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

N, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, .JANUARY 31, 1844.

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,
1 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 of praise—that act of his which I would most
wish to send down to posterity—l would not select his
great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci-
pation, or the consummation of that groat measure
by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all
his countrymen ; but I 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, for 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 on which it
would be possible for you to say, in justice to yourselves,
or to your conscieaces, that my client, the Rev. Thomas
Tierney, was in any manner implicated. Gentlemen,
let me ask you this plain and simple question—hare
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 him 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
coarse of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will
call it what I think it deserves to be called—a mon-
ctrous 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,
and 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 out against
them that you ought to come to the same conclusion.
There never was a more dangerous doctrine than theAoc-
trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of
it. There was now an effort made to charge the de-
fendants 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 conspiracy. , Tho 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

stniciive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had
a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew
the fact, and why did not he go by that ease ? Had he
produced any respectable person on the table to prove that
an agreement or conspiracy existed between the parties;
and are you to assiftnss and adopt that assumption, that
such was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact
was Blear ; and, therefore, you must come to the con-
clusion that there was not, and return a verdict of acquittal
on that point. I 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 e►er 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. Ho 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. He 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 such, he had read about, and formed his

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 point, 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 lang;nage 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. t 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 eridence, 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. Buslie, 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 lore, 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 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
oonvince 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 'tails 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 beeame 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 bear the Attorney-General refer to the
speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but he
cited them on this occasion, as also the mere congenial
opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington.
To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is
due; bat 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 procf 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, 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 'aeliera that the Rev. If, 9 iernev
honestly believes 0-1 t the union nz.:, been injurious,
you will give him t,,e 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 111•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
l: thean n
)meeting
said that w"
Mr to.
believe is a correct report of his evidence, this conversation,
which took place two months previous to ft: 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
take place. ,
M'Cann told you he had a conversation with him
which
to the union ni‘on ;He
e (M'Cann) repeated that it was liici
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,
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
t h that u s theyasmof wereth e favourablepeople
a n d to
co repeal,ul that they partook of the en-
dnot
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 'hat M'Cann came to
hien for information about the meeting, that he gave him that
agbiliei" to aeY
produce any witness to sustaia this denies possesses any particle of
information, but that he had with him this conversation he
tproustiht
amnot o
andune t
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 sin glad to be able to convict
APCann 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 imrobable, 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
Rev.
?li
G em
eweanstlaP°alni—"Lan; was not even one of the flock of
the 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
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 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 dose 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 ltith, 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 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 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
mpre-
sent, though they were in the pay and service of the Govern..ent, 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; Jknow not its motives,
I know 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 they could not
have said anything that would have served the proocution,

and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it.
That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual
of the 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 Queen's Bench has been a most 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 Issued 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 confidence 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 of 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 same to the word " Loyal," Loyal Repeal
Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of
its disloyalty. What he dared not venture to express in plain
terms he has struggled to give vent to by " a sneer." I am
no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the
attempt. Some of the wisest, the ablest, the best, and meet
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 safe to sneer, and to cast
indirect imputations ; but the Attorney-General has not
dared, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to ini-
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 Attorney-General has not dared to put
down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. TOtrney not
merely attended those meetings, bat 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 furtherance 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 be 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 for 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 for 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
Westminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client,
the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetings of
the Association ; I confess he did so. He is accused of having
handed in contributions--I 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. I 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 1 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-General, " 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 too 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 he able to justify to your country now, and to
your God hereafter.
Mr. HATCHELL' Q.C, , then rose and said—May it please
your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury--
CHIEF JUSTICE—Whom do you appear fur ?
Mr. HATCHELL-1 am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray.
Gentlemen of the Jury—l 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 partieularly with respect to their own clients
—I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have
ncs.iu woe sesrese. vv iiie saw and facts of the case, still to
address to you, on behalf of my orient, a few observations.
Gentlemen, I think must feei 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. loore 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 you, 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, had joined 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
whistle 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 not to try whether he he 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 ;ntent.
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 eaclusire 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 eharged the grand jury
in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice
Eyre, in calling the attention of tho jury to the question they
had to try, said--
Judge BußTON—What do you take that hem ?
Mr. HATCHELL—From the " State Trials," vol. 24. Your
Lordship will find it in page 205. 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 case 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 land to
be innocent before his guilt is clearly established • and, as
already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if there be a cri-
minal intent alleged, and if there be a legal intent to
which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, coin-
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_
according to the spirit of the British law if it be question-
able to what those motives are attributable—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, you
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 has 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. How is an individual to be competent to
prepare himself for his defence against such multiplied accusa-
tions—for though they 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 bo 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 case 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 aad analogy to snake 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
admonition 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. Honoarable 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; but 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
pesult 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 the 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 and wisest in the nation. I know them indeed so
well as to 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 er what is not? Many have car-
ried what they knew to their graves, and the living have
lived 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 Ills
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 impasioned Erskine in comparing
the proceedings in Hardy's case with the proceedings which had
been instituted against Warren Hastings, and yet I have no hesi-
tation in averring 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
presentunprecedented 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 hes 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
So 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 lam 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 must have been produced upon your minds
by the admirable speech of my Learned Friend. I3ut 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 circurne
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 he 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
his 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 Assos
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 evideuce 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 his
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 I You are called
upon by the Crown to view his case in this artificial light.
You aro 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 P In my humble judgment, it was a mon-,
strous thing to include Mr. Ray in this indictment. He Ought 4
never to have been included in the present charge ; and
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 accused parties, by including the witnesses in
the indictment. Ido 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 anyi
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-,
nceuvro 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 dicer 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 eountry—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, and
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, but 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 Eng-
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 witness
examined against Herne 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 van 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 him 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 tendency of the associaticn. Horne Tooke was entitled to

the cross-examination of the witness produced by the Crown I
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 pilot
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 ?-01i, no, never.
Would I not, gentlemen, have been entitled to ask him, if he
was a witness on the table, " Had you any reason to suppose
that the members of the Loyal National 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 ?" 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 dissensions at home among the people et
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 na:
acquitted. What more questions were pot to him?—" what
do you think was the object or intention of the greater part 0f
the members of that Society ?—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." Ge"
tlemen of the jury, I will not go further with this sae'
mination. Observe its application to the case of my client!,
the Secretary of the Repeal Association, whim discharged his
offieial duties iu the ordinary way that the officer of an
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 dative 0
his situation, to answer here as a conspirator—as one re-
sponsible for all the aets, speeches, and publications of whic
you have heard 30 much? Can you on your oaths, as honest
and honourable men, say, in the face of the country, that
Mr. Ray, the official of a legal, a recognised Association, did n°t
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 hint r
You are called upon to say he did not do the!! things with the intention of discharging his duty, tonsil'- any public
ently with his prineiples ; but that he was engaged in a Pee.
concerted plot—in a settled conspiracy formed between those
gentlemen, for you are to swear upon your oath that you he'
lieved such to have been his intent before you can give a vet:-
diet against him, and I am to get ',our answer to that Plate
question out of your jury.box; Gentlemen of the jury, it may,s
be said that Mr. Ray went beyond the regular course of h
duty ; it may be said that he did not confine himself to attend',
ing the regular meetings of the Association in the capacity
secretary. Gentlemen, I am ready to admit, on the part of Air'
Ray, that wherever there was a meeting of the Association, a'
of the Association itself, he attended and officiated there as Se'
eretary, 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 subject I have ascertained
the fact, that those were the only two country meetings at
which he was ever present. The meeting at Tara took pia°.
the 18th of August ; it was I believe chiefly an assemblage
of persons from that immediate neighbourhood ; bttt a cm''
siderable portion of them were from the county and city of
Dublin, many attracted there from curiosity, and many snort
of course from an identity of feeling with the object for
which it was convened, and from which to give eepre
sion to their feelings on the question of repeal. Thousands fr
went out there in carriages, gigs, and cars to see what tie;
..
place on the 15th of August at the hill of Tara. I Ilf°l`.
know whether you are aware of it, but I believe the fact ""
notorious, that from the number of persons who were
going out of Dublin that day, it was regarded as 4
species of holiday through the city. Mr. Ray went there lc h
his family, with the females of his family, and in company with
the members of another gentleman's family, of whom one s
two were females. He did nothing there ; be made no speech
there ; he did not act as seeretary to that meeting ; and, taking
that fact] alone, you might as well have included ever',
other person who attended there as Mr. Ray. There 000
no doubt but thousands went there from a mere feeling
curiosity. However, we now find Mr. Ray at Tara, and, a;
far as I can see, with respect to Mr. Ray as atraverser, on ths!,..
head I have nothing requiring me to justify on his part'
He may have gone there with a sympathy for the objsat'
of the meeting; but does that attach to him the character
of a conspirator? I shall not go into any of the particulate.
of that meeting, fur its peaceable character has been deposed to.
by the magistrates and policemen who were present—they hats'
told that there was no riot, no breach of thepeace, no tendency
to anything like it there. To be sure Captain Despard
examined, but what was his evidence ? Why was it givers
I will tell you ; it was in order to give a certain colonel's'
to this case—a colouring of illegality to that great meeting'
fr'
and that you might draw inferences from the evidence
obtaining a colouring for it. Well, then, Walker Nv7:
examined, and what did he prove? That he saw people
walking, heard bands playing, and saw a few flags or banners'
and that was all he saw. Was there anything illegal in that?
Walker was examined by the Crown on all that he was supposed
to know. Well, Captain Despard, who, it will be recollected,
had no great regard or esteem for Mr. O'Connell—for wh.,„e
reason, I suppose, he knows best himself—but it was et"'
clear that, from his manner and evidence, he had a very strong
feeling against Mr. O'Connell and the meeting. This CaPter
Despard comes from Trim, and be swears he heard the people
say " Keep the step !" I asked him did they keep the step, and
he said they did not. I must here remark that every police'
man who was examined did, either by design or acciolt
endeavour in the strongest manner to give a colouring, wh'ch
they were not warranted in giving, to the whole character
of the proceedings. Captain Despard said the people cal:
in marching order to the meeting, and by that word n
wanted to impress something on your minds relative ;
military array. He was obliged to admit that the poop)'
did not keep the step, nor did they know hew to keep,
He was a military man, and he at once committed himself 1
his anxiety to colour the case, and give a turn to the arboi.e.
proceedings, which were totally different from the facts. 1`
was most disingenuous in Despard to use a military term f°'•..
the purpose of throwing it into your box; but at the Sault
time it only proves the nature of his temper, and the bias °f
his mind, and his partisanship on the subject. I will as"
are men to be branded with being foul conspiranors--ors
their lives, liberties, and fortunes to be at stake in eonnequeno
of such evidence as this that I have shown you? The gallant
Captain Despard and Major Westenra o ere taken for foreigneres
because," says the captain, o Major Weetenra had a mous-
tache, and I had a curl in my lip."—(Laughter.) Well, he gets
into a conversation with some lump of a fellow from Stoneybattet
or thereabouts, who was waiting to see Mr. O'Connell palm
and because of this conversation the meeting wag stigmatised
as illegal. The man told him he came from Wexford, and
therefore the meeting was illegal, and the traverser! guilty Of 4
foul conspiracy.—( Laughter.) This alleged conversation could
have been sustained by evidence, but I think the Attorney'
General knew nothing at all about it when he opened the case,
or if he did I think he did well to leave it out and not contalni-
nate his case, bad as it was, with such trash as I allude to. Tlge
Attorney-General did not allude to 20,000 Shilmalier mews
who marched to Tara. Oh, no, he knew it would be really t'J
farcical to do so. The conversation to which he referred, if 'ever
such took place at all, must be treated as a cook-and-a-bqilltorYt
or a humbug. Walker was examined before Capt. Despard, in the
country, and it was said also that he was near him when Vise ea'
versation took place, yet there was not a word about itsas it was
too equivocal. Oh I but the 20,000 Wexford men could 51°'
be forgotten by Capt. Despard. Oh, but that was done f°r
a purpose—to give a colouring to the case ; and well the other
side knew that. Why was not Walker asked about it? 06
might have corroborated the story. It was disgraceful to bring
such a case as that forward, in order to sustain the prosecution;
Why was not Westenra produced to corroborate the story?
It
He was not. And well the Attorney-General knew it istini
be a disgrace to the case to introduce such an episode into "'
opening statement. It is not my intention to make any re.
marks relative to the other meetings, because Mr. Ref
attended only that at Tara and Mullaghmast, and
will leave them to other hands. Why do I enentioss
these things but to show that vou ought to come coolly Pe
the consideration of this awful case, as I am convinced I°o
will. I would not have mentioned the facts related here'"
but if I left them untouched it would be giving them -"
weight which they are not entitled to, or which they do not
possess, and a different construction might be put on them.,
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the evidence'.
of Mr. Despard, as follows :—Walker was in coloured clothes:.
Westenra was there also, and is alive at present. as far a°
I know ; a man asked him to take off his hat for O'Connell;
he was surprised when he heard of the 20,000 Wellbsdf,.,
men ; and whet I asked him did he believe the man, ,
answer was, " I had only his word for it." I ask, is that'
evidence in this case ? There was the case made by
pard of the great treasonable design concocted against the''
peace of the country, because he met a man who told him be*
came from Wexford ! The only other meeting at which Air.
;
Rae attended was that at Mullaghmast. He went there, nr
in his capacity of secretary to the Association, but on an it'll;
tation which was conveyed to him from the Committee.
at;
was at the dinner which took place in the evening ; and that
was the only place in the whole history of the transaction,
that Mr. Ray made a speech or said a word. Well, let 4.
see under what circumstances he went there, and made
speech. Everything done at that dinner was given in ev
dente, except that speech of Mr. Ray. In the courseof the
evening certain toasts were proposed, and amongst the
was the " Loyal National Repeal Association." Mr. Rat
No''spoke to the toast, but bow ? Did he volunteer to speak ?
he did not ; he was called on to reply to the toast asthe secretary'
of the Association, and he made some observations on the subs_
ject, but of so little importance were thoseobservations that ts:
were forgotten. The speech was not reported, nor was it give
in evidence on the table—it was merely
wasstated that Mr. Raf,rres
turned thanks on the part of the Association, and that a 3
only time in the history of the whole transaction that Mr. Bei
made a speech. In speaking of the s
meeting at Mullarglonal,t,
think this is the time to make a few observations with regal'" .0
something which occurred at that meeting. I think we Dt„
reason to complain of the mode in which the prosecution
been conducted, 'and my client complains of being made 6
party to what occurred there—that was the first reoleur;
tion moved at the meeting, which is one of the ,°°
Acts laid as disclosing the criminal intents of the parties
excite disaffection among her Majesty's subjects.
Learned Gentleman here read the first and second resolution,
agreed to at the meeting.) You have had 'a great deal oft
evidence laid before you as to the numerous assemblage
persons who came together at Mullaghmast, but though pinge.
rous, it was proved that this meeting, like the others, rst.
peaceable and orderly, and that there was not the slightest
tendency to commit a breach of the
peaee. But it ;ee
deemed necessary, as in the case of Tara, " Ter
some species of evidence reflecting on the charts, €
of the meeting, and on the designs and objectos,,9o`
those who were assembled there. I call attention t "4„,
fast, because it is one which, I regret to say, disc los,ersoni
management and distorting which ought to be absent 1
a trial of this description when everything should bes
allude'
to board and brought forward. What de I allude to ? by
to the catch-penny ballad or placard published and Psint7thee '
a person named Hanvey, whom it was the bounden duty of
Crown to have produced. If it were a case of CO.
_shine
assault, where there might be a struggle for
ling verdict to carry damages, I would understand
he was not produced, but in a State prosecution, and
cularly in a State Crown prosecution, I deny that Re
to be kept back. When the Attorney-General 0p0,5,11 ibis
ease, he said that seditious, infamous, and pub'disgrnettrsuus
lications were circulated by themselves and Uses o:r"the
sands for the purpose of exciting one nation alai's:. and
other, and that my client fabricated the document,
pros
had it circulated. Why should not the Attorney-
"sert facer-
duce the person who _circulated them, that we ni.f_hob;acted
tam where he got them, and who paid for them ? "7,ucs'ed
a fort?.
to the document, we thought it unjust to be produced
ch
evidence on a conspiracy, when it was sought to make
...raters•
conspirator responsible for the acts of his co-conspire
Was
iperson,tto
zneeting,
seditious üblications, in the outskirts of the
bwehoesneduchreadracttheart
wsuaschbalacdkoeenumedenast, eairyeue.nladteerdfbooYrf
sprofiton h iamnsde lf hire,
regular and recognised printer of the Association,. who pd or_
the directions for the repeal wardens, and a variety of
n
ber.etit
osthopurolddubeeedre?ceiv;idr. inßervoiwdnen,cew,
haond:_tah:e !at:her-de
ments for which he was paid—the Crown had
close
of his evidence; but why did the Attorney-General
his case, having this document in his posseate with
calling the person who sold them to show bew as et theme