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

and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it.
That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual
of file 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 m.-et-
ing was an illegal one? Was there any act of violence com-
mitted at it? Not one ! Was there anything lore that
could show this meeting to be an illegal assembly ?
Not ! There was not a single act of riot or
distarbance 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 mot ille-
gal meeting for the last fortnight.—( Laughter.) There had
certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the
Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your
peculiar situation—( Laughter)—you are guarded and pro-
tected from it,—no other portion of the Court, not even the
judgment-seat ( Laughter) but has been invaded, and
the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed" by
those whom they have found it impossible to resist.—
( Great laughter.) Yet this meeting you are called on to
pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the
alleged conspiracy. I say with 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 came 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." am
no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the
attempt. Some of the wisest, the ablest, the best, and me,t
eminent of the land, are amongst its members. They may be
wrong, but they are not disloyal. One mil.ion of men, at least,
were members of that Association in October; and is the
loyalty of one million of men to be sne.Ted 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 im-
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. Tierney 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 ingituted there? The Marquis of
Westminster has written a letter and has contributed 5001.
to that fund. Has ho 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—l confess it. He made a speech, too,
which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length
in the indictment, [suppose for the purpme of handing down that
specimen of legal skill to posterity. I find in it a long historical al-
lusion to the parish of Clontibret.. Ile had, it seems, a lively
interest in whatever concerned it. He felt as much for the
event's 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 I 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 1 have taken, and come to a conclusion that my client is
entitled to a verdict of acquittal, I feel that this is a verdict I
that you will he able to justify to your country now, and to
your God hereafter.

Mr. HATCIIELL, Q. C , then rose and said—May it please
your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury—
CHIEF JUSTICE—Whom do you appear for ?
Mr. HATCIIELL---1 am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray.
Gentlemen of the Jury —I consider, notwithstanding what
you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who
have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge-
nerally with repect to the charges that are made against
them all, and particularly with respect to their own clients
_.I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have
heard with respect to the law and facts of the care, still to
address to you, on behalf of my client, a few observations.
Gentlemen, I think you must feel that the ground has been
pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to
add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in
the facts and law of the case, and the powerful and able
observations of my friend Mr. Moore 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 Sir. Thomas M. Ray, as has
been already observed, for having attended an illegal
assembly. He denies that any assembly with respect to
which evidence was given before you on this trial, was illegal ;
and, if I Irad 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 aro net to try whether he he a
Repealer or not. 1 must admit that, if Lou 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,
,euhave
heard so much. But, gentlemen—andand to
sustain his opinion in that question of which
you come to try the question as to what intent 11Ir t
• Ra
).was a
acts
connected with that Association—as to whether he
member of the Association—as to what intent he did the
was guilty
considerliat when
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 he 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 thejury, 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 }cur 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 tour consideration ; they are the judges of their
illegality, or whether- these facts shall go before you ; but it
is your sole and exclusire province and duty to decide this
upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those
persons interfered in those transactions? They were the
actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and
legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is
charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards
the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen
of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to
the opinion of the eminent Judge who charged the grand jury
in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice
Eyre, in calling the attention of the jury to the piestion they
had to try, said—
Judge Bu RTON —What do you take that from ?
Mr Heecir tee—From the " State Trials," vol. 24. Your
Lordship will find it in page 203. You are aware, gentle-
men, from what has been already stated, that the objects of
the societies of that day—the professed objects of the socie-
tieslokooef thatwere
prosecuted—that there the indictment was for day—for being members of which Hardy and
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 fast,
ostensible as to which I shall only remind you that an inquiry into a
charge of this nature, which undertakes to make out that the
purpose
requires cool and deliberate considera-
tion,
a mere veil under which is concealed a
traitorousconspiracy,
and that the result should be perfectly dear 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 lie professes to do, unless there is
clear, satisfactory, arid 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 guitt is clearly established ; and, as
already observed to you by Mr. Moore, if there b a cri-
minal intent alleged, and if there be a legal intent to
which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, com-
mon justice—the spirit of the British law—requires that