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

PETITION TO THE QUEEN.

The Lord Mayor of Dublin has received the following letter
Prom Sir James Graham :

" Whitehall, 25111 January, 1844.
"My Lord Mayor,—l have received her Majesty's commands
to notify to you, that the Queen will receive the address of
the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin, at
Buckingham Palace, on Friday, the 2d of February.
"It will be my duty to make. known to.)our Lordship on
your arrival in London the precise hour which her Majesty
may please to appoint for reoeiving the address.—l have the
honour to be, my Lord Mayor, your faithful servant,
" J. G. GRAHAM.
" The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin."
In consequence of the foregoing intimation, the Corpora-
tion held a meeting on Monday, at which it was proposed by
Alderman Roe, that the Lord Mayor should not wait upon
her Majesty, but that a letter should be written to the Home
Secretary requesting loins to present the address. This view
was generally dissented from, and it woos strongly put to the
es-Lord Mayor that he should not refuse to present the
address in person. Alderman Roe, howeVer, refused to ac-
company his successor, and accordingly a deputation of the
members of the Toms-council was formed, which is to pro-
ceed to London forthwith.

ARRIVAL 01' TILE PENINSULAR

Amyros, JAN. 30.—The Little Liverpool arrived here at
three o'clock, P.M., having the Gibraltar and Peninsular
mails. Iler dates are, Gibraltar, Jan. 20; Cadiz, 21 ; Lisbon,
24; and Vigo, 26.• The Liverpool had seven passengers and
a full cargo of fruit..
GADDESBY MURDER.—After another private, hut
brief, examination this morning, Mr. Messenger was once
more discharged. The opinion gains ground that Timson
(who is in gaol to take his trial for felony) " knows some-
thing."—Lcices'er Mercury.
LIVERPOOL—The friends of civil and religious
liberty will hold a public meeting, on Wednesday next, in
the Music-hall, for the purpose of declaring their sentiments
on the course pursued by the Tory Government in certain of
the preliminary preparations for the State Trials now pend-
ing in Dublin.—Liverpool
Buckingham Palace is undergoing some extensive
alterations and improvements, particularly in the wing ap-
propriated for the use of the Royal nursery.
GENERAL DUFF GREEN AT HOME.—At Washing-
ton Duff Green is quite busy with the President and Cabinet.
lie is organising measures and collecting capital for the
establishment of a daily newspaper in New York. It will be
a free trade Calhoun paper, and will also be an organ of the
Anti-Corn-law League of England.—Ncw York Paper.
DEATH OF MAJOR MACKENZIE, FODDERTY,.—It is
with deep regret that we have to announce the death of
Major Mackenzie. The Major was an eminent agriculturist,
and may be said to have introduced the modern scientific
system of culture into Ross-shire, and the first who applied
lime to the soil. The Major had been ailing some imonths,
and died in hi§ 75th year. He was universally respected for
his honesty and benevolence, and his death is greatly de-
plored.—Ross-vhire Advertiser. . ,

NELSON STATUE FINISHED.—At length the
statue of the Hero of the Nile is visible from his exalted po-
sitien in Trafalgar-square, apparently completed as it is " to
go down to posterity," as well as stand the criticism anti in-
spection of the present age. It is, undoubtedly, much im-
proved from the alterations and " clippings" it has under-
gone, the coil of rope, on one side, being much diminished,
and the left hand tail of the coat being likewise lessened, so
as to remedy the curious effect produced by its previous
form. Rapid progress is now being made in the completion
of the square, which being nearly paved, looks very advan-
tageously. The displeasing and unsightly hoarding will,
consequently, be soon removed, as also the clever and curious
scaffolding, that at present surrounds the column, and pre-
sents such a striking specimen of ingenuity.
Lady Oakeley died at Hastings on Friday last, in
her 42d year. Her Ladyship was second daughter of the
late Lora Charles Murray Aynsley, son of the fourth Duke
of Athol, and married, the sth of June, 1826, the Rev. Sir
Herbert Oakeley, Batt, Archdeacon of Colchester, and Dean
of Barking.
NEW ZEALAND THEATRICALS.-011 the 31st of
July last the first stone of a theatre, called the " Victoria,"
was laid at Port Nicholson, by Mr. Alderman Lyon, who
made rather an eloquent speech on the occasion, remarking
that the spot on which the theatre was to stand was but a
desert three years ago. By a playbill which is in London,
headed " Royal Victoria Theatre, Manners-street, Te Am,"
it appears that this theatre was opened for the second time
on the 16th of September. This is quick work, but probably
the theatre is constructed of light materials. The. bill, how-
ever, states that it is lighted with gas.
DUTY ON TOBACCO.—A memorial has been ad-
dressed to Sir Robert Peel by the American Chamber of
Commerce at Liverpool, praying for a reduction of the duty
on tobacco, and stating the advantage which would accrue,
both to the revenue and to commerce, by such a measure.
Tables are given to show the increase of consumption during
the imposition of a low duty, and that to such a degree as to
render the source of revenue more productive. Tints, coffee
in 1801, at ls. 7d. per lb., yielded 77,651/. ; in 1821, at ls. per
lb., 379,6501.; and in 1841, at Gd. per lb., 710,524/. Tobacco
in 1821, at 4s. per lb., yielded 3,164,673/., and in 1841, at 3s.
per lb., 3,314,215/. This difference of duty has not, however,
been sufficient to reduce materially the profits of the smug-
gler, who is still able to sell his tobacco at 2s. 9d. per lb.,
which is 3d. less than the duty alone. In 1798 Ireland con-
sumed 8,000,0001b5. of tobacco, and she now consumes
3,000,0001b5. less, with more than double the population.
During the period of extensive consumption the duty was
Bd. per lb., whereas now it is 3s. In England and Scotland
was consumed, in proportion to the population, only half the
quantity of tobacco consumed in. Ireland, the duty in this
island being Is. 7d. However' on account of smuggling, the
quantity of tobacco on which duty is paid does not give
even an approximation to the actual amount of consumption,
and the memorialists declare that in their belief the actual
consumption was 53,711,8561b5., instead of 22,094,7721b5., the
quantity on which the duty was levied. These statements
are followed by a prayer for the reduction of the duty on
tobacco to Is. per lb.
We understand that the Worcester and Birming-
ham Canal Company mean to make a very considerable re-
duction in their rate of tonnage, on and after Thursday
next, Feb. 1 ; and most of our readers are no doubt aware
that the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company hare
also resolved on adopting a similar step at the same period.
These measures will, in some degree, enable the port of
Gloucester to keep pace with the increasing competition of
other places; and the Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Com-
pany will do well to re-consider the advance which they
made in the rates of tonnage in the canal last year, a course
which, as we predicted at the time, has operated most pre-
indicially to the interests of the port.—Gloucester Chronicle.
VETERAN.—Died on Monday last., at MOOT
Houses, near Masham, Mr. George Wharton, late of Layer-
ton, near Kirkby Malzeard, at the patriarchall age of 114.
Until within the last two or three years this old man le-
tabled his mental and physical faculties in an extraordinary
way, and ever showed a disposition to conceal his age from
inquirers. The length of his pilgrimage, however, has, from
his narrative of circumstances which occurred in his youth,
been pretty well ascertained. He remembered, when a lad,
being present with his mother at the opening of one of the
first Wesleyan chapels in London, when he heard John Wes-
ley preach the opening sermon. At the last Whitsuntide
fair at Kirkby Malzeard he dined with the ancient order of
the Golden Ilede, when he appeared in excellent health anti
spirits.— Yorkshire Gazette.
DESPERATE REMEDY FOR A DESPERATE DISEASE.
—They tell a good story of Dr. Rand. He was called on
to visit a hypochondriac patient, who fancied she had
swallowed a mouse. On entering the room the lady ex-
claimed, " Dear doctor! lam glad to see you-1 am in
such distress—such pain ! Oh, doctor, I have swallowed
a mouse !" " Swallowed—nonsense," replied the doctor, in
his mild and pleasant manner. "Oh, no, doctor," slKl the
patient, "it is not nonsense—it is a mouse—a live mouse—
he ran down my throat when I was asleep, with my mouth
open, and I feel him now, creeping about my stomach, and
trying to gnaw out. Oh,doctor, do prescribe something
quick, or I shall die." "Prescribe," said he, " yes, I will
prescribe something that will cure you in a minute." "What
is it doctor, what is it?—l'll take anything you order."
" Well, then, my dear madam, swallow a cat—if that don't
cure you, nothing will."
THE WEATHER.—Last evening there was asudden
fall of the barometer, which was followed by a severe storm
of wind and snow. Towards the morning it blew a hurri-
cane, and in the course of the day a good deal of snow has
fallen, but, as the temperature is above freezing, it soon dis-
appears. The sky is much overcast, with the appearance of
severe weather.
AN IRISH DEFENCE.—A man named Jeremiah
n
O'Leary was charged at Worship-street
61!01i,c,e,:trar,t,,e.,,
Saturday with robbing his landlord of 19s.
douirgei
asked if he had anything to say m
replied, with a penitential shrug,* ofthess'lToulders, The divil
opinion a great dale too
a word, your honour ; and it's my
much has been said as it is
Another slip of le rail ha the ernba
annd a
krnent
in s near the Folkre-
e-
stone viaduct has taken place,
sorted to for the present, for the up and down trains as far
as Saltrs-oed.

IREL AND.

THE STATE TRIALS.

THIRTEENTH DAY.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)
DUBLIN, MONDtT, JAN. 29.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The Court sat at ten o'clock. The names of the tra-
y ersers and jury having been called over, they answered
respectively to their names, with the exception of Mr
Duffy, who appeared by his attorney, Mr. Gartlan.
Mr. J. OCONNELL rose and said—My Lord Chief
Justice, something dropped from my Counsel in his ad
rnirable speech in my behalf on Saturday, which I fear
is calculated to create a serious apprehension in the
rr4nds of the jury with regard to me, anti I therefore beg
yeti will allow me to offer a few words in explanation.
I wish to say, gentlemen of the jury, that I have always
been the advocate, and always will be the advocate, of a
full, entire, and perfect restoration of the legislative
liberties of my country; therefore, I am not one of those
of whom my counsel spoke as persons who would accept
the occasional'or even annual visit of the Imperial Parlia-
ment to Dublin, or any measure short of that of which I
speak. I don't know whether this will prejudice me in
your minds, gentlemen of the jury, but, if it does, I
would infinitely prefer it should prejudice me, rather
than be supposed to compromise what I consider the
inalienable right of our country to an independent Par
liament.-,( Applause.)
Mr. Mooar Q.O then rose and proceeded to say—

My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am Counsel on
behalf of one of the trsversers—the Rev. Thomas Tier-

ney—and, gentlemen, it now becomes my duty, as the
next Counsel in seniority to my friend Mr. Sheil, and in
that right, and in that character alone, to lay before
you the facts and circumstances of my client's case.
'Gentlemen, the facts and circumstances are such, that I
(16, with very respectful confidence, anticipate yonr ver-
dict of acquittal in favour of my client. Gentlemen of
the jury, I very unfeignedly feel the great disadvantage
that I must labour under in having to address you after
the able and brilliant and eloquent display of my friend
Mr. Sheil. If that disadvantage was to be merely per-
sonal—if it could not in the slightest degree affect my
client—it would not be deserving of one second's consi-
deration. And though, gentlemen,lnsust acknowledge my
perfect inability either to arouse you by wit, or delight you
by eloquence, as my Learned. Friend did—although I
must acknowledge my inability to address to you one
of those affecting appeals that he made to you ; yet, I
confidently hope that you will exend to me while I am
laying before you the facts of my client's case the same
patience, and the same attention, which I have observed
_ _

- -
yo
uinvariably ti ) bestow on every branch, and every feature
of this most important case. Gentlemen of the jury, there
is one observation that was used by the Attorney-General
in his openinc, statement in which I fully concur, and
from 3vhieh fthink no man could dissent. He told you,

gentlemen, that this was a momentous case. lle might
have added, that it comes beforb you under momentous
circumstances, and in momentous times ; and, certainly,

gentlemen, when we consider the great and important
question—l mean the 'Repeal of the Union—out of which
this prosecution hai undeniably arisen ; when we con-
sider the deep and all-pervading intere•t that that ques-
tion has excited through every part of Ireland, from one
end to the other ; when we consider that hundreds of
thousands—l may say millions—of your countrymen
have uEe4uivocally, but peaceably, expressed their
opinion in favour of that measure; when we consider
that one of the traversers at the bar is a gentleman pos-

sensing the unlimited confidence of those millions, eier-
cising and possessing a greater degree of moral influence
over the minds of his countrymen than any individual
ever possessed before over the minds of a free people, in
a free country ; when we find that man brought to the
bar of this Court, and branded, or sought to be branded,
with the crime of conspiracy ; when we consider that in
every part of this country there is the most feverish and
restless anxiety with regard to the result of your ver-
dict, the Attorney-General may well, indeed, say, that
this is a momentous case. Gentlemen of the jury, I cannot
concur with the Attorney-General in thinking that the
prosecution whitsh he has instituted is one that, either
in its circumstances, in its nature, or in its conduct, is
calculated for this momentous case. The Attor-
ney-General, gentlemen, has not condescended to
tell you what were his motives in instituting this prose-
cution—he has not explained to you what were the be-
nefits he expected to result from it. He would, perhaps,
have told you his object was to bring to justice a person
who violated the law ; but, if such should be his motive,
I will be able presently to show to him, and, I hope, to
you, that there never was a case less adapted for that
purpose than the present prosecution. If the Attorney-
General expected that the effect of this prosecution
would be to allay that feeling of irritation awl animosity
that subsist throughout the land, never was there a
more unfortunate expedient devised or resorted 'to than
the prosecution. No man can shut his eyes to this fact.
From first to last of this prosecution—from its original
institution down to the moment I am addressing you,
the conduct of the prosecutor and the Attorney-
General was such as to create a greater degree of
bitterness and animosity than ever existed in this
country before. Is it the expectation of the Attor-
nay-General that the effect of this prosecution is to
put down the discussion of the repeal of
the union ? Is that the hope or expectation of the Go-
vernment that he serves? Gentlemen, if that be what

he expects to result from it, I must confess, that in m
judgment, a more empty or idle chimera never
crossed the mind of an Attorney-General. The At-
torney-General has entered into an argument on the
question of the repeal of the union. I do not mean to
follow his example. He has held out to you what he
considers to be strong grounds to make you believe that
it was impracticable and unattainable. If the repeal of
the unicn—that important question which now per-
vades in its interest every portion of this land—if that
question be so destitute of merits as the Attorney-Ge-
neral wishes to represent to you—if it be so imprac-
ticable and unattainable as he wishes to represent to
you, gentlemen, that question does not want the aid of
prosecution to put it down. If it be so destitute of
merits as he would make you believe, that ques-
tion must speedily fall by its own weakness—if, on
the other hand, that question has merits, and those
merits that hundreds, and thousands, and millions
of your countrymen are of opinion it possesses, how
idle the hope or expectation to crush it by the prosecu-
tion of an Attorney-General ! On that great question I
mean to intimate or express no opinion of my own ; but
this I will say, without any hesitation, that let the merits
or demerits be what they may, I trust the time never
will arrive when it will be in the power of any Attorney-
General, or in the power of any Government, to crush or
stifle the discussion of any great public measure. Gen-
tlemen of the jury, it appears to me to be of importance
in this question that you should very distinctly carry in
your minds the nature of the charge that is preferred
against the traversers at the bar. That charge is con-
fined to a single one, and that is the charge of conspiracy.
I'beg you to carry in your recollection that there is no
indictment against any one of the traversers for having
attended an unlawful meeting. There is no indictment
against any of the traversers for having put forward
to the world a seditious publication ; but the single
charge that is brought and preferred against the
traversers at your bar is, that they are guilty of con
spiracy. How, gentlemen, is that conspiracy sought to
he made out? By the allegation that there were meet-
ings that were unlawful attended by some of the tra-
versers—by the allegation that seditious speeches were
spoken and published. But does it not at once occur to
you that if the object of the Attorney-General was to
bring to justice those who, in his opinion, violated the
law, that there was the most easy, and simple, and ob-
vious, and direct course for him to take, if the meet-
ings of which you heard so much in detail were un-
lawful? If they are unlawful now, they must have been
unlawful at the time they took place. If those
speeches are seditious now, they must have been se-
ditious when they were uttered ; and how, then, does
it happen that those meetings took place for a period
of nine months? Those speeches were uttered from
day to day, and almost from hour to hour, during that
period of time—how does it happen that the Attor-
ney General never yet ventured to prefer an indict-
ment against any one of the individuals that attended
thoae assemblies, that lie seeks
,now to brand as un-
lawful? or institute a prosecution against any one in-
dividual that uttered those speeches tliat he now tells
you are seditious and unlawful? On behalf of my client
in particular, and on behalf of all the traversers, I have
strong reason to complain of the course taken by the
Attorney-General. It is attempted to make one min
responsible for the acts and conduct of another. If he
says those meetings are illegal, or the speeches sedi
tious, what is more easy than for him to indictany one
that attended them or uttered those speeches? Let me
take, for instance, Mr. O'Connell. Suppose he indicted
him for having attended an unlawful meeting, could any
thing be more simple or easy than the proceedings on
the part of the Attorne_y-General? That the meetings
took place, and that Mr. O'Connell* attended them, is
undeniable. The material. and important facts of the
case are established to the hand of the Attorney-Gene-
ral ; and, if the meetings were unlawful, as he alleges
they are, he had nothina. to do but to brand the
character of those meetings which took place, and
satisfy the Court that they were unlawful, and in
that way brought ' the matter to i n
single moment, and at a single i have
Pea
I not reason to complain, on the part of my client,
of the course which has been adopted by the law officers
of the Crown in the present unprecedented prosecu-
tions? The Attorney-General has abandoned the easy,
artless, unencumbered course which was open to him
to have adopted—the course which I have described to
you as the simplest and most obvious that could have
been pursued by him. He flings All the traversers
headlong into one indictment—he entangles them, one
and all, within the meshes of a prosecution fur con-
iracy; and although it has appeared in evidence that
my client never was in connexion with any of the
traversers until the third of October, after all the
monster meetings had ceased, he endeavours, notwith-
standing, to make him responsible for all antecedent
acts of men with • whom it was impossible that
he could have acted in concert. Ire seeks to visit
him with the consequences of meetings which he never
attended ; of speeches which he never listened to ;
and of publications which he never read ! Is this
fair ? Is this candid ? Is this ingenuous ? The At-
torney-General lies in ambuscade for months—he then
suddenly rushes at, and avails himself of, the peculiar
doctrines of the law as regards the crime of conspiracy.
Contrary to the principles of justice, which delare that
a man is only to be made accountable for his own
works and his own acts, he endeavours to hold my client
responsible for the thoughts, the words, and the actions
of other men My Lords, and Gentlemen of the jury I

in my humble judgment, a public prosecutor, and more
especially one who holds the high and dignified position
of an Attorney-General—the first law officer of her Ma-
jesty—has no right to abandon the direct and obvious
path which lies before him, and to adopt the tor-
tuous and complicated course of a prosecution for
conspiracy, with a view to implicate one man in the
acts and designs of _others; and in adopting such a.
course of proceeding I have no hesitation in charac-
terising his conduct as equally unfair, oppres-
sive, and unjust. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General
took up all the meetings seriatim. He began with
them according to their dates, and gradually came down
to the latest of them; and he assured you, in emphatic
language, that they were one and all illegal. lie read
fur you a number of speeches which were delivered at
meetings, which he declared were seditious and he also
directed your attention to certain extracts from articles
which appeared in newspapers, and which he likewise
characterised as illegal ; but, gentlemen, it certainly did
appear to me that the Attorney-General in making these
statements to you, was most unwittingly, and most
unconsciously, pronouncing the severest philippic that it
was possible for the, mind of min to conceive, against
himself and the Government that he serves. For,
_ .

gentlemen, am I not entitled to view this matter in
the calm light of common sense ? Am I not entitled
to ask a question which presses itself irresistibly on the
mind of every man who dispassionately regards the con-
duct of the Crown prosecutors in the present extraor-
dinary proceedings? Those meetings lasted for nine
months—if they were, indeed, illegal—if it was, in-
deed, true, that the people were lured into outraging the
law of the country—if language of a seditious character
was indeed uttered by the Repeal leaders from day to
day, and from hour to hour—how, I ask, can the Attor-
ney-General reconcile it to his own conscience—how, I
ask, can he reconcile it to the duty which he owes to
the country and to the Government whose servant he
is, that for such a length of time he should have ut-
terly neglected the great and paramount business of his
office—the bringing to justice those who violate the
law and the constitution? Did he lie designedly
by, in order that crime might accumulate, and that,
when at length he shook off his lethargy, he
might be able to encompass whole masses -of cri-
minals within the meshes of the law ? Was this,
I ask, his 'object ? Was this the object of the
Government whose officer he boasts to be? Gentlemen,
it is the obvious duty of a Government to bring to
punishment those who violate the law ; bus-, gentlemen,
they have a yet more important duty to perform—a duty
with the due performance of which the best interests
of the common weal are yet more inseparably identified,
and that duty consists in preventing the commission of
crime; and if it was the deliberate opinion of the At-
torney-General that the meetings were illegal—and if he
declared that opinion to the Government, and if the Go-
vernment felt that the meetings were illegal, and the
speeches seditious—if, I say, they knew all this, and
knowing all this, lay designedly by in ambuscade
while they saw crime committed—while they saw
the infatuated people rushing in masses into
the perpetration of crime—if this, I repeat, was
their design, I have no hesitation in branding
such a design, on the part of any Goveroment, as an
act of the greatest—the blackest—the most unparalleled
baseness. What! Look calmly on while they saw the
people rushing by thousands into the commission of
crime ! Was it their design to look calmly on with
folded arms till they had a whole nation within their
meshes, in order that the Attorney-General might then
pick and choose such of the criminals as he pleased, and
immolate what victims he liked upon the altar of the
law ? But, my Lords and gentlemen, let me not be mis-
understood—let no man say that I impute any such
design to the Government. Far be it from me to bring
any such charge against them ; but I must say that the
speech of the Attorney-General, and the fact of the
Government having lain by for such a length of time.
afford ground for making some charge against some
quarter. I, for my part, do not make any such charge
against the Government—l impute to them no such
design—nor is anything more remote from my
thoughts than the desire of attributing so nefarious an
intention to the Attorney-General (for nefarious it
would, indeed, have been, had it been entertained). I
cannot bring myself to believe that any Government in
these countries, whether composed of men who are, po-
litically speaking, my friends or my antagonists, could
be guilty of baseness so execrable—so detestable. No,
I impute no such crime to them. I know that there are
members of the Government (with two of them I am in-
timately acquainted) who are men of the highest ho-
nour, of the most unimpeachable integrity—men who
would fling their high places indignantly to the winds
before they would stoop to such a course. I, therefore,
do not impute to the Government any misconduct—l do
not even charge them with a criminal negligence. Their
conduct may be fairly attributed to another cause; and
this I will at once proceed to demonstrate. It is
a fair principle of charity for one man to extend to-
wards his fellow, that when you can find a good mo-
tive to which to refer the conduct of your neighbour, it
is to that pure motive, and not to any sinister design,
that his actions ought to be attributed. I willingly
concede the benefit of this virtuous maxim to the Go-
vernment ; but may I not be pardoned if I respectfully
insist on the application of the same principle to the case
of my client ? The honest conviction of my soul is, that
although the Attorney-General has at length brought
his courage to the sticking-place, although he now
enters Court with an undismayed front, and declares that
the meetings were illegal, he never yet felt himself so
strong in that position as to venture to bring it single-
handed under the consideration of any court or any
jury. Let the result of the present prosecutions be what
it may, it is still open for the Attorney-General to adopt
this course. Let him select any of the meetings he
pleases ; let him bring into the Court of
Queen's Bench any or all of the persons who
attended that meeting, and let him try the ques-
tion fairly, and take the opinion of a jury as to whether
the meeting was or was not illegal. If that had been
done, we could not be in the dark—we' could clearly see
our way ; but that has not been done. The cause, I
think, is obvious. The Attorney-General was a lawyer,
and he could not tell the Government that the meetings
were illegal. I have no doubt but that, in the conscien-
tious discharge of his public duty, he would have at once
pressed upon the Government the illegality of the
meetings, if his mind had been made up on that ille-
gality. If he had a deep-seated conviction that the
meetings were against the law, he surely would
have lost no time in declaring that conviction to the
Government—that .he could not bear to look upon
such practices as were of daily recurrence in this
country—that he could not bear to see men rushing
in thousands into the commission of crime—and that
lie acoordingly thought that his duty imperatively
demanded that he should institute prosecutions
to put the meetings down. But it is my firm belief that
the Attorney-General, not being able to reconcile the
alleged illegality of the meetings with his own know-
ledge of law, was never prepared to go to such lengths—
he could not sanction any such proceeding, and this is
the reason why the meetings were permitted to go on
without interruption for nine months consecutively.
What is the use I make of this fact ? It is this—if the
Attorney-General was doubtful in his own mind that
any violation of the law had been committed—if he was
not during nine months able to bring himself to the con-
clusion that the meetings were illegal, is he now to be
permitted to come into Court and to require a jury to as-
sert their illegality, after thousands and hundreds of thou-
sands have attended the meetings, in the full conviction that
in so doing they were violating no law, is he now to
come forward and include millions of Irishmen in the
charge of having been guilty. of illegal practices? He
could not make up his own mind that the meetings were
illegal, and yet he calls upon twelve men to assert their
illegality. Whenever you find an Attorney-General
abandoning the obvious and easy course which lies be-
fore him, in order to adopt a tortuous and complicated
one, you ought not, nor ought any jury, to lend him as-
sistance in carrying out such a project. The Attorney-
General having gone seriatim through all the meetings,
came at length to the contemplated meeting of the Bth
of October, at Clontarf, and never did I experience a
greater degree of surprise than in hearing him as-
sert that the intended meeting was abandoned from
a conviction of its illegality. I am sure the At-
torney-General entertained that opinion or he would
not have expressed it ; but I am equally certain
there is not another individual in the community, who
knows anything of the facts and circumstances relating
to that meeting, that for a moment thinks that the cause
of its abandonment was from any conviction of its ille-
gality. Does the Attorney-General forget, or does he
expect that the people of this country will forge', the ex-
traordinary circumstances which occurred with regard
to that meeting ? Does he forget the almost breathless
haste and precipitancy with which the Lord Lieutenant
came over to this country, on the day, or the day but
one before that meeting? Does he forget that far-famed
proclamation, issued the night preceding the day on which
the meeting was to have been held, or does he forget
the exertions that were made on the part of the Govern-
ment to suppress, to put down that meeting by the force
of the sword, the bayonet, and the cannon? And does the
Attorney-General after all that pretend to express to
you his opinion that that meeting was abandoned on
account of its illegality ? No, gentlemen of the jury,
that was not the cause of its abandonment. I am not
finding fault with the Government for its interference
with those proceedings. I am unacquainted with the
circumstances under which that proclamation issued,
and I will not impute any blame where I am unacquaint-.
ed with the facts ; but I must again declare that it was
through no conviction of its illegality that meeting
was abandoned. To what then was it owing ? To the
act of one of the traversers at your bar—to his strong
sense of justice, and to his strong feelings of humanity.
The abandonment of that meeting was owing to the
sense which that gentleman entertained of his high duties
as an honest citizen. He knew the fearful consequences
that might have resulted had that meeting taken place ;
and picture to yourselves for a moment what might have
happened had it been gone on with. How does the
matter stand ? On the one side were the armed batta-
lions of Britain, under the direction of their most expe-
rienced leaders—armed with every weapon of defence,
and of offence, and ready to act in obedience to the
commands of those leaders, and to do whatever they
migh tthink right. On the other side, you had an
unarmed and defenceless multitude. Gentlemen,
had a collision under such circumstances taken
place, had the slightest angry word been said
which might have provoked it—had even an
accident occurred which might lead to it—you would
have had the armed battalions of this country, in the
full plenitude of their strength, arrayed against the un-
armed, helpless, and, I may add, defenceless multitude.
It is really frightful to contemplate what the conse-
quences might have been ; and the plains of Clontarf,
but for the exertions of Mr. O'Connell, might have been
a second time deluged with the blood of his countrymen.
Mr. O'Connell stopped that meeting, not, as I said, be-
cause he considered it illegal; but because he foresaw the
fearful consequences that might have resulted, and in my
judgment he is entitled to the warm gratitude of every
friend of humanity for his conduct on that occasion; and I

will further add, that there is not an individual in the com-
munity who owes him a deeper debt of gratitude than
the Attorney-General himself. Gentlemen of the jury,
I hesitate not to say, that if I were to select the act of
Mr. O'Connell's life which, in my judgment, was most
deserving of praise—that act of his which I would most
wish to send down to posterity —I would not seleCt his
great and unwearied exertions for Catholic Emanci-
pation, or the consummation of that great measure
by which he restored equal rights and liberties to all
his country-men ; but I would select his conduct on the
occasion of this Clontarf meeting as doing most honour
to his feelings, most credit to his humanity, and by which
he saved the country from the dreadful consequences of a
collision, which it was only owing to his exertions did not
take place. Gentlemen of the jury, let me now advert for
one moment to the nature of the charges preferred against
the traversers in this indictment. They are charged, in
the language of the indictment, with combining, and
conspiring, and confederating together, for the several
purposes, for the bad and atrocious purposes I acknow-
ledge, but which, I think, are unjustly and untruly at
tributed to them, in that indictment. If you separate the
charge of combination and conspiracy from the high-
sounding phraseology given to it in that indictment. you
will find that a conspiracy, in point of law, is nothing
more nor less than this—an agreement between two or
more persons, either to do an illegal act, or to do a legal
act by illegal means. The very instant that agree
ment is entered into the crime is complete; and if a man
once agrees to do an illegal act, he may be put on his
trial for conspiracy the very hour and moment he en-
tered into that agreement. It is not necessary that there
should be any act done, or any outrage committed, for
the offence arose when the agreement was entered into;
and therefore, before you can convict my client, the
Rev. Mr. Tierney, or any other of the traversers, you
must be satisfied in your own minds, from the evidence
you have heard, that they did enter into an agreement
for the purposes stated in that indictment. Gentlemen,
on the part of the Rev. Thomas Tierney, I controvert the
assertion altogether. I deny that any such agreement
was entered into by any of the traversers. I dispute
altogether the facts of the charge of any such agree-
ment or conspiracy, and I also dispute that if any such
agreement or conspiracy ever did exist, which I deny,
that you have any one particle of evidence on which it
would be possible for you to say, in justice to yourselves,
or to your consciences, that my client, the Rev. Thomas
Tierney, was in any manner implicated. Gentlemen,
let me ask you this plain and simple question—have
you even the shadow of legal evidence that he ever did
enter into such an agreement? Whoever heard him,
or any of them, say that there was such an agree-
msnt entered into ? There is no evidence of any
such thing. Ido not mean to say that it is abso-
hvely necessary that you should have direct evidence to
that effect; the charge may be made out without the pro-
duction of direct and positive testimony; but what tes-
timony of any kind have you upon which you could say
that this agreement which would constitute a conspiracy
only took place. He the Attorney-General, ventured to
suggest a period at which this alleged agreement took
place. He lays before you a period of nine months over
which these proceedings extended. Did it take place
before the first, or second, or third, of those meetings,
or when did it take place ? You have got the full
period of nine months, and it is left to you to pick out
whatever period you please on the date of the' existence
of the alleged conspiracy. He has not told you even
where the agreement took place. The meetings were
held in every part of Ireland. Did the agreement take place
in the north or in the south, in the east or in the west?
Is there a single item in the evidence which would fix it
as having taken place at any time ? The Attorney-
General read to you in evidence innumerable speeches
and publications, an extract out of this, and out of the
other newspaper, and ha flings them all into the jury-
box, and calls on you, as you best can, to construct a
conspiracy out of them. I trust you will never do it,
when you recollect that the Attorney-General had a
plain course before him to vindicate the law, and when
he might have indicted every one of those traversers,
within the period after that agreement had been entered
into, in a less time than it took him to address you ;
and. therefore, I am sure you will not aid him in ex-
tracting from this heap of extracts the materials of a
conspiracy against my client. Gentlemen of the jury,
my Learned Friend, Mr. Sheil, called your
attention to the indictment in this case, and he de-
scribed it, as I think he well might have, done, as a
" monster indictment." It has been called so with pe-
culiar propriety. It is in accordance with the expres-
sions of the Attorney-General himself, for I think I
heard him use the word at least a hundred times in the
course of the present prosecution. Gentlemen, I will
call it what I think it deserves to be called—a mon-
ctrous indictment—for I do not believe a precedent for
is to be found in the records of our Criminal Courts.

It is truly a monster, and it well deserves to be put
down as the Frankenstein of the imagination
of her Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland.
Is it not a monstrous indictment ? You have
an accumulation of meetings of speeches, and
of publications, and from them all the Attorney-Ge-
neral asks you to extract the material which would
substantiate a charge of combination and conspiracy.
Gentlemen, you have seen,but we have not heard the in-
dictment in question read over by the Attorney-General;
I don't say it would afford you much pleasure to have
heard it read : you may think it necessary, in the dis-
charge of your important duty to read it ; but if you
had heard it read over twenty times over, and that you
even had the memory of a Paschal, you would be
puzzled with the multitude of matter relative to facts
contained in it. It was in this case, as in all others of
the kind, it being a principle of all criminal cases that
the jury are called on to take into their considera-
tion all the facts of the case ; and I ask you by
what power of unnatural reasoning are you called
on to extract facts from the indictment which it
does not contain ? The Attorney-General wishes
you to extract from it that which you cannot do. It
was publicly known that the indictment was pre-
pared and sent before the grand jury, and every
person was aware that that respectable body of gentle-
men were occupied in the consideration of it for several
days: to be sure they ultimately found the bill, but it
was notorious, as one of them stated in the box, that
they were not unanimous in the finding of that bill. The
duty of the grand jury was to read over the indictment,
and it took them several days to get through it, and
before they had made up their minds on the subject, and
even then on their oaths they could not come to an
unanimous conclusion. Well, several days were taken
up by the grand jury in considering the bill, and then
the Attorney-General comes to state the case to you;
and he occupies you no less than eleven hours in
doing so. We all know the power of tho Attorney-
General—we are all aware of the talent he possesses
(suppressed laughter in court) ; and yet, with all his
ability, talent, and sententious brevity, and concentrated
condensation, he could not get over the case in less than
eleven hours. What more did the Learned Attorney-
General do ? After making a long speech of eleven
hours, what time did he take up to produce his proofs of
the terrible conspiracy which he led them to believe had
been hatched by the traversers at the bar ? He took
eight long days, of from seven to eight hours each day,
to lay his proofs of the charge before you. You have
eleven hours of a speech, eight days taken up in proving
the case, and if yop now take up the indictment and have
it read, it will cost you several weeks' labour to do so, and
I am bound to say at the end of that time that youwill not
understand it better than you do at the present moment.
The Attorney.. General, after his speech of eleven
hours and his proofs of eight days durations, after laying
his mass of facts before you, is satisfied that there is a
constructive conspiracy made out against the traversers,
and he then tells you you have a right to come to the
same conclusion, namely, that because he is satisfied that
there is a case of constructive conspiracy made out against
them that you ought to come to the same conclusion?
There never was a more dangerous doctrine than the doc-
trine of constructive crime, and I warn you to beware of
it. There was now an effort made to charge the de-
fendants with constructive conspiracy, and to satisfy
you that there was an agreement entered into be-
tween the traversers to commit the offence with which
they stand charged. There were various attempts of
the present nature made in England, in order to charge
parties with constructive conspiracy, but they failed.
There was the case of Hardy, tried in 1794, which was
a case of alleged lhigh treason, and where the overt act
was constructive conspiracy. The mode of proceeding
in that and the present case was the same, and that case
was the precedent for the present Attorney-General
He founded a case on it, and,. carried out the details in
the same manner as they had been carried out in that
case. The then Attorney-General produced evidence of
a number of meetings, a large quantity of publicatiuns,
extracts from speeches, and the like, and from this
precedent the present Attorney-General proceeds to
do the same. The case I allude to at last came
before an English jury—a jury who were ready at all
times to punish any man who violated the
law ; but the English jury in that case had no
hesitation in saying that they could not find a
party guilty of constructive conspiracy, as it was not
their business to put a construction on the man's ac-
tions. The same thing took place in the case of Horne
Tooke as in the case of Hardy, and a like result was
come to in the case of Hunt. In all those cases the
juries came to the conclusion that they would not be act-
ing fairly, or conscientiously, or constitutionally, by put-
t'ng a constructive conspiracy on the party charged.
I trust you will imitate the example set by those
persons, and, although I am sure you are always ready
to bring to justice all parties who may violate the
law, yet I am sure you will not, on your
oaths, come to the conclusion which the At-
torney-General has arrived at, and that is a 'con-
structive case of conspiracy. The Attorney-General had
a plain, simple case before him, and every person knew
the fact, and why did not he go by that case ? Had he
produced any respectable person on the table to prove that
an agreement or conspiracy existed between the parties;
and aft you to assume, and adopt that assumption, that
such was the fact. That there was no evidence of the fact
was clear ; and, thereeore, you must come to the con-
clusion that there was not, and return a verdict of acquittal
on that point. I will now come to the second branch of
the case as regards my client, and there is not, I am bound
to say, the slightest ground for charging him with con-
spiracy, if such a thing as a conspiracy ever existed at
all, but I deny that there was any such thing. It is
necessary for me to tell you who my client is. He is the
Roman Catholic priest of the parish of Clontibret, in
the county of Monaghan. He is a gentleman of the
most exemplary character, both as a private individual and
a Christian clergyman. He had filled the office of clergy-
man to that parish for several years, and was highly re-
spected. He was an educated man, and a man who
had read and studied the history of his country. I say
it is no imputation either to his character as a gentle-
man, or a clergyman, to have read, studied, and formed
opinions relative to his country and her wrongs. Every
man has a right to form his own political opinions, and
my client- has no right to be charged .with a crime
fur having done so. Mr. Tierney is a man of
talent, and deeply interested in the welfare of his
cot;ntry, and, as such, he had read about, and formed his

opinions on, the union. Whether these opinions were
right or wrong, he had come to the conclusion that ,the
union was a measure fraught with disastrous conse-
quences to this country, and the question was, is he right
or not? You may differ with him in political sentiments,
and in the view he takes of the question, but still you
cannot shut your eyes to the facts which I state, and
which cannot be contradicted. Does any man attempt to
tell me, or to say my client had not a right to form
his opinions and speak his sentiments on the sub-
jeit of the Act Of Union ? Is there anything in the
Act of Union to put a stop to such free discussion ?
No, there is not ; and it should also be recollected that
the Act of Union was an Act the same as any other
Act of Parliament, and could be repealed or altered
in the same manner. Mr. Tierney had a right to
enjoy his opinions on this pint, and he also had a right
to express his sentiments relative to that measure. Is
there any man who will tell me he has not a right to his
opinions ? It was the right of every man to speak out
openly and fairly what he felt to be his honest convic-
tion; and it was, moreover, his duty as a good citizen to
do so. Every honest Irishman who has brought his
mind to the honest conviction that any measure has
been injurious, is bound by every principle to do away
with it by honest and legitimate means ; and if a man
honestly believe that the union has sacrificed the
independence and prosperity of Ireland, he is bound
to use all legitimate means to set • it aside.

I am not now using any argument for or against
that measure. It is not my province or yours to do
that ; but I say every man ought to act up to his own
honest convictions. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General,
inorder to make you doubtful of the sincerity of those
who advocate a repeal of the union, took a line of argu-
ment which is often resorted to in trials, and he re-
ferred to the opinions of Bushe, and Plunket, and Saurin,
which he knew would be resorted to by counsel for the
traversers. And why should they not resort to them ?
Where are the Irish people to resort for wisdom if not
to luminaries such as these ? I will not trouble you by
reading the opinions of those eminent men ; but if anx
person compares their language with the language
used by any of the traversers, eloquent and
strong as it has frequently been, it will fall short of
the language of those eminent individuals. Gentlemen,
I will read a stronger passage of Saurin's to you"
You may make the union binding as a law, but you
cannot make it obligatory on conscience. It will be
obeyed as a law as long as England is strong ;
but resistance to it will be in the abstract a duty, and the
' exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question of
prudence." Take any of the numerous publications
laid before you in evidence, and it will not be found so
strong as this passage. I ask you have you any reason
to doubt the sincerity of those eminent men I alluded
to—of Mr. Bushe, whom in common with every one

who knew him, I regret is no longer amongst us, whose
memory, I may say with perfect truth, will remain
for ever in the hearts of his countrymen. Who
can doubt of the sincerity of Lord Plunket? I
rejoiee,that he is still amongst us, and still commands
and possesses the love, respect, reverence, and admiration
of all who have the honour of his acquaintance. Who
doubts of the sincerity. of Mr. Saurin ? You heard the
opinion of Mr. Sheil, who may be considered his political
opponent, as to his character. I-re might have many
faults, but, as Mr. Sheil told you, hypocrisy was not
among them. And when you find these eminent men
—not enthusiastic boys, but in the full maturity of
their vigorous interests—adopting those views and ex-
pressing those opinions with regard to the union without
any reason to doubt their sincerity, I think you will agree
with me, and 'tis all I ask of you, that the same reasons
which influenced them might exist in the mind of my
client, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, when he brought his
mind to the conclusion that a repeal of the union
was necessary for the salvation and renovation of his country.
With the same object the Attorney-General endeavoured to
convince you that the repeal of the union was impracticable and
unattainable. Gentlemen, after what we have seen in our own
days, I think it would be difficult to say that any measure,
whatever difficulties may exist against it, is impracticable and
unattainable. There is the slave-trade, which was denounced
by Mr. Pitt as the greatest staia that ever disgraced mankind
The abolition of that trade had the support of his mighty in-
tellect, as also that of Mr. Fox. It was recommended by
every feeling ofhumanity and justice, yet it took years to coun-
teract the prejudices which existed against the measure. But
at length it became the law of the land. Again, there is the
measure of Catholic Emancipation. We all know the difficulties
it had to struggle against, so great—that to many it appeared
impracticable. Yet it became the law of the land. There is
the still more recent measure of Parliamentary Reform. We
know how long it took before it became the law of the land,
and therefore I say that you cannot doubt the sincerity of those
persons in advocating a repeal of the union, though great,
and, perhaps, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties may exist
against it. The Attorney-General also referred to the opinions
entertained by eminent statesmen with regard to the measure.
I never expected to hear the Attorney-General refer to the
speeches of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, but he
cited them on this occasion, as also the more congenial
opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington.
To the opinions of those eminent statesmen every respect is
due ; but I deny that any man is to be bound or controlled
by the opinions of other men, however eminent they may be.
The opinions of statesmen are not immutable; they are at
liberty—and why should they not—to change their opinions;
if they see grounds for it. I may refer to one of those eminent
individuals in preef of what I say. You cannot but recollect,
when the question of Catholic emancipation was brought before
Parliament, in 1828, that Sir Robert Peel expressed an une-
quivocal and decided opinion against it. Do you doubt of his
sincerity ? I believe he was perfectly sincere ; yet, in twelve
short months, that same question, opposed by Sir Robert Peel,
became the law of the land, and was introduced by Sir R. Peel
himself. Do I find fault with him for this change of opinion ? On
the contrary, I think his conduct upon that question is the most
glorious portion of his political life, and that it does him infinite
credit. It is the part of a sorry and wretched statesman to say
that because he at one time entertained such and such opinions
he is immutably bound by them. The opinion he entertained,
conscientiously, in 1828, he found reason to alter ; and instead of
displaying the pertinacity and obstinacy of a fool, he yielded to
altered circumstances and greater experience, and, therefore,
recommended and carried, in 1829, the measure he opposed
in 1828. If, then, you believe that the Rev. Mr. Tierney
honestly believes that the union has been injurious,
you will give him the credit for it,—and refer to
honest motives whatever acts he has done. And
I now come to the acts imputed to him. If I understand the
evidence right, those acts are two; one was, attending a meet-
ing at Clontibret on the 15th day of August, 1843 ; the other,
attending a meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d day of
October, in the same year ; and if he be, by your verdict,
branded and convicted as a conspirator, it will be on one or both
of those acts to which I have referred. Before going to the
meeting of the lbth of August, I must refer to a portion of the
evidence given before you, with regard to an alleged conversation
between him and M'Cann, who was produced as a witness.
This conversation is said to have taken place on the 10th of
June, and it is better that I should read to you, frcm what I
believe is a correct report of his evidence, this conversation,
which took place twomonatchesorpdrienvoioyushteo twheenmt,eeatnirdig
tihnatqui‘eisr-.
tion, M'Cann said he received instructions to go to the Rev.
Mr. Tierney to know at what time the reported meeting
would take place, that
Tierney gave him all the information be could, and that he
did not know the precise day on which the meeting was to
take place. M`Cann told you he had a conversation with him,
which I will now read. " He (M'Cann) said that Mr.
Tierney adverted to the union ; he repeated that it was frau-
dulently carried ; he said it was not binding ; he represented it
as a nullity and not binding on conscience; he spoke of the feel-
ing on repeal becoming general, and extending itself to the army,
that they were favourable to repeal, that they partook of the en-
thusiasm of the peorle,and could not be easily brought to spill the
hlood of their fellow-countrymen. I remember he referred to
what the army in Spain had done." Now, on the authority
of Mr. Tierney, I say that he absolutely and positively denies
that any one single part of that conversation was ever carried
on between them. He acknowledges 'bat M'Cann came to
him for information about the meeting, that he gave him that
information, but that he bad with him this conversation he
positively and unequivocally denies possesses any particle of
truth. I am not able to produce any witness to sustain this
assertion, and why ? Because, according to the testimony of
\l'Cann, there wasno one presentbut himself and Mr. Tierney.
But for the sake of truth I am glad to be able to convict
M'Cann out of his own mouth, in such a manner that it is im-
possible to attach one particle of credit to what is said by that
officer. In the first place, is it not improbable, if such a
conversation took place, that a common policeman should have
been able to recollect the terms of it, which he read to you—
that he would be able to detail to you the apparently eloquent
-language in which the conversation seems to have been carried
on ? He was a policeman, was not even one of the flock of
the Rev. Gentleman—he came on business—he came dressed
in his uniform ; was it likely that a gentleman of rank and
station would have held such a conversation with a common
policeman ? There is great danger in acting on conversations
so repo , reported • you will also remark that the witness said
he kept a diary, but he never kept any notes of
any portion of that conversation. You will recollect that
one part of this conversation was alleged to be, that
Mr. Tierney spoke of the great things that the army had
accomplished in Spain. Tile army has done a great
deal lately in Spain ; it. has abandoned the constitutional au-
thorities, and set up by force a government of its own ; the
object, then, of bringing forward this conversation was to sup-
port-the charge of the traversers tampering with and endeav-
ouring to seduce the army. This conversation was alleged to
have taken place on the 16th of June. Now, the first indica-
tion of revolt given by the army in Spain took place on the
I lth of June, in the city of Valencia. The first demonstration
took place on that day. The next demonstration did not take
tphlaiscetill
country,t the 12th, at Barcelona; and the most important re-
volt of the army in Spain did not take place till the close of the
month of June. Of these movements there was no account in
as 71101
or 20th
;rbiyt rwefaegrenthceortoofothree,naenwsipmappeormsiobfiltihtye
lime, till the l
that a policeman in the county of Monaghan could have in-
formation of what took place at Valencia on the 11th, so soon
as the 16th. There is then the strongest reason for contending
that this must be a fabrication on the part of the policeman.
He had sense and cunning enough to be apprised of the impor.
tance of the charge, and there was an obvious advantage in
connecting one of the traversers with an alleged attempt on the
army, and he thought that bringing the Rev. Mr. Tierney to
speak with approbation of the revolt of the army in Spain,
might be a most useful assistance in leading the jury to believe
that he had done so. But if I am right in my dates, as you will
find by reference to the papers that I am, you will see that
there was no revolt in the Spanish army till the llth, yet here
is this wretched policeman on the 16th, in the county of
Monaghan, talking as if he was already apprised of it.
I need not waste more time on this part *Attie case. I only
ask you to agree with me that—independently of the danger of
acting on a conversation of this description, or the improba-
bility attending it; and with this clear proof that no such
conversation took place—l ara not asking altogether when I
request of you to dismiss from your minds this al-
leged, and untruly alleged, conversation. I now come to the
meeting at Clontibret, which took place on the 15th of August.
And who were the persons brought forward to give you an ac-
count of what took place at these meetings ? The onlyevidence
adduced is that of two policemen. You have heard from them
there were magistrates present—that two stipendiary magistrates
were present. Why had not either of them been produced?
Was it not the duty of the Crown, if it wanted to represent the
meeting at Clontibret as an illegal meeting, to have produced
those who were calculated to give the best information on the
subject. Though these two stipendiary magistrates were pre-
sent, though they were in the pay and service of the Govern-
ment, and under its control, though there was not a particle
of difficulty in the Government, if it thought fit, producing
he
give an account of the character o ithe meeting at Clots-
tibrettt not onew Crown
of
for them
sodoing;
had ; been called in order to
but two policemen; the magistrates who were pre-
sent were passed by. I do not
wish
ik
ntoowcast
not
its an imputa-
omotives,
I know not its_ reasons for so doing—but I think I 'am
justified in saying this, that from their non-production night
be drawn this plain and simple inference, that they could not
have said anything that would have served the prosecution,

and might, perhaps, have said something unfavourable to it
That meeting took place, and there was not a single individual
of the traversers present at it, with the exception of Mr.
Tierney. There was not one iota or particle of evidence to
connect him, up to that tine, with any of them. Yet he was
represented as having entered into a compiracy or agreement
with them. Are there any grounds for saying that this meet.
ing vas an illegal one? Was there any act of violence com-
mitted at it? Not ono ! Was there anything done that
could show this meeting to be an illegal assembly ?
Not 1 There was not a single act of riot or
disturbance at it; it was characterised by that which cha-
racterised all the other meetings—perfect tranquillity, per-
fect peace—not a finger was held up —the utmost that
was alleged was, that some people were crushed, and
among the rest a policeman, If that is to be the means of
attaching the charge of illegality to that meeting, I must
say that the Court of Queens Bench has been a most ille-
gal meeting for the last fortnight.—(Laughter.) There had
certainly been a considerable degree of crushing in the
Court during that time, and though, gentlemen, from your
peculiar situation—(Laughter)—you are guarded and pro-
tected froth it,— no other portion of the Court, not even the
judgment-seat (Laughter) but has been invaded, and
the Learned Judges themselves have been " crushed" by
those whom they have toiled it impossible to resist.--
(Great laughter.) Yet this meeting you are called on to
pronounce illegal, in order to connect my client with the
alleged conspiracy. I say with confidence that there is no
particle of evidence by which the meeting at Clontibret
can be pronounced illegal. (The Learned Gentleman here
read the object of the meeting, the resolutions adopted at
it, and the petition to Parliament which was carried, and having
pointed out the perfectly legal and constitutional nature of the
proceedings, said—Mr. Tierney is charged with attending a
meeting of the Repeal Association on the 3d of October. tip
to that time there is no evidence to show that he ever had any
communication with the other traversers, or that he had ever
read or heard of their speeches or proceedings. On that day he
was first brought in connection with the Association. It is
true that on that day he became a member of it. Gentlemen,
I shall certainly never forget the withering and concentrated
sneer with which the Attorney-General read the name of this
Association when he came to the word " Loyal," Loyal Repeal
Association. Yes, he endeavoured to sneer you into a belief of
its disloyalty. What he dared not venture to express in plain
terms lie has struggled to give vent to by ,‘ a sneer.".. J am
no member of that body, but I repel with indignation the
attempt. Some of the wisest, the ab:est, the best, and me t
eminent of the land, are amongst its members. They may be
wrong, but they are not disloyal. One million of men, at least,
were members of that Association in October ; and is the
loyalty of one million of men to be sneered away? Are you
to brand them with disloyalty from a sneer of the Attorney-
General? I deny their disloyalty. I assert the legality of
the Association, and I will prove it by an authority which the
Attorney-General must acknowledge, My authority is the
Attorney-General himself. That Association has gone on for
the last three years without interruption, openly and publicly,.
.and every person in the community might be present at their
proceedings for the paltry sum of a shilling. Yet the
Attorney-General sneers at their loyalty. Has he dared to
put it down? No; and he would not hesitate to do so if
it were illegal. It may be very safe to sneer, and to cast
indirect imputations; but the Attorney-General has not
claret!, to this hour, to institute proceedings in order to im-
peach its legality.. Is a respectable Roman Catholic clergy-
man to be charged with a conspiracy—a conspiracy of the
worst kind—merely because he has attended meetings of a
body which the Attorney-General has not dared to put
down? But the Attorney-General says that Mr. Piiimey not
merely attended those meetings, but he gave in contributions.
Yes, he gave in contributions, but is that illegal ? Does the
Attorney-General mean to say that a man may not hand in
contributions to a fund collected for the furtherance of the
repeal of the union ? and when I say that it is lawful to
do so I suppose lie would willingly accuse me of ignorance.
The Attorney-General cannot be ignorant of the present
state of England, and the existence of the Anti-Corn-
law League. It is matter of history—it cannot be denied
—and their contributions amount to a large sum. Is
there any prosecution instituted there? The Marquis of
We'tminster has written a letter and has contributed 5001.

to that fund. Has he been prosecuted for it? Perhaps
am wrong in suggesting that he is cot to be prosecuted
for subscribing that amount. The meeting of Parliament
is approaching; the Attorney-General, of course, will be there
to attend to his duties, and he may recommend a
prosecution to the English Attorney-General. He owes him
a deep debt of gratitude for his recent assistance- a
debt which was never before due by an Irish Attorney-
General to an English one—and he has now an opportunity
is repay him for the assistance he received. He can from his
own experience instruct him in the law of hypocrisy—teach
him to " sneer away" the loyalty of a people—and, by in-
fusing his own peculiar ideas into him, cause the Marquis of
Weetminster to be brought to the bar of justice. My client,
the Rev. Mr. Tierney, is accused of attending the meetings of
the Association ; I confess he slid so. He is accused of having
headed in contributions—l confess it. He made a speech, too,
which has been placed on record, by setting it out at full length
in the indictment, I suppose for the purpose of handing down that
specimen of legal skill to posterity. I find in it a long historical al-
lusion to the parish of Clontibret. He bad, it seems, a lively
interest in whatever concerned it. He felt as much for the
events which occurred there—they were as interesting to_him,
as those of Blenheim or Waterloo. He delivered himself of
much lore in the history of the parish of Clontibret. Oh 1 but
heart."
aeyaso the
yAetstho ren
did.ey-G e
Bn eurl
tay,
o‘ he
ti‘
mu
sttalkkiei
odw otfh
ausing
in all
hand and
an
ordinary
occasions the expression hand and heart is used. But, said
the Attorney-Genera', " he must have meant by deeds, deeds
of hands with arms in them." What right has the Attorney-
General so to construe the expression ? It is not for you or for
me to descend into the mind of any man; that is the province
of the Almighty only. When man judges he should
only attribute and corns to conclusions from facts
of which he has the cognizance of his senses. Gentlemen, I
have detained you too long. I have laid before you the facts
and circumstances on which I rely for your verdict of acquittal,
and I am confident of this, that if you agree with me in the
view I have taken, and come to a conclusion that my client is
entitled to a verdict of acquittal, I feel that this is a verdict
that you will be able to justify to your country now, and to
your God hereafter.
Mr. HATCH ELL, Q. C. , then rose and said—May it please
your Lordships and Gentlemen of the Jury—
CiIIE r Juszic E—Whom do you appear for?
Mr. HATCHELL-1 am counsel, my Lords, for Mr. Ray.
Gentlemen of the Jury—l consider, notwithstanding what
you have heard from the able and eloquent counsel who
have preceded me, and who have spoken to that case ge-
nerally with repect to the charges that are made against
them all, and particularly with respect to their own clients
—I consider myself bound, notwithstanding what you have
heard with respect to the law and facts of the case, still to
address to you, on behalf of my client, a few observations.
Gentlemen, I think you must feel that the ground has Is4en
pre-occupied—that there can be very little, indeed, for me to
add to the eloquent observations of my friend Mr. Sheil in
the facts and law of the case, and the powerful and able
observations of my friend Mr. Moore on the general charge and
circumstances under which the indictment has been pre-
ferred. Still, gentlemen of the jury, there are circum-
stances, peculiar to the situation of each of the traversers,
which it is considered right should be laid before you, in
judging of the share each of them appears to have been
charged to have taken in those transactions, and to 'see if you
can bring your minds, as fair, honest, and impartial jurors, to
come to the conclusion, from the criminal intent charged by the
indictment, that those traversers, and each of them, hadjoined in
the preconceived plan of, I may say, overturning the Government
of the country. Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Ray,
is peculiarly circumstanced in relation to this charge. He is
the Secretary of the Repeal Association. Before I call your
attention to the charge, as contained in the indictment, and,
which you have to try, permit ice to call your attention (al-
though I believe it has been already closely drawn to the ques-
tion by the counsel that preceded me) to the real,eubstatitiei
question, which you have to try. Permit use, before. Ido
that, to remind you of what you have not to try. Genef
tlemen, you are not to try Mr. Thomas M. Ray's isteis
been already observed, for having attended ;an .4110.taf
assembly. He denicq that any assembly with ,respect- to
whick evidence was given before you on this trial, was illegal
and, if I had to defend him on that charge, I could do so.
You are not to try whether Mr. Ray, at any one of those
assemblies, at any time or place, uttered a seditious speech
or published a seditious libel. If such a charge was preferred
against him, I am satisfied I could perfectly justify hint from
such a charge. He never published a libel in his life. He never
uttered charge or accusation against any man, or against the
Government. Gentlemen, you are not to try whether he he a
Repealer or not. I must admit that, if you were to try him on
that charge, I could not defend bim. He is, and has been a
Repealer, and is, and has been the secretary to the Repeal As-
sociation for several years. He has been the secretary and paid
officer of that Association since its institution. He bee
came the officer, and salaried officer, of it, approving of
its objects, mixing himself up with its proceedings, in ac-
cordance with the principles which he professed, and to
sustain his opinion in that question of which you have
heard so much. But, gentlemen—and consider that when
you come to try the question as to what intent Mr. Ray was a
member of the Association—as to what intent he did the acts
connected with that Association—as to whether he was guilty
of a criminal intent, or entered inte a preconcerted conspiracy
—it is important to consider the position in which he stood,
and the relation which he bore towards that Association. Gen-
tlemen of the jury, I need not repeat to you again, and to im.
plore you not to permit your minds to be diverted from, or
your attention distracted from, the consideration of the real ques-
tion attempted to be drawn from you. The question you have to
try on your oath is, did Mr. Ray, in conjunction with all or any
of the traversers, enter into a plan preconcerted, arranged,
preconceived, and laid with the criminal intent of exciting dis-
affection against the Government or Constitution, and with
the other criminal intents which are charged in this indict-
ment. Gentlemen of the jury, it is a question peculiarly for
you—the question of intent— with what intention those proceed-
ings took place—what was the intention of the parties who
committed or did the acts which arc charged as evidence of that
intention ; it is your peculiar province to judge of that intent.
The Court, the judges who preside here, it is for them to say
whether the acts given in evidence are acts that ought to go
before you for your consideration ; they are the judges of their
illegality, or whether. these facts shall go before you ; but it
is your sole and exclusire province and duty to decide this
upon your oaths—What was the intention with which those
persons interfered in those transactions? They were the
actors, but what was the intention ? Was it an innocent and
legal intention, or the base and criminal intention which is
charged in the indictment, to create disaffection towards
the Government and Constitution of the country ?, Gentlemen
of the jury, permit me, in furtherance of that view, to refer to
the opinion of the eminent Judge who charged the grand jury
in the case of Mr. Thomas Hardy's trial. Lord Chief Justice
Eyre, in calling the attention of the jury to the question they
had to try, said—
Judge Bu RTON—What do you take that from? -
Mr HATCH ELL—From the State Trials," vol. 24. Your
Lordship will find it in page 205. You are aware, gentle-
men, from what has been already stated, that the objects of
the societies of that day—the professed objects of the socie-
ties of that day—for being members of which Hardy and
Tooke were prosecuted—that there the indictment was for
a conspiracy, in the nature of constructive treason. And in
charging the grand jury in Hardy's case, Chief Justice
Eyre said—" If there be ground to consider the pro-
fessed purpose of any of these Associations a reform of Par-
liament as mere colour, and as a pretext held out in order
to cover deeper designs—designs against the whole Constitu.
tion and Government of the country—the ease of those em-
barked in such designs as that which I have already consi-
dered,—whether this be so or not is a mere matter of fact,
as to which I shall only remind you that an inquiry into a
'charge of thii nature, which undertakes to make out that the
ostensible purpose is a mere veil under which is concealed a
traitorous conspiracy, requires cool and deliberate considera-
tion, and that the result should be perfectly clear and satis-
factory. In the affairs of common life no man is perfectly jus-
tified in imputing to another person a meaning contrary to
what he himself expresses, but upon the fullest evidence."
Gentlemen, no man has a right to impute to another that
he is not intending what he professes to do, unless there is
cleat', satisfactory, and unambiguous evidence to show the
contrary. Every man must be presumed to be acting
according to his declared intentions until the contrary is
proved. Every man is presumed by the law of the land to
be innocent before his guilt is clearly established ; and, as
zlr&achrobservtd to you by Mr. ?Jow-, if there be cri-
minal' intent alleged, and if there be a legai• id-Wit to
which the acts of the party can be truly attributable, com-
mon justice—the . spirit of the British law—requires that