IRELAND.

Last week, our epitome of the State trial broke off in the midst of the speeches of counsel for the defence. On the

Seventeenth day—Friday, February 2.

Mr. Whiteside continued his address for Mr. Duffy, which had been interrupted by his exhaustion on the previous afternoon. As he en- tered the Court, Mr. O'Connell shook him affectionately by the hand. Before he began, the ChiefJustice rebuked, not the applause which had greeted the advocate on the previous evening, but its noisy cha- racter. At the conclusion, therefore, .the audience only " buzzed" their applause. The speech told strongly. The general drift of the argument did not differ materially from what had gone before; but Mr. Whiteside is a very fluent and energetic speaker ; he (said to be of Con- servative politics) eloquently painted the misery of the Irish people, and vindicated their right to seek for remedies even in Repeal of the Union ; and he effectively criticised the pleadings and evidence that tended to give a more unlawful bent to the Repeal agitation.

Mr. M.Donogh followed, in behalf of Mr. Barrett, editor of the Pilot; resting mainly on a criticism of the evidence.

Eighteenth day—Saturday, February 3.

Mr. M.Donogh closed ; and Mr. Henn, Q.C., delivered a short speech for Mr. Steele. One prominent point in his argument was, that the system of arbitration is not unlawful, and that it is a recognized prac- tice among Quakers.

Nineteenth day—Monday, February 5.

On this day, appointed for Mr. O'Connell's speech, the neighbour- hood of the Court of Queen's Bench and the court itself were thronged with an eager and animated crowd : the streets around were filled with Repealers of all classes and conditions ; the central square was occupied by carriages ; the galleries of the court were choked with auditors, many of the junior barristers doffing their professional costume to seek among the general public the room they could not find in the over- crowded bar. In all parts were ladies ; splendid and tasteful dresses varying the array of wigs and gowns in the bar and about the bench. Lady Sugden and several ladies related to the Judges were present. Among the traversers sat Dr. "John of Tuam." " Contiettere omnes, intentique ora tenebant." The Attorney-General leaned upon his folded hands, listening intently : the Solicitor-General and Sergeant Warren busied themselves in taking copious notes. Mr. O'Connell rose. He had laid aside the barrister's costume, and appeared in his ordinary dress. He did not look so well as usual, and spoke at first with less confidence, say the reports ; but as he proceeded his energies seemed to return upon him. He began thus-

" Gentlemen, I beg your patient attention while I show yon in as few sen- tences as I possibly can, and in my own plain prosaic style, the right I have to demand from you a favourable verdict. I ask it without disrespect and without flattery—I ask it on the ground of common sense and common justice; and upon these grounds alone I demand, as I said before, a favourable verdict from you ; being thoroughly convinced that I am plainly entitled to it. I do not feel that I would have been warranted in addressing you at all, after the many speeches which you have already heard, and after the powerful display of talent that must have delighted as well as instructed you ; but, gentlemen, do not stand here my own client—I have a client of infinitely more import- ance: my clients in this case are the Irish people—my client is Ireland, and I stand here the advocate of the rights, liberties, and constitutional privileges of that people; and my only anxiety is, lest their sound cause, and right to inde- pendent legislation, should be in the slightest degree tarnished or impeded by any thing in which I may have been an instrument. I am conscious of the integrity of my purpose, and am conscious of the integrity of my motives in the working out of the object I had in view—the repeal of the Union : for I openly assert that I cannot endure the Union, because it was founded upon the greatest injustice, and based on the grossest insult—from an intolerance of Irish prosperity. These were the motives that induced the malefactors who perpetrated that iniquity : I have the highest authority—an ornament for years of that bench, now, although recently, in his honoured grave—for saying that the motive for carrying the Union was an intolerance of Irish prosperity. Nor shall I leave it on his word alone; I have other authority for it, with which I shall trouble you in the course of my brief address—for I assure you I am as anxious to be as brief as possible in the observations which I shall address to you. As to myself, gentlemen, I am not here to deny anything I have done, or to palliate anything I have done : on the contrary, I am ready to reassert in court all I have really said—not, of course, taking upon myself the clumsy mistakes of reporters, and not abiding by the fallibility which necessarily attends the reporting of speeches, particularly when they are hurriedly got up for the purposes of the newspaper-press. However, I do not hesitate to say, that there are several harsh things towards individuals, and clumsy jukes, which I would rather not have said ; but the substance of what I did say I avow, and

I am here to vindicate it. •

" It has been said to me, that I labour under great disadvantages in addressing you : but you may be sure, if I state those disadvantages, that I do so without any reflection whatsoever. I know, my Lords, what is due to the public, and the perfect order and decorum which should be observed in a court of justice—which no one should dare to violate. Therefore, when I speak of the disadvantages of addressing you, you will not understand me as appealing for redress to those who cannot give it to me. If anything which has been done is wrong, this is not the time to discuss how yon have been put into that box—this is not even the place for it ; and I will now assume that the Attorney-General has done nothing but what the law allowed him to do ; because, if there is a wrong committed, the remedy lies elsewhere; and if all is right and legal, the proper tribunal will decide it to be so. Now, gentlemen, I will address you, as I said, without discourtesy, but also without flattery, as the tribunal to which I am to propound my arguments. It is quite certain that there are considerable discrepancies of opinion between you and me upon subjects of the utmost importance: you differ with me on the question of the Repeal of the Union—for if you did not, there is not one of you would be in that box ; you differ with me on a more important subject, in religious belief—for if you did not, you would not be in that box. These differences

are, perhaps, aggravated by the fact that I am not only a Catholic, but that Catholic who (without boasting) has done most to pull down that Protestant as- cendancy for which perhaps you were the champions, but certainly not the an- tagonists: and although, having established that equality against hich some of you contend, and against which all of your opinions were formed, it does

not terrify me from the performance of my duty; tor I care not what evil effects occur to. myself, or what punishment it may bring on me : I glory in what I have done—I glory that I have been the successful and you the beaten party. But, gentlemen, nevertheless, I trust in your honour and sincerity, and to that alone I appeal."

In passing to the consideration of the ease itself, he retraced, with more or less of variety, arguments already employed. The indictment,

be said, the strangest that ever was, was the history of the last nine months; and he defied the most brilliant imagination to grasp the monstrous accumulation of matter. Its entire strength rested on the meaning of that cabalistic word "conspiracy "— " If, my Lords, I look into the dictionary for the meaning of that word, I find that it is a secret agreement between several to commit a crime'; and

that is the rational, common-sense definition of it. This word, however, in

recent times, hoe been taken under special protection by the law ; and the definition of it now is, not only a secret agreement between several to commit crime, but they have taken two loops to their bow, and the further depiction given of it is—to effect, or attempt to effect, even a legal object by means that are considered illegal : and thus a 'conspiracy' is spelt out by the construc- tion put upon the means that are used to attain the object sought, however legitimate that object may be. It has been admitted, even by the Crown, that in this case there is no privacy, no secrecy, no definite agreement to do any thing whatsoever, but above all, no secret agreement—no secret society—no private information. It has been admitted by the Crown that there has not been even one act of private communication ; that every thing was openly avowed, published to the world ; that this 'secret conspiracy' had no secrecy at all. What a monstrous thing it would be to hold that that was a conspiracy which everybody knew of, everybody heard of, and three•fiftbs of the people of this country were engaged in! And ii hat was the evidence of those conspirators assembling together? That Mr. Such-a-one attended at such a meeting—that Mr. Barrett attended at a certain meeting, and that Mr. Duffy attended once or twice—that I myself attended : and this is the way the charge of conspiracy is to be spelt out ! Is it common sense that that could be denominated a con- spiracy? Conspiracy ! Where was it made? when was it made? how was it made ? Was it made in winter, or in summer, in spring, or in autumn ? was it made on a holyday, or on a Sunday, or on a week-day ? Tell me the hour— the week—the month—the year it was made? In which of the three quarters of the twelve mouths did the gestation of this conspiracy commence ? Who proposed it ? who seconded it ? who was present at it ? I don't know whether it was said that I was present at the concoction of this conspiracy, or this agreement, private or public, or who else was there. When and where did it take place ? Ought I not at all events to have the advantage of being able to prove an alibi? (Laughter.) No; hut you must go over nine months, and toss up which place or time you may select. Do you not believe that if there was a conspiracy, it would be proved, and that the only reason it was not proved is because it did not exist ? The Attorney- General told you it did exist—that it must have existed : but this is all imaginary, and you are called upon to find me guilty if you imagine ' that this agreement was entered into. I don't want to speak of the ta- lents of the Attorney-General. I admit the ingenuity, the talent and the in- dustry, with which he conducted this case. He was eleven hours—eleven mor- tal hours detailing the facts to you. What did he tell you the conspiracy con- sisted of? He made a long statement ; and when he came to the end, he told you to go back to the beginning, find out the conspiracy, and what it consisted of. (Laughter.) I say, gentlemen of the Jury, without the least affectation, if any gentleman could have found evidence of a conspiracy, it would have been found by the Attorney-General. Yes, he took eleven hours to throw all that garbage into your box. There,' said he, 'is the Pilot and the Nation for you; and make out a conspiracy.' I remember, on the Munster circuit, the celebrated Mr. Egan was once engaged for a defendant. The case had been stated by a Mr. Hoare, a gentleman of dark appearance. Egan was sure of his Jury; and on behalf of his client he merely said, 'Gentlemen of the Jury, you are not, in deciding this case, to be influenced by the dark oblivion of a brow.' (Laughter.) A learned friend sitting near him said, Why, Egan, what do you mean? that is nonsense you have been speaking.' 'To be sure it is,' said Egan ; 'but it is good enough for the Jury.' (Laughter.) So eleven hours are good enough for the Jury. It is nonsense to speak of satisfying them as to the fact at a conspiracy. I remember, after Hardy was tried for high treason, the anniversary of his acquittal was for a long time celebrated by a dinner; and one of the Jury, whose health was regularly proposed, always made the same speech: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,' said he, '1 will tell you why I acquitted Mr. Hardy—Mr. Sergeant Scott took eleven hours to state the case, and ten days were spent in endeavouring to prove it: now, I knew no man could be guilty whose guilt it took such a long time to show.'" .(Laughter.) The real point at issue was, not a charge of conspiracy, but to see whether the present Ministers, with their " conciliation policy "—their proposal for an extended franchise for Ireland—were to retain office ; or whether the Whigs were to return, promising a good deal and doing nothing. No men, therefore, could have stronger motives than the Government lawyers for proving their case. Why then did they fail in proving the conspiracy ?—because there was none to betray. Should be, in his declining years, after refusing the Mastership of the Rolls in order not to sacrifice the cause to which he was devoted, thus compro- mise it ? Admit the Attorney-General's law, and Wilberforce and the Slavery-Abolitionists, the Reform. Bill agitators, the Anti-Corn-law League, might have been indicted for "conspiracy." He criticised the evidence ; asking whether at the monster-meetings a single injury had been done to person or property—whether in fact they caused a particle of the " intimidation " alleged ? "The Government knew of those meetings ; everybody knew of them ; and why were they not impeded if they were illegal? I am not one of those who say that the Attorney-General endeavoured to entrap persons into criminality. I say no such thing : I do him more justice. 1 do say that he did not prosecute or interfere, because there was no ground for prosecuting, because there was no ground for interference."

Too much importance had been given to the newspaper-writings, though newspapers had expressly been disavowed as organs of the Re- peal Association. His mottoes of peace had been proved ; and his acts in vindication of peace and loyalty were remembered by all ; for his whole public conduct was inconsistent with " conspiracy "—

"There is not one of you, gentlemen of the Jury, who does not, I presume, remember the fearful system of combination which prevailed eight years ago in Dublin. It is said that 1 am ready to sacrifice principle to popularity—who dares to say it ? Could I not have easily made myself popular with these combinators ? I opposed them publicly-1 stood alone-1 opposed them at the peril of my life; and I owe the protection of my life at the meeting held in the Royal Exchange, at which many operatives differing from me in religion and politics attended, to the protection of the police. You will find, too, my

perpetual opposition to Ribandism. Has not my condemnation of Ribandism

been read over and over again ? Have not my warnings to the people—my denunciations to the police, calling upon them publicly to stop the progress of the evil system—been published to the world ? and, if I were in a conspiracy, should I not have been glad to bare been assisted by other conspirators ? If my object and my end were iniquitous, should I not bare had an advantage in that iniquity by rousing the Ribandmen upon my behalf in the various parts of Ireland ? I bad great influence, and I could have used it in this particular. You have the fact that I did not do so before you : it has been read to you over and over again. My discountenancing the Riband societies is notorious; nay, more, my resistance to all secret societies—my constant denunciations of them—are before the world. Take these things into your consideration, and say, if you believe in your consciences that the man is a base hypocrite who, without any worldly motive whatever but adherence to principle, opposed and flung away all the instruments that could tarnish his cause, however useful they might be. There is another point, if you remarked my public life, must have struck you perhaps differently, but you must have observed that I opposed it at the risk of my life and the loss of my popularity—the present system of Poor-law. With the influence I possess, could I not have raised the poverty of Ireland against its property if I chose, and insisted that all those who were rich should feed all those who were poor ? No : I saw the danger which the measure threatened to property, and, at the risk of popu- larity—taunted by many and many a sincere friend—bitterly sneered at by many men who had joined me—I consulted my conscience; I consulted the real nature of a provision that makes more destitute than it relieves, and is at an expense so enormously great that the very expenditure itself would give the Poor-law relief. I knew it was not appropriate to Ireland ; but am bound to say, that since it passed into a law, I have not given it any opposition." • • * His answer to young Mr. Tyler would be remembered—his uncompromising denunciations of American Slavery. You have had it in the newspapers, gentlemen, that we were offered assistance from France. You have heard that the Democratic party in France, headed by Ledru Rollin, proffered us their as- sistance and support. That party hates the English nation most of all; the ferocious hatred of England, which, perhaps not without reason when they remembered Waterloo, the French nation entertained, is concentrated in the party of Ledrn Rollin. Did I ask the support of his party, or frame the answer in such a way as could be construed into encourage- ment? No; I took the firm tone of allegiance and loyalty. I rejected his support—indignantly rejected it. I cautioned him strongly against coming over to this country. Is this the way to prove my hypocrisy ? Should I have so acted had I been indeed a hypocrite. Even the present Monarch of France 1 have not attempted to win over. I have refused the slightest assist- ance from him—nay, have hurled defiance at him. The Attorney-General, with great ingenuity, introduces a report of a Secret Committee of the Irish House of Commons, in the year 1797, with respect to the United Irishmen, into the case before you, to show that we were acting on their plan. Was there the slightest comparison between them and the Repealers? Assuredly not. The United Irishmen were looking to assistance from France—had emis- saries there ; whilst, perhaps, French emissaries were travelling through this country. Acting on their plan, looking for French aid, looking for armed force and violent revolution—oh, gentlemen, it was directly the reverse of ours. • • • You have seen my conduct with respect to the Chartists. They were in arms—up in insurrection throughout England—crowding in thousands and tens of thousands through all her manufacturing towns: their doctrines were spreading, their disciples increasing—for there was something fascinating for the poorer classes in the principles of the Charter. It purposed a violation of all property—its followers were numerous—they offered me aid. If I were a hypocrite, should I have refused it ? 1 denounced them—I denounced their doctrines—I drove them from Ireland—the people were so much opposed to it, that the Chartists absolutely committed an outrage upon the Irish at Man- chester. It has been read to you, that the moment we discovered that a Chartist had joined the Association, his money was returned to him, and his name struck off the list of members. If my object were insurrection, think you I should have acted so? My Lords, I do firmly declare, that if I had not opposed Chartism, it would have passed over and spread from one end of Ire- land to the other. Thank Heaven that I did resist it ; and, whatever becomes of this trial, I shall ever rejoice that I kept Ireland free from this pollution.' He complained that the Attorney-General had acted unfairly in re- presenting his comments on the speech of Ministers as disloyalty to the Queen ; of which he was notoriously incapable. Having defended the means of his agitation, he proceeded to vindicate its object—the Repeal of the Union ; hoping, before lie had done, to make Repealers of not a few among his hearers in court- " I mean first to demonstrate that the English Parliament has, from the re- motest period at which she possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow, jealous, restrictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis, I would just beg of you to recollect the history of the woollen manufactures of Ireland, in the reign of a Monarch whom you are not disposed to condemn. I shall next demonstrate in succession, that the transactions of 1782 were intended to be a final adjustment, and that it was then intended and agreed that the Irish Par- liament should be established for ever ; that the greatest prosperity followed from the protective influence of that Parliament, after having achieved its in- dependence; and that the Union was forced upon the Irish people against their consent, by the most criminal means. I shall next show you in detail the many evils that resulted from the Union, and the gross injustice of the enactment of that statute. I shall show you the increasing distress and desti- tution which have arisen from that statute; and that there is no probability— I think no possible means—of restoring prosperity to this country, or of avoid- ing ultimate separation from England, save by the restoration of be: Parlia- ment."

He read extracts from writings and speeches by M. Thiers, Mr. Pitt, Chief Justice Bushe, Primate Boulter, Mr. Foster, Lord Clare, Lord Plunket, and others, first, to show that England had deprived Ireland of her resources and prosperity ; then, that during the period when Ire- land had an "independent Parliament," her advance in prosperity was unparalleled ; and that jealousy of that prosperity prompted the Union. He quoted statistical figures (familiar to the readers of his Repeal speeches and writings) to show the evils that had resulted to Ireland from the Union—the imposition of an undue share of debt, mismanaged finances, augmented taxation, inadequate representation, centralized ex- penditure of Irish money in England, absenteeism, depreciation of Irish property. According to Mr. Hayes, surplus revenue to the amount of 9,000,0001., or according to the Railway Commissioners, 6,000,0001., passes over to England every year ! Had he not, he asked, presented a picture that made it the duty of every honest man to rally with him. to remedy those evils by the restoration of the Irish Parliament? To show that his views were unchanged and not sectarian, he read his first public speech, and recalled the Catholic petition with 28,000 signatures that he had presented in favour of the emancipation of Protestant Dissenters. He read an "article" from an English

provincial paper, the Cheltenham Chronicle, in 1841, to prove that violence was on the side of his opponents. Touching on the Arbitration Courts, he mentioned that no oath was taken in those courts ; and diverged to the expediency of abolishing oaths. He read the regulations of the Repeal Association, to vindicate its legal and peaceful character ; and the "plan for the renewed :action of the Irish Parliament." He contended that he had a right to moot the question of the Queen's title to issue writs, however erroneous in his conclusion. He read an extract from Mr. Saurin's speech, delivered on the 15th March 1800, in which that gentleman asserted that the Union would be a nullity if forced on the Irish people against their will ; and another passage in a subsequent speech, in which Mr. Saurin gave it as his opinion, that although they might make the Union binding as a law, they could not make it obligatory on conscience, and resistance to it in the abstract would become a duty. That, he insisted, was the true constitutional doctrine. He contrasted the statement in a recent report by Captain Larcom, that 30 per cent of the town-population of Ireland, and 70 per cent of the rural population, is in a state of abject poverty, with the fertility, beautiful harbours, and abundant natural resources of Ireland- " And why is not the country prosperous ? Did 1 not read to you the ma- gical 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 evidence of increasing prosperity under our own Parliament? What hap- pened once may happen again. Oh, gentlemen, this is a struggle to rescue the poor from their poverty—to give employment to those who are now unoccu- pied—to keep the gentry among us—for at once their Parliamentary interests would bring them here : an example has been set by the present Ministry, in the absentee-tax."

In conclusion be said-

" I leave the case in your hands. I deny I have done any thing to stain me. I reject with contempt 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 restoration of the Par- liament of my native country. Others have succeeded before me ; but, suc- ceed or fail, it s a struggle to make the fairest land in the world possess those benefits which Nature intended she should enjoy."

Sounds of applause arose as Mr. O'Connell ceased. The Court ad- journed, on a statement by the traversers' counsel that their witnesses could not be conveniently brought up till next morning.

Twentieth day—Tuesday, February 6.

When the Court reassembled, Mr. Moore stated that, as the evi- dence adduced by the Crown had established so many facts in favour of the traversers, they did not think that they should be warranted in taking up the time of the Court to establish the same points : therefore, although they had several witnesses in town, they would examine very few.

The evidence occupied the whole day ; but its nature may he very briefly stated. Mr. F. W. Conway, proprietor of the Dublin Evening Post deposed that he was editor of the Freeman's Journal in 1810: and he produced a report of the meeting to petition for a Repeal of the -Union on the 19th September in that year ; at which Mr. O'Connell spoke. Some other newspaper reports, and the requisition for the same meeting, were also produced. Mr. James Perry, a Quaker, produced the rules of the Society of Friends, respecting arbitration : the rules "advise" that one friend shall not go to law with another ; but that "all differences about outward things be speedily composed between themselves or by arbitrators " ; and if, "after admonition," any member shall refuse so to refer his case, that "the meeting do testify against such person, and disown him to be of our Society." Mr. Perry believed that there had been no instance in which those rules had been disobeyed. He had been party to an arbitration in the Ousel Gallery [a body of forty persons appointed by the Quakers, from among whom each party in a dispute names an arbitrator] ; and he had seen Mr. Brewster there. Mr. William Cosgreave, Secretary and Registrar of the Ousel Gallery, gave further evidence on the same point. Mr. Charles Vernon, Re- gistrar of Stamps in the Stamp Office, produced various copies of the Morning Register, Weekly Freeman, and Pilot, for dates in 1840 and subsequently, containing documents and reports to which counsel for the defence had already alluded. Mr. William Morgan, a coach- maker of Tullamore, deposed, that on the 16th July, an arch was erected bearing the inscription, " Ireland, her Parliament, or the world in a blaze ": Mr. O'Connell expressed disapprobation of the inscription ; and Mr. Thomas Steele stood by while the arch was taken down, before the people assembled at the public meeting which took place on that day. The Reverend Mr. Power, the writer of a letter on the duty of the Army, was to have been examined ; but, being unwell, he did not appear, and his evidence was waived. Mr. Moore stated that the traversers had closed their case.

Several disputes arose on the admissibility of evidence. The decisions were various, mostly in favour of admitting it ; to which the Chief Justice seemed altogether to lean, even when the rest of the Bench was against him.

Twenty-first day—Wednesday, February 7.

The Solicitor-General commenced his reply; which was an examination of the arguments of the eight counsel on the other side, and of great part of the evidence, intended to do away with the gloss put upon the case, and restore it to the position with which the prosecuting lawyers set out. His process was one of analysis and separation ; stripping away the extraneous matter which had been introduced to disguise the actual bearing of the charge and distract the attention of the Jury. He began with the Jurors themselves ; telling them that they were not to give a verdict on any consideration but that of the evi- dence. He extricated the charge from the misrepresentations by which it had been distorted : it was not an attempt to put down public discussion and the right of petitioning—they were not pro- secuting any MIL for his religious or political opinions ; and he at once avowed that all men had the right to express their opinions, in a legal and constitutional manner : it was not an attempt to put down the press ; for the whole Liberal press, which advecated nearly the same opinions, was unscathed ; and the editors of three Repeal papers were prosecuted, not as editors, but as agents in the designs of the traversers : the charge was one of conspiring to effect an object by illegal means—fomenting discord among the people, and intimidating the Legislature. He once more explained to the Jury the legal

acceptation of "conspiracy," or concurrence t purpose ; illustrating the intent and working of Itzcettron pies.

The plea that the Crown-lawyers had tra s into crime was rather like a confession of gto

is.

,into

committed it, they would be acquitte

rw had

ed o which they had been enticed had been of Government to prosecute was no defenc had been ample and frequent. The charge was lags of any one meeting, but on the numb Crgs

continuity, and common design. Something n e.. a'.• I fact that English Juries had convicted priso T on- spiracy and unlawfully assembling, of the latter offence only : but in those cases, the Crown-lawyers had to make their election of the charge on which they would demand a verdict. Now, if unlawfully assembling had been the charge in the present case, it must have been preferred before the Grand Juries of all the different counties in which the meetings severally occurred, and could not have been discussed in the highest court of criminal judicature. Besides, it was desired not to touch the subordinate instruments, but only the leaders. Having placed in a distinct light these general positions— which had, he said, been evaded, not met, by the opposite counsel—the Solicitor. General proceeded more in detail to scrutinize the arguments and evidence. He repeated several of the oft-quoted extracts from speeches and writings by Mr. O'Connell and others ; reproducing the ambiguous but intelligible allusions to aid awaiting the call of the Re- peaters in France and America, the weakness of England, the assurance that the Repeal displays throughout the country were no holyday mum- ming, allusions to "the pike," and many such passages, proving that a physical and not a "moral" struggle was the threat held out and pre- sent to the minds of speakers and hearers. Consisting of much the same materials as Mr. Smith's opening address, Mr. Greene's, pressing them home more closely as actual evidence, brought out this bearing of the old facts with a greatly increased force.

At five o'clock, the reply was still unfinished ; and the Court ad- journed.

At the usual meeting of the Repeal Association, on Monday, Lord Ffrench took the chair, amid "rapturous applause." On the motion of Mr. Smith O'Brien, a committee was appointed to watch the proceedings in Parliament. Mr. O'Connell was present, exhorting to peace, and expressing sanguine hopes as to the result of the trial. The rent for the week was 560/.