The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-05 00:00:00

WrONDAY

errors of their forefathers—and by the warning teach
how to shun them. Let silence for ever cover—let dark-
ness hide them—let no hand withdraw the veil that con-
ceals them —or, if it touch them, let it be for a holy and
useful purpose—to imbibe morality and peace from the
lessons of the past. Gentlemen of the jury, I have no
more to say upon that part of the case. I admit that
strong language has been used, and I regret it. The term
" Saxon" has been applied to Englishmen. Mr. O'Con-
nell has entirely renounced it at the request of an
English gentleman—l believe he borrowed it froui
Moore. Moore was wrong to have used it. Yet pro-
bably when -the trials are over, if I called upon the
Learned Gentleman (pointing to the Solicitor-General) I
should find " Moore's Melodies," and " The Irish Gentle-
man in Search of a'Religion" upon his table—yet, perhiPs,
if he knew who knocked at the door he would, like the
lady in the play, thrust one into a drawer, and put the
other under the table.--(Loud laughter.) The last docu-
ment to which I shall refer is, 1` The Morality of War,"
which the Attorney-General has dwelt upon so eloquently,
and translated with not a little freedom into " The Mora-
lity of Rebellion." [After referring to that doeument the
Learned Gentleman thus concluded his long speech] :
I will say that the true object of this unprecedented
prosecution is to stifle the discussion of a great public
question. Reviewed in this light, all other considera-
tions sink into insignificance ; its importance becomes
vast indeed. A nation's rights are involved in the issue,
a nation's liberties are at stake--that won—what pre-
serves the precious privileges you possess? The ex-
ercise of the right of political discussion—free, untram-
melled, bold. The laws which wisdom framed—the in-
stitutions struck out by patriotisin, learning, or genius—
can they preserve the springs of freedom fresh and pure?
No; destroy the right of free discussion, and you dry up
the sources of freedom. By the same means by which your
liberties were won can they be increased or defended.
Do not quarrel with the partial evils free discussion
creates, nor seek to contract the enyvment of the
greatest privilege within the narrow limits timid men
prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extrava-
gance, contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped
on man. Free discussion aroused the human mind
from the torpor of ages—taught it to think, and
shook the thrones of ignorance and darkness. Free
discussion gave .to Europe the Reformation, which
I have been taught to believe the mightiest
event in the 'history of the human race—illuminated the
world with the radient light of spiritual truth. May it
shine with steady and increasing splendour ! Free' dis-
cussion gave to England the revolution, abolished tyran-
ny, swept away the montrous abuses it rears, and esta-
blished the liberties under which we live. Free discus-
sion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved
but purified our Constitution, reformed our laws, reduced
our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence
to every portion of our political system. The spirit of
inquiry it creates has revealed the secrets
,of nature—
explained the wonders of creation, teaching the know-
ledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, science,
civilization, freedom, pure religion, are its noble
realities. Would you undo the labours of science, ex-
tinguish literature, stop the efforts of genius, restore
ignorance, bigotry, barbarism—then Put down free dis-
cussion, and you have accomplished all. Savage con-
querors, in the blindness of their ignorance, have scat-
tered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a great
antiquity. Those who make war on the sacred
rights of free discussion, sChout their igno-
rance, imitate their fury. They may check the
expression of some thought, which might, if uttered,
redeem the liberties or increase the happiness of man.
The insidious assailants of this great prerogative of
intellectual beings, by the cover under which they ad-
vance, conceal the character of their assault upon the
liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the
liberty to discuss—blame only its extravagance, pro-
nounce hollow praises on the value of freedom of speech,
and straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy
it. The open despot avows his object is to oppress or to
enslave—resistance is certain to encounter his tyranny,
and perhaps subvert it. Not so the artful assailant of a
nation's rights—he declares friendship while he wages
war, and professes affection for the thing he hates.—
State prosecutions' if you believe them, are ever the
fastest friends of freedom. They tell you peace is dis.
turbed, order broken, by the excesses of turbulent and
seditious demagogues. No doubt there might be a
seeming peace—a deathlike stillness—by repressing the
feelings and passions of men. So in the fairest portions
of Europe this day, there is peace, and order, and
submission, under paternal despotism, ecclesiastical
and civil. That peace springs' from terror, that
submission from ignorance, that silence from de-
spair. Who dares discuss, when with discus-
sion and -by discussion tyranny must perish? Com-
pare the stillness of despotism with the healthful ani-
mation, the natural warmth, the bold language, the
proud bearing, which spring from freedom and the
consciousness of its possession. Which will you pre-
fer, ? Insult not the dignity of manhood by suppos-
ing that contentment of the heart can exist under
despotism. There may be degrees in its severity, and
so 'degrees in the sufferings of its victims. Terrible the
.dangers which lurk beneath the calm surface of despotic
power. The movements of the oppressed will, at times,
disturb their tyrant's tranquillity, and warn him their day
of vengeance or triumph may be nigh. But in these
happy countries, the very safety of the State consists in
freedom of discussion. Partial evils in all systems of
political government there must be ; but their worst
effects are obviated when their cause is sought for,
discovered, considered, discussed. Milton has taught
a great political truth, in language as instructive
as his sublimest verse:—"For this is not the liberty
which we can hope, that no grievances ever shatid arise
in the commonwealth—that let- no Man in this world
expect ; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply
considered, and speedily reformed—then is the utmost
bound of civil liberty obtained that wise Men look for."
Suffer the complaints of the Irish peopldlo be freely
heard. You want the power to have them speedily re-
formed. Their case to-day may be yours to-morrow.
Preserve the right of free discussion as you would cling
to life; Combat error with argument, misrepresentation
by fact, falsehood with truth. " For who knows not,"
saith the same great writer, "that truth is strong—neXt
to:the Almighty. One needs no policies nor strata-
gems to make her victorious—these are 'the shifts
error uses against her power." If this demand for a
native- Parliament rest On a delusion, dispel that de-
luoion by the omnipotence of truth. Why do you love
—why do other 'nations honour England? Are you—
are they—dazzled by her naval or military glories, the
splendour of her literature, her sublime discoveries in
science, her boundless wealth, her almost incredible
labours in every work of art and skill ? No ;
you love her—you cling to England because she
has been for ages past the seat of free discussion, and,
therefore, the home of rational freedom, and the hope
of, oppressed men throughout the world. Under the
laws 'of England it is our happiness to live. They
breathe the spirit of liberty and reason. Emulate this
day the great virtues of Englishmen—their love of
fairness—their immoveable independence, and the sense
of justice rooted in their nature—these are the virtues
which qualify jurors to decide the right of their
fellow-men. • Deserted by these, of what avail is
the tribunal of a jury ? It is worthless as the
human body when the living soul has fled. Prove to
the accused, from whom, perchance, you widely differ
in opinion—whose liberties and fortunes are in your
hands—lhat you are there not to persecute, but to save.
Believe me you will not secure the true interests of Eng-
land by leaning too severely on your countrymen. They
say to their English brethren, and with truth—We have
been at your side whenever danger was to be faced
or honour won—the scorching sun of the East and
the pestilence of the. West we have endured to
spread your commerce—to extend your empire—to
uphold your glory. The bones of our countrymen
whitened the fields of Portugal, of Spain, of
France. Fighting your battles they fell—in a nobler
cause they could not. We have helped to gather your
imperishable laurels. We have helped to win you im-
mortal triumphs. Now, in time of peace, we ask you to
restore that Parliament you -planted here with your
laws and language, uprooted in a dismal period of our
history, in the moment of our terror, our divisions, our
weakness, it may be, our crime. Re-establish the Com

_ -
mons on the broad foundation of the people's choice—
replace the peerage, the Corinthian pillars of the
capitol, secured and adorned with the strength
and splendour of the Crown—and let the Monarch
of England, as in ages past, rule a brilliant and united
empire in solidity, magnificence, and power. When
the privilege of the English Parliament were invaded
that people took the field, struek down the Ministry,
and dragged their Sovereign to the block. This
prosecution ,is not essential for the maintenance of
the authority, and prerogatives of the Crown. Our
gracious Sovereign needs not State prosecutions
to secure her prerogatives or preserve her power.
She has the unbought loyalty of a chivalrous -and
gallant people. The arm of authority she
requires not to raise. The glory of her gentle reign will
be—she will have ruled, not by the sword, but by. the
affections ; that the true source of her power has been,
not in terrors of the law, but in the hearts of her
people. Your patience is exhausted. If I have spoken
suitably to the subject, I have spoken as I could have
wished ; but if, as you may think, deficiently, I have
spoken as I could. Do you, from what has been said,
and from the better arguments omitted, which may be
well suggested by your manly understandings and your
honest hearts, give a verdict consistent with justice,
yet leaning to liberty—dictated by truth, yet inclining
to the side of accused men, struggling against the
weight, and power, and influence of the Crown, and pre-
judice, more overwhelming still—a verdict undesired by
a party, but to be applauded by the impartial monitor
within your breasts, becoming the high spirit of Irish
gentlemen, and the intrepid guardians of the rights and
liberties of a free people. When Mr. Whiteside con-
cluded his address, which was listened to with intense
attention, he sat down amidst a burst of applause, which
the presence of the Court could not suppress.
Mr. M‘Dosouon, Q.C., next addressed the jury, as
counsel for Mr. Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot, but
had not finished his speech wheinthe Court rose. It re-
lated to reports of speeches and comments on the diffe-
rent meetings which appeared in that paper; but, as far
as we can judge from the introductory part, contained no
new arguments.

EIGHTEENTH DAY.
DUBLIN, SATURDAY, FEB. 3..
The Court sat at the usual hour.
Mr. O'CoNzisins.—My Lord, I respectfully submit to the
Court, as the line of observation which it will be my duty to
take will not be precisely that taken by any other Counsel, and
as I know•the materials Mr. M.Donongh has will take a con-
siderable part of this day, if it were not interfering too much
with the course of the trial, I should be glad it your Lordships
would hear me on Monday, and not call on me this day. I
can promise the Court that in what I have to say—and it is
not much—l shall condense it still more, by knowing I shall be
called upon on Monday.
CmzEr JUSTlCE—Certainly, Mr. O'Connell, we shall com-
ply with your application. I wish to know whether Mr.
Steele intends to address the Court?
Mr. O'CotiNzLia—No, my Lord.

EV E G, FEBRUARY 6, 1844.

Mr. M'DoNoucir resumed his address—My Lords, the in-
dulgence you are kind enough to grant will not be abused by
me, and I shall not prolong my address in consequence. I beg
leave, Gentlemen of the Jury, to direct your attention to the
evidence. The next meeting to which I shall call your atten-
tion is the meeting of the 6th of August, 1843 —the Baltinglass
meeting—and the witnesses named Godfrey, Twiss, Lenahan,
Hughes, and Taylor, all constables of police. There is some-
thing in the evidence of Godfrey exceedingly suspicions. This
man was not ordered to take notes at all ; and when he was
questioned on that point, he hesitated for a long time before he
gave an answer in the negative, because he knew that
,the fact of a policeman doing a duty that lie was not
ordered to do was calculated to excite surprise. In the
opening speech of the Attorney-General, he stated that one
person at the meeting at Baltinglass, was heard to say that
Father Lalc'r told them in the chapel, "It was too far gone
now ; but they would get it, but not without bloodshed."
That statement was made, of course, from the instructions re-
ceived by the Attorney-General; yet that statement has not
been sustained by evidence. The next witness was Henry
Twiss, who took no notes at all, and he- gave you some
expressions that fell from the crowd. They said, wait
patiently fur two months. That this expression did not mean that
the people should he quiet for two months before breaking out
in disturbance, time has proved. He saw no inclination, on
the part of the people, to riot or disturbance. The next wit-
ness is Lenahan. This witness reported one sentence of 'Mr.
O'Connell's speech. He said he heard Mr. O'Connell tell the
people that he was glad to see them there, and he hoped to see
them when he next came there. That produced great
laughter, and yet that humourous exl.ression is changed into
a sort of assignation to meet again for an outbreak and
massacre. John Taylor, also a constable, and of the lowest
grade, is the next witness. He, not having taken any notes,
affects to give one or two short sentences of Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech ; one was, that he would get repeal if the
people stood to him—that some of the landlords at-
tempted to prevent the people from coming to the meet-
ing ; but still they did come, and if he wanted them
again they would come to him. The object of Mr. O'Connell was
to impress on the people union and perseverance. It was me-
lancholy to reflect how Mr. O'Connell's meaning had been per-
verted. He would next refer to the testimony of Johnson,
from Longford. The testimony of such men is naturally subject
to great suspicion ;it was their trade—their duty—to seek out
for anything that would criminate a Repealer. Notwithstand-
ing all their diligence, they could find nothing criminal—they
could discover no plot. The Learned Counsel then read, from
the Evening Mail of January 19, that which had been given in
evidence. The Learned Counsel, in support of his position,
then quoted several passages from the speech of Mr. O'Con-
nell at the Tara meeting, to the effect that, although the Act
of Union was really a nullity, yet, so long as it was the law,
it should be obeyed, and that its repeal should be sought by
peaceable and constitutional means. He also read the speeches
of Mr. Boylan, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Smith O'Brien, and others,
to show that the same peaceable doctrines were held forth by
them also. The next meeting was held in Loughrea on
the 10th of September, 1843. It was not convened by the
Association, but was one of those springing out of
a requisition, and entirely independent of it. At that meeting
Mr. Ross attended, and it is observable that whenever he ap-
pears no second witness is produced, not even a newspaper.
There is but one exception, that of the Mullaghmast meeting,
where Mr. Hughes attended, and he, allow me to observe, is a
fair specimen of a manly and an honest witness. But I will
show you that Mr. Ross's notes, by their own intrinsic evi-
dence, are not to be relied on. Mr. Ross, with his topical
notes—(Laughter)—he himself told you that Mr. O'Connell
did not mean to say what he read from his notes. Suppose
that man Ross had died—suppose that his notes could have
been made evidence, by their having been translated, he would
have made Mr. O'Connell say what he himself swears Mr.
O'Connell did not say—that is, did not mean. He would have
put treason into Mr. O'Connell's mouth. Mr. Barrett did not
attend that meeting ; in fact, he did not attend any meeting.
CHIEF JUSTICE—I think you are mis-stating, Mr.
M'Donough.
Mr. Itl'DoNoucx—No, my Lord, I am not; it is a fact
on which I intend to rely. Mr. Barrett did not attend any
meeting in the open air ; and his sole crime is for having dined
two or three times with the Repealers. No expense was
spared to obtain evidence in support of the prosecution. Mr.
ROSS got 4004 Inquiries were instituted in all parts of the
country, and the police were on the alert ; they are scat-
tered over the face of the land; they are to be found in
every?. hamlet in the country, watching the develope•
anent of some treasonable act, but which they signally failed
to discover—for this plain reason, that it did not exist.
The next meeting was that at Mullaghmast, and the witnesses
to that meeting are Mr. B. Hughes, his assistant Mr. Latham,
Mr. Charles Ross, and Healy, the policeman. They were not
examined at the same time. Hughes was called first, and
Healy in some days after. Mr. Hughes went openly ; he ap-
prised the parties that he came there to watch their proceed-
ings ; yet he was received with cordiality, and every fa-
cility given him to take his notes. On the other hand,
Mr. Ross was recognised :as a person connected with and
representing a Liberal paper, who had been previously in-
troduced to the Association by a gentleman belonging to the
Evening Post. He should, therefore, be regarded as a per-
son who was treated familiarly by those on the platform
and in the pavilion, and he had an opportunity of judging of
their conduct and intentions, which Mr. Hughes might not
be supposed to have, who had openly proclaimed himself as a
Government reporter. Again, Healy was sent from the south
of Ireland, and he was selected because he was a stranger.
He mixed with the people, and heard their expressions, and
what does he prove he heard them say, but to shout for
the Queen and repeal of the Union ? Every one of
those witnesses concurred in characterising that meet-
ing as one of the most peaceable description and tendency.
The witness Healy said that he saw temperance hands
there, but not. at all so numerous as at some of Father
Mathew's processions in the south of Ireland, where, on one
occasion, he saw forty-five bands dressed, as Mr. Rosa pro-
perly called them, in fancy dresses. Such was the meeting at
Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell attended there in his civic
robes, with several otherl aldermen and town-councillors of
Dublin, and the first resolution proposed was a declaration of
loyalty and attachment to the Queen. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to read a variety of extracts from Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech on occasion of the Mullaghmast Repeal demon-
stration, and alluded especially to the circumstance of the
speaker having repudiated, in language most distinct
and emphatic, the idea of the repeal movement
being susceptible of any sectarian complexion. It was a
national movement, which was designated and intended for
the express benefit of all Irishmen, irrespective of political or
religious differences. The Learned Counsel read from the
Freeman's Journal the report of Mr. Barrett's speech on the
occasion of the Mullaghmast demonstration. He would now
come to the next meeting, which was intended to have taken
place—he alluded to the intended meeting at Clontarf, and he
would more particularly refer to the substituted meeting, which
was held at Calvert's Theatre, on the 9th of October. It was
proved by Mr. Bond Hughes that a meeting was announced to
take place at Clontarf, but the evening previous to the day on
which it was to be held, a proclamation was issued by the
Lord-Lieutenant, by the advice, of course, of his law ad-
visers. prohibiting that meeting. That was the first
interposition of the Government, and it was obeyed with a
promptitude worthy of commendation. Well, the Clontarf
meeting did not take place, but the resolutions prepared for Clon-
tarf were approved of at the meeting on the following day in
Abbey-street. It was well that meeting was held, because it
evidenced what the peaceable objects of the intended Clontarf
meeting was. The first two resolutions adopted at the
Abbey-street meeting asserted the right of petitioning for
the repeal, and perfect allegiance to the Queen ; the third was
a vote of confidence in Mr. O'Connell, and the fourth
was to the effect that a petition be forwarded to the Houses of
Lords and Commons for a Repeal of the Legislative Union.
Mr. O'Connell made a speech upon that occasion, in which he
said he had two objects; one of which was to proclaim to Ire-
land that there was but one way of obtaining the repeal, and
that was by obedience to everything bearing the form of legal
authority ; resistance was not right until legal authority was
done away with, and the iron and dread hand of power was
raised against them. There were certain other charges sought
to be made, and one of these was a short article, introducing a
report of a meeting which was held in America, and at which
Mr. Tyler, the son of the President of America, attended, and
made a speech. The sentiments made use of by Mr. Tyler
were absolutely attributed to Mr. Barrett. He proceeded to
read certain passages from the speeches made at the meeting
in America :—I shall now call your attention to the sth and
6th Vic., entitled an Act to amend the law relating to defama-
tory libels.
The SOLICITOR-GINERAL—But not seditious libels.
Jr. 11I'Dostoucti—I am speaking generally on the subject,
The Learned Gentleman then read an extract from the Act of
Parliament.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Is that an Imperial Act?
Mr. M'DoNoucli—Yes, my Lord.
Judge CRAMPTON—Extending to Ireland?
Mr. Al'Dostoucx—Yes, my Lord. The Solicitor-General
suggests that a seditious libel is not referred to in that
statute. This Act only just now occurred to me, and lam
not prepared to say that he is not right, and from his greater
familiarity with the Act of Parliament, he may be so. But
suppose the word " seditious" libel is not there, parties
may be indicted fur conspiring to defame another just as
well as if a conspiracy; by seditious papers, to effect a
certain purpose; and any private prosecutor, if this precedent
be established, may, instead of bringing an action of defama-
tion, indict a party for a conspiracy to defame him. It was
the settled law of the land that when a man was accused of any
offence, whether conspiracy, or anything else, it was absolutely
necessary that the jury, before they returned a verdict of guilty,
should be satisfied that the evidence adduced on the part of
the prosecution was such as to bring guilt home to him be-
yond the possibility of doubt. Something had been said at
the commencement of the present trial in allusion to the
construction of the jury; but this was a topic upon which
he would not touch ; for he would never utter a word that
could be by possibility construed into an expression of doubt
on his part that the respectable and enlightened gentlemen
whom he had the honour to address, would discharge their duty
with firmness, propriety, and discretion. If they had upon
their minds any rational doubt of the alleged conspiracy
having been substantially proved by the evidence that had
been adduced on behalf of the Crown, they should not—they
could not—find the traversers guilty. If the jury could, con.
sistently with the maxims of law, and the dictates of their
own consciences, find a verdict of acquittal, he had no doubt
that that verdict would do more to attach the people of this
country to the administration of justice, and to convince them
of the purity of the legal tribunals, than anything that had
occurred for centuries past. Those who advocate the repeal
are no despicable faction—the) are the majority of the Irish
people. Whatever may be our speculations as to the result of
your verdict, I cannot better conclude the observations I have
had occasion to make to you, than by humbly imploring Pro-
vidence to lead your minds to a just conclusion.
Mr. HENN, Q.C., then rose to address the Court for Mr.
Thomas Steele—lt was with unfeigned regret he felt himself
compelled to obtrude himself upon their notice at that stage of
the proceedings. He was not himself aware, until a very short
time previously, that the duty would devolve on him. He felt
that everything that eloquence, wit, and sound reasoning could
do had been already done, and in the observations he should
have to make, he would endeavour to abstain as much as pos-
sible from going over the same topics that had been dis-
cussed with so much more ability than he could approach
them with, and he should, if possible, introduce new
matter. He implored the jury to recollect that they
were not now empanelled to try whether repeal was politic,
or whether it would be beneficial to this country or not, or
whether the discussion of it be beneficial to this country or
not. He begged to impress that upon their minds, because
he knew that at this moment there were hundreds out
of that Court who believed that that was the question they
were trying. He knew before they were empanelled that
there were hundreds, aye, thousands of their fellow-citizens
who were convinced that was the question to be tried. He
knew that the case was prejudged by thousands of honest
and conscientious men; and he felt convinced that, before the
facts of that case were opened, and before the law applicable
to it was stated, that there were not to be found in the
city of Dublin ten men who had not formed their opinions
on this case—no, not two—he doubted if there was one. He
was convinced that there was nut a single Repealer who did
not pronounce the traversers " not guilty ;" and that there
was not a man opposed to repeal that did not pronounce a ver
diet of " guilty." He had heard it over and over again stated
that this indictment charged nothing but a conspiracy, and
that was perfectly true. But he did not think their attention
as yet had been called with sufficient accuracy to the actual
point in question. They had heard it said that a ConsPiraci to
effect a criminal object was itself a crime ; and they had heard
it also laid down that a conspiracy to effect a lawful object
by criminal means was itself a crime. Now, he thought

for all the purposes o f this trial, they might simplify the
propos'
'thin in point of law, and then the simple proposition
is that a conspiracy to do a criminal act is it-elf a crime, so
that the two propositions he had stated resolved themselves
into that one ; because a combination to effect a lawful pur-
pose, such as to procure the repeal of an Act of Parliament,
was not itself a crime ; but if the parties combined to effect
that by the commission of criminal acts then it was a crime.
The question simply was not the combination to procure a
lawful effect, but the combination to use the criminal means.
To use constitutional means was not a criminal act, and
therefore that could not constitute a conspiracy ; it was com-
bining to do the illegal act that constituted a conspiracy.
He hoped the jury would keep the fact strongly in their
mind, that there was no principle in the law, as laid down,
that a party could be guilty of a conspiracy, before a clear
proof of the fact was established. There should be
clear proof that the party were conspiring—that; the act was
the act of all—and then it might be given in evidence
against all of them. With these opening observations he would
call their attention to the charges which had been preferred
against the traversers. The Crown prosecutors have thought
fit to put eight persons on their trial, and they had also put on
the files of that Court a document, in the form of an indictment,
which might well be termed a monster indictment. It had a
vast variety of charges set out on the face of it, and also a vast
variety of what was termed overt acts. • He did not com-
plain of what was put on the indictment, but he must say that
the defendants were put to a great deal of expense with regard
to the overt acts, not one particle of which was even given in
evidence of the offence of which the defendants stood charged.
The jary must be all satisfied, however, that every single overt
act was proved, or they could not find a verdict of guilty, nor
could they necessarily come to the conclusion of guilt without
that. Had the jury any doubt whatever abeut the common
object of the parties (the traversers)—if common object they
had at all ? He would ask them, was it not a repeal of the
union-that they sought, and that they were not guilty of the
charge attribeted to them at all ? Seeking for a repeal of
the union was the real offence of which they were guilty ;
but that was not charged in the indictment, and for this rea-
son—the Attorney-General well knew it was not an offence,
and that if he had put such a charge in the indictment, it
would not stand one moment in that Court, as it was no
crime in law: You see the way it was raised by those who
framed the indictment. Instead of charging them with the
teal fact, the Crown prosecutors allege that the defendants
are guilty of a crime • but if you are satisfied that their
object was a repeal of the union, alone to be accomplished by
legal means, then he would defy them to convict the
traverser& How could they be warranted, on their oaths, in
convicting them of a comlsination or confederacy, and the
crime of conspiracy to raise discontent and disaffection in
the minds of her ?Majesty's sabjects ? And in this case, sup
pose one of them did use illegal means to effect a repeal of the
union, that would not affect the other traversers in the
least degree. Why, the charge was so preposterous, so vague,
and so absurd, when it was said that such would be a charge
of conspiracy and a criminal offence, that it really deserved
not the least attention or consideration, for any person saw
what the real intent was, and how the alleged charge endea-
voured to evade it A conspiracy to raise discontent I What
was the meaning of that charge ? Was it to be supported in a
Court of Justice that all free discussion was to be put down ?
If so, there would be an end to all constitutional law.
Was he to be gravely told that men were to be put on
their trial for a criminal offence, because they had made
certain speeches? Was their object a legal one? If so,
such a charge as is preferred here cannot be for
a moment sustained or entered into. Was there a particle of
evidence that disaffection was roused among her Majesty's sub-
jects? Was there a charge of disaffection to the Queen,
which, he would admit, was an offence? No. Was there a
charge of disaffection to the Government, or to the Constitu-
tion? No such ;thing. No, it was among the liege subjects
of her Majesty, and in a case of the present nature the charge
should be plain and intelligible to the commonest understand-
ing. He would ask, after all they had heard• from those elo-
quent persons who had preceded him, as to those meetings,
was not the real object to convince the Government of the
country as to what were the real sentiments of the Irish people.
Mr. O'Connell's whole life belied the charge—that was also
clear during the whole progress of that agitation which
ended in the successful issue of .emancipation, and which
proved to him the great and beneficial effects following from
the preservation of peace. He was not there to answer for
the validity of Mr. O'Connell's reasons ; but let them be
answered by something else rather than a State prosecution.
Let the Parliament of Great Britain decide on the merits.
Let the assembled intelligence of Britain do so—but such a
prosecution as the present would not do it, for he felt firmly
convinced that the result of that prosecution would be—no mat-
ter what it would be in that Court—to promote, rather than to
repress what it was intended to effect.-- He trusted, whatever
were the results, that he should not live to see the day when
free discussion would be put down by means of a State prosecu-
tion., The next charge was that the traversers conspired
to bring into hatred and contempt the Courts, as by law
established in Ireland for the administration of jus-
tice. He then alluded to the Arbitration Court. It
was absurd to say that to recommend men to subm
their • disputes to their fellow-men, was calculated to
bring into disrepute the constituted Courts of the land.
That was as absurd as to say 0- at to make a complaint
against the superior Courts was a crime. He begged the jury
to keep in mind the fact, that before they pronounced a ver-
dict against any one of the traversers,Ahey must be satisfied
beyond all reasonable doubt that the said traversers did con-
spire together, not merely. to procure a temporary repeal of the
union, but to do those illegal acts specified, in the indictment.
On what did the -Attorney-General mainly. rely? He said,
" True it-is these meetings were all very peaceable—true it is
there was no outbreak—true it is there was ~:,no indication
of the slightest 'breach of" the peaeW;l say. that object was different from that propounded. -tiut-it is that's as yet. no mischief has ensued: Why ? Beeinse;• fortubately,l
I have put a stop to agitation. 1 knew "chit there' would' he
an outbreak, and so by a Crown prosecution:l prevent it. He
(Mr7.Henn) recollected hearing of a Learned. Gentleman once.
stating, in addressing a 'jury, " Gentlemen, J smell a rats I see
it brewing in the storm.; but if it please God:L will crush it -in'
the bud "-(Laughter) But, now, o make more particular
reference to -his client.-' Mr. Steele 'avOvsed that it was
his highest privilege to approve of every act of Daniel
O'Connell, and lie would not permit him' to stand there
as his advocate, were he not now, on his part, to
..repeat
the assertion. What was the'charge preferred against Mr.
Steele. That of making -a ceitain speech on the ad of
October, in which he seconded a certain resolution. The
conclusions to which the counsel for the prosecution had
come were as legitimate as any ever, • pronounced by the
splendid Dogberry himself.—(Laughter.) Dogberry had
been put into his (Mr. Henn's) mouth, by what at college he
was taught to call a concatenation of ideas. There had
been so little proved in the present case, and so much said
and premised, that be was reminded of a play of Shake-
speare's called Much ado about Nothing.--:(Laughter.) In that
play Dogberry cut a distinguished figure. On one occasion a
witness says—" I heard him say he received 2,000 ducats for
defaming the character of a certain lady." " Black burglary,"
says Dogberry. And when the Counsel for the Crown read
those speeches—" Treason," says the Attorney-General.—
( Laughter.) " Sedition," says the milder Solicitor, and
" black burglary," says Mr. Brewster.—(Great laughter.)
Having first determined on finding the traversers guilty of a
seditious conspiracy, the scissors were put in requisition ; and
by transplanting to this indictment, from the ephemeral pro-
ductions of the day, the speeches of the defendants, im-
mortality was conferred upon them. He could well con-
ceive with what feelings the clerk employed on the occasion
performed his duty. The recordingntaao nal
tde_cus
t.
bee(
langeldaLotomhtaf
euuoi
ntgt
puhhoneonct
observed,t
uee
ocrtr
he! afva_soi
reenrgl
yeysne
dvb
topicemmi
trl .
theuut
ay sst
haveha monstrosityvehuh ege bdhlinducedttpzerrhte.eeidea
tear upon
wulni wellmpioe nn s
if
speakers
hehsehaeaeektrhhe'
nargeedsadvct
occasion
hher
Gentleman cruel edsi l tm
a(t osL
g
that required notice, he should not trouble them much further
oavnedrimthe a r
ts
iaaml iet y raonudn
thatd.
blylethweasir
vceorndvicintctehdeyofwtohuelidr
ibnyt eggori it) gy
not raise the question whether the trial by jury—that palla-
dium of British liberty—way only a vain-glorious boast, but
that they would prove that there was not, on the face of the
whole earth, a country in which a person would be more cer-
tain of obtaining justice than Ireland, and from a jury of Irish
Protestants.
Mr. Hor.stEs, on behalf of the junior bar, made a request to
their Lordships, that as the space was not sufficient for their ac-
commodation, they should have access to the gallery. He did
not think it right that the gallery should be confined to those
only who had tickets. The junior bar were more particular in
this request, as Mr. O'Connell was to speak on Monday.
he CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared very reasonable that
the bar should have every accommodation which they might
procure. He was aware that the High Sheriff had taken
great pains to accommodate all classes of the public who
wished to hear what took place on that extraordinary trial,
and he had given admirable accommodation to that class of
gentlemen who gave publicity to what took place in that
Court—they claimed it as their right, indeed, and it was at
once conceded to them. The gentlemen of the bar had pre-
cedence certainly in the place appropriated fur the bar, pro-
vided they went there in their professional dress ; but he was
of opinion they had no right of precedence whatever over the
public in any other part of the Court. There was a gallery
set apart for persons of distinction, and he apprehended he
there saw several Peers of the realm standing in the station
allotted to them.
The Ilion SHERIFF requested permission to explain the ar-
rangements he had made. The members of the bar had, of
course, the exclusive right to that portion of the Court set
apart for them : the side gallery and the two rows in the
front gallery were set apart for Peers and their families, and
there would be a great number of them in attendance on
Monday ; and the directions he had given to the police were
not to allow barristers as such, in their professional costume,
to fill the gallery to the exclusion of the general public. The
gentlemen of the bar had a habit, he supposed a proper one,
of asserting their privileges by. going wherever they liked
when they had their caps and gowns on—(Laughter)—in fact,
they seemed to expect that wearing their caps and gowns—.
CHIEF JUSTICE.—Their wigs and gowns.—(Laughter. )
HIGH SHERIFF--All I can say is, tbat I have had the
greatest difficulty in keeping order among the gentlemen of
the junior bar.—( Renewed laughter. )
Mr. Justice BURTON expressed his opinion, concurring with
the regulations of the Sheriff.
At tour o'clock the Court adjourned• till ten on Monday
morning.

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—The following high so-
cietY have visited this theatre within the last few days to see
Richard the Third and The Bohemian Girl:—Her Most Gra-
cious Majesty, Prince Albert, and suite; the Duke and Du-
chess of Beaufort, Duke of Sutherland, Duke of Brunswick;
Marquis of Douro, Marquis of Worcester; Earl of Chester-
field ;*General Espartero ; 'Marchioness of Sligo, Marchioness
of Conyngham; Earl and Countess of Wilton, Countess of
Dunmore; Ladies Somerset, Carrington, Wharncliffe, Cecelia'
De Vaux, Leonard, Gardiner, Broke Vere, Caroline Cocks,
Graham, Walker .; Viscount Hawarden, Earl of Errol ; Lords
Hillsborough, Gifford, Torrington, Alfred Paget, A. Fitzela-
renee, Castlereagh, Manners StanleY, Eliot, George Paget,
Henry Lennox, Charles Wellesley, Seaham, Auckland, Wen-
lock, Duncaunon ; Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart.
Arthur Clifford, Bart. ; Sir Thomas Leonar ; General Sir
Col Bart. ; Sir
Simon Clarke,• Sir Thomas Gage, Bait ; Colonel ,
General Meade, Hon.. Paul Methuen, lion. Miss Devayldeux,
Hon.-Mrs. Scarlett, Count De Wenitts, Count Rielmansegge,
Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart. ; Hon. Mr. Grimstone, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Wilson has quite recovered from the attack of
hoarseness under which he laboured last Monday, and we
observe that he is to appear at head-quarters to-night—the
Music-hall. During last week Mr. Wilson gave his new en-
tertainment of Mary, Queen of Seots, at, Bristol, 'Worcester,
and Cheltenham, with great success, crowded audiences
greeting him in those towns.
CULLOMPTON.—The railway works at this
place
are proceeding with great rapidity. The double
rail ist l.
down for a considerable distance westward from the town.
The buildings for the station are
there can be now but little doubt of the opening of h
progressing rapidly, and
lino
to Exeter in April.— Western Times. .
THE STATE TRIALS.—Little did theCrownrolsacytieorns,
imagine, when they commenced their ill-starredoie; p
d or of the pro-
that two entire terms would be coliftsff
would not be brough
bability now becoming violent, that
to a close fora fortnight after theto pArllesFenotol7sr_iti4thyigi,vulSgoomtlye,
-indeed, suppose that it will go on .
'
designated the Ist of April.
IN
econfess, however, we are
not of that number—htunan endurance
has its limits.
Even the Attorney-General cannot holdout.— Dubli
n
Evening Post,