty's
subjects, and of hatred and contempt towards the
Government and Constitution. He then proceeded to
comment on the evidence on the part of the Crowe.
The next meeting was that in Kilkenny, on the Bth of
June. The proceedings of that meeting are published
in the Pilot newspaper of the 12th of June, 1843.
There is first a long description of the number
of persons who attended, next the banners, the
flags, the music, and so forth, and then Mr. O'Con-
nell made a speech, to a part of which he
would call attention. " I suppose you have heard
of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel
ahnadvidneeg g
efitnt
ien g draey.
peal. They want to drive us to civil war ; but we are in,
lacroemdethedyoNwvonuldtoprerNa-ernlitamyoenut froomne
the right, and our plan is to place them in the wrong."
Allusion to civil war was made so far back as the year
1834, not by the Members of the present Administra-
tion, but by certain Members of the Administration of
that time. He had stated yesterday what appeared the
fair construction of Sir Robert Peel's declaration.
Being asked whether it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to introduce any measure into Parliament 'for
the purpose of putting a stop to agitation, Sir R. Peel
expressed the reluctance of the Government to apply for
any additional power until it should first be ascertained
whether the existing law was not in itself sufficient to
enable them to conduct the administration of affiiirs in
Ireland. This was a plain and intelligible hint to these
persons engaged in agitation that—
Mr. SHELL here observed that the Learned Counsel
not only yesterday went very far out of the ev idenee,
but was now adverting to topics which had not the
slightest reference to it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he was not aware that
he had been alluding to any topic, or to any fact which
had not been proved in evidence.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON—You introduced something
about the year 1834.
Mr. SHELL said, he admitted that great indulgence
bad been extended to him by the Crown; nevertheless,
he could not avoid observing that the Solicitor-General
had no right to advert to the motives of Sir R. Peel;
and, as regarded yesterday, the Learned Counsel had no
right to tell a jury that, unless there was a verdict for
the Crown, coercion would be introduced.
Judge CRAMPTON observed that allusion should only
be made to that which had been given in evidence.
Mr. &MIL said that the Solicitor-General wanted to
advert to a speech spoken in Parliament, and from that
speech he would draw an inference for the jury.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—What I intended to say
with respect to this speech, was this :—Mr. O'Connell in
some of his addresses, which I have had occasion to read
to the jury, having justified, or attempted to justify,
his acts, adverted to what had been said or uttered
in Parliament as to civil war ; my intention was to
show that there was no well-grounded reason to ap-
prehend any such consequence. Mr. O'Connell was not
warranted in using the language he did, the observations
referred to having been made in Parliament ; and no-
thing was further from my intention than to held out
to the jury a threat, that if they did not find a ver-
dict for the Crown, it would be necessary to resort
to any additional powers. I really do not think I stated
that which the Learned Counsel has imputed to me. ;If
I did, gentlemen of the jury, I beg leave to retract it.
All I can say is, that if I did use the words capable of
the construction given, I think the observation of my
Learned Friend was perfectly justifiable, and any inter-
ruption, for the purpose of duly guarding the jury, is
also perfectly justifiable. What I meant to convey was
this—your Lordships will recollect that during these
proceedings it has been asserted over and over again
that no law was violated. Mr. O'Connell has repeatedly
in his speeches asserted that he would keep his fol-
lowers from the meshes of the law—that no law should
be violated. What I meant to convey was this—that it
should be decided by an appeal to a legal tribunal whether
the law had been violated or not. The question between us
and Mr.O'Connell is this—whether what has taken place is
reconcileable with the common law of the country. That
is the only question which I think I am entitled to raise,
and a question to which I have been all along anxious
to confine myself. At Tullamore Mr. O'Connell made
a speech in which he commented, at great length, on the
course that had been pursued with regard to the union.
Having done this he proceeded to hold out to the
people whom he was addressing, the advantages which
they might expect would accrue from a repeal. Having
read a passage from the speech referred to, the Learned
Counsel observed—Now you will observe that one of the
means employed in fostering what I call the
delusion, was the laying down the mistaken authority
of certain men. The people were told that there was
no difficulty,in point of law, in repealing the Act of Union.
Mr. O'Connell then says—" The Irish Parliament was not
dead—it only sleeps—the Royal prerogative remains
unimpaired, and the Queen might come and restore it
without troubling us at all." Now, the people who at-
tended this meeting were instructed by Mr. O'Connell
that " the Queen was anxious for them, and favourable
to them," and he then lays down the law that it is not
necessary, in order to effect their object, that the English
Parliament or the Saxon Parliament should be resorted
to—when she is convinced that it ought to be done
there is no legal objection to issuing writs, thereby call-
ing together the Parliament again." Now, gentlemen,
this brings me to the consideration of the proposition
whether it is consistent with the law of this land to
say that the Queen can reconstruct the Parliament of
Ireland by the mere exercise of the Royal prerogative
in issuing writs to such places in Ireland as her Majesty
may think proper. When my Learned Friend, the
Attorney-General, in his very luminous statement,
arrived at this part of the case, he threw out a challenge
to the counsel on the other side—he asked how far they
were prepared to establish or support the opinion of
their clients at this point. Ido not exactly know, at
this moment, whether they mean at all to insist on the
legality of that proposition, or if they do, to what extent
they will rely. Now, I think; I shall have very little
difficulty in demonstrating to their Lordships, who I
take for granted will duly lay down the law, that that is a
total perversion of the law, is altogether unsupported by
legal principles ; it is directly adverse to the best
established principles of our law, it is wholly unintel-
ligible, and the result would be to render void all
the acts which have been passed since the union.
The defendants do not exactly say that the union
was void, but passages were read to show, that though
binding in point of law, it was not binding in point of
conscience or constitutional principle as contradistin-
guished from law and precedent. It was said that King
James issued writs for 40 boroughs in one day, and that
the Crown had now the right of exercising the same
power. There is an explicit enactment that no meeting
shall be convened, or any persons elected or considered as
representatives of those places either in the United Par-
liament or elsewhere, except as the Imperial Parliament
shall determine. It has been said that the Queen
has the power to issue writs to call together an Irish
Parliament, for this reason that that Parliament, as Mr.
O'Connell alleges, is not dead, but sleeps—that it is still
in constitutional and legal existence, though not actually
exercising its functions. That supposes the Act of
Union to be altogether void. Mr. Whiteside, one of the
counsel for the traversers, went the length of saying
that it was not meant by that that the Act of Union was
not binding in point of law, but merely that it was void
in constitutional principle. I can, however, give a very
good answer with respect to Mr. O'Connell s meaning,
and the meaning which he intended to be conveyed to
the people of Ireland, by referring you to the docu-
ments which the traversers gave in evidence the
day before yesterday. Among the documents put in
by them, was an address of the National Associa-
tion at its first establishment to the people of Ire-
land. It contains a dedication to the people of
Ireland by Mr. O'Connell. "I dedicate," said he,
" these reports to you; they are written by one of your-
selves for the benefit of you all." Now, in this publica-
tion I find the doctrine respecting the union laid down
thus:—" Besides all this, it is perfectly clear that the
Irish Parliament had no right whatsoever to vote away
their country's independence." He then states Plunket's
words, and thus continues :—" Such were the' means
by which the union was carried, and such was
the inherent radical defect, in point of law and
conscience, in that measure." What will be said
of that ? Is that, or is it not, a deliberate asser-
tion circulated among the people of Ireland, that by
reason of the inherent want of legal power the ca-
pacity of the Legislature, and particularly of the Irish
Legislature, which passed the union—the union was
void in point of law and conscience ?—" It is right
to see how this inherent defect in the union," and
so on, "was exhibited by another lawyer?" I will say
that this assertion of Mr. O'Connell's, as to the right to
call together an Irish Parliament without the sanction
of the Legislature, is not only seditious and unlawful,
but is also delusive. I say it is one of the means by
which the objects of this combination were attempted to
be misled ; and Mr. O'Connell misled them as to the
nature of the act, in order to create discontent and dis-
affection with it, and to induce those large assemblies to
unite with him in getting rid of the statute. I hold this
assertion to be further delusive, because it pretended
to be founded upon what has been represented to you
as the opinions of those eminent men whose names you
have often heard of in the course of this trial. Well,
gentlemen of the jury, so far as relates to the doe-
trine that the Queen, by virtue of the Royal prerogative,
can, independent of Parliament, issue writs for calling
together a Parliament in Ireland, also to the proposition
that the union is not binding in point of law, I am sure
you will be satisfied that both are unfounded, being
based upon unfair and unjust misrepresentations of the
opinions of eminent persons, and I will now assume, in
the remainder of my address, that you are perfectly
satisfied there is not any solid foundation whatever for
that which has been repeated over and over again, and
circulated through the country for the purpose rm
leading and deceiving. (The Solicitor-General ene
arbitration
com-
mented very ably on the formation]
district, and
to the arbitrators to act fora certain
d " Arbitration Court,"
the summons was h
courts.) There was a regular judicial of
fontunission issued
It was idle to say that
example "Insolvent Court.
thoseproceedings
any analogy between and
there was a
just like the title of Tint.ze 'other tribunal ; as for
in awards, which were made rules of
what took
to
carried into effect by the constituted autho-
rities, while the judges sanctioned by the Repeal Asso-
ciation were only responsible to that body. Having re-
ferred to other proceedings, the Learned Counsel went
aib place
aee