The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

• .1.
74111
•
. ' • k.=4,
•
,
tS
;;14' :Ve:1'i6.41.9 dir4. ~,+es'l4:4llk:WL.llllllET:
,
R -
N -

I
No. 16,050. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENNG SU FEBRUARY 3, 1844.

PRICE sd.

THE SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE O'CLOCK, in Time for the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY ; a SECOND EDITION ( Evening Sun) is Published in Time for the AFTERNOON TRAINS,

axd a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN O'CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARY and all other NEWS in LONDON ttp k that Hour.

ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THREE PAPERS, Morning, Noon, and Nilht, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE,

PUBLICATIONS.

case the jury had the good sense to acquit the prisoner. In the
next ease referred to an action was brought againt the military.
The Learned Judge said, " If they acted on a warrant they
were themselves under the circumstances of the ease justi-
fied ; in truth, these persons would be entitled to their
acquittal, acting as they dil in pursuance of the warrant,
although the parties granting the warrant might not." The
next ease referred to conspiracy, and in support of the plea
evidence was required a; to whether a person felt any
alarm during the proceedings of the meeting. He was
asked whether he would go with these persons to get a big
loaf for a little one. He said they would have reform in
Parliament, and make their way to Landon to effect that
purpose; and that they would make use of the property of
anybodyrowadh.o hAabdouptromperotyr
thonesethpeeirrsomnasrcphrocded t
aseethey went
Evidence was also given by a person who signed a paper which
o nthe
he sent to the magistrates, expressing the terror and alarm which
he experienced in consequence of those parties meeting for
drill. It was also proved in evidence (page 96) that im-
pressions of terror and alarm were made on the inhabi-
tants by a meeting at which Hunt presided. la page 99
of the charge it is said—" Ia one of these counts drillings
are alleged, which are stated to be clandestine, but whe-
ther they are clandestine or not I give no opinion ; but if
done for the purpose of overawing the Government, or ex-
citing tumult or resistance to the citil power, they would
be unlawful. It is also alleged that divers of those persons
assembled unlawfully, armed with stones and various
weapons to carry out this conspirocy." In page 102, he
says—" If they came armed, so as to terrify other per-
sons, that in itself would be an unlawful assembly."
His Lordship then referred to the memorable case of
Lord George Gordon, and the vast meeting of people
in St. George's-fields, and said—" There were called toge-
ther an immense number of persons in St. George's-fields.
(Kennett was then Lord 'Mayor of London.) They met for
the ostensibly legal purpose of petitioning Parliament not to re-
peal the Acts passed in favour of Roman Catholics. Lord
Gordon went -with their petition to She: House of Commons.
They accompanied- him there. There was nothing amiss in
that"-70,000 or 80,000 people meeting in London, and
speeches being made in a very vehement, if not in a very vio-
lent manner, and then going en masse to the House of Com-
mons, was not amiss—" except it was indiscreet, because it
had the appearance of being tue.ultuous ; and if they were net
satisfied with the result, some of them might break forth into
acts of violence." They were not satisfied; they broke
out, and we know the result—confusion in London
for an immense number of days. He (Mr. White-
side) would not trouble their Lordships by stating
the judgment of the Court on the matter of drill-
ing. In the case of the King v. Hunt, 3d Barnewall
and Alderson, the parties were indicted for a conspiracy.
The evidence was not given in the Report ; but the result was
given, which was that the accused were acquitted of the con-
spiracy, bat found guilty of being at an illegal assembly. He
(Mr. Whiteside) had procured a report of the evidence, with
the view of showing on what evidence the Court and jury came
to such a conclusion. The Learned Gentleman then produced
a history of the life of Henry Hunt, which contained an ac-
count of his trial, from which he (Mr. W.) read the evidence
of several witnesses examined for the prosecution. The evi-
dence was to this effect—that a meeting was held in Spital-
fields, London, at which a series of resolutions were adopted.
The first of these was, that if the grievances of the people were
not redressed within a given day, and the Parliament re-
formed, they (the persons composing the meeting) would
be all released from their allegiance. That Mr. Hunt pre-
sided at that meeting, and afterwards at a meeting in Man-
chester, at which the same resolution was proposed and carried.
It was also resolved that they should meet together to elect re-
presentatives for Manchester. They did so without any writ
from the Crown, and the magistrates declared that meeting
illegal. On the night of the 14th of August, 1819, they met
on White Moss, where they were drilled. Two policemen
were present, and having been discovered were severely beaten,
but their lives were spared on their promising never to be
King's men again, and never to name the King's name during
their lives. On the morning of the 16th they met in Man-
chester. They came to the place of meeting with flags and
banners, marching in military array, with sound of bugle, &c.
Threats of making a Moscow et Manchester were heard.
Several mottos of a seditious character were inscribed
on their banners, and great terror and alarm was ex-
cited. A controversy arose on the trial as to how far
all the persons at the meeting were affected by the inscriptions
on the banners. Justice Bayley, who charged the jury, ob
served on this point—" With respect to the banners, these
only who showed that they were favourable to any motto in-
scribed on them by carrying them, or immediately marching
under them, could be considered as I:able to any. penalty which
the illegal nature of any the inscriptions might warrant."
He (Mr. Whiteside) called particular attention to that part of
the charge, because in the present case evidence was adduced
of In arch that was erected, on which was a motto, and that
motto was brought forward as evidence of the illegal intentions
of persons going to that assembly. Having commented with
severity ma the resolutions passed at the meetings at Spital-
fields, the case went to the jury ; and on that charge and those
facts they acquitted the defendants of the crime of conspiracy,
and found them guilty of attending an unlawful assembly.
The Learned Gentleman next referred to the case of the Queen
v. Vincent, 9 Carrington and Payne, p. 91, a case which the
Attorney-General did not cite.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—He did.
Mr. WHITESIDE said it was another case of the same na-
ture in the same book. In this case the defendants were
charged,
Lifiei sfot,r
.wnituhnlahwafv.inl gpurcpoomsehinTedhe
li
chargedciousl y
secondtogether
countrmnat
them with having assembled in immense numbers, armed with
weapons ; and with having caused great terror and alarm to
the peaceable and well-disposed subjects of her Majesty, for
the unlawful and seditious purpose of offering unlawful and
seditious opposition to the Government aed Constitution, and

would remain undisturbed. But suppose twelve hundred or
twelve thousand such men met and passed similar resolutions,
the Minister would begin to look about him—would see that th•
public mind was stirred, and would consent to discuss remon-
strances which he had hitherto treated with contempt. A
meeting of twelve thousand such men would produce important
results ; and yet no man, no legal officer of the Crown, would

THREE SUPPLE ME NTS
BA AT I S,

WITH

THE D I S P A TCH,
ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE COLUMNS,

. „
dare to treat them as conspirators. They would not be con-
sidered conspirators even if ono of their number spoke rashly,
or if the incendiary or the spy should have been among them
uttering treason and sedition. Now, the humbler classes of :o-

Equal to an Octavo Volume of Six Hundred rages, containing

THE WHOLE OF THE
GREAT TRIAL IN DUBLIN.

•
ciety had the same right to Meet and discuss their grievances as
persons in therank of the gentlemen of the jury, but the opinions of
the men of the multitude were not equivalent in individual im-
portance, and therefore they were obliged to make up the
deficiency of moral force by superior numbers. But then,
if meetings of those classes, however numerous, were more
orderly than the House of Commons—although, as that
august body was now sitting, he must not allude to it—(A
laagh ) if the English reporters were astonished at the pa.
liteness of Irish mariners—at the moderation of the savages
who occupied this portion of the United Kingdom, then the
meetings were as legal as any that might be formed of their
more elevated fellow-subjects. He would now call the at-
tention of the jury to some meetings which had been held
in England—held under the nose of the Attorney-General,
and at the door of the Prime Minister. The first meeting to
which he should allude was that which had been mentioned
by Mr. Ross, the Crown witness. It was attended by two
hundred thousand of the lower classes—for it would be an
insult to call them rabble—and was met for the purpose of
discussing the severe sentence which had been passed on
the Dorsetshire labourers. Mr. Ross stated that he never
had seen such ameeting—a small party of 200,000 men, march-
ing in procession to the Prime Minister's office, with a petition
w►ich it took twenty men to lilt, on the subject of a sentence
which had been pronounced by one of the Judges of the land !
How was that meeting headed? By a clergyman of the Esta-
blished Church, dressed in his sacred robes. He (the Learned
Counsel) mentioned +his fact, because one of the charges against
Mr. O'Connell was, that he attended a meeting in his red
robe of office. Now he (the Learned Counsel) thought that
that fact should be taken as an indication of Mr. O'Connell's

SHELL'S SPEECH

WILL BR CONTAINED IN THE FIRST SUPPLEMENT,

TO-MORROW, FEB. 4, 1844.
8.1 Orders received by all Newsvenders and Booksellers, and by
111 r. Wood, at the Office, 139, Fleet-street.

wish to preserve peace and order. No man in office would,
if bent on disturbance, go to a meeting decked in the insignia
of authority ; he was sure that if their Lordships—with re-
spect be it spoken—should ever feel inclined to encourage
riot, they would never do so decked in the judicial ermine.—
( Loud laughter.) But the meeting to which he had alluded
marched through the streets of London, end he would read to
the jury some account of its proceedings. ( The Learned Coun-
sel here read reports from the London papers of the meeting,
and other great meetings held in England, and then proceeded.)
lie would now draw their attention to the way in which the
Evening Mail spoke of the great meeting at Hillsborough, at
which 75,000 men attended. The people who appeared at that
meeting were called " the bravo men of the North." Ile liked
them to be called so, f•r they were a brave body of men. They
travelled many miles to attend the meeting at Hillsborough, and
they assembled at that meetinc, in such numbers for the purpose
of declaring that by physical force " the union should be main-
tained, and that they would resist its repeal with their lives
and fortunes." And did they think that if these 75,000
men met again for the self-same purpose, and exhibited the
same bold and determined front, that the Attorney and Soli-
citor-Generals would not be very mu"h obliged to them?—( A
laugh.) Did they think that if these men met sgain, and
expressed their determination, not only to uphold the union,
but to support the Government in the prosecution of those
who southt to repeal that measure, that the Attorney-Gene-
ral would not be most gratified? Did they think that they
would not hear from the Attorney-General the expression of
his thanks to these brave men of the north for the honour

they had conferred on himself individually, and upon the
Government whose unworthy servant he was—(Laughter)
for having, by the demonstration of physical force, expressed
their determination to uphold the Church and State, and
maintain the sacred institutions of the country?—(Laughter.)
There was not one of those 75,000 men that could not

handle a gun ably and well, and the Attorney-General, at the
bottom of his heart was glad of it; and could they doubt that
if these 75,000 well-armed and well-disciplined men had met
and declared that the union between this country and England

was a grievance and must be repealed—did they doubt, he
would aak, that as Act repealing the union might not, in a
very short space of time, be the law of the land? But they
did meet in " border fashion," and they declared they were
ready to uphold the union; and with the view of giving cou-
t age to the Queen's Ministers to oppose the repeal of that mea-
sure, they stated their determination of being ready to sustain
them with their lives and fortunes. If that had been a

meeting composed of 500 persons, of what value would
such a declaration have been? If it were a meeting of
5,000, or of even 15,000, its value would be doubtful, as re-

garded this expression of feeling in favour of the Government;
but it was of the first consequence when it came from a well-
organised body, such as the 75,000 men who met at Hills-
borough. No doubt the Learned Solicitor-General would
endeavour to draw a difference between the meeting at Hills-
borough and those which took place at Tara at Mullaghmast ;
but he was sure that twelve high-minded and honourable men
would not allow paltry, personal, or political considerations,
to influence them when they were called upon to give their
opinion as to the character of these respective meetings. He
would now direct their attention to the evidence which had
been given in respect to the several repeal meetings. The wit-
nesses examined were chiefly policemen, and one or two magis-
trates ; and yet every one of them admitted that peace and order
prevailed at all the meetings ; and this, if it had been necessary,
could have been fully established with hundreds of witnesses
for the defence. And here, he might observe, that there was
not one witness who was able to say that these meetings pro-
duced the slightest fear or annoyance to either the resident
gentry, the merchants, or the traders who resided in the
localities where they took place. In fact, all, from east to
west, was order and perfect tranquillity. But the Learned
Attorney-General contended that the more quiet the meetings,
the more criminal—(a laugh)—so that if the question which
they had to try was the insanity of an individual, the best
evidence, according to the dictum of the Learned Attorney-
General, that could be given in support of it, would be to show
that the party bad always acted in a perfectly sensible and
correct manner, and that in truth his intellect was
wholly and entirely unclouded.—( A laugh.) If those
men who assembled at the meetings in question had
been drunk, and if they had broken each other's heads,
why that would have been all right. It would have been the
good old fashion and system by which heretofore Irishmen
settled their differences ; but the moment they lay aside their
national characteristics, and soberly and steadily meet in large
numbers to obtain a great object, then down comes the At-
torney-General and immediately calls for Coke and Hale to see
if he cannot out of this peaceable and orderly proceeding make
out something that will ensure a conviction for conspiracy,
and this he is to do by means of the gentleman with the
seissors—( A laugh)—and then by stringing this speech and
that together so involve both speakers and journalists in one
common crime as will completely overwhelm them, and pre-
vent them from appearing at a meeting for the future. It
would be absurd to present petitions of the meetings held in
August to the House of Commons, when perhaps there
might not be thirty persons present—they were, therefore,
necessarily reserved until such an impression might be made
by an accumulated mass, as well as by the number and variety
of the signatures, as could not fail to make an impression on
the understanding and feeling of Parliament. Now as to
the Mullaghmast meeting—and here he would ask, was it
a lawful or unlawful meeting? What was the test to try the
legality or illegality of a meeting ? They would say, no
doubt, :that it was to be tested by the acts of the speakers—
by the speeches made—by the general conduct of those
assembled—whether they had separated quietly, and whether
they returned to their homes peaceably. It was the duty
of the jury to look at those features, and look at them with
the eye of charity—to look at them as freemen, anxious for
the rights and privileges of freemen. They were not to
view things with the critical eye of a lawyer—they were not
to find men guilty who assembled for a peaceable purpose ;
nor were they to be looking for something different from what
really appeared. Would the great meeting at Hillsborough, at
which the Marquis of Downshire and other noblemen and in-
fluential persons attended, be deemed illegal because some ob-
scure criminal, a spy, an incendiary, went there—some ballad-
seller from Belfast, to sell and circulate treason or slander ?
Surely it would not. Such was the case of the Mullaghmast
meeting. Did Mr. O'Connell, or any other of the tra-
versers, cause to be published, printed, or circulated, the do-
cument which was produced in Court, and received in evidence?
They did not. They had produced on the table here the
printer who had published everything for the Association, and
he brought with him the only large placard which was pub-
lished for the Mullaghmast meeting, and which they directed
to be printed, and for which he was paid. Were, then, the
traverser& to be tried, sentenced, and condemned, upon the
act of a man whom even the police did not know—who cir-
culated a document giving a description of something which
occurred, no one knew when or where—a document received
evtdcr.cc to prove tl,e, common pies set forth in the indict-
ment—as evidence of a common union to promote a com-
mon object—to promote and effect a preconcerted plan?
And yet there was not one particle of evidence pro-
duced to prove that the paper was printed by the Associa-
tion, or by their direction. Why did not the Attorney-Gene-
-1 ral produce the man who printed that scandalous and wicked
document? Why bring forward a document not proved
by its printer? Why keep back his name? And were the
jury to fasten the guilt of such a man upon the traversers—
te fasten upon them a lying, slanderous document, which
they never saw? He complained, then, of keeping back such
a witness, and which the Attorney-General should have pro-
duced. It was not their business to criminate themselves,
nor should it be done by any party but by clear and unequi-
vocal proof; and although that piece of evidence was received
by the Court, it should net be received by the jury, unless it
was proved that it was part of a common, a preconcerted
plan ; for he would lay it down as law, that if that document
was even the act of one of the eight traversers, it should not
be received as evidence against the others, unless they believed
it was, by the assent and consent of all, a part of a precon-
certed plan.
The Court adjourned for refreshment, for a few minutes.
At five minutes past two the Court sat again, and
Mr. WWITESIDE resumed his address.—Mr. Fitgibbon had
given a full statement of what might be considered the best
passages of Mr. O'Connell's speeches, and he (Mr. Whiteside)
would now take a view of what might be considered the worst.
Many of those speeches had not been given in evidence, but the
nature of the indictment was such that the prosecution were
enabled to put in a vast number of papers containing reports of
speeches, and the jury had to distinguish between those
that were proved and those that were not. It was also
well known that many speeches were reported which never
had been delivered—particularly in the way of poetic ex-
tracts which the speaker never uttered, but which some-
times found their way into the written speech. In one
of those reported addresses Mr. O'Connell was represented
as alluding to the battle of the Boyne, and defeat of the
Irish people there. It was singular enough that Sir Walter
Scott, in alluding, on one occasion, to the battles of his coun •
trymen in " flood and field," admonished the Scots not to fall
into the mistake of their ancestors, but to be steady, firm, and
united, in their moral agitation, and not to be divided and
wavering as their ancestors were in their physical conflicts.
This was precisely the meaning of Mr. O'Connell's allusion to
the battle of the Boyce. He encouraged the people to firm-
ness in the political struggle in which they were engaged, by
a reference to historical facts. His language plainly meant no-
thing more nor less than this—" By their want of perseverance
your ancestors lost the memorable battle of the Boyne; in
the constitutional struggle in which you are engaged, be
me the you preserve perseverance and unity, and you will

to the terror and alarm of the subjects of the Queen. Another
count charged them with assembling with clubs, &c. The
12th count charges them with being at an unlawful assembly ;
and the 13th for a riot. He wanted to show that, in this case
the same result followed, and that those counts which were
not found in the present indictment were those on which,
according to the authority of the Learned Judge and the
finding of the jury, a verdict was had. The Learned Gentle-
man then read portions of the evidence given in the case of the
Queen v. Vincent, to show that violent language had been
used at a public meeting at which the defendants were present,
and that the inhabitants were put into a state of great terror
and alarm. Vincent, in his speech, had described the system
of Government as cannibal and atrocious—that it doomed
men, women, and children to toil in factories, in starvation,
and nakedness, to increase the wealth of the aristocracy. The
snowball of Chartism was increasing in size, and he called on
the people of Newport to roll it down on their oppressors and
crush them. He had also threatened the magistrates with
violence, and wanted to purchase a large quantity of
arms—muskets, cutlasses, pistols, &c.—from a commercial
traveller, named Johnson. Baron Alderson said that any
meeting assembled under such circumstances, or likely to
produce danger to the tranquility of the neighbourhood, was an
unlawful assembly. He then alluded to the petition to obtain
the five points of the Charter, which points went to a length that
sensible persons would think inconsistent with the Constitution
of the country. Gentlemen, nothing is more unfair than to
take a part of a speech without taking the whole. In doing so
you will be unable to judge justly, for there may be many pas-
sages which modify others, and change the entire meaning of a
sentence. " God be thanked," said the Learned Judge who
presided over the Chartist trials, "that the Constitution does
not forbid men to meet peaceably to petition the Queen. It
is the inalienable right of the subject, and surely it is not now
to be usurped." It is not evidence to be given against a man for
a conspiracy, namely, that he attended a meeting, if that meet-
ing be not illegal. Neither are the acts of another who may
have been gailty of violence to be offered in evidence against
a man for attending a legal meeting. He is not accountable
for such acts, and cannot be made so. Nor is it evidence of a
conspiracy that a number of persons propounded the same doc-
trines for the accomplishment of the same object. You must
convict them of one and the same conspiracy, and of one and
the same act—in different counts, if you will—but it taint be
proved that they have combined to effect an illegal act, or a
legal act by illegal means. On the banners which the Man-
chester rioters bore before them was inscribed—" Englishmen,
the blood of your brothers reddens the streets of Preston, and
the murderers thirst for more ;" and on another banner was in-
culcated the observation of peace, law, and order ; but it was
decided that such an inculcation was absurd, as their acts
were to be evidence of their intentions, and their acts did not
correspond with the words which expressed those intentions.
Let us see, before we go further, what you are to find the
party guilty of. Is it that they have agreed together for the
furtherance of a common object? No. But that they con-
federated and conspired, by a complete union of purvey), and
a premeditated plan, to do any of those acts charged in the in-
dictment.
Judge PERRIN—Yon don't mean to say that they must find
them guilty of every overt act ?
Mr. WinTesinE—No, my Lord.
Judge PERRIN—I was afraid that the jury might misunder-
stand you, Mr. Whiteside,
Mr. WHITESIDE—I thank you, my Lord. I say that they
must find them guilty of the whole of the conspiracy, and that
these acts were the result of a fixed and settled confederation.
Judge Bo RTON—Is that report of the Chartist trials authen-
ticated ?
Mr. WHITESIDE—It has been published, my Lord, by Mr.
Feargus O'Connor. He says that he is quite satisfied that
he has been tried by law, and punished by law. The report
was taken in short-hand. There has been no evidence pro-
duced that the acts charged were done in accordance with a
previously-arranged plan. My client, Mr. Duffy wished to
accomplish the repeal of the Act of Union, which I need not tell
you is a perfectly legal Act, for no one Parliament can make a
law which another cannot repeal--otherwise the Legislature
would be cramped, and posterity would be bound by a number
of unjust and oppressive laws. The act of Mr. Duffy is re-
ceived in evidence, because he is on trial. But if my client
agrees with a party for a legal purpose, aided by legal means,
he is not accountable for the intemperate conduct of others who
are not on their trial, nor is that conduct evidence of guilt.
Would the meeting at Trim have been less illegal if a
thousand persons more or less had stayed away, and contented
Coultdhoiutsalnl
was illegal?
tsphaeierdms ant!
sal
,vt
eadi
Het
dhi
lbrseybaodLr wing
oorudg
ht hDemos
wep
ene
tesi
hen higrees
oai
fnt 1
seventy-fivepoemr seo n
To agitate for a repeal of the union was perfectly legal,
and, therefore, the numbers who attended meetings for
effecting that object were only important is so far as they
gave alarm to peaceable persons living in the vicinity of the
several places of meeting. The meetings mentioned in the
indictment had excited no alarm; and he would ask, was the
Solicitor-General prepared to affirm the monstrous doctrine
which had been laid down by his Learned Colleague,that the more
perfect the tranquillity which prevailed at a meeting, the
more dangerous was its character—the more they form the
determination not to break the law, the more palpable the
indications of crime and conspiracy ? He (the Learned
Counsel) would say, that meetings of such a nature were
always disliked by Kings and their Ministers ; for men born
to command disliked the voice of the people when raised
in murmur and complaint. Such sounds disturbed the
tranquillity of a Court ; and Ministers of the Crown, ex-
cept when they could make popular ferment a stepping-
stone to power, disliked meetings called to complain of
grievances. Such meetings were always unheeded, ex-
cept when imposing in character and appearance. Sup-
pose the twelve gentlemen he bad then the honour to
address met to discuss a fiscal grievance—suppose they
passed strong resolutions, their resolutions and their
meeting would pass unheeded—they would wither under
the silent contempt of the press, and the Minister's slumbers