The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-29 00:00:00

clandestine correspondence haVe taken plaCe With the "mili-
tary
brethren?" Would not money have been distributed
to the soldiery? Would not the propagators of mutiny
have been located in the public houses frequented by sol- 1
(fiery? Would not Roman Catholic priests, who attend at
the military hospitals, have been charged to instil Repeal prin-
t ciples into the soldiers' cars? Does anything of this kind
1 appear to have been done? A letter written by the Rev.
Mr. Powera Waterford priest, who is not made a
defendant—who is not to be punished for his letter
—iis.,:?giN#en , in evidence against my client, although
'- he is as ;innocent of its composition as the fore-
man
of you jury. When that letter appeared in the Na-
tion newspaper, why was not an cx officio information tiled
against the.!Rev Mr. Power, whose manuscript would most
certair-1‘ Lave been given up? But that would not have
answered the purpose of the Attorney-General, whose
object it was to ensnare. And, gentlemen, if this prosecu-
tion shall sikceed, as my Lord de Grey is a patron of the fine
arts, he shotild cause a statue of Justice to be erected in com-
memoration of his achievements ; but the goddess should
be no loner represented with a sword and balance, but
with a hook in one hand and a trap in the other. What,
gentlemen, has been the course adopted by the Government
in these prosecutions? Sir Edward Sugden begins by
dismissing some of the most respectable magistrates of the
country, on, account of something or other that was said in
the House 0- Commons, and because " the meetings have a
tendency to outrage." The direct contrary has been proved
by every oue of the witnesses for the crown, and Mr. Ross,
the clandestine sub-inspector of the Home-office, in
the very last words of his examination, stated that he saw
no tendency to outrage whatsoever. Lord Cottenham de-
clared in the House of Lords, that the proceeding of the Lord
Chancellor; was utterly. unconstitutional. Let me be per-
mitted, gentlemen, to contrast the proceedings adopted by
the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with the doctrines laid down
by Mr. Baron Alderson, in his charge to the grand
jury, delivered at the Monmouth summer assizes, 1839.
It is repotted in 9th Carrington and Payne, page 95 :
" There i. no doubt that the people of this country have a
perfect rig it to meet for the purpose of stating what one,
or even 1 hat they, consider to be their grievances ; but
in order 4) transmit that right unimpaired to posterity,
it is necessary that it should be regulated by law and
restrained lby reason. Therefore, let them meet if they
will in len-day, peaceably and quietly; and they would
do wisely when they meet, to do so under the sanction
of the constituted authorities of the country. To meet
under irresponsible presidency is a dangerous thing. Never-
theless, if! when they do meet under that irresponsible pre-
sidency, they conduct themselves with peace, tranquillity,
and order; they will, perhaps, lose their time, but nothing
else. They will not put other people into alarm, terror, and
consternation. They will probably in the end come to the
conclusion that they have acted foolishly; but the Constitu-
tion of this country did not, God be thanked, punish persons
who mean to do that Which was right, in a peaceable and
orderly manner, and who are only in error in the views
which they have taken on some subject of political
interest." Gentlemen, I do not believe that a single
witness was produced by the Crown to prove that by the
great assemblies which took place within the last nine
months the slightest apprehension was created. But
the Attorney-General himself admits the fact, for
he does not indict Mr. O'Connell for breaking the peace, but
for a conspiracy to keep it. Let us pass to the proclamation.
The commentaries of Mr. O'Connell upon the remarkable
fact, that that proclamation was delayed until the day be-
fore the meeting was to take place, although notice for that
meeting had been given for three weeks, are most deserving
of your consideration. A circumstance occurred connected
with that proclamation not undeserving of note. It has been
always the usage in this country to summon every member of
the Privy Council. Upon this occasion the Chief Baron, al-
though living in the neighbourhood of Dublin, was not sum-
moned; . and, Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic, who was in the
habit of attending the Privy Council, who lives also near
Dublin, was not summoned. He had been appointed to
the office of Chief Remembrancer by a Tory Government ; he
had been the intimate friend of Lord Wellesley, the great
statesman ; he had never taken any part in any violent pro-
ceedino; ; yet was he left out, while the Recorder of the City
of Dublin, by whom the jury list was to be revised, and in
whose department an accident of a most untoward kind has
.happened, was summoned to the Council. A proclamation is-
sues ; it is at once obeyed. Mr. O'Connell had long before de-
clared that a proclamation should be obeyed. . There was an
end, therefore, to these monster meetings. For what purpose,
then, did the Crown institute this prosecution? The bills are
found ; the traversers apply for the names of the wit-
nesses on the back of the indictment. One of the judges de-
clared he thought it matter of right; another of the judges
intimated his opinion that it would be advisable for the
Crown to furnish the list within a reasonable time. From
that day to this the list has never been given. The list of
jurors is drawn by ballot ; there are eleven Catholics upon it.
They are struck off. The trial comes on. A challenge is
put in to the array, upon the ground that one-tenth, or very
nearly one-tenth, of the jury list was suppressed. One of the
Court expresses an opinion that the challenge is a good one.
His brethren differ from him ; but when in a trial at bar, at
the instance of the Crown, one of the judges gives an intima- '
tion so unequivocal as to the construction of the jury list, per-
hops it would have been more advisable for the Crown
to have discharged the order for a special jury, and to have
directed the High Sheriff of the city to have returned a
panel. I mention these incidents, gentlemen, in order that
your feeling that the traversers have been deprived of some ,
of those contingent benefits given them by the law, should '
give theM an equivalent for any loss which they may have
sustained in your anxious performance of your sacred
duty. At length, in the midst of profound silence, the
Attorney-General states the case for the Crown, and
consumes eleven hours in doing so. I was astonished at
his ' brevity, for the pleading on which his speech was
founded is the very Behemoth of indictments, which, as you
see, " upheaves its vastness" on that table. Nothing com-
parable in the bigness of its gigantic dimensions has ever yet
been seen. The indictment in Hardy's case, whose trial lasted
ten or eleven days, does not exceed three or four pages • but
this indictment requires an effort of physical force to fift it
up. Combined with this indictment was a tremendous bill
of particulars in keeping with it. Gentlemen, the Attorney-
General, as I have already observed to you at the outset of
these observations, denounced the traversers at the close of
almost every sentence that was uttered by him ; but it struck
me that it was only in reference to two of those charges that
he broke forth in a burst of genuine and truly impassioned in-
dignation. The first of those charges was—a conspiracy to
diminish the business of a Court of Law. How well might Lord
Chatham exclaim—l remember to have read it somewhere
but I forget where—" Shake the whole Constitution to the
centre, and the lawyer will sit tranquil in his cabinet ; but
touch a single thread in the cobwebs of Westminster-hall,
and the exasperated spider crawls out in its defence." The
second great hit of the Right Hon. Gentleman was made
when he charged Mr. O'Connell with a deplorable ignorance
of law, in stating certain prerogatives of the Crown. With
respect, gentlemen, to the Arbitration Courts, the Society of
Friends are as liable to an indictment for conspiracy as the
defendants. The regulations under which the Quaker arbi-
tration system is carried on will be laid before you; and the
opinions of Lord Brougham, who has always been the
strenuous advocate of the arbitration system, will, I am
sure, have their due weight upon you. With regard to Mr.
O'Connell's alleged mistake respecting the power of the
Crown to issue writs—what is it, after all, but a project for
swamping the House of Commons, analogous to that of Fir
James Graham and my Lord Stanley for swamping the
House of Lords ? The plain truth is this=-the Sovereign
has the abstract right to create new boroughs. But the ex-
ercise of that right might be regarded as inconsistent with
the principles of the Constitution. Lord Denman and one of
his late Majesty's law advisers in the House of Commons, dis-
tinctly asserted the right to issue writs ; and although that
opinion was reprehended by Sir Charles Wetherell, I believe
that of its being strict law there can be little
doubt. But the real question between the Attor-
ney-General and the traversers, and the only one
to which you will be disposed to pay much regard,
was raised by the Attorney-General when he said that there
existed a dangerous conspiracy, of which the object was to
prepare the great body of the people to rise at a signal and
to erect a sanguinary republic,
,of which Daniel O'Connell
should be the head. Gentlemen, how do men proceed who
engage in a guilty enterprise of this kind? They bind each
other by solemn oaths. They are sworn to secrecy, to silence,
to deeds, or to death. They associate superstition with atro-
city, and heaven is invoked by them to ratify the covenants
of hell. They fix a day, an hour, and hold their assem-
blages in the midst of darkness and of solitude, and verify
the exclamation of the conspirators in the language of the
great observer of our nature—

" Oh, Conspiracy,
Where wilt thou find a cover dark enough
To hide thy monstrous visage?"
How have the repeal conspirators proceeded? Every one
of their assemblages have been open to the public. For a
shilling, all they said, or did, or thought, were known to the
Government. Everything was laid bare, and naked to the
public eye. No oaths, no declarations, no initiation, no form
of any kind was resorted to. They did not even act toge-
ther. Mr. Duffy, proprietor of the Nation, did not attend a
single meeting in the country. My client attended only
three ; Mr. 'I ierney, the priest, attended no more than
one. It would have been more manly on the part of the
Attorney-General to have indicted Dr. APHale or Dr. Hig-
gins. He spoke of Dr. lliggins, but thought it more
prudent not to include him in the indictment. Gentlemen,
an enormous mass of speeches, delivered by Mr. O'Connell
within the last nine months, has been laid before you. I
think, however, you will come to the conclusion, that they
are nothing more than a repetition of the opinions which he
expressed in 1810; and when you come to consider them• in.
detail, you will, I sin sure, be convinced that these speeches
were not merely interspersed with references to peace and
order with a view to escape from the law, but that there was
through the entire mass of thought that came from the mind
of Mr. O'Connell a pervading love of order, and an un-
affected sentiment of abhorrence of the employment of any
other than loyal, constitutional, and pacific means for
the attainment of his object. He attaches fully as much im-
portance to the means as to the end. He declares that he
would not purchase the repeal of the union at the cost of one
drop of blood. He announces that the moment the Govern-
ment calls upon him to disperse his meetings, these meetings
shall be dispersed. He does but ask " the Irish nation to back
him ;" for, from that backing he anticipates the only success
to which as a good subject, as a good citizen, and as a good
Christian, ho could aspire. But if, gentlemen, it be suggested
that in popular harangues obedience to the laws, and submis-
sion to authority are easily simulated, I think I may fear-
lessly assert that of the charges preferred against him his
life affords the refutation. A man cannot wear the mask of
loyalty for forty-four years ; however skilfully constructed the
vizard will sometimes drop off, and the natural truculence, the
genuine features, of the conspirator must be disclosed. You
may have heard many references made to the year 1798,
and several stanzas. of a long poem have been read to
you, in order to fasten them on Mr. O'Connell. It was
in 1798 that the celebrated man was called to the bar,
who is destined to play a part so conspicuous on the thea-
tre of the world. He was in the bloom of youth—in the
full flush of life—the blood bounded in his veins, and in
a frame full of vigour was embodied an equally elastic and
athletic mind. He was in that season of life, when men are
most disposed to high and daring adventure. He had come
from those rocks and mountains, of which a description so
striking has appeared in the reports of the speeches which
have been read to you. He had listened, as he says, to the
great Atlantic, whose surge rolls unbroken from the coast of
Labrador. He carried enthusiasm to romance ; and of the
impressions which great events are calculated to make
upon minds like his, he was peculiarly susceptible. He was
unwedded. He had given no hostages to the State. The
Conservative affections had not tied their ligaments, tender
but- indissoluble, about his heart. There was at that time
an enterprise on foot ; guilty, and deeply guilty, indeed, but
not wholly hopeless. The peaks that overhung the Bay of
Bantry were visible from Nenagh-hill. What post was
taken in that dark adventure by this conspirator of
sixty-nine? Did he play Pierre at two-and-twenty,
who is ready to play Renault at sixty-nine? Cur-
ran was suspected; Grattan was suspected. Both were
designated as traitors unimpeached, but on the name of
Daniel O'Connell, a conjecture never lighted. And
can you bring yourselves to believe that the man
who turned with abhorrence from the conspiracy of 1798
would now, in an old age, which he himself has called not
premature,. engage in an insane undertaking, in which his
own life, and the lives of those who are dearer to him
than himself, and the lives of hundreds of thousands
of his countrymen, would, beyond all doubt, be sacrificed?
Can you brine yourselves to believe that he would
. •