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

opinions on, the union. Whether these opinions were
right or wrong, he had come to the conclusion that the
union was a measure fraught with disastrous conse-
quences to this country, and the question was, is he right
or not? You may differ with him in political sentiments,
and in the view he takes of the question, but still you
cannot shut your eyes to the facts which I state, and
which cannot be contradicted. Does any man attempt to
tell me, or to say my client had not a right to form
his opinions and speak his sentiments on the sub-
ject of the Act of Union ? Is there anything in the
Act of Union to put a stop to such free discussion ?
No, there is not ; and it should also be recollected that
the Act of Union was an Act the same as any other
Act of Parliament, and could be repealed or altered
in the same manner. Mr. Tierney had a right to
enjoy his opinions on this pint, and he also had a right
to express his sentiments relative to that measure. Is
there any man who will tell me he has not a right to his
opinions ? It was the right of every man to speak out
openly and fairly what he felt to be his honest convic-
tion; and it was, moreover, his duty as a good citizen to
do so. Every honest Irishman who has brought his
mind to the. honest conviction -.that any measure has
been injurious, is bound by every principle to do away
with it by honest and legitimate means ; and if a man
honestly believe that the
,union has sacrificed the
independence and prosperitY of Ireland, he is bound
to use all legitimate means to set it aside.
I am not now using any argument for or against
that measure. It is not my province or yours to• do
that ; but I say every man ought to act up to his own
holiest convictions. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General,
in order to make you doubtful of the sincerity of those
who advocate a repeal of the union, took a line of argu-
ment which is often resorted to in trials, and he re-
ferred to the opinions of Bushe, and Plunket, and Saurin,
which he knew would be resorted to by counsel for the
traversers. And why should they not resort to them ?
Where are the Irish people to resort for wisdom if not
to luminaries such as these ? I will not trouble you by
reading the opinions of those eminent men ; but if any
person compares their language with the language
used, by any of the traversers, eloquent and
strong as it has frequently been, it will fall short of
!he language of those eminent individuals. Gentlemen,
I will read a stronger passage of Saurin's to you
“ You may make the union binding as a law, but you
cannot make, it obligatory on conscience. It will be
obeyed as a law as long as England is strong ;
bat resistance to it will be in the abstract a duty, and the
exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of
prudence." Take any of the numerous publications
laid before you in evidence, and it will not be found so
strong as this passage. I ask you have you any reason
to doubt the sincerity of those eminent men I alluded

to—of Mr. Bushe, whom in common with every one
who knew him, I regret is no longer amongst us, whose
memory, I May say with perfect truth, will remain
for ever in the hearts of his countrymen. Who
can doubt of the sincerity of Lord Plunket? I
rejoice that he is still amongst us, and still commands
and possesses the love, respect, reverence, and admiration
of all who have the honour of his acquaintance. Who
doubts of the sincerity of Mr. Saurin ? You heard the
opinion of Mr. Sheil, who may be considered his political
opponent, as to his character. He might have many
faults, but, as Mr. Sheil told you, hypocrisy was not
among them. And when you find these eminent men
—not enthusiastic boys, but in the full maturity of
their vigorous interests—adopting those views and ex-
pressing those opinions with regard to the union without
any reason to doubt their sincerity, I think you will agree
with ins', and 'tis all I ask of you, that the same reasons
which influenced them might exist in the mind of my
client, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, when he brought his
mind to the conclusion that a repeal of the union
was necessary for the salvation and renovation of his country.
With the same object the A ttorticy-C-eneral endeavoured to
convince you that the repeal of the union was impracticable and
unattainable. Gentlemen, after what we have seen in our own
days, I think it would be difficult to say that any measure,
whatever difficulties may exist against it, is impracticable and
unattainable. There is the slave-trade, which was denounced
by Mr. Pitt as the greatest stain that ever disgraced mankind
The abolition of that trade had the support of his mighty in-
tellect, as also that of Mr. Fox. It was recommended by
every feeling ofhurnaniry and justice, yet it took years to coun-
teract the prejudices which existed against the measure. But
at length it became the law of the land. Again, there is the
measure of Catholic Emancipation. We all know the difficulties
it had to struggle against, so great—that to many it appeared
impracticable. Yet it became the law of the land. There is
the still more recent measure of Parliamentary Reform. We
know how long it took before it became the law of the land,
and therefore I say that you cannot donitt the sincerity of those
persons in advocating a repeal of the union, though great,
and, perhaps, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties may exist
against it. The Attorney-General also referred to the opinions
entertained by eminent statesmen with regard to the measure.
I never expected to hear the Attorney-General refer to the
speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but he
cited them on this occasion, as also the more congenial
opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Deke of Wellington.
To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is
due; but I deny that any man is to be bound or controlled
by the opinions of other men, however eminent they may be.
The opinions of statesmen are not immutable; they are at
liberty—and why should they not—to change their opinions,
if they see grounds for it. I may refer to one of those eminent
individuals in precf of what I say. You cannot but recollect,
when the question of Catholic emancipation was brought before
Parliament, in 1828, that Sir Robert Peel expressed an une-
quivocal and decided opinion against it. Do you doubt of his
sincerity ? I believe he was perfectly sincere ; yet, in twelve
short months, that same question, opposed by Sir Robert Peel,
became the law of the land, and was introduced by Sir R. Peel
himself. Do I find fault with him for this change of opinion ? On
the contrary, I think his conduct upon that question is the most
glorious portion of his political life, and that it does him infinite
credit. It is the part of a sorry and wretched statesman to say
that because he at one time entertained such and such opinions
he is immutably bound by them. The opinion he entertained,
conscientiously, in 1828, be found reason to alter; and instead of
displaying the pertinacity and obstinacy of a fool, he yielded to
altered circumstances and greater experience, and, therefore,
recommended and carried, in 1829, the measure he opposed
in 1828. If, then, you believe that the Rev. Mr. '1 ierney
honestly believes that the union has been injurious,
you will give him the credit for it,—and refer to
honest motives whatever acts he has done. And
I now come to the acts imputed to him. If I understand the
evidence right, those acts are two; one was, attending a meet-
ing at Clontibret on the 15th day of August, 1843 ; the other,
attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d day of
October, in the same year ; and if he be, by your verdict,
branded and convicted as a conspirator, it will be on one or both
of those acts to which I have referred. Before going to the
meeting of the 15th of August, I must refer to a portion of the
evidence given before you, with regard to an alleged conversation
between him and M'Cann, who was produced as a witness.
This conversation is said to have taken place on the 10th of
June, and it is better that I should read to you, from what 1
believe is a correct report of his evidence, this conversation,
which took place two months previous to the meeting in ques-
tion, M'Cann said he received instructions to ge to the Rev.
Mr. Tierney to know at what time the reported meeting
that accordingly he went, and that Mr.
all the information he could, and that he
precise day on which the meeting was to
(M'Cann) said that Mr.
nio"nll;ehe repeated that it was frau-
tdTwaiiodkeuerltploeltYatcakgekna.eovwePl:thlah:iCemelann told you he had a conversation with him,
dwTuhi el
iernenhtelyylacdaw; rielirletdend;ohviteo strhaeieaddiu't was not binding ; he represented it
as a nullity and not binding on conscitnce; he spoke of the feel-
caa
oinnu n couldtrhaydm e not .
done." ot be easily brought to spill the
feel-
ing on repeal becoming general, and extending itself to the army,
that they were favourable to repeal, that they partook of the en-
thusiasm
remember he referred to
w iba o
Now, on the authority
of Mr. Tierney, I say that he absolutely and positively denies
hotd
t ohfe o
their
r them
y fellow-countrymen,
in o,
opws l d
that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried
on between them. He acknowledges 'bat M'Cann came to
him for information about the meeting,
that he gave him that
information, but that he had with him this conversation he
positively and unequivocally denies possesses any particle of
truth. lan not able to produce any witness to sustain this
assertion, and why ?
Because, according to the testimony of
M'Cann, there wasno one presentbut himself and Mr. Tierney.
But for the sake of truth I am glad to be able to convict
M'Cann out of his own mouth, in such a manner that it is im-
possible to attach one particle of credit to what is said b y that
officer. In the first place, is it not improbable, if such a
conversation took place, that a common policeman should have
been able to recollect the terms of it, which he read to you—
that he would be able to detail to you the apparently eloquent
language in which the conversation seems to have been carried
on ? He was a policeman, was not even one of the flock of
the Rev. Gentleman—he came on business—he came dressed
in his, uniform ; was it likely that a gentleman of rank and
station would have held such a conversation with a common
policeman ? There is great danger in acting on conversations
so reported ; you will also remark that the witness said
he kept a diary, but he never kept any notes of
any portion of that conversation. You will recollect that
one part of this conversation was alleged to be, that
Ir. Tierney spoke of the great things that the army had
accomplished in Spain. Tne army has done a great
deal lately in Spain ; it has abandoned the constitutional au-
thorities, and set up by force-a government of its own ; the
object, then, of bringing forward this conversation was to sup-
port the charge of the traversers tampering with and endeav-
ouring to seduce the army. This conversation was alleged to
have taken place on the 16th of June. Now, the first indica-
tion of revolt given by the army in Spain took place on the
11th of June, in the city of Valencia. The first demonstration
took place on that day. The next demonstration did not take
place till the 12th, at Barcelona; and the most important re-
volt of the army in Spain did not take place till the close of the
month of June. Of these movements there was no account in
this country, as will appear by reference to the newspapers of the
time, till the 19;h or 20th ; it was, therefore, an impossibility
that a policeman in the county of Monaghan could have in-
formation of what trick place at Valencia on the 11th, so soon
as the 16th. There is then the strongest reason for contending
that this must be a fabrication on the part of the policeman.
He had sense and cunning enough to be apprised of the impor-
tance of the charge, and there was an obvious advantage in
connecting one of the traversers with an alleged attempt on the
army, and he thought that bringing the Rev. Mr. Tierney to
speak with approbation of the revolt of the army in Spain,
might be a moat useful assistance in leading the jury to believe
that he had done so. But if lam right in my dates, as you will
find by reference to the papers that I am, you will see that
there was no revolt in the Spanish army till the llth, yet here
is this wretched policeman on the Nth, in the county of
Monaghan, talking as if he wails already apprised of it.
I need not waste more time on this part of the case. I only
ask you to agree with me that—independently of the danger of
acting on a conversation of this description, or the improba-
bility attending it, and with this clear proof that no such
conversation took place—l am not asking too much when I
request of yen to dismiss from your minds altogether this al-
leged, and untruly alleged, conversation. I now come to the
meeting at Clontibret, which took place on the 15th of August.
And who were the persons brought forward to give you an ac-
count of what took place at these meetings ? The only evidence
adduced is that of two policemen. You have heard from them
there were magistrates present—that two stipendiary magistrates
were present. Why had not either of them been produced ?
Was it not the duty of the Crown, if it wanted to represent the
meeting at Clontibret as an illegal meeting, to have produced
those who were calculated to give the best information on the
subject. Though these two stipendiary magistrates were pre-
sent, though they were in the pay and service of the Govern-
ment, and under its control, though there was not a particle
of difficulty in the Government, if it thought fit, producing
them, yet not one of them had been called in order to
give an account of the character o ithe meeting at Clon-
tibret but two policemen ,• the magistrates who were pre-
sent were passed by. Ido not wish to cast an imputa-
tion on the Crown for so doing; Anew not its motives,
I knew not its reasons for so" doing--but I thick I am
justified in saying this, that from their non-productioii might
be drawn this plain and simple inference, that they could not
have said anything that would have served the prosecution,

and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it.
That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual
of Vie traversers present at it, with the exception .of Mr.
Tierney. There was not one iota or particle of evidence to
connect him, up to that time, with any of them. Yet he was
represented as having entered into a conspiracy or agreement
with them. Are there any grounds for saying that this meet -
ing, was an illegal one? Was there any act of violence com-
mitted at it ? Not one ! Was there anything done that
could show this meeting to be an illegal assembly ?
Not I There was not a single act of riot or
disturbance at it; it was characterised by that which cha-
racterised all the other meetings—perfect tranquillity, per-
fect peace—not a finger was held up—the utmost that
was alleged was, that some people were crushed, and
among the rest a policeman, If that is to be the means of
attaching the charge of illegality to that meeting, I must
say that the Court of Queens Bench has been a mot ille-
gal meeting for the last fortnight.—(Laughter.) There had
.certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the
Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your
peculiar situation—(Laughter)—you are guarded and pro-
tected from it,— no other portion of the Court, not even the
judgment-seat (Laughter) but has been invaded, and
the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed " by
those whom they have found it impossible to resist.—
( Great laughter.) Yet this meeting you are called on to
pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the
alleged conspiracy. I say with conitlence that there is no
particle of evidence by which the meeting at Clontibret
can be pronounced illegal. (The Learned Gentleman here
read the object of the meeting, the resolutions adopted at
it, and the petition to Parliament which was carried, and having
pointed out the perfectly legal and constitutional nature of the
proceedings, said—Mr. Tierney is charged with attending a
meeting pf the Repeal Association on the 3d of October. Up
to that time there is no evidence to show that he ever had any
communication with the other traversers, or that he had ever
read or heard of their speeches or proceedings. On that day he
was first brought in connection with the Association. It is
true that on that day he became a member of it. Gentlemen,
I shall certainly never forget the withering and concentrated
sneer with which the Attorney-General read the name of this
Association when he came to the word" Loyal," Loyal Repeal
Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of
its disloyalty. What be dared not venture to express in
_plain
terms he has struggled to give vent to by a sneer." lam
no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the
,attempt. Some of the wisest, the ablest, the best, anal mo-t
eminent of the land, are amongst its members. They may be
wrong, but they are not disloyal. One million of men, at least,
were members of that Association in October ; and is the
loyalty of one million of men to be sneered away ? Are you
to brand them with disloyalty from a sneer of the Attorney-
General? I deny their disloyalty. I assert the legality of
the Association, and I will prove it by an authority which the
Attorney-General must acknowledge, My authority is the
Attorney-General himself. That Association has gone on for
the last three years without interruption, openly and publicly,
and every person in the community might be present at their
proceedings for the paltry sum of a shilling. Yet the
Attorney-General sneers at their loyalty. Has he, dared; to
put it down? No ; and he would not hesitate to _do so if
it were illegal. It may be very sale to sneer, and to cast
indirect imputations; but the Attorney-General has not
dared, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to in
peach its legality. Is a respectable Roman Catholic clergy-
man to be charged with a conspiracy—a conspiracy of the
worst kind—merely because he has attended meetings of a
body which the Attorneys General has not dared to put
down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. Pb:ney not
merely attended those meetings, but he gave in contributions.
Yes, he gave in contributions, but is that illegal ? Does the
Attorney-General mean to say that a man may not hand in
contributions to a fund collected for the furtherznce of the
repeal of the union ? and when I say that it is lawful to
do so I suppose he would willingly accuse me of ignorance.
The Attorney-General cannot ba ignorant of the present
state of England, and the existence of the Anti-Corn-
law League. It is matter of history—it cannot be denied
—and their contributions amount to a large sum. Is
there any prosecution instituted .there? The Marquis of
Westminster has written a letter and has contributed 5001.
to that fund. Has he been prosecuted lor it? Perhaps I
am wrong in suggesting that he is not to be prosecuted
for subscribing that amount. The meeting of Parliament
is approaching; the Attorney.. General, of course, will be there
to attend to his duties, and he may recommend a
prosecution to the English Attorney-General. He owes him
a deep debt of gratitude fur his recent assistance -- a
debt which. was never before due by an Irish Attorney-
General to an English one—and he has now an opportunity
to repay him for the assistance he received. He can from his
own experience instruct him in the law of hypocrisy—teach
him to " sneer away" the loyalty of a people—and, by in-
fusing his own peculiar ideas into him, cause the Marquis of
Weetminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client,
the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetingi of
the Association ; I confess he slid so. He is accused of having
handed in contributions—l confess it. He made a speech, too,
which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length
in the indictment, I suppose for the purpose of handing down that
specimen of legal skill to posterity. 1 find in it a long historical al-
lusion to the parish of Clontibret. He had, it seems, a lively
interest in whatever concerned it. He felt as much for the
events which occurred there—they were as interesting to him,
as those of Blenheim or Waterloo. He delivered himself of
much lore in the history of the parish of Clontibret. Oh ! but
says the Attorney-General, " he talked of using hand and
heart." Yes he did. But you must know that in all ordinary
occasions the expression hand and heart is used. But, said
the Attorney-Genera', " he must have meant by deeds, deeds
of hands with arms in them " What right has the Attorney-
General so to construe the expression ? It is not for you or for
me to descend into the mind of any man; that is the province
of the Almighty only. When man judges he should
only attribute and come to conclusions from facts
of which he has the cognizance of his senses. Gentlemen, I
have detained you tpo long. I have laid before you the facts
and circumstances on which I rely for your verdict of acquittal,
and I am confident of this, that if you agree with me in the
view I have taken, and come to a conclusion that my client is
entitled to a verdict of acquittal, I feel that this is a verdict
that you will-be able to justify to your country now, and to
your God hereafter.

Mr. HATCHELL, Q.O , then rose and said—May it please
your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury—
CHIEF JusTice—Whom do you a.spear for?
Mr. HATCHELL—I am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray.
Gentlemen of the Jury —I consider, notwithstanding what
you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who
have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge-
nerally with repect to the charges that are made against
them all, and particularly with respect to their own clients
—I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have
heard with respect to the law and facts of the case, still to
address to you, on behalf of my client, a few observations.
Gentlemen, I think you must feel that the ground has been
pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to
add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in
the facts and law of the case, and the powerful and able
observations of my friend Mr. foore on the general charge and
circumstances under which the indictment has been pre-
ferred. Still, gentlemen of the jury, there are circum-
stances, peculiar to the situation of each of the traversers,
which it is considered right should be laid before yeu, in
judging of the share each of them appears to have been
charged to have taken in those transactions, and to see if you
can bring your minds, as fair, honest, and impartial jurors, to
come to the conclusion, from the criminal intent charged by the
indictment, that those traversers, and each of them, hadjoined in
the preconceived plan of, I may say, overturning the Government
of the country. Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Ray,
is peculiarly circumstanced in relation to this charge. He is
the Secretary of the Repeal Association. Before 1 call your
attention to the charge, as contained in the indictment, and
which you have to try, permit me to call your attention (al-
though I believe it has been already closely drawn to the ques-
tion by the counsel that preceded me) to the real, substantial
question, which you have to try. Permit me, before Ido
that, to remind you of what you have not to try. Gen-
tlemen, you are not to try Mr. Thomas M. Ray, as has
been already observed, for having attended an illegal
assembly. •He denies that any assembly with respect to
which evidence was given before you on this trial, was illegal ;
and, if I had to defend him on that charge, I could do so.
You are not to try whether Mr. Ray, at any one of those
assemblies, at any time or place, uttered a seditious speech
or published a seditious libel. If such a charge was preferred
against him, I am satisfied I could perfectly justify him from
such a charge. He never published a libel in his life. He never
uttered charge or accusation against any man, or against the
Government. Gentlemen, you are net to try whether he be a
Repealer or not. I must admit that, if you were to try him on
that charge, I could not defend him. He is, and has been a
Repealer, and is, and has been the secretary to the Repeal As-
sociation for several years. He has been the secretary and paid
officer of that Association since its institution. He be-
came the officer, and salaried officer, of it, approving of
its objects ; mixing himself up with its proceedings, in ac-
cordance with the principles which he professed, and to
sustain his opinion in that question of which you have
heard so much. But, gentlemen—and consider that when
you come to try the question as to what intent Mr. Ray was a
member of the Association—as to what intent he did the acts
connected with that Association—as to whether he was guilty
of a criminal intent, or entered into a preconcerted conspiracy
—it is important to consider the position in which he stood,
and the relation which he bore towards that Association. Gen-
tlemen of the jury, I need not repeat to you again, and to im-
plore you not to permit your minds to be diverted from, or
your attention distracted from, the consideration of the real ques-
tion attempted to be drawn from you. The question you have to
try on your oath is, did Mr. Ray, in conjunction with all or any
of the traversers, enter into a plan preconcerted, arranged,
preconceived, and laid with the criminal intent of exciting dis-
affection against the Government or Constitution, and with
the other criminal intents which are charged in this indict-
ment. Gentlemen of the jury, it is a question peculiarly for
you—the question of intent—with what intention those proceed-
ings took place—what was the intention of the parties who
committed or did the acts which are charged as evidence of that
intention ; it is your peculiar province to judge of that intent.
The Court, the judges who preside here, it is for them to say
whether the acts given in evidence are acts that ought to go
before you for your consideration; they are the judges of their
illegality, or whether these facts shall go before you ; but it
is your sole and exclusire province and duty to decide this
upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those
persons interfered in those transactions ? They were the
actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and
legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is
charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards
the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen
of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to
the opinion of the eminent Judge who charged the grand jury
in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice
Eyre, in calling the attention of the jury to the question they
had to try, said—
Judge Bo RTON—What de you take that from?
Mr HATCH ELL—From the State Trials," vol. 24. Your
Lordship will find it in page 203. You are aware, gentle-
men, from what has been already stated, that the objects of
the societies of that day—the professed objects of the socie-
ties of that day—for being members of which Hardy and
Tooke were prosecuted—that there the indictment was for
a conspiracy in the nature of constructive treason. And in
charging the grand jury in Hardy's case, Chief Justice
Eyre said—" If there be ground to consider the pro-
fessed purpose of any of these Associations a reform of Par •
liament as mere colour, and as a pretext held out in order
to cover deeper designs—designs against the whole Constitu.
tion and Government of the country—the ease of those em-
barked in such designs as that which I have already consi-
dered,—whether this be so or not is a mere matter of fact,
as to which I shall only remind you that an inquiry into a
charge of this nature, which undertakes to make out that the
ostensible purpose is a mere veil under which is concealed a
traitorous conspiracy, requires cool and deliberate considera-
tion, and that the result should be perfectly clear and satis-
factory. In the affairs of common life no man is perfectly jus-
tified in imputing to another person a meaning contrary to
what he himself expresses, but upon the fullest' evidence."
Gentlemen, no man has a right to impute to another that
he is not intending what he professes to do, unless there' is
clear, satisfactory, and unambiguous evidence to show the
contrary. Every man must be presumed to be acting
according to his declared intentions until the' contrary is
proved. Every man is presumed by the law of the lam' to
he innocent before his guiet is clearly established and, as
already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if there he a cri-
minal intent all, ged, and if there be a legal intent to
which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, com-
mon justice—the spirit of the British law—requires that

his acts should be attributed to the legal and innocent
motive, and not, by straining, to a criminal intent.
Gentlemen of the jury, you have a right to go further—
accordine to the spirit of the British law if it be question.
able to what those motives are attributab'e—if there be
doubt upon your minds in judging of the transaction, the
parties accused are entitled to the benefit of such doubts,
and their acts are to be attributable to honest and just motives,
and not to criminal design. Now, gentlemen of the jury, yon
have heard with great force of expression, and great power of
argument, an observation made to you already on the nature
of this proceeding. It ha 3 been already characterised a
" monster indictment" unprecedented in the annals of English
justice or English injustice. No precedent can be found in the
records of the law of England for such a proceeding as this,
charging almost traitorous intentions against the parties—mix-
ing them up in the transactions of nine months of their lives—
fixing the acts of one upon the others—making each responsible for
the acts of the whole, and combining those charges in a volume
of overt acts—accusations which I say are unequalled in the
history of the law. Hew is an individual to be competent to
prepare hanaelf for his defence against such multiplied accusa-
tions—for though th 'y all tend to one, or two, or three charges
of conspiracy, yet all the overt acts stated in this indictment
are charged as illegal acts to sustain the ultimate charge of
conspiracy with a criminal intention of assailing the State and
Constitution ? Of the injustice of such a course of proceeding
as in the present case has been adopted, you have heard.
You have been told that no precedent can be found for such
a prosecution as the present. Gentlemen, there is but one
case on record which bears any analogy to it, and that case
is one which is a blot on English history, and one which
has challenged the indignant animadversion of all intelligent
men who have ever considered it—the ease of Warren Hast-
ings. When, on occasion of Hardy's trial, Mr. Erskine, the
eloquent advocate of the accused, came to speak of the in-
dictment in that case (which falls fifty degrees short of the
perplexity and injustice of the indictment on which the present
traversers have been given in charge) he expressed himself in
language of no common force. Lord Erskine, in page 890, of
the " State Trials," expressed his sentiments upon such pro-
secutions as the present in no ordinary language. He began
by quoting the sentiments of Lord Hale upon constructive trea-
son, which are as follow :—" And third, how dangerous it is
by construction and analogy to make treasons where the letter
of the law has not done it, for such a method admits of no
limits or bounds, but runs as far and as wide as the wit and
invention of the accusers and the detestation of persons ac-
cused will carry men." " Surely (continued Mr. Erskine) the
a :monition of this resplendent lawyer ought to sink deep into
the heart of every judge and every juryman who is called to
administer justice under this statute ; above all, in the times,
and under the peculiar circumstances, which assemble us in
this place. Honourable men, feeling as they ought for the
safety of Government and the tranquillity of the country, and
naturally indignant against those who are supposed to have
brought them into peril, ought, for that very cause, to proceed
with more abundant caution; brit they should not be sur-
prised by their resentments or their fears. They
ought to advance in the judgments they form by slow
and trembling steps—they ought even to fall back and look at
everything again, lest a false light should deceive them,
admitting no fact but on the foundation of clear and
precise evidence, and deciding on no intention that does not
eesult with equal clearness from the fact. This is the universal
demand of justice in every case—how much more especially,
then, in this, when the judgment is every moment in danger
of being swept away into thp fathomless abyss of a thousand
volumes, where there is no anchorage for the understanding,
where no reach of thought can look round in order to compare
their points—nor can any memory be capacious enough to retain
even the imperfect relation that can be collected from them.
Gentlemen, my mind is the more deply affected with this con-
sideration by a very recent example in that monstrous pheno-
menon which, under the name of a trial, has driven me out of
Westminster Hall for a large portion of my professional life.
No man is less disposed than I am to speak lightly of
great State prosecutions, which bind to their duty
those who have no other superiors, nor any other control, least
of all am I capable of even glancing a censure against those
who have led to or conducted the impeachment, because I
respect and love many of them, and know them to be amongst
the best anti wisest in the nation. I know them indeed so
well as o be persuaded that, could they have foreseen the vast
field that was to open, and the length of time it was to occupy,
they never would have engaged in it—for I defy any man,
not enlightened by the divine Spirit, to say with the pre-
cision and certainty of an English Judge deciding upon evidence
before him, that Mr. Hastings is guilty or not guilty; for who
knows what is before him or what is not? Many have car-
ried what they knew to their graves, and the living have
liveti long enough to forget it. Indeed, I pray to God that
such another proceeding may never exist in England, because
I consider it a dishonour to the Constitution, and that it brings,
by its example, insecurity into the administration of justice.
Every man in civilised society has a right to hold his life, liberty,
and reputation under plain laws, that can be well under-
stood, and is entitled to have some limited specific part of his
conduct compared and examined by their standard ; but he
ought not fur seven years, no, nor for seven days, to stand as a
criminal before the highest tribunal until judgment is bewildered
and confounded, to come at last, perhaps, to defend himself,
broken down by fatigue, and dispirited with anxiety." Such was
the language of the acute and impssioned Erskine in comparing
the proceedings in Hardy's ease with the proceedings which had
been instituted against Warren Hastings, and yet I have no hesi-
tation in avet ring that in Hardy's case the parties charged were
few, and the circumstances were few, as compared with the num-
ber of the accused, and the abundance of the accusations in the
present unprecedented prosecution. How monstrous is the injus-
tice to which my client has been made a victim in being called
upon to become responsible for the words and actions of other
men, beside himself, during the period of seven months. Gen-
tlemen, the task is indeed arduous which the Crown has im-
posed upon you. You are called upon to jump at the conclu-
sion, but everything that my client did in his capacity of paid
officer to the Society, he has done, not in the conscientious dis-
charge of his duties as a paid servant, but with a criminal intent
pervert the laws and injure the Constitution of the country.
That you are sworn to try : at that conclusion you are required
to arrive. Gentlemen, I feel embarrassed in addressing
you ; I confess that I am adverse to going over the
same ground that Mr. Moore has traversed in his eloquent
remarks, for I am apprehensive that a repetition of the same
topics liy me, instead of being of value to you, or to my
client, would rather have the effect of weakening the im-
pression that most have been produced upon your minds
by the admirable speech of my Learned Friend. But I can-
not avoid offering a few remarks to which I would fain at-
tract your most serious attention, in reference to the particular
case of my client, Mr. Ray. Gentlemen, look at the position
in which my client is placed, and have regard to the circum-
stances by which his particular case is characterised. Gentle-
men, Mr. Ray is a humble man with a large family, who
look to him alone for support. He has no other pursuits than
those which are connected with his avocation or office. He
was made Secretary to the Repeal Association on its forma-
tion in the year 1840, and from the day of his appointment
to the present hour his time and attention have been totally
engaged by the discharge of the duties incidental to his situa-
tion. He has not given me the slightest instructions to say
that the repeal movement did not enlist his good wishes in
.its
favour—or that ho did not, to the fullest extent, sympathise
with the leaders of the agitation—but what he did he did in
the discharge of the duties connected with his official character
—what he did he did in compensation for his salary, as in duty
bound—and yet, gentlemen, you are called upon to view him
in the light of a conspirator, and you are told to attribute
every act of his—which he has performed in requital for
Isis emoluments—as an act planned and achieved with the
design of subverting the law and the Constitution. If the
Association were an illegal society, and if it had been cha-
racterised as such by the Crown, then indeed my client
might fairly have been made responsible for all his actions in
the capacity of secretary ; but no such doctrine as this has been
ever propounded—nobody has presumed to say that the Asso-
ciation is illegal—nobody could say that it is illegal. You find
my client, Mr. Ray, en principle, no doubt, a Repealer, and
incidentally a member of the Association ; but you also have
distinct evidence to show that he is the paid officer of a per.
fectly legal association—such is the character in which he truly
appears before you. You find him discharging the routine du-
ties of his office, and yet you are called upon to say that hii
acts are not to be attributed to the discharge of his duties—
are not to be viewed as the deeds of a paid servant who is
anxious to give value for his salary ; but that they are rather to
be attributed to a fell purpose existing in his mind to outrage
the laws and trample on the Constitution You are called
upon by the Crown to view his case in this artificial light.
You are called upon to come to this conclusion ; but as honest
men—as intelligent men—as men who love justice, and prize
the independence of the mind—l ask you, can you come to
that conclusion ? In my humble judgment, it was a mon-
strous thing to include Mr. Ray in this indictment. He ought
never to have been included in the present charge ; and I
cannot forbear from expressing it as my opinion that the
Crown, in having proceeded against him, have not pursued
a candid, ingenuous course, either towards him or towards
the other traversers. They have indicted the members of a
certain society for a criminal conspiracy, and they have included
in the indictment Mr. Ray, the salaried servant of the Asso-
ciation. I will not apply hard names to this proceeding, I will
not go so far as to say that they were guilty of a dishonest
intention, or that they could be capable of the common,
paltry, pettifogging manoeuvre, of cutting the ground from
the feet of the aecused parties, by including the witnesses in
the indictment. I do not mean to impute any unworthy mo-
tive to my friend the Attorney-General, but I am surely at
liberty to call your attention to the disastrous effect which re-
sults to the rest of the traversers from the circumstance of
my client being included in the indictment. While I repu-
diate the idea of attributing an unworthy motive in any
quarter, I am surely at liberty to demonstrate how the
effect of such a proceeding as has been adopted is exactly
similar to that which would have resulted if the paltry ma-
noeuvre to which I have alluded had indeed been deliberately
had recourse to. By including Mr. Ray in the indictment,
they have deprived the other traversers of the benefit of
his services. He was the acknowledged officer of the
Society—he had in his possession the authenticated books and
documents of the Society, written in his own hand-writing—
he knew the working and machinery, so to speak, of the
Society, and was the only man competent in law to prove the
honest and perfectly legal intentions of its members. He could
have proved their objects—he could have clearly demonstrated
the means that were resorted to by them for the constitutional
purpose of procuring the repeal of a statute which they conscien-
tiously believed was a grievance to their country—all this he
could have made as clear as sun-light ; but he (the man who
was in a position to prove all this) has been silenced, and is
incapacitated from acting as a witness by being included in the
indictment. The Crown might have brought Mr. Ray
upon the table—they might have called for his books, anti
examined the man who made the entries, and thus have
furnished themselves- with primary evidence of the most au-
thentic character, but this they had not done, and they were
accordingly obliged to avail themselves of the ordinary news-
paper reports, which did not publish all the transactions of the
meetings; hut only such as appeared at the time of public in-
terest. They thus were obliged to resort to a species of se-
condary evidence, and in order to make out evidence ad-
missible they were obliged to have recourse to the left-
handed management of including in the indictment the editors
of the different newspapers in which these reports were pub-
lished. What was the course taken at the trial of Hardy and
of Horne Tooke ? Who was the Attorney-General of Enee-
land in that day ? The late Lord Eldon, then Mr. Scott.
Who was the Solicitor •General of that day ? The late Lord.
Redesdale, subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Mr
Alitford. How did they proceed against Horne Tooke and the
ether members of those associations which it was the object of
those prosecutions to put down? Who was the first witr.ess
examined against Horne Tooke ? Daniel Adams, who was
sworn and examined by the counsel for the Crown. And what
did he prove ? That he was the secretary of this society or
association—that he had held that office for ten years—that he
had made the entries in the books. But the Crown may say
to use here—" Oh ! do you expect we should call a co-conspi-
rator? do you expect that we should give to your counsel the
benefit of his cross-examination ?.' Gentlemen, I hold it to
be a principle—a high, a noble, and inherent principle—
of a Crown prosecution, and more particularly of a
State prosecution, I hold it to be the duty of those who
manage it not to discriminate, to judge, to calculate, to
criticise in what way the evidence may be likely to affect those
who are to be prosecuted ; but it is the duty of the Crown to
call all those:witnesses who can depose to facts appertaining to
the prosecution, and then to give the traversers the benefit of
their cross-examination. Mr. Ray is included in this indict-
ment ; he cannot be a witness at all. I cannot call him for
himself—the other traversers cannot examine hire on their be-
half. In Hardy's case the Crown did not indict the secretary ;"
he was the first witness to prove the objects, the intent, and
the tendeney of the associaticn, Horne Tooke was entitled to

the cross-examination of the witness produced by the Crown ;
he had the secretary of the society on the table to interrogate
him as to the intent and object of it. One of the questions was,.
" Were the members armed with pikes or muskets ?—No.
Did you ever hear anything said in the society about pikes
or muskets ?—No, never in my life. Was there such a thing
as a secret Committee there ?—Never. Was not everything
conducted openly and publicly? Was there anything ever
took place which could lead you to believe that the members
intended to depose or kill the King ?—Oh, no, never."
Would I not, gentlemen, have been entitled to ask him, if be
was a witness on the table, " Had you any reason to suppose
that the members of the Loyal Na ions! Repeal Association
intended to excite disaffection towards the Government, or
to corrupt the army, to affect the administration of justice,
or to overthrew the Government 1" Why have we not the
opportunity of asking those questions, which we' might have
done if we had the benefit of his testimony. Such was the
course that was taken when those prosecutions were
being carried on in England, at a time when the armies
of France were sweeping the Continent of Europe, and when
there were great dissensioes at home among the people of
England. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of
that day put the Secretary of the Association upon the table in
order that he might prove the facts—in order that the truth
might be ascertained. The truth prevailed,.and Horne Tooke was
acquitted. What more questions were put to him?—" What
do you think was the object or intention of the greater part of'
the members of that Society 7—To obtain Parliamentary re-
form." Do you think there are many among them
who meant more than what they said ?—I do
not know; I believe they meant what they said." Gene'
tlemen of the jury, I will not go further with this exa-
mination. Observe its application to the case of my clients,
the Secretary of the Repeal Association, who discharged his
official duties in the ordinary way that the officer of any public
society was bound to do? Why is he included in this indict-
ment, or why is he now called upon, after having been per-
mitted for seven months past to go on discharging the duties of
his situation, to answer here as a conspirator—as one re-
sponsible for all the sets, speeches, and publications of which
you have heard so much? Can you on your oaths, as honest
and honourable men, say, in the face of the country, that
Mr. Ray, the official f a legal, a recognised Association, did not
discharge his duties as secretary, in accordance with the direc- •
tions of those by whom he was employed; but that be ex-
ceeded his instructions, and combined in doing all those overt
acts which form the charge of conspiracy against him
You are called upon to say he did not do these
things with the intention of discharging his duty, consist-
ently with his principles; bat that he was engaged in a pre.*
concerted plot—in a settled conspiracy formed between those
gentlemen, for you are to swear upon your oath that you be-
lieved such to have been his intent before you can give a ver-
dict against him, and I am to get your answer to that plain
question out of your jury-box. Gentlemen of the jury, it may
be said that Mr. Ray went beyond the regular course of his
duty ; it may be said that he &el not confine himself to attend-
ing the regular meetings of the Association in the capacity of
:secretary. Gentlemen. I am ready to admit, on the part of Mr.
Ray, that wherever there was a meeting of the Association,. as
of the Association itself, he attended and officiated there as se-
cretary, and that gets rid of all questions upon the indictment
upon that head. But it may be alleged that he was present at Tara
and at Mullaghmast. Now, on that saject I have ascertained
the fact, that those were the only two country meetings at
which he was ever present. The rneetine at Tara took place
the 15•11 of August; it was I believe cliefly an assemblage
of persons from that immediate neighbouemod ; but a con-
siderable portion of them were from the minty and city-of
Dublin, many attracted there from curiosity, and many more
of course from an identity of feeling with the object for
which it was convened, and from which to give expres-
sion to their feelings on the question of tepee. Thousands
went out there in carriages, gigs, and cars totes what took
place on the 15th of August at the hill of Tea. I don't
know whether you are aware of it, but I believ, the fact is
notorious, that from the number of persons who were
going out of Dublin that day, it was regrded as a
species of holiday through the city. Mr. Ray went here with
his family, with the females of his family, and in comany with
the members of another gentleman's family, of who( one or
two were females. He did nothing there ; he made n speech
there ; he did not act as secretary to that meeting • anetaking
that fact- alone, you might as well have includes every
other person who attended there as Mr. Ray. Theresan be
no doubt but thousands went there from a mere feEng of
curiosity. However, we now find Mr. Ray at Tara, nd, as
far as I can see, with respect to Mr. Ray as a traverser, a that
head I have nothing requiring me to justify on hispart.
He may have gone there with a sympathy for the elects
of the meeting; but does that attach to him the chatter
of a conspirator? I shall not go into any of the partidars
of that meeting, fer its peaceable character has been depose to
by the magistrates and policemen who were present—they live
told that there was no riot, no breach of the peace, no tendesy
to anything like it there. To be sure Captain Despard tes
examined, but what was his evidence ? Why was it gives'?
I will tell you ; it was in order to give a certain colourir
to this case—a colouring of illegality to that great meeting
and that you might draw inferences from the evidene
after obtaining a colouring for it. Well, then, Walker was
examined, and what did he prove? That he saw people
walking, heard bands playing, and saw a few flags or tanners,
and that was all he saw. Was there anything illegal in that?
Walker was examined by the Crown on all that he was suppose'
to know. Well, Captain Despard, who, it will be recollected,
had no great regard or esteem for Mr. O'Connell—for whit
reason, I suppose, be knows best himself—but it was gull
clear that, from his manner and evidence, he had a very etrotg
feeling against Mr. O'Connell and the meeting. This Captain
Despard comes from Trim, and he swears he heard the people"
say " Keep the step !" I asked him did they keep the step, a 1
he said they did not. I must here remark that every police",
man who was examined did, either by design or accidente„
endeavour in the strongest manner to give a colouring, whiP
they were not warranted in giving, to the whole character
of the proceedings. Captain Despard said the people cams
in marching order to the meeting, and by that word he
wanted to impress something on your minds- relative to
military array. He was obliged to admit that the people
did not keep the step, nor did they know hew to keep it.
He was a military man, and he at once committed himself in
his anxiety to colour the case, ant give a turn to the whole
proceedings, which were totally different from the facts. • It
was most disingenuous in Despard to use a military term for
the purpose of throwing it into your box; but at the same
time it only proves the nature of his temper, and the bias of
his mind, and his partisanship on the subject. I will ask,
are men to be branded with being foul conspirators—are
their lives, liberties, and fortunes to be at stake in consequence
of such evidence as this that I have shown you ? The gallaot
Captain Despard and Major Westenra le ere taken for foreigners,
' because," says the captain, "Major Westenra had a mous-
tache, and I had a curl in my lip."—(Laughter. ) Well, he get'
into a conversation with come lump of a fellow from Stoneybatter
or thereabouts, who was waiting to see Mr. O'Connell psis'
and because of this conversation the meeting was stigmatised
as illegal. The man told him he came from Wexford, eau
therefore the meeting was illegal, and the traversers guilty di;
foul conspiracy.—( Laughter.) This alleged conversation Oen'
have been sustained by evidence, but I think the Attorney'
General knew nothing at all about it when he opened the clef'
or if he did I think he did well to leave it out and not contsee';
Date his case, bad as it was, with such trash as I allude to. am
Attorney-General did not allude to 20,000 Shilmalier men'
who marched to Tara. Oh, no, he knew it would be really t4l.
farcical to do so. The conversation to which he referred, if ever
such took place at all, most be treated as a cock-and-a-bqll storfs
or a humbug. Walker was examined before Capt. Despard, in the
country, and it was said also that he was near him when the eel!:
versation took place yet there was not a word about it, as it wq
too equivocal. Oh I but the 20,0(0 Wexford men sould
be forgotten by Capt. Despard. Oh, but that was done for
a purpose—to give a colouring to the case ; and well the other
side knew that. Why was not Walker asked abotit it?
might have corroborated the story. It was disgraceful to btu*:
such a case as that forward, in order to sustain the prosecuri°,77
Why was not Westenra produced to corroborate, the end
He was not. And well the Attorney-General knew it 1100,0
be a disgrace to the case to introduce such an episode into et.
opening statement. It is not my intention to -make all frilly
marks relative to the other meetings, because Mr.,
attended only that at Tara and Mullaghmast,
or
will leave them to other hands. Why do I ine,n, 4to
those things but to show that You ought to come cowl
the consideration of this awful" case, as I am convinced 320,
will. I would not have mentioned the facts related here,
but if I left them untouched it would be giving them of
weight which they are not entitled to, or which they do o.
possess, and a different construction might be put.on "
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the evident..
of Mr. Despard, as follows :—Walker was in coloured clotheo
.'
Westenra was there also, and is alive at present. as faresi;
I know ; a man asked him to take off his hat ler O'CAnniere
he was surprised when he heard of the 20,000 Wel -bis
men ; and when I asked him did he believe the man, that
es
answer was, " I had only his word for it." I ask, ien.
evidence in this case ? There was the case made by mthe
pard of the great treasonable design concocted against be
peace of the country, because he met a man who told him it
came from Wexford ! The only other meeting at which '11.:,e
Ray attended was that at Mullaghmast. He went there! vi'
in his capacity of secretary to the Association, but on an tone
tation which was conveyed to him from the Committee.
that
was at the dinner which took place in the evening; and ton
was the only place in the whole history of the transac' ue-
that Mr. Ray made a speech or said a word. Well, letibe
see under what circumstances he went there, and snodeevie
speech. Everything done at that dinner was given in:tbe
dente, except that speech of Mr. Ray ft`;. the course 01 _et
evening certain toasts were propose.!, and amongst the r
was the " Loyal National Repeal Association." Mr' leo 1
spoke to the toast, but how ? Did he volunteer to speak
toy
he did not ; he was called on to reply to the toast as the setae
of A tee
Association, and he made some observations on the oy
t
ject, but of so little importance were those observations that joss
were forgotten. The speech was not reported, nor was
,i9l„eee
in evidence on the table—it was merely stated that Mr. n•Jibe
turned thanks on the part of the Association, and that 11Ile
onlftsl
made
et
ai
pe
ei
enc thh. e ins tsopreyaok
speaking
e of
twhheo l e
meeting transaction that Mr' .
think this is the time to make a few observatioatnewluiltiliagrebgin7--lA:ft:
something which occurred at that meeting. I think "0 has
reason to complain of the mode in which the prosecatio
de
been conducted, and my client complains of being
,s %%le'
party to what occurred there—that was the first overt
tion moved at the meeting, which is one a the t.
Acts laid as disclosing the criminal intents of the parti
excite disaffection among her Majesty's subjects. 400
Learned Gentleman here read the first and second resoTeal of
agreed is at the meeting.) You have had a great
13
ce of
evidence laid before you as to the numerous asseterNmee
persons who came together at Mullaghmast, but though s ,gaS
rous, it was proved that this meeting, like the others, eat
peaceable and orderly, and that there was not the ".1.
tendency to commit a breach of the peace. But get
deemed necessary, as in the case of Tara, c cter
hara
some species of evidence reflecting on the
objefotetb°io
of the meeting, and on the designs and
those who were assembled there. I tall attention es s
fact, because •it is one which, I regret to
beyabsent eeoln
management and distorting which ought to
a trial of this description when everything
board and brought forward. What do I allude t ;no 11
to the catch-penny ballad or placard published and prig of the
should s.n.rl
suede
a person named Hanvey, whom it was theeboundenonu
Crown to have poodueed. If it were a case Leteettrillie
assault, where there might be a struggle fora
.c.w.1.14 why
ling verdict to carry damages, I would one, 6_‘fe
he was not produced, but in a State prosecution, be
Lusbt
cularly in a State Crown prosecution, I deny that
_nee tuts
to be kept back. When the Attorney-General orrui nob•
case, be said that seditious, infamous, and disgraceee thou'
lications were circulated by themselves and tens a.
nst the
sands for the purpose of exciting one nation
a
and
other, and that my client fabricated the d°"Gmgnerents al r°-
had it circulated. 'Why should not the Attorney-e escer;
duce the person who circulated them, that we n:;,ge objected
ta n where he got them, and who paid for them ?
reduced
to the document, we thought it unjust to betePsnake eaC
evidence on a conspiracy, when it was sought
seiretore.
co-conee
_A ty
conspirator responsible for the acts of his
eirculatest
Was it to be endured that such a documents _ veneer
for
this person, whose chi-raster was blackened a e__e,inr, 1
seditious publications, in the outskirts of the pere
profit and hire, should be received in evidence,
who nuwa, the
son
rseognulhairm andself recognisednroduperei
printer
the directions for the repeal wardens, and a variety of
t
ments for which he was paid—the green.' P,„"eeeras close
of his' evidence; but why did- the Attlifterrs ".".: wools&
his case, having this document in his posse Tfet them
?er of the ABsrosowcni;
calling the person who sold them to show how PC
ticanr,T.,hoofprdionciltecti