The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS.

WRIT OF ERROR.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

This being the day fixed for the hearing of the great
appeal case, in the matter of the Queen v. Daniel
O'Connell and others, the entrance to the House of
Lords was crowded with persons interested in the case.
At ten o'clock the Lords present were the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, Lord Camp-
bell, Lord Denman, Lord Auckland, Lord Redesdale,
Lord Glenelg, and Lord Carnoys. The following Judges
were also present :—Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Lord Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, Mr. Justice Patteson, Mr.
Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice
Coltman, Mr. Justice Maule, Baron Gurney, Baron Al-
derson, and Baron Parke.
The following are the names of the counsel engaged
for the Crown :—Sir William Follett, Attorney-General ;
Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General ; Mr. T. B. C. Smith,
Attorney-General for Ireland ; Mr. H. Waddington,
Mr. Napier, and Mr. Smyly.
The following are the names of the defendants'
counsel ;—Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr.
Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Sergeant F. S. Murphy, Mr. Charles
Crompton, Mr. David Leahy, Mr. John William Smith,
Mr. J. S. Close, Mr. B. Peacock, and Sir Colman M.
O'Loghlen. Agents—Mr. P. Mahony, Mr. Ford, and
Mr. Cantwell.
Lord DENMAN—I more that counsel be called.

Counsel having appeared at the bar, _
Th• LORD CHANCELLOR (addressing Sir T. Wilde)
said—Sir Thomas Wilde, will you state what course you
intend to pursue with regard to this case.
Sir T. WILDE-1 appear for Daniel O'Connell.

The Loma CHA.Ncaii.on—Yes. 4l;oappeiirS;ith you?
Sir T. WILDs—I believe Mr. Peacock. But your
Lordships are aware that there are several defendants
in error, who have brought separate writs ; and there
are points applicable to some which do not apply to
others. With a view to the convenience of the House,
I would suggest to your Lordships that Mr. Peacock and
myself should appear for Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and
with regard to the other defendants, who have different
counsel, I would propose that Mr. Hill should be heard
for Mr. Steele, and Mr. Kelly for the other defendants.
Lord BuouGnAat—That is four counsel in all.

Sir T. WILDS—Yes ; and we have also, with a view
to the convenience of your Lordships, agreed that, upon
several points, we shall not each address your Lordships,
but there are others of such importance that each coun-
sel will address your Lordships upon them.
The LORD CHANcELLort—When you come to the re-
ply, will you reply for all the defendants ?
Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. My Learned Friends,
Mr. Hill and Mr, Kelly, will also address your Lord-
ships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then we shall have three
replies ?
Sir T. WILDE—Yes.
The LORH•CHANCELLOR—Then I would suggest a
circumstance material for your consideration, which is,
:hat the circuits are fixed for Wednesday ; and if you do
not complete your argument before Wednesday, so as to
get the opinion-of the Learned Judges before that time,
it will be impossible to finish during the present session.
Sir T. WILDE—We will bear in mind the importance
of getting the opinion of the Judges before that time ;
and with that view we will compress our argument as
much as possible, and as much as is consistent with
justice.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR—Having stated the actual
position of things, I must leave it to your own judg-
ment and consideration, to take that course which you
think best.

Lord BROUGHAM—There are but four days altogether,
but do not understand that the maximum should be ne-
cessarily the minimum.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—The Judges will probably
require a day to consider the arguments, so that prac-
tically you will only have three days.
Lord BROUGHAM—That is only if they are necessary.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL (for England)—l do not
understand your Lordships to determine that there shall
be three replies in this case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—In strictness, each party is
entitled to a separate reply by counsel, and as there are,
I believe, nearly ten parties--
Lord BROUGRAM—Seven.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Seven, is it? Well, as there
are seven parties, strictly speaking, seven counsel ought
to be heard, that is one for each.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England) was about
to interpose with some observation, when he was inter-
rupted by
Lord CAMPBELL—When there are several plaintiffs
in error, each has a right to be heard by himself and
his counsel. If that were not the case, injustice would
frequently be done. In strictness, each party has a right
to be heard by himself or his counsel. In the present
case I understand that it is proposed that some arrange-
ment should be entered into with the view, if possible,
of saving time. The proposal, I believe, was that the
counsel for one party should not re-argue points which
had been already argued.
The ATTORNEY..GENXIIAL (for England)—lt is a
matter of indifference to me,.w.hether four or four-and-
twenty counsel are heard. I believe the ordinary rule is
that the Crown has the right of reply.
The Learned Gentleman was here interrupted in his
argument by the Lord Chancellor, who called Lord
Brougham and Lord Campbell to the table, and a long
consultation followed between the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Denman, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Chief
Justice of the-Common Pleas.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—lt is usual in
cases of this nature for all the parties to join in one
writ of error. In the present case each party has sued
out a seperate writ of error, and in consequence of their
pursuing this unusual course each party claims the
right of appearing by separate counsel.
Lord BstoucnAm—ln civil cases we always make par-
ties consolidate their appeals.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for England)—The course
which has been adopted in this case is most unusual.
SirT. WILDE—Your Lordships will perceive that in
this case there have been several different findings. One
party has been convicted of one offence, and another
party of another, and the Attorney-General asks why
the parties did not join in one writ of error ?
because the errors assigned in one case differ from those
assigned in another. My Learned Friend says that the
parties wished to appear by separate counsel. Possibly
that might be the case, and it would be unfair to deprive
a person of the right of appearing by the counsel in
whom he might place confidence.
Lord BaouGnam—l would suggest, Sir Thomas
Wilde, that you should try to shorten the case as much as
possible, and I do this, not for the sake of the House, not
for the sake of the Crown, but for the sake of the plain-
tiffs in error. You have only five days, including Saturday,
and it is for your interest that the Judges should give
their opinion before they go on circuit.
Sir T. WILDE—We must endeavour to take care of
our own interests. Each party has clearly a right to
appear by his own counsel, as he would have a right to
be heard himself if he were present. The defendants,
severally, have been convicted ; they are severally suf-
fering the penalty of imprisonment, and they have seve-
rally the right to appear before your Lordships. If they
have not that right, the Attorney-General is too late now
in taking his objection.
The ATTORNEY-GENHRAL (for England)—l am not
objecting to the defendants appearing by as many coun-
sel as they may think proper ; but holding the office
which I do, I think it right to draw your Lordships' at-
tention to the right to reply claimed for the plaintiffs in
error. I believe that, in strictness, the Crown is always
entitled to reply. At all events, there ought not to be
these replies on the other side, or the replies should be
conducted upon the principle which my Learned Friend
Counsel should not reply on the same
points that they are not entitled to reply.
laid
Lodrod.w bnucA,
txt that
submitpant two
lEt
h
writ of error for the Exchadequoccasionrevenue to h
ea that r
case
it
was
a as
ruled that the plaintiff in error was entitled to reply. In
Frost's case, in which I was Attorney-General, the
counsel for the prisoner replied, and each had a sepa-
rate reply.
The LORD CU4NCXLLOR—it is unnecessary to deter-
mine that. point at present. As the case is now stated,
I understood Sir T. Wilde to say that no counsel will
touch upon any points which bare been argued by his
predecessor.
—I would not wish
which maywishta deprive Mr.
sir T.
N v n.DE
O'Connell of the benefit of any points be
raised by Other counsel ; but, without pledging myself
strictly to any arrangement of that nature, we will gene,
rally endeavour to abide by that rule,
The LORD CHANCELLOR—That separate counsel
shall confine themselves to separate points.
Sir T. WxLßE—Precisely so.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—If the Attorney-General
has a right to reply on the whole case, we can consider
that point hereafter—at present we have nothing to do
with it.

Sir T. WlLDE—My.iiords I appear for Daniel O'Con-
nell,
found guilty ou an indictment, charging him with con-
who, ill coWunctionwith other defendants has been
spirney, On that indictment he comes before your
Lordships 'in error, and various errors are assigned. I
will now state to your Lordships the objections which, as
far as I am concerned,l intend to urge against this convic-
tion. The present is an indictment fairconspiracy, which
contained l 1 poontit. Tile Brat Pewit charged, " that it
wag the intent of the plaintiffs in error, to raise and
create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's
subjects; and to excite such subjects to hatred and con-
tempt of the Govrevnment and Constitution of the realm
as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious op-
position to the said Government and Constitution. To
stir up jealousies, hatred and ill-will between different
towards and against her Majesty's
littgricist ,:
r
colilt;isti les :iyasqloi I I°f her
hMosaljieisittyy's subjects, and especially to.
pro
her l*,,liesty4 subjects in Ireland feelings
subjects in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and
especially in that part of the United Kingdom called
England. To excite discontent and disaffection
amongst divers of her Majesty's subjects serving
41 !IPr Majesty's, arTY! §? IA? cause and procure,
ail aid and assist in' causing yid' procuring, divers
sUbject§ of I,,,risWes,ty unlawfully, Maliciensly,aud 6edi_
tipiisly. 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
iiiEßna of the exhibition awl demonswation Of, great
physical force itt '614 isk9inb,lles' titid iuectings, changei
and alterations "it} .the goy9yriment; laws, and constitu-
tion of the realm by law establisho. T 9 briTg i'4°
hatred and
•disrepoe.ttle enufte by laly estabj4Po in
Ireland fof tlie Ominisi,ration ofjusticgonct to diminish
confidence of hpr Majestys subjects in Ireland 14 the
administration of the law therein, with the jutent to a-
duce her Majesty's subjects to Vitt u'raw the adjudic;:
tion of their differences with and claims upon
each other from the eepte44ee, cif tlite said courts: ~ ... .
... .