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

~~.

in my humble judgment; a public prosecutor, and mor
especielly one who holds the high and dignified position
Oran Attorney-General—the first law officer of her Ma-
, Jest Y—has no right to abandon the direct and obvious
path which lies before him, and to adopt the tor.
1110113 and complicated course of a prosecution for
conspiracy, with a view to implicate one man in the
acts and designs of others; and in adopting such a
bourse of proceeding I have no hesitation in charac-
terising his conduct as equally unfair, oppres-
'live, and unjust. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General
took up all the meetings seriatim. He began with
*horn according to their dates, and gradually came down
to the latest of them; and he assured vou, in emphatic
language, that they were one and all illegal. He read
for Yeu a number of speeches which were delivered at
raetiiT, which he declared were seditious; and he also
celett your attention to certain extracts from articles
Which appeared in newspapers, and which he likewise
tharacterieed as illegal ; but, gentlemen, it certainly did
appear to me that the Attorney-General in making these
atatenients to you, was most unwittingly, and most
unconsciously, psonouncing the severest philippic that it
possible for the mind of man to conceive, against
l'ulrl4Jlf end the Government that he serves. For,
gentlemen, am I not entitled to view this matter in
re calm light of common sense ? Am I not entitled
o alit a question which presses itself irresistibly on the
mind of every man who dispassionately regards the con-
ono of the Crown prosecutors in the present extraor-
dinary proceedings? Those meetings lasted for nine
In
lave
they were, indeed, illegal—if it was, in-
ecl, true, that the people were lured into outraging the
of the country—if language of a seditious character
nl• indeed uttered by the Repeal leaders from day to
ulaY, and from hour to hour—how, I ask, can the Attor-
General'l reconcile it to his own conscience—bow, I
can he reconcile it to the duty which he owes to
country and to the Government whose servant he
that for such a length of time he should have ut-
terly neglected the great and paramount business of his
°Mee—the bringing to justice those who violate the
law and the constitution? Did he lie designedly
b 7,, in order that crime might accumulate, and that,
Rhea nt kngth he shook off his lethargy, he
blight be aloft to encompass whole masses of cri-
,ininals within the meshes of the law ? Was this,
ask, his object ? Was this the object of the
Government whose officer he boasts to be? Gentlemen,
it i 3 the obvious duty of a Government to bring to
Punishment those who violate the law ; but, gentlemen,
they have a yet more important duty to perform—a duty
With the the performance of which the best interests
13f. the common weal are yet more inseparably identified,
and that duty consists in preventing the commission of
crime; and if it was the deliberate opinion of the At-
dM-General that the meetings were illegal—and if he
hd that opinion to the Government. and if the Go-
'rernment felt that the meetings were illegal, and the
knowing
seditious—if, I say, they knew all this, and
'n°wing all this, lay designedly by in ambuscade
!chile they saw crime committed—while they saw
the infatuated people rushing in masses into
the Perpetration of crime—if this, I repeat, was
their design, I have no hesitation in branding
ouch a design, on the part of any Goveroment, as an
bet of the greatest—the blackest—the most unparalleled
baseness. What! Look calmly on while they saw the
l'"Ple -rushing by thousands into the commission of
folde ! Was it their design to look calmly on with
hod arms till they had a whole nation within their
meshes, in order that the Attorney-General might then
pick and choose such of the criminals as he pleased, and
mmolate what victims he liked upon the altar of the
law ? But, my Lords and gentlemen, let me net be mis •
understood—let no man say that I impute any such
design to the Government. Far be it from me to brine-
enY such charge against them ; but I must say that the
Peech of the Attorney-General, and the fact of the
Government having lain by for such a length of time.
Word ground fur making some charge against some
tillarter. I, for my part, do not make any such charge
i' rainst the Government—l impute to them no such
thtgn—nor is anything more remote from my
oughts than the desire of attributing so nefarious an
Intention to the Attorney-General (for nefarious it
l'ould, indeed, have been, had it been entertained). I
valinot bring myself to believe that any Government in
ese countries, whether composed of men who are, po-
t.leticgaulillytyspeaking, msy friends or my antagonists, could
of basenes so execrable—so detestable. No,
impute no such crime to them. I know that there are
'ltemisers of the Government (with two of them I am in-
timately acquainted) who are men of the highest ho-
nour,
of the most unimpeachable integrity—men who
Could fling their high places indignantly to the winds
,)efere they would stoop to such a course. I, therefore,
'to not impute to the Government any misconduct—l do
not e'en charge them with a criminal negligence. -Their
conduct may be fairly attributed to another cause; and
this I will at once proceed to demonstrate. It is
it fair principle of charity for one man to extend to-
Wards his fellow, that when you can find a good mo-
tive to which to refer the conduct of your neighbour, it
13 to that pure motive, and not to any sinister design,
thatilis actions ought to be attributed. I willingly
concede the benefit of this virtuous maxim to the Go-
vernment ; but may I not be pardoned if I respectfully
iesist on the application of the same principle to the case
of my client ? The honest conviction of my soul is, that
although the Attorney-General has at length brought.
Ills courage to the sticking-place, although ho now
enters Court with an undismayed front, and declares that
the meetings were illegal, he never yet felt himself so
strong in that position as to venture to bring it
single-
handed under the consideration of any court or any
jury. Let the result of the present prosecutions be what
it may, it is still open for the Attorney-General to adopt
this course. Let 'hint select any of the meetings he
pleases ; let him bring into the Court of
Queen's Bench any or all of the persons who
attended that meeting, and let him try the ques-
tion fairly, and take the opinion of a jury as to whether
the meeting was or was not Hine,. If that had been
done, we could not be in the dark—we could clearly see
our way ; but that has not been done. .The cause, I
think, is obvious. The Attorney-General Was a lawyer,
and he could not tell the Government that the meetings
were illegal. I have no doubt but that, in the conscien-
tious discharge of his public duty, he would have at once
Pressed upon the Government the illegality of the
meetings, if his mind had been made up on that ille-
gality. If he had a deep-seated conviction that the
Meetings were against the law, he surely would
have lost no time in declaring that conviction to the
Government—that he could not bear to look upon
such practices as were of daily recurrence in this
3ountry—that he could not bear to see men rushing
liethousands into the commission of crime—and that
_ accordingly thought that his duty imperatively
demanded that he should institute prosecutions
4,1° Put the meetings down. But it is my firm belief that
the Attorney-General, not being able to reconcile the
alleged illegality of the meetings with his own know-
tedge.ef law, was never prepared to go to such lengths—
could'4l,_e not sanction any such proceeding, and this is
7.e reason why the meetings were permitted to go on
What
interruption fur nine months consecutively.
What is the use I make of this fact ? It is this—if the
At t orney,General was doubtful in his own mind that
any violation of the law had been committed—if he was
not during nine months able to bring himself to the con-
clusion that the meetings were illegal, is he now to be
Permitted to come into Court and to require a jury to as-
;acrt their illegality, after thousands and hundreds of thou-
in Nis have attended the meetings, in the full conviction that
s° doing they were violating no law, is he now to
epiiie
forwurd and include millions of Irishmen in the
e'",stl.ge of having been guilty of illegal practices? He
florid not make up his own mind that the meetings were
fiaiiotreTnaa:j9itiat;in.ndgyN•evt he calls upon twelve men to assert their
heneyer you find an Attorney-Gcneral
the obvious and easy course which lies be-
"Hu, in order to adopt a tortuous and complicated
'You ought not, nor ought any jury, to lend him as-
Gene in carrying out such a project.. The Attorney-
ea ral
ca having gone .seriatim through all the meetings,
me at I
°foe, engt to the contemplated meeting of the Bth
greate`"er, at Clontarf, and never did I experience a
r degree of surprise than in hearing him as-
Zen that the intended meeting was abandoned from
toconviction of its illegality. I am sure the At-
o ru
. n eieGeneral entertained that opinion or he would
thee are expressed it ; but I am equally certain
to
is not another individual in the community, who
to ",,W3 anything of the facts and circumstances relating
°f its meeting, that for a moment thinks that the cause
,al,lB nbandoninent was from any conviction of its ille-
'-'exuetYe• Does the Attomey-General 'forget, or does he
t. that the people of this country will forget, the ex-
t:-)a,taltnury circumstances which occurred with regard
has',ll..at meeting ? Does he forget the almost breathless
ea:et' and precipitancy with which the Lord Lieutenant
before
to this country, on the day, or the day but
puroce
ia that meeting? Does he forget that far-famed
tarertation, issued the night preceding the day on which
the
the exert'Ptg was to have been held, or does he forget
zipeat ons that were made on the part of the Govern-
-10 suppress, to put down that meeting by the force
Attorne sword, the bayonet, and the cannon? And does the
, ey-General after all that pretend to express to
3°ll his •• • eesou opinion that that meeting was abandoned on
that
nt of its illegality ? No, gentlemen of the jury,
fin'tt'las not the cause of its abandonment. I am not
svitlng fault with the Government for its interference
,i,en those proceedings. I am unacquainted with the
issued,
aiiitttrizinutirnt.;:ittahneees under which that proclamation
_ ill not impute any blame where I am unacquaint-
facts ; but I must again declare that it was
wa%th no conviction of its illegality that meeting
act eras thmed. To what then was it owing To the
geese s'-'ne of the traversers at your bar—to his strong
The
ojapu.stice, and to his strong feelings of humanity.
sea__Rw_ ', donment of that meeting was owing to the
as hie' that gentleman entertained of his high duties
pictureth 4 honestgur citizen. He knew the fearful consequences
4e's ht have resulted had that meeting taken place ;
'''PPened to for a moment what might have
d it been gone on with. How does the
lions of
matter stand ? On the one side were the armed batta-
Britain, under the direction of their most expe-
tienced leaders--armed with every weapon of defence,
sea es
tnight think r.
(!q,„
of
and
-ernands of ti; ready to act in obedience to the
ose leaders, and to do whatever they
lillnarmed an sight On the other side, you had an
ad a defenceless multitude. Gentlemen,
r, Place, ts's',V° collision under such circumstances taken
'which "fit , the slightest angry word been said
Leave had the
4'eident Zegnartredh;avinveich provoked ed it—had even an
lead to it----you would
Bull armed battalions of this country, in the
Plenitude of their strength, arrayed against the un-
helple
icitoenccsre ally fisrlghiltnft(iii itoinacyonat de , p
ldefenceless t
hmeul
et iutdee_.
but might Ira
!seeond time d
_ fur the ~.xert. ‘e been ; and the plains of Clontarf,
lens of Mr. O'Connell, might have been
,4145. ormell
stove
.40tin ly Int Tl.
Air. (ye - riged With the blood of ilia • t -
fearfial tie e„ns. , t meeting, not, as I said, be-
mere( it illeaal but because he foresaw the
.14.dziticen°t'tsreces that 'might have resulted, and in my
"4nit104%4-14484,z4 ;tii-colret to. the waria gratitude of ever
touthiG; Ors that Milii011; =la

~~

will further add, that there is not an individual in the com-
munity who owes him a deeper debt of gratitude than
the- Attorney-General himself. Gentlemen of the jury,
I I hesitate not to say, that if I were to• select the act of
Mr. O'Connell's life which, in my judgment, was most
deserving c f praise—that act of his which I would most
wish to send down to posterity —I would not select his
great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci-
pation, or the consummation of that great measure
by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all
his countrymen ; but 1 would select his conduct on the
occasion of this Clontarf meeting as doing most honour
to his feelings, most credit to his humanity, and by which
he saved the country from the dreadful consequences of a
collision, which it was only owing to his exertions did not
take place. Gentlemen of the jury, let me now advert for
one moment to the nature of the charges preferred against
the traversers in this indictment. They are charged, in
the language of the indictment, with combining, and
conspiring, and confederating together, fur the several
purposes, for the bad and atrocious purposes I acknow-
ledge, but which, I think, are unjustly and untruly at
tributed to them, in that indictment. If you separate the
charge of combination and conspiracy from the high-
sounding phraseology given to it in that indictment, you
will find that a conspiracy, in point of law, is nothing
more nor less than this—an agreement between two or
more persons, either to do an illegal act, or to do a legal
act by illegal means. The very instant that agree
ment is entered into the crime is complete; and if a man
once agrees to do an illegal act., he may be put on his
trial for conspiracy the very hour and moment he en-
tered into that agreement. It is not necessary that there
should be any act done, or any outrage committed, for
the offence arose when the agreement was entered into;
and therefore, before you can convict my client, the
Rev. Mr. Tierney, or any other of the traversers, you
must be satisfied in'your own minds, from the evidence
you have heard, that they did enter into an agreement
for the purposes stated in that indictment. Gentlemen,
on the part of the Rev. Thomas Tierney, I controvert the
assertion altogether. I deny that any such agreement
was entered into by any of the traversers. I dispute
altogether the facts of the charge of any such agree-
ment or conspiracy, and I also dispute that if any such
agreement or conspiracy ever did exist, which I deny,
that you have any one particle of evidence en which it
would be possible for you to say, in justice to yourselves,
or to your consciences, that my client., the Rev. Thomas
Tierney, was in any manner implicated. Gentlemen,
let me ask you this plain and simple question— have
you even the shadow of legal evidence that he ever did
enter into such an agreement? Whoever heard him,
or any of them, say that there was such an agree-
ment, entered into ? There is no evidence of any
such thing. I do not mean to say that it is abso-
lutely necessary that you should have direct evidence to
that effect; the charge may be made out without the pro-
duction of direct and positive testimony; but what tes-
timony of any kind have you upon which you could say
that this agreement which would constitute a conspiracy
only took place. He 'the Attorney-General, ventured to
suggest a period at which this alleged agreement took
place. He lays before you a period of nine months over
which these proceedings extended. Did it take place
before the first, or second, or third, of those meetings,
or when did it take place ? You have got the full
period of nine months, and it is left to you to pick out
whatever period you please on the date of the existence
of the alleged conspiracy. He has not told you even
where the agreement took place. The meetings were
held in every part of Ireland. Did the agreement take place
in the north or in the south, in the east or in the west?
Is there a single item in the evidence which would fix it
as having taken place at any time ? The Attorney-
General read to you in evidence innumerable speeches
and publications, an extract out of this, and out of the
other newspaper, and he flings them all into the jury-
box, and calls on you, as you best can, to construct a
conspiracy out of them. I trust you will never do it,
when you recollect that the Attorney-General had a
plain course before hint to vindicate the law, and when
he might have indicted every one of those traversers,
within the period after that agreement had been entered
into, in a less time than it took him to address you ;
and. therefore, I am sure you will not aid him in ex-
tracting from this heap of extracts the materials of a
conspiracy against my client. Gentlemen of the jury,
my Learned Friend, Mr. Sheil, called your
attention to the indictment in this case, and he de-
scribed it, as I think he well might have done, as a
" monster indictment." It has been called so with pe-
culiar propriety. It is in accordance with the expres-
sions of the Attorney-General himself, for I think I
heard him use the word at least a hundred times in the
course of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will
call it what I think it deserves to be called—a mon-
th-ma indictment—for I do not believe a precedent for
it is .to be found in the records of our Criminal Courts.
It is truly a monster, and it well deserves to be put
down as the Frankenstein of the imagination
of her Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland.
Is it not a monstrous indictment ? You have
an accumulation of meetings of speeches, and
of publications, and from them all the Attorney-Ge-
neral asks you to extract the material which would
substantiate a charge of combination and conspiracy.
Gentlemen, you have seen,but we have not heard the in-
dictment in question read over by the Attorney-General;
I don't say it would afford you much pleasure to have
heard it read : you may think it necessary, in the dis-
charge of your important duty to read it ; but if you
had heard it read over twenty times over, and that you
even had the memory of a Paschal, you would be
puzzled with the multitude of matter relative to facts
contained in it. It was in this case, as in all others of
the kind, it being a principle of all criminal cases that
the jury are called on to take into their considera-
tion all the facts of the case ; and I ask you by
what power of unnatural reasoning are you called
on to extract facts from the indictment which it
does not contain ? The Attorney-General wishes
you to extract from it that which you cannot do. It
was publicly known that the indictment was pre-
pared and sent before the grand jury, and every
person was aware that that respectable body of gentle.
men were occupied in the consideration of it for several
days: to be sure they ultimately found the bill, but it
was notorious, as one of them stated in the box, that
they were not unanimous in the finding of that bill. The
duty of the grand jury was to read over the indictment,
awl it took them several days to get through it, and
before they had made up their minds on the subject, and
even then on their oaths they could not come to an
unanimous conclusion. Well, several days were. taken
up by the grand jury in considering the bill, and then
the Attorney-General comes to state the case to you;
and he occupies you no less than eleven hours in
doing so. We all know the power of the Attorney-
General—we are all aware of the talent he possesses
(suppressed laughter in court) ; and yet, with all his
ability, talent, and sententious brevity, and concentrated
condensation, he could not get over the case in less than
eleven hours. What more did the Learned Attorney-
General do ? After making a long speech of eleven
hours, what time did he take up to produce his proofs of
the terrible conspiracy which he led them to believe had
been hatched by the traversers at the bar ? He took
eight long days, of from seven to eight hours each day,
to lay his proofs of the charge before you. You have
eleven hours of a speech, eight days taken up in proving
the case, and if yop now take up the indictment and have
it read, it will cost you several weeks' labour to do so, and
I am bound to say at the end of that time that you will not
understand it better than you do at the present moment.
The Attorney-General, after his speech of eleven
hours and his proofs of eight days durations, after laying
his mass of facts before you, is satisfied that there is a
constructive conspiracy made out against the traversers,
and he then tells you you have a right to come to the
same conclusion, namely, that because he is satisfied that
there is a case of constructive conspiracy made ont against
them that you ought to come to the same conclusion.
There never was a more dangerous doctrine than the doc-
trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of
it. There was now an effort made to charge the de-_
fondants with constructive conspiracy, and to satisfy
you that there was an agreement entered into be-
tween the traversers to commit the offence with which
they stand charged. There were various attempts of
the present nature made in England, in order to charge
parties with constructive conspiracy, but they failed.
There was the case of Hardy, tried in 1794, which was
a case of alleged high treason, and where the overt act
was constructive con-piracy. The mode of proceeding
in that and the present case was the same, and that case
was the precedent for the present Attorney-General.
He founded a case on it, and carried out the details in
the same manner as they had been carried out in that
case. The then Attorney-General produced evidence of
a number of meetings, a large quantity of publications,
extracts from speeches, and the like, and from this
precedent the present Attorney-General proceeds to
do the same. The case I allude to at last came
before an English jury—a jury who were ready at all
times to punish any man who violated the
law ; but the English jury in that case had no
hesitation in saying that they could not find a
party guilty of constructive conspiracy, as it was not
their business to put a construction on the man's ac-
tions. The same thing took place in the case of Horne •
Tooke as in the case of Hardy, and a like result was
come to in the case of Hunt. In all those cases the
juries came to the conclusion that they would not be act-
ing fairly, or conscientiously, or constitutionally, by put-
ting a constructive conspiracy on the party charged.
I trust you will imitate the example set by those
persons, and, although I am sure you are always ready
to bring to justice all parties who may violate the
law, yet I am sure you will not, on your
oaths, come to the conclusion which the At-
torney-General has arrived at, and that is a con-
structive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had
a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew
the fact, and why (lid not he go by that case ? Had he
produced any respectable person on the table to prove that
anda
naagrreee)m.oeunttooarsse, conspiracyand
adopt
existexisted
thatb e:tesesunmtlpietitpma,rttiLst;
such was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact
was clear ; and, ther&'ore, you must come to the con-
elusion that there was not, and return a verdict of acquittal
on that point. ; will now come to the second branch of
the case as regards my client, and there is not, I am bound
to say, the slightest, ground for charging him with con-
spiracy, if such a thing as a conspiracy ever existed at
all, but I deny that there was any such thing. It is
necessary for me to tell you who my client is. He is the
Roman Catholic priest of the parish of Clontibret, in
the county of Monaghan. He is a gentleman of the
most exemplary character, both as a private individual and
a Christian clergyman. He had filled the office of clergy-
man to that parish for several years, and was highly re-
spected. Ile was an educated man, and a man who
had read and studied the history of his country. I say
it is no imputation either to his character as a gentle-
man, or a clergyman, to have read, studied, and formed
opinions relative to his country and her-wrongs. _Every
man has a right to form his own political opinions, and
my client has no right to be charged with a crime
for -having done so. Mr. Tierney is a man of
talent, and deeply interested in the welfare of his
country, and, as he had read libcatt, and formed hie

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. Dees 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
honest 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
the 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 ;
but 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 an 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 me, 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 Attorney-General 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 ofhumanity 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 doubt 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 Duke 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. 1 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 ? 1 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, he 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 I
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 go to the Rev.
Mr. Tierney to know at what time the reported meeting
would take place, that accordingly he went, and that Mr.
Tierney gave him all the information he could, and- that he
did not know the precise day on which the meeting was to
take place. M'Cann told you he had a conversation with him,
which I will now read. "He (M'Cann) said that Mr.
Tierney adverted to the union ; he repeated that it was frau-
dulently carried ; he said it was not binding ; he represented it
as a nullity and not binding on conscience; he spoke of 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 of the peorle,and could not be easily brought to spill the
blood of their fellow-countrymen. I remember he referred to
wbat the army in Spain had done." Now, on the authority
of Mr. Tierney, I say that he absolutely and positively denies
that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried
on between them. He acknowledges that 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. lam not able to produce any witness to sustain this
assertion, and why ? Because, according to the testimony of
M'Cann, there was no one present but 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 by 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
Mr. Tierney spoke of the great things that the army had
accampli,,hed in Spain. Tue army his 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 Juno. 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-
voit 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 19th or 20th; it was, therefore, an impossibility
that a policeman in the county of Monaghan could have in-
formation of what took 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 most 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 11th, yet here
is this wretched policeman on the 16th, in the county of
Monaghan, talking as if he was already apprised of it.
I need not waste more time on this part of the case. I only
ask you toagree 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 you 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, arid under its control, though there was not a particle
of difficulty in the Government, if it thought fit, producing
an
the magistrates
them, yet not one of them had been called in order to
give meeting
pre-
sent l or l,
tlbret
but e character;
accountto policemenofth
aogfi sttrhae
who w tes
sent were passed by. Ido not wish to cast an imputa-
tion on the Crown for so doing , I know not its motives,
I knew not its reasons for so doing—but I think I: am
justified in saying this, that from their
non-production might
be drawn this plain and simple inference, that
have said anything that mold lias-e served the prosecution,