The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS.

(SECOND DAY.)

•
WRIT OF ERROR.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5.
THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
Their Lordships assembled at ten o'clock to hear the
arguments in the above case. Counsel haring been
called on, -

Mr. PEACOCK said that lie appeared on behalf of Mr.
Daniel O'Connell in this case, and after the able arguments
of his Learned Friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, he thought it
unnecessary to call the attention of their Lordships, or
to make any observations on that part of the case which
related to the generality of the counts, but he would en-
deavour to show their Lordships that judgmedt had been
given against Mr. Daniel O'Connell and the other parties
for offences, or a greater number of offences, than had
been charged against them in the indictment, and he
would submit to their Lordships that in cases where
punishment was discretionary, and where it, appeared
that the court had given any part of the judgment for
offences not charged in the indictment, or for offences
badly charged in the indictment, it was a ground for
reversing the whole judgment. He would also submit
that this judgment was bad on the ground of the verdict
having been entered in the way it was on the third count.
Ain would also submit that the judgment was bad for
want of entering into the proper continuances ; that it
was also bad as regarded the recognisances the parties
were called on to enter into ; that it was also bad in not
having given judgment of acquittal as to those parts of
the indictment of which the jury had found the parties
net guilty and finally, he would submit that
judgment should be reversed altogether ; that their
Lordships had no power to amend the judg-
ment, but that the judgment must be reversed be-
fore their Lordships could pass their judgment,
and that as punishment was discretionary with
the court which tried the parties, that their
Lordships would not pass any fresh judgment.
With regard to the first point, he would submit that the
parties had been found guilts' of three several and dis-
tinct conspiracies under the first count, and of three
distinct conspiracies under the second count, and that
under each the 'parties were charged with one offence.
The case would be simplified by treating this part of it
as applicable to the second count of the indictment, be-
cause the second count was the same as the first, with
the exception that it set out the overt acts. Their
Lordships would observe that by the second count nine
persons were charged, one of them being the Rev. Mr.
Tyrrell, who was since dead, with a joint conspiracy, to
do several acts. It charged them that " they did unlaw-
fully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons, whose names are to the jurors af'resaid
unknown, to raise and create discontent and disaffection
amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen,
and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of
the government and Constitution of this realm, as by
law 'established, and to unlawful and seditious opposi-
tion to the said Government and Constitution, and also
to stir up jealousies, hatred, between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro-
mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings
of ill and hostility towards and against her Ma-
jesty's subjects in the other parts of the said United
Kingdom, and especially in that part of the said
United Kingdom called England." Now he would not
contend that the jury were not justified, under this count,
in finding the whole of those parties guilty of a part of.
the conspiracy charged ; but what he would submit to
their Lordships was, that having found them all jointly
guilty of one conspiracy, they could not find others
guilty of a distinct and, separate conspiracy. The jury
found the parties guilty of one thing, and then they
found them guilty of conspiring to do another thing ;
they found them guilty of so much as charged them with
combining to cause others to meet, but they acquitted
them of conspiring unlawfully, maliciously, and sedi-
tiously to procure and assist them to meet.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you quite sure that is
in the record ? lam informed it is a misstatement fit
the case.

Mr. PEACOCK said he would satisfy their Lordships
that it was in the printed copy of the record, at page 77.
He would then proceed to the residue. As to the resi-
due of the premises, they acquitted Mr. Tierney, there-
fore he could no longer be received as a conspirator with
the other parties. The words of the finding were—
" And as to the residue of the said premises, in the said
first and second counts of the said indictment, respec-
tively charged as aforesaid, the said jurors, upon their
oath aforesaid, say that the said Thomas Tierney is not
guilty thereof." Then the remainder were found guilty
of conspiring for certain other objects, not with Mr.
Tierney, but with each other and divers persons un-
known. The words of this part of the finding were
these :—" And the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid
further say that the said. Daniel O'Connell, John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, Charles
Gavan Duffy, John Gray, and Richard Barrett, are, and
each of them is, guilty of so much of the said residue
as charges them for that they unlawfully, maliciously
and seditiously intending as aforesaid, and further un-
lawfully, maliciously and seditiously contriving, intend-
ing and devising to bring into disrepute, and to diminish
the confidence of her Alajesty's subjects in the tribunals
duly and lawfully constituted for the administration of
justice, and further contriving, intending and devis-
ing, by means of intimidation and the demonstra-
tion of great physical force, to procure and effect
changes to be made in the government, laws and
Constitution of this realm as by law established, did un-
lawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine, conspire,
confederate, and agree with each other, and with divers
other persons whose names are to the jurors unknown,
to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and
procuring, divers subjects of our said Lady the Queen
to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at va •
rious times and in different places within Ireland, for the
unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means
of the intimidation to be thereby caused, and by means
of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical
force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and
alterations in the government, laws, and Constitution
of this realm as by law established ; and further, to
bring into hatred and disrepute the Courts by law esta-
blished in Ireland for the administration of justice, and
to diminish the confidence of her said Majesty's liege
subjects in Ireland in the administration of the law
therein, with the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects
to withdraw the adjudication of their differences with
and claims upon each other from the cognizance of the
said Courts by law established, and to submit the same
to the judgment and determination of other tribunals, to
be constituted and contrived for that purpose, in the said
residue of the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively charged as aforesaid, in manner
and form as therein is so above charged." So that they
'were found guilty of conspiring on what he would call
No. 2 charge. The case was this—The indictment, con-
tains charge No. 1, charge No. 2, and charge No. 3.
Eight were found guilty of charge No. 1, seven
without the eighth were found guilty of charge
No. 2, and charge No. 3 was still left behind.
Then with regard to the residue of the remain-
der the jury acquitted all the defendants except
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy ; therefore, with
regard to this third part none were found guilty of con-
spiring except these three. The verdict went on thus—
" And as to the remainder of the said residue of the said
premises in the said first and second counts of the said
indictment respectively therein charged as aforesaid, the
said jurors upon their oath say, that the said John
O'Connell, Thomas Steele, Thomas M. Ray, and John
Gray, are not nor is any of them guilty thereof. And
the said jurors upon their oath aforesaid further say, that
the said Daniel O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles
Gavan Duffy, are and each of them is guilty of so much
of the said remainder of the said residue as charges them
for that they unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously in-
tending as aforesaid, and further contriving, devising,
and intending to create discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of the said subjects, and amongst others
her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's army,
did unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously combine and
conspire, confederate and agree with each other, and
with divers other persons, whose names are to the jurors
unknown, to excite discontent and disaffection amongst
divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her Majesty's
army ; in the said remainder of the said residue so
charged as aforesaid, in manner and form as therein is
so above charged." Mr. Tierney, therefore, was ac-
quitted of all except the first count, and with respect to
conspiring to cause disaffection in the army all were ac-
quitted except Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Air. Barrett, and Mr.
Duffy. They were found guilty of con spiring with each other
but not with the other six. If that were an offence
punishable by law, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett,
and Mr. Duffy were found guilty of it. But he sub-
mitted that the finding was not good ; and if it was not
good on that count it must be bad on all the others, as
had been submitted by Sir Thomas Wilde. But there
was still something behind, and of that the jury found
Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy not guilty:—" And
as to other the premises in the said remainder of the
said residue charged as aforesaid, the said jurors upon
their oath aforesaid further say, that the said Daniel
O'Connell, Richard Barrett, and Charles G. Duffy, are
not nor is any of them guilty thereof." They were not
found guilty of conspiring to cause seditious and un-
lawful meetings. The words of the indictment were :
" And further to excite discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving in her
said Majesty's army ; and further to cause, and procure,
and aid, and assist in causing and procuring divers sub-
jects of our said Lady the Queen, unlawfully, malici-
ously, and seditiously to meet and assemble together in
large numbers, at various times and at different places
within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose
of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby
caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstra-
tion of great physical force at such assemblies and
1 meetings, changes and alterations in the govern
merit, laws, and Constitution of this realm, as by
law established ; and further to bring into hatred
and disrepute the Courts by law established in Ire-
land for the administration of justice, and to diminish
, the confidence of her said Majesty's liege subjects in
Ireland in the administration of the law therein, with
the intent to induce her Majesty's subjects to withdraw
the adjudication of their differences with, and claims
upon, each other, from the cognisance of the said courts
by law established, and to submit the same to the judg-
ment and determination of other tribunals, to be consti-
tuted and contrived for that purpose, in contempt of our
said Lady the Queen and the laws of this realm, to the
evil example of all others in the like case offending, and
against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her Crown
and dignity." While the finding was, that they did un-
lawfully and seditiously combine, and conspire, to cause
divers subjects of her Majesty to meet, they were not
found guilty of causing them 4, unlawfully
..and sedi-
tiously" to meet, which are the words of the indictment,
and, therefore, they are acquitted of that part of the
charge.