Feb. 10,] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



elf. It was a curious prosecution : it compre- '' France 

 * of matter and embraced incidents scarcely 



[1844. 



I^e case its 



5f^ "bvTperiod of nine or ten months. The memory 

 ?VH to recall all those circumstances brought in evidence, 

 ni the iudgment to distinguish what is important from 

 *T at is n0 t so. It was hard to say what the true question 

 llr was Its entire strength seemed to consist in the 

 Sthstic word M conspiracy." There was a legal defini- 

 rtmriren of it, which declared it to consist either m seek- 

 what was unlawful, or what was lawful by unlawful 

 These were like two hooks to the line ; but as to 



STfectma branch he could not admit it. Conspiracy was 

 ■otto be spelt out by casual circumstances. It was ad- 

 tted by the Crown in this case that there was no private 

 aereemeat— no secrecy. It was a monstrous thing to call 

 that a conspiracy which everybody knew— which was con- 

 stituted by an advertisement in the public papers. The 

 learned Gentleman dwelt on this topic at some length, 

 and then proceeded to say that the Attorney-General had 

 inpointed public expectation in not being able to show 

 any ficts or incidents connected with this charge, which 

 were not previously perfectly well known. What had 

 become of all that was deep, dark, and dangerous, which 

 it waa insinuated would be brought to light on this trial ? 

 Where were all the " Gorgons and chimeras dire?" 

 Nothing of the kind was disclosed. The prosecution was, 

 in short, a purely Ministerial one, and the question raised 

 was one between the present Ministers, who were going to 

 I enlarge their franchises, and the Whigs who promised 

 I much and did very little. And now as to the evidence — 

 I what did it bring to light? There was every temptation 

 to men to exaggerate, falsify, or betray ; but nothing was 

 betrayed, for the simplest reason in the world, because 

 there was nothing to betray. Would the Jury believe 

 that he had entered into a public conspiracy? He had 

 refused the high office of Master of the Rolls — it was a 

 question if he had not also refused that of Chief Baron — 

 and would the Jury believe that, after this, he could have 

 the cruelty, the folly to enter into a conspiracy of this 

 kind ? They could not believe it and must acquit him of 

 it. The learned Gentleman next alluded to the extensive 

 combination which had been formed in England for the 

 purpose of putting down the slave-trade — and asked why 

 ' was not Wilberforce indicted for conspiracy ? The vene- 

 1 rable Clarkson was yet alive — why was he not also indicted 

 1 for conspiracy ? He himself had also a share in that con- 

 j spiracy. and yet nobody presumed to interfere with him. 

 f Let the Jury then beware of driving men into corners and 

 the dark — and forcing them into real conspiracies — for that 

 1 would be the result if they punished such proceedings as 

 1 these. He asked if Parliamentary Reform or Catholic 

 Emancipation would ever have been carried, if it were 

 1 not for great meetings and the great agitation which was 

 ' got up to carry them ? On one day they had held their 

 great simultaneous meetings and yet the Attorney- General 

 of the time never thought of turning them into evidence 

 of a conspiracy. Such a proceeding was reserved for the 

 Attorney-General of the present. The Anti-Corn-Law 

 League in England held great meetings and collected 

 money— so did the Anti-Slavery Society— and they had 

 not been prosecuted. And is a precedent for such a pro- 

 ceeding to be sent for to Ireland? In England they are 

 safe in the integrity f the Jnry-box— they had an angel- 



..w g \? r0t n-n ng them in thflt tribunal Now, gentlemen, 

 ; In^J'^F ?^ 11 ' addr 5«iig himself to the Jury, will 



-and his respect for Henry the Fifth or whoever ! all cases where parties disputing were disposed to sub a it 

 might be the legitimate heir to the ancient hereditary their differences to them. It was an ancient and highly 

 monarchy of France; his protest aeainst the Chartists " * " 



protest against 

 and his having effectually prevented the Irish in England 

 from joining them— and his constant allegiance to the 

 Sovereign. He had come to that time of life when the 

 Queen could do nothing for him, but never had be spoken 

 disrespectfully of her Majesty; if any such expression 

 had been attributed to him he denounced it as a falsehood. 



I 



or 



you not protect us as an English Jury protects the 



VL™a T^ 1 WiU be satisfied with ™ ^88. The 

 Reamed Gentleman next adverted to what he called the 



machinery of the evidence : it consisted of monster meet- 



meeHn! K ne TT per , publications - W * th «»pect to the 

 cTsisted nf £ n0t d / ny them nor did he d «»y that ^ey 

 bu? "hi? h th ° n T{* and tens of thousands of people, 

 even H i? h *A the * d0ne? K° P^son was injured 

 cate and ! £ "a d K b y tUem - The P~P^ had been edu- 

 £ :the vl* I?" 1 » * him t0 SUch Peaceable conduct, and 

 will conrim« . f°V occa8ionbe w "*t it may, the people 

 Stion S« u ^ PeaCeab,e - When at length a procla- 

 obeted 7t Tf agam8t their rae eting they immediately 

 i» tors whn - WaS the cons piracy— such the conspira- 



i l*al and I f T Under Char & e - Their meetings were 

 \ *w T\Z*\ f Y SUiUble t0 the P™P°*> they had in 

 l*t instant u De 7 er beeU int erfered with till in the 

 I fw not nro . • e not bIame the Attorney-General 



d »d not liUu" S the Pe rs on8 who joined in them ; he 

 ^ The UarnpTr Ua ?' f ° r he had no ground for doing so. 

 iter of the Pd Cn n next commented on the charac- 



new «paoerr T° e Wh,ch consisted of publications in the 

 i f °r sUi b Vj P/otested against being made responsible 

 new Spaper Pr lctl °ns. The Repeal Association had no 

 j,But besides tr"* ? nd gave it8 8a,lc tion to none of them, 

 ^were not thei the news P a Pers published libels why 



^.The Learned p pr( ! Dn etors made responsible for them? 

 ^■text— «« The ^ntleoaac next spoke to his own political 

 ,|tbe enemy " 2 1 ™} xo commits a crime gives strength to 

 l Po«t!eof' a J ded ared himself the founder and the 

 tic al chants wirk*** Wh ° 8e 0D J e ct it was to effect poli- 

 • dr op of human hi T violat ing any law or shedding one 

 , and tf there wa Ifc Was a P rinci P le of his religion, 



Jgf*»ttaaioti he * an , y ,° ne gentleman in the Jury-box of his 

 J* 1 * P°'nt had n u n ° W lt t0 be so * His sincerity on 



n m,n T occ^-^ 1, u ina P u 8ned- He had proved it 



^^"tion am i y Wi Enunciation of a dangerous 

 ^•tion of the n °"* the workmen of Dublin— bv his denun- 



^"^ed Gentu 1 men and al1 unlawful societies. The 

 t? €nt »ofhi, SSR^.^*!? over a great many inci- 



In the 



,<r he Poor I 

 { 



Political life 



in proof of this position, 

 excursion he glanced at his opposition to 



ich 



i^'y PraisTd \\ t ' eDCe ° f Ur ' Bond Hughes (wh 

 • r efusal "S 1 ^ 018 re Pndiation of American slav 



ery 



co-operation with the republicans of 



" My energies," said Mr. O'Connell, " have declined, but my 

 ardent love of Ireland remains unabated. What remains of my 

 life I now devote to obtaining a repeal of the Union. I maintain 

 that every Irishman ought to be a Repealer— and before I sit 

 down to-day I expect to make many converts to my opinion. 

 Gentlemen, I now draw to a close, and I recall your attention to 

 the evils of the Union, with a view of showing vou how neces- 

 sary it is that every man should exert himself for its repeal. T 

 ask you would not Repeal cure hideous evils of absenteeism ? A 

 high authority, Mr. Hayes of Cork, has calculated the annual 

 drain of rent and surplus revenue at nine millions. The railway 

 commissioners have reduced the sum to six millions. Take this 

 calculation, and I ask will you suffer this hideous drain of six 

 millions annually to continue ? The money is raised in the 

 country, but not to fructify in i:— not to employ the people— not 

 for the care of the sick and desolate. It is created from the fer 

 tility of the soil and the industry of the people, but not for the 

 benefit of those who earn or raise the money, but to enable others 

 to wallow in wealth who have no connection with Ireland. 

 Sixty millions have been thus drained >\vay in the last six 

 years. Can you, in honour or conscience, encourage a similar 

 drain of the same amount within the next six years? There is 

 a cant that agitation 'prevents the influx of capital. I ask, does 

 not capital come for profit? but the money we thus get is soon 

 spent, and the burthen of interest is perpetual. We do not want 

 English capital, and this cry is raised by those whose policy, on 

 the one hand, is to drain the country, and on the other hand, to 

 pour in capital through the instrumentality of agents and solici- 

 tors, making the poor man still more - poor. The surplus 

 revenue varies. Tn some years it amounts to two millions; 

 last year it was only 700,000/.; but whatever the amount, 

 it is drained away, never, never to return. The Woods and 

 Forests draw annually 74,000/. in Irish rents, Crown rents, &c. 

 How is this spent? On the Thames Tunnel and the adornment 

 of Trafalgar-square ; the greater part on the latter. Now we 

 want in Dublin an additional bridge ; we want to remove an 

 oppressive tax from our great thoroughfare. Why should not 

 this "4,000/. be spent here? Have we not as good a right as 

 Trafalgar- square ? If the Irish Parliament sat in College-green, 

 would this money be sent? Have we no square, no site for 

 ornament in Dublin ? I ask,, will you vote, I had almost said, 

 for sending away this money, or will you raise your voices in 

 every way in behalf cf those who say that Irish money should 

 be spent in Ireland, and that this country should have the 

 benefit of her own resources ? Was there no remedy for such a 

 state of things? Yes, there was; and was the man — were those 

 who sought to alter such circumstances to be branded as con- 

 spirators—were they to be prosecuted and persecuted because 

 upon public principle they acted for their country's good? 

 Gentlemen, there is not a spot in Ireland more than 30 miles 

 distant from a good harbour— take the map of Ireland — 1 say 

 there is not a spot more than 30 miles remole from a good 

 harbour ; and why is not the country prosperous ? Did I not 

 read to you the magical prosperity which followed upon our 

 legislative independence ? Did I not read from the writings of 

 men who were adverse to Ireland ? Have I not read the evi- 

 dence of increasing prosperity under our own Parliament? 

 What happened once may happen again. Oh, gentleman, this 

 is a struggle to rescue the poor from their poverty, and to give 

 employment to those who are now unoccupied, to keep the 

 gentry amongst us, for at once their Parliamentary interests 

 would bring them here. An example has been set by the present 

 Ministry in the absentee tax. I leave the case in your hands. 

 I deny I have done anything to stain me. I reject with con- 

 tempt the appellation of conspirator. I have acted boldly in the 

 open day, in the presence of the magistracy — there has been 

 nothing secret or concealed. I have struggled for the restora- 

 tion of the Parliament of my native country. Others have 

 succeeded before me ; but succeed or fail, it is a struggle to make 

 the fairest land in the world possess those benefits which nature 

 intended she should enjoy." 



The lion, and learned Gentleman having closed his 

 speech, which lasted five hours, the Court adjourned. 



Twentieth Day. — At the sitting of the Court on Tues- 

 day Mr. Moore, Q.C., stated that a considerable number 

 of witnesses were then in Dublin but, under the circum- 

 stances, the counsel for the traversers had come to the 

 conclusion that they would not be warranted in unneces- 

 sarily taking up the time of the court to establish that which 

 they considered already sufficiently established. Mr. 

 Conway, proprietor of the Dublin Evening Post, was 

 then examined. He stated that in 1810 he was editor of 

 the Freeman's Journal, and that in September of that 

 year he attended a public meeting at the Royal Exchange 

 assembled to petition for a repeal of the Union. The 

 then High Sheriff, Sir James Riddal, was in the chair. 

 The Hon. Colonel Talbot and Mr., now Sir Robert, Shaw, 

 father of the present Recorder, were at the meeting. Mr. 

 O'Connell spoke, and the report of his speech as quoted 

 by Mr. Sheil was correct. Another anti-union speech 

 of Mr. O'Connell's was given in evidence from the 

 Evening Post, of the 14th January, 1800 ; also an 

 address to Mr. Grattan, presented to him in 1810, 

 which emanated from the anti-union meeting previously 

 adverted to, and his answer thereto. A similar address 

 to Sir Robeit Shaw and his reply were read. The 

 next witness was Mr. James Perry, a Quaker, who was 

 called to show that going to law was against the principles 

 of the Quakers, and that from the year 1G96 it was a 

 standing rule in their body to refer all disputes to arbi- 

 tration. The Attorney-General objected to the reception 

 of this evidence, and was followed by Mr. Warren to the 

 same effect. He contended that the acts of any other 

 body could form no justification for the traversers or the 

 Repeal Association. The Court ruled with the tra- 

 versers, Mr. Justice Crampton dissenting. They said 

 that the referring of disputes to arbitration was not in 

 itself criminal, that it depended upon the intent, and that 

 they would leave that question to the Jury, allowing the 

 traversers to derive what benefit they might from the 

 mere fact of arbitration being one of the guiding rules of 

 the Society of Friends. The witness then gave evidence. 

 The uexc witness was Mr. Wm. Cosgrave, who stated that 

 he was secretary to a society called the " Ouzel Galley 

 Club/' which consisted principally of mercantile gentle- 

 men, who offered themselves as voluntary arbitrators in 



respectable society. All their decisions were made bind- 

 ing by being made a rule of some one of the superior 

 Courts. The next witness was Mr. Charles Vernon, of 

 the Stamp Office, who appeared to prove the publication 

 of certain numbers of the Freeman* s Journal and other 

 papers. A great deal of time was taken up with reading 

 extracts from these papers. Mr. Morgan, a coachmaker, 

 who was present at the Tullamore Repeal meeting, proved 

 that an arch bearing the inscription, " Ireland, her Parlia- 

 ment, or the world in a blaze,' ' had been torn down by 

 witness and others, in consequence of directions froaa 

 Mr. Steele, emanating from Mr. O'Connell, who was 

 greatly displeased at its erection. The reading of news- 

 paper extracts was then resumed, and at the conclusion 

 Mr. Moore stated that the case for the defence was closed. 

 Twenty -first Day. — The Reply. — On Wednesday the 

 Solicitor-General addressed the Court and Jury in reply 

 on behalf of the Crown. He must, he said, in the first 

 place, endeavour to divest the case of the mass of obscurity 

 and confusion in which it had been sought to involve it ; 

 and of the extraneous matter which had been introduced 

 merely for the purpose of diverting the attention of the 

 Jury from the real question at issue. Eight gentlemen 

 had been heard on the other side, and in their addresses 

 there was an abundance of discrepancies and inconsisten- 

 cies ; but in one respect there was a marvellous consistency 

 in them all — there was not one word in them, from begin- 

 ning to end, addressed to the real question to be treated. 

 Before applying himself to the details of the case as they 

 had been proved for the Crown, he would advert to those 

 superinduced topics. He would begin with the speech of 

 Mr. Sheil. That learned Gentleman had really thrown the 

 case of his client (Mr. John O'Connell) overboard alto- 

 gether. He had observed upon the period of time which 

 the Crown had suffered to elapse without instituting any 

 prosecution. But did not this imply that the parties were 

 actually culpable ? It was said that they were seduced into 

 crime by the supineness of the Government. That was not 

 the case : they had been warned, over and over again, by 

 the Government against the course which they were pursuing. 

 It was said that this was a prosecution against the people 

 of Ireland, but he said it was a prosecution for them — a 

 prosecution to save them from delusion, and to preserve, 

 not to injure, their rights. The counsel for the traversers 

 had sought to convey to the Jury that privacy and secrecy 

 were necessary constituent parts of the illegal crime of 

 conspiracy, but such was not the fact. It might be carried 

 on in the face of day and in the most public manner, and 

 he gave as an example an unlawful combination amongst 

 workmen, which, while it arose from an unquestionable 

 conspiracy in the eye of law, might yet have been 

 formed in the most public manner. In the present case 

 the conspiracy was necessarily carried on openly, the 

 means were newspapers and multitudinous meetings, and 

 other matter, which were in their very nature of a notorious 

 and open kind, but the conspiracy was not the less real 

 on this account. The learned Gentleman Ihen explained 

 the nature of the charge against the traversers as set forth 

 in the indictment and as it was recognised as a grave 

 offence by law. He said that such was the nature of the 

 conspiracy in which they were alleged to be involved, 

 that peace and tranquillity were most essential to its 

 object and conduct. It was part of the conspiracy that 

 there should be no breach of the peace till their organ- 

 isation was complete and the proper time for an out- 

 break should arrive. It was said for the traversers that 

 their meetings did no harm — that they were conducted 

 peaceably and alarmed nobody, but the Jury had yet to 

 learn that a meeting might become unlawful, though 

 conducted in such a way, from the object and purport 

 for which it was intended, lt might be impossible to 

 show that any one of these meetings was in itself un- 

 lawful ; but when circumstances evolve their true purpose 

 their illegality is brought to light, and the taint of unlaw- 

 fulness extends to every one of them. He next vindicated 

 the law-officers of the Crown from the imputation of 

 having employed improper means in the impannelling of 

 the Jury. He arraigned the temerity of Mr. Shed's 

 assertion that 10 persons had been struck off the list 

 merely because they were Roman Catholics. They were 

 struck off, he said, because they were members of the 

 Repeal Association. This was the allegation of the Crown 

 Solicitor — and was it denied ? Never. Mr. Sheil, indeed, 

 had promised that affidavits should be put in negativing 

 this assertion — put in immediately; but no affidavit had 

 ever been put in from that hour to this. A Jury of 

 Protestants would not, he trusted, now shrink from the 

 performance of their duty by any imputation which 

 might be cast upon them. Reference had been made to 

 a Repeal meeting held in Dublin in 1810, but that was a 

 single isolated meeting, not in itself illegal, and at all 

 events, one which had nothing to do with the present 

 c*se. The same might be said of a great meeting held at 

 Hillsborough — it was quite a solitary event, and never 

 followed up by other meetings, or any unlawful pro- 

 ceedings whatever. As to Mr. 0*Conneirs peaceful 

 injunctions and predications of the Repeal agitation, 

 he would beg that the Jury would attach just so much 

 weight to them as his acts might prove them entitled 

 to. He then proceeded to reply to various assertions and 

 arguments adduced by the counsel on the other side, 

 Mr. Moore, Mr. Fitzgibbon, Mr. Whiteside, and others. 

 He remarked that the Crown had not brought forward a 

 single witness to whom the epithet spy or informer could 

 be attached, whilst, on the other hand,* the traversers had 

 produced no books, no witnesses, or any other evidence 

 whatever from the bureaux of the Loyal National Repeal 

 Association. Having disposed of all" the observations of 



