The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-18 00:00:00

Mr. MACDONOUGII--Many things occur in this
Court which are matter for ridicule.
The CHIEF JusTicE—We must excuse Mr. Parker.
Dimond Clarke was next called and sworn.
Benjamin Heaton, architect and builder, was the
next juror called. He begged to be excused, in con-
sequence of incapacity to serve, from severe bodily
pain with which he was affected, by reason of a hurt
he received in falling from a scaffold, during the pur-
suit of his business. He had a certificate from Sur-
geon Hart, stating his inability to serve, and he was
sworn to that effect. Ile was excused.
Francis Faulkner was next called and sworn.
John Cook was next called and sworn.
Henry Flynn was called and sworn.
Henry Thompson was called and sworn.
Anson Floyd was called and sworn.
John Rigby was next called. He asked the Court
to excuse him, as he had been summoned as John
Rigby, his name being John Jason Rigby. A few
questions were put to him, which identified him as
being the proper person, and he was accordingly
sworn.

Robert Hanna was called and sworn.
William Longfield was called and sworn.
William Ord was the last person called and sworn.
The following persons were then called over and
answered to their names :—James Hamilton, Upper
Ormond-quay, Foreman ; Capt. Edward Roper,
Upper Eccles-street; Edward Clarke; Francis
Faulkner, Grafton-street ; John Croker, North
Great Georges-street; Henry Flynn, William-street;
Henry Thompson, Eustace-street ; Anson Floyd,
Wellington Quay ; John Rigby, Great Brunswick-
street ; Robert Hanna, Henry-street ; William Long-
field, Harcourt-street ; William Ord, Cork-street.
The names of the several traversers, Daniel O'Con-
nell, John O'Connell, Thos. Steele, C. G. Duffy,
Rich. Barrett, John Gray, and the Rev. Mr. Tierney
were then called over and placed upon their trial.
Mr. NAPIER then opened the pleadings, setting
forth the nature of the case as stated in the opening
of the Attorney-General. here were eleven counts
in the indktment, to which the traversers pleaded not

guilty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose and addressed
the Court and jury. He commenced by saying, that
the jury had been impannelled on the present occasion
to perform the duty of deciding on the guilt
or innocence of the several traversers, and it
would not be necessary for him to impress
on their minds the necessity of giving their
anxious and undivided attention to such a mo-
mentous cause. Mr. Napier had told them the nature
of the charge against the several traversers, but to
L.,press it on their minds, and that they might be
able to understand the cause as it proceeded, he would
call their attention to it again. The traversers stood
indicted fur havir p conspired together and confederated
to create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's
subjects, and to excite them to hatred and contempt oftlie
Government and Constitution of the realm as by law
established, and to stir up hatred and be-
tween the different classes of her Majesty's subjects,
particularly in Ireland ; to excite discontent and dis-
affection in the army ; and to cause large numbers of
persons to meet together at ' different times and
places for the unlawful purpose of obtain-
ing, by means of the intimidation thereby
created, and by the exhibition of great physical force,
changes and alterations in the law and Constitution
of the realm as by law established, and particularly
by these means, to bring about a dissolution of the
Legislative Union ; and by means of seditious ad-
dresses, publications, and by intimidating Parliament,
to bring about changes in the law of the realm, and
to bring into contempt and hatred the tribunals
for the administration of justice, and to diminish
the confidence of the Queen's subjects in the admi-
nistration of the law therein, and to assume the pre-
rogative of the Crown with regard to the administra-
tion of justice. Having thus brought under the no-
tice of the jury the charges upon which the defendants
stood indicted, it would be convenient and proper for
him to make a few observations with regard to the
law of conspiracy. The law, however, they would
take from the Court and not from him. Conspiracy
was a crime created when persons combined or agreed
to do some illegal act, or conspired to do a legal act
by unlawful means. Such was the law laid down by
Lord Denman, Mr. Justice Parke, and Mr. Justice
Pattison in the 4th volume of Barnewall and Alder-
son, page 349. The same principle was laid down in
this Court in the case of Forbes, reported by Mr.
Greaves. The same doctrine was laid down in the
case of the Queen v. Murphy, in the 9th volume of
Carrington and Payne, page 310, by Mr. Justice
Coleridge. If they believed that the several defendants
had been engaged in a common design to obtain the
objects they had in view by the means pointed out in
the indictment, in that case the acts and words of any
one became evidence against the others, though they
had not committed those acts or spoken the words
themselves. The Learned Counsel quoted 6th Term
Reports, page 527, Watson's case, reported in the se-
cond volume of Howard's State Trials in support of
this position. In the case reported in 9th Carrington
and Payne, page 275, a case not unlike the present,
two defendants were found guilty. The same view was
held in the case of the King v. Redhead, otherwise
Yorke, reported in the 25th volume of the State
Trials, page 1,004. There was a very important case
in the 3d volume of Starkie's Nisi Prius, page 76,
namely the case of Redford v. Burley, to which he
wished particularly to call the attention of the Court
awl Jury. It was an action of trespass brought against
some persons who dispersed a meeting in Manchester.
The trial took place before Mr. Justice Holroyd, and
a verdict was given for the defendants, thereby esta-
blishing the illegality of the meeting. The case was
then brought by motion before the full Court, consist-
ing of Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr.
Justice Holroyd, and the present Lord Wyn-
ford. They refused the motion, and established
the law as laid down at the trial by Mr. Justice
Holroyd. In the course of their judgment they gave
their opinions with regard to unlawful assemblies.
(The Learned Gentleman then read the opinions of
Mr. Justice Holroyd and Mr. Justice Bayley relative
to what was an unlawful assembly.) On a motion
being made for a new trial in the same case, in banco,
Lord Tenterden, in giving judgment, said the cir-
cumstance of the professed object of the meeting being
peaceable, was not to be taken into account, for unless
that was its professed object the meeting could not be
held. The real object of the meeting was the matter
to be regarded. Again, said his Lordship, others
might go to the meeting intending mischief at some fu-
ture period, when those who had been drilled up to that
time without arms had arrived at a further stage of
military discipline. They would be told in the course
of the defence that those meetings had ended peace-
ably. Why the intention was that they should dis-
perse peaceably. That was one of the most danger-
ous purposes of those meetings. If they had not done
so, the conspiracy would have been broken up earlier.
Besides, the hour of action had not yet arrived. As
one of the traversers had said, the hour of England's
infirmity was Ireland's opportunity. The time to call
upon them had not yet come. The part of the con-
spiracy was to effect a complete organisation from
north to south, from east to west, before the
signal for action was given. Therefore it
was that the meetings had dispersed peaceably.
Others might go to these meetings, too, as Lord
Tenterden had said, intending mischief at some future
period, when those who had been up to that time
drilled without arms had arrived at a further stage of
military discipline. But he (the Attorney-General)
denied that these meetings were peaceable, or any-
thing like peaceable, since they were assembled under
the control of one man; who might give them one
order or another order, as he chose. Such assemblies
were, he would show by high legal authority from
the Bench, inconsistent with the law of the land.
Lord Wynford, in giving his judgment, said it ap-
peared to him that the meeting was not innocent,
and if it were not, what, his Lordship said, was it ?
They had, he said, the key to it in the evidence of
one of the witnesses; their object was, by exhibiting
their numbers, to induce others to join them, that they
might thus be able to overcome the Government.
Now, such he would prove was the course adopted
with re,ipect to the meetings now in question. There
was another case, which he would cite, as applicable
in the present instance; it was the case of the Queen
v. Holland, and Carrington v. Payne p. 460, an indict-
ment for seditious libel. The subject of it was on a
resolution to the effect that the people of Birmingham
were the best judges of their own right to meet in the
Bull-ring, and were the best judges of their own
power and resources to obtain justice. Justice Little-
dale, in summing up, said it was no sedition to
say that they were the best judges of their right to
meet in the Bull-ring or anywhere else, but that the
words " the best judges of their own power
and resources to obtain justice," were seditious.
There was one remaining authority which
he would lay before the Court, it was that
laid down in 4 Alderson, p. 178, in the case of the
Queen v. Burdett, and it illustrated strongly the
principle which he .(the Attorney-General) had al-
ready laid down, viz., that the act of one conspirator
was, in point of law, the act of all. The Right Hon.
Gentleman having read the case went on to say that
haring called attention to the law applicable to the