1 JUNE 1844, Page 6


In the Dublin Court of Queen's Bench, on Friday 24th May, the Judges pronounced their decision on the motion for a new trial in the ease of the Queen versus O'Connell and others. Mr. Justice Perrin spoke first, Mr. Justice Crampton second, Mr. Justice Burton third, and the Chief Justice Pennefather last.

Mr. Justice Perrin went over the several objections upon which counsel for the traversers grounded the application. Many were of a purely technical kind, and were dismissed without hesitation. The objection to Mr. John Jason Rigby, who was sworn as a juror by the name of " John Rigby," he considered to be completely answered : Mr. Rigby was summoned and impannelled by the name in which he was sworn, so that there was no substitution or mistake of the person ; he was known by the name in which he was sworn; and he was sworn with the consent and desire of counsel on both sides, under a full know- ledge of the facts. The omission of names from the Jury-list, alleged to be fraudulent, bad received full inquiry, deliberate consideration, and judgment. The Judge traced the process of making out the list ; remarking that the sta- tute seemed to contemplate the completion of the duty by the Recorder in suf- ficient time to make out the Special Jury-list before the commencement of the year. On the 28th or 29th of September, the list was returned, not containing the names of all : twenty-four names at least, and amongst them fourteen en- titled, in St. Audeon's parish, to be upon the Special Jury, were omitted. This error, with the difference in the amount of numbers as appearing upon that list and the twenty lists, should alone have called attention to the circum- stance ; and withholding it to that day certainly had the effect of preventing, whether it was intended or not, any correction of the error before the Sheriff acted upon the list. Ile regretted that proceedings were not instituted to ascertain and visit the person guilty of this great neglect of duty and trifling with the law in a matter of such importance : whether it was designed or merely gross negligence, did not matter : the more he considered the question the greater difficulty be felt in holding that this was a perfect Jurors-book, and the more lie was led to abide by the opinion which he gave when the matter was before the Court, that it was a sound ground of challenge. But he thought it was not cognizable in that case, or in any particular case, by such an appli- cation as the present one. Ile thought it was cognizable in no case except by way of and upon challenge; and they could not frame an application for a new trial in that case, especially when they knew that it was made the subject of a previous application and challenge before the trial. One of the objections was, that the Court gave its opinion upon the facts of the case, instead of submitting them entirely to the Jury. His own course was, to withhold his opinion of the facts, and to leave them entirely to the Jury ; but he knew that much abler Judges would adopt a different course; and it would he going much further than any instance he recollected to hold that the expression of opinion by the Court to a Jury as to matters of fact would be held a valid ground for setting aside the verdict. There was no charge of con- trolling the Jury, of preventing their examining any particular matter of fact, or of misleading them in any matter of fact. Another objection was, that there was a misdirection by the Court in leaving newspaper-reports, published by one of the traversers, as evidence of the acts and speeches of another, and the acts of the people at the meetings as evidence against that other. The question had been argued upon two grounds ; and the first objection was, that here the course of proof being only the statutable proof, was only evidence against the editor or publisher of the paper. As to that matter, it appeared to him, that if the sta- tute substituted such proof as evidence, and conclusive evidence, against the proprietor in every proceeding touching the paper, it must also make it suffi- cient proof against anybody who was to be affected by his acts. But then the important question remained, was the paper evidence against O'Connell of his having made the speeches imputed to him ? The act was merely that of Barrett, and O'Connell was not proved to have any connexion with the pro- duction of it, and no share in the publication of the paper; and, save in the case of conspiracy, it could not be argued that the reports in the paper could be evidence against Mr. O'Connell. These papers were left with very strong ob- servations to the Jury as evidence against Mr. O'Connell, very powerfully showing the intention of his speeches, proving him to have been engaged in a common conspiracy with the other traversers. It therefore appeared to him, that those speeches were left to the Jury as evidence from which they might legitimately infer that Mr. O'Connell was engaged in that general conspiracy. As to the rule of the admissibility. of such evidence, it was clearly laid down in Phillips•that the acts of co-conspirators were evidence against each other; but not till, as he had before said, the existence of a conspiracy had been undoubt- edly established. Now, he thought those newspapers were clearly evidence; and so far as the acts of Barrett and Duffy were open to the charge of con- spiracy, they were evidence against Mr. O'Connell himself, provided there was independent matter to connect him with it, if one existed ; but he could not see that they were admissible evidence for the purpose of assuming the truth of the statement contained in the newspapers, and thereby implicating Mr. O'Contiell in a conspiracy which had not been first proved without doubt to have existed. So that it did not appear to him that the rule about the acts of co-conspirators bring evidence against each other was applicable here in an in- dictment for speaking, it would not have been evidence. Upon this ground, it appeared to Lim that they had misdirected the Jury in taking those acts as evidence of acts dune by Mr. O'Connell at Tara and Mallow. For his part, he thought there was ample evidence, independent of the objectionable parts, to warrant and sustain the verdict : but the Court could not take upon themselves to say whether the Jury would have thought this also ; they could nut pretend to assert that if that evidence, which he now considered was clearly inadmis- sible, had been withheld, the Jury would have come to the same conclusion. It appeared to him that the evidence regarding speeches alleged to have been spoken by Mr. O'Connell at Marlow and Tara was improperly left to the Jury; and therefore, as against him, the verdict ought to be set aside. In the case of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, it was objected that there was no evidence to prove his knowledge of the acts of the other traversers before he joined the Association. The Court had very properly withdrawn his proceed- ings at Clontibret from the consideration of the Jury; and the only evidence that remained was a speech that he made at a meeting of the Association on the 3d October, which he concluded by handing in a sum of money. In so doing, he made some observations which were far from being such as might be expected from a gentleman of his profession and calling. Those observations related, among other things, to certain battles which had in former times been fought between the English and the Irish ; observations, he repeated, which it was most desirable a gentleman of his calling should not have given expression to ; and having made them, be then lodged the money in the Association : Mr. O'Con- nell then made a speech thanking him for it ; and that was the entire of the evidence against him : and it was objected that that was not evidence on which the Jury was warranted in convicting him of the charge laid in the indictment. It should be observed that he was only convicted of the charge as contained in the fifth count of the indictment—namely, of exciting dissension and hostility between the English and Irish. The Jury should first be satisfied, in coming to that verdict, that there was an actual agreement and confederacy between Mr. Tierney and the other traversers; and it was argued that the evidence as related to him should be put to the Jury with that instruction. He thought that such should have been the case. The Chief Justice told the Jury that portions of Mr. Tierney's speech were highly improper; and no doubt they were : but the manner in which that speech was commented upon in the charge, he considered might have misled the Jury. His Lordship had asked the jurors, were such and such sentiments delivered by Mr. Tierney for the purpose of promoting Christian charity and peace? Such a mode of iuterrogation was calculated to lead the minds of the jurors from the real and true question they were empannelled to try—namely, whether Mr. Tierney was guilty of the offence, and to the extent imputed to him in the indictment. Again, it was put in the charge, whether, at the period of delivering his observations at the Corn Exchange, Mr. Tierney did not then adopt the views and objects of the Association. The charge in the indictment as against Mr. Tierney, was that he made that certainly rash and ill-considered speech in pursuance of a preexist• ing conspiracy, and with the intent of promoting the objects of the conspirators. There were no facts, there was no evidence to warrant any such assumption ; nos did the testimony brought forward by the Crown at all justify the Chief Justice in placing Mr. Tierney's case before the Jury as he had done. There was a confusion about that portion of the charge which should not have existed. He thought the Chief Justice should have left it to the Jury to determine whether Mr. Tierney, when joining the Association, was acquainted with the acts and speeches of O'Connell as well as the other traversers; and there was no evi- dence whatever to show that he possessed any such knowledge. There was a want of decision about the Chief Justice's direction to the Jury, in reference to the Reverend Mr. Tierney, that might have had the effect of misleading them. It should have been precise and exact—it should have been full and particular. It ought to have gone the length of unequivocally stating, that if the Jury be- lieved and were satisfied of a consort existing between Mr. Tierney and the other defendants at the time of his becoming an enrolled member of the Repeal Association, they should find him guilty ; and that if they entertained a con- trary opinion, they ought to bring. in a verdict of acquittal. There was clear evidence of coincidence of expression between the traversers ; but whether there was a community of knowledge on the part of Mr. Tierney, remained up to that moment just as unexplained as it was before. On these grounds, it appeared to him, with respect to this particular person, the Reverend Mr. Tierney, that the attention of the Jury had been drawn from the real question ; and he consi- dered that the verdict, as regarded that gentleman, ought to be set aside. Mr. Justice Crampton contented himself, in respect to most of the objections, with expressing his concurrence in Judge Perrin's decisions. He discussed at some length, however, the objection that there was no evidence of a conspiracy. He pointed to the organization of the Loyal National Repeal Association, with its press, its funds, its regular constitution, its titles—" the Liberator," "chief and subordinate Pacificators," " Wardens," " Collectors," and other officers. It was impossible not to see in that machinery and organization all the elements of a government ready formed, and a preparation to relieve the existing Go- vernment, whenever the opportunity should occur, of the responsibility of ruling a certain portion of the empire. He would not then take it on himself to say that that was illegal, but he certainly would not say that it was legal and constitutional. It could not be unimportant that the leaders of that body bad wielded a vast and irresponsible power. He considered that the acts of the Association were most important evidence to determine the intention of the combination ; in the intention mast consist the criminality or legality of the combination : and the Judge referred to several acts of the Association-- cards, addresses, and the like—to illustrate his position. All the traversers ex- cepting Mr. Tierney were members of the Association; and all excepting Mr. Duffy and Mr. Tierney were principal actors at the monster-meetings. As to Mr. Duffy, though he did not appear to have attended any monster-meetings, he was an active member of the Association throughout the year 1843, and his very clever journal was a principal part of the machinery for carrying on the objects of the Association. It bad been alleged that there had been not soar- cient proof to identify Mr. Duffy the traverser with Mr. Duffy the editor of the Nation : his very able and gifted counsel, however, opened his address to the Jury by saying that he appeared on behalf of Mr. Duffy, the proprietor of the Nation." Mr. Tierney's case stood upon different grounds. The speech spoken by Mr. Tierney was of a very violent and inflammatory nature ; it showed that he approved of the proceedings of the Association in the year 1843, and that he was aware of the effects of the monster-meetings—effects likely to excite hatred in the great mass of the people to those whom he called "the Saxon race." Without meaning to say, however, that there was not evidence against Mr. Tierney of a previous knowledge of the existence of the conspiracy, in his opinion it was of a slight nature. Indeed he might say, that he had expected the Jury would acquit him. He would not go the length of saying that as regarded him there was a misdirection to the Jury; but he could wish that their attention had been more particularly called to the evia deuce as to his case. As the matter then stood, he was not quite satisfied that justice had been done to this particular traverser ; and, however inconvenient and injurious a new trial might be, still, if there were no other mode of taking away from Mr. Tierney the effect of the verdict—and there was one, by the Crown entering a nolle prosegui—he could not rest satisfied in his conscience without affording him the advantage of sending his case before another Jury. In discussing the objections taken to the matter of Chief Justice Pennefather's charge, he said that it was not the charge of the Chief Justice alone, but sub- stantially that of all the members of the Court ; and he maintained that no- thing could be Inure prejudicial to the ehds of justice, than that a Judge should merely act as a reporter of the evidence to the Jury, without guiding them in difficulty by expressing his opinion as to the effect of evidence on the case before them. Touching the law of conspiracy, he held that the contents of the newspapers published by any one of the conspirators was evidence against the others, even although not cognizant of them. He could entertain no doubt that this evidence was well received against Mr. O'Connell for the purpose of showing the nature and extent of the conspiracy. As long as there was no evidence to prove that a conspiracy existed, why then it was not receivable: but there was abundant evidence for that purpose, and therefore it was his firm conviction that the evidence was perfectly admissible, and was properly laid before the Jury as evidence against Mr. O'Connell. In conclusion, with 're- spect to all the traversers excepting Mr. Tierney, he was of opinion that the verdict should not be set aside.

Mr. Justice Burton avowed his concurrence in the opinion of his learned brothers in rejecting the formal objections; and his opinion on other points did not materially differ from that of Justice Crampton, except as to the case of Mr. Tierney ; whom he could not regard as entitled to a new trial. No en- pleas compact was required to be proved ; but the fact of conspiracy might be inferred from acts and words, although no formal declaration could be shown; and the Jury had to consider the fact of Mr. Tierney becoming a member of the Association in October 1843, and the circumstances under which he and the other traversers then were placed, and the acts, conduct, and language of

the traverser, calling as he did upon the members of the Association not to desert their leader or to sell their country. Having quoted parts of Mr. Tier- ney's speech, where he spoke of the cruelties of the English, Mr. Justice Barton asked, was this, or was it not, lauguage used in order to impress upon the minds of the Irish feelings of ill-will and hostility to the English; and was

it done in furtherance of the specific design imputed by the indictment? This was certainly matter of inference; and it was perfectly consistent with leaving this inference to the Jury that they should consider all the circumstances in his favour. All the circumstances were before the Jury and in their know- ledge ; and they found a verdict against Mr. Tierney on some counts, but ac- quitting him of other offences; and unless that verdict were manifestly wrong, there was no sound reason why a new trial should be given. He went on to make some general remarks upon the verdict as respects all the traversers. He observed—" The Jury who heard the case, both in evidence and in argument, on the part of the Crown and of the traversers, and in di- rection and observation from the Court, with most unremitting attention, have found a verdict on those respective issues; which finding, as I conceive, exhibits a very careful consideration of the evidence as it affected all and each of the traversers." Ile separately examined the issues, and pronounced the finding of the Jury on each to be right. He commented on some things that counsel for the traversers had not said. . The anxiety of the learned counsel in their de- fence of the traversers appears to have led them into a very critical and elabo- rate description of and (if I may use the expression) animadversion upon the manner in which the several questions were left to the Jury. I do not mean to apply that phrase to the discussion of any of the points upon which the re- jection, admission, or application of particular matters of evidence came into controversy during the examination of the witnesses, and the reading or offering in evidence of the written or printed document; nor to the legal meaning of the term conspiracy,' as the definition of that term was laid before the Jury for their government in considering and coming to the verdict,—for although there was in the course of the trial, and even after the evidence had closed, some criticism upon that subject, it was not, as it struck me, much persisted in ; nor to the legal direction given to the Jury upon the Legislative Union, as now subsisting,—for I do not recollect that there has been any complaint made of the charge upon that ground; nor certainly to the very peremptory direction given to the Jury to take upon themselves the inference to be drawn from the evidence laid before them, and not to find a verdict against the traversers or any of them unless satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of the validity and truth of the inference leading to such a verdict. On that part of the charge I do not recollect that one word was said on the part of the traversers, during the argu- ment for a new trial." In conclusion, he considered, that upon the whole the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and that there was no sufficient ground before the Court for awarding a venire de novo or granting a new trial.

The Chief Justice began by remarking, that in the discussion of the motion he had as far as possible abstained from all interference, through motives of delicacy; and he stated that generally he concurred in the view of his brother Burton. He quoted the opinion of Mr. Erskine, that in motions of the kind, the attainment of substantial justice is so decidedly the ruling principle upon which the Court must act, that "in civil cases Judges have sometimes refused to grant a new trial even where the verdict was against the law, if upon the whole they saw that substantial justice had been done " ; and Lord Kenyon adopted that rule, saying, that " in granting a new trial, the Court would either grant or refuse a new trial as either would tend to the advancement of justice." Touching upon the omission of the names from the Jury-list, the Chief Jus- tice declared that he saw no reason whatever for imputing fraud to any one on either side. Afterwards, he put in a very clear view the question respecting the evidence of the newspapers. He did not mean to say it was conclusive evi- dence against the traversers. Mr. O'Connell might have brought evidence that he never attended the meeting, or made a speech, or one of that description : but he had brought forward no such proof, nor made any affidavit to that effect. Barrett, as the agent of Mr. O'Connell, published his speech in a newspaper ; and making that statement as the agent of Mr. O'Connell, that statement be- came evidence against Mr. O'Connell and all the co-conspirators. Mr. O'Con- nell was the leading member of the Association, the Chairman of the Com- mittee which issued the orders for the Repeal Wardens; one of whose rules was, that certain newspapers, namely, the Pilot and Freeman, should be as ex- tensively circulated by them as possible. To this document Mr. O'Connell signed his name as Secretary, and thereby became accessory to the deed. But— and this was a most material point—no objection had been made at the time to the reception of this evidence; all the traversers' counsel had spoken, and made

no objection. The Chief Justice having concluded, the Attorney-General rose and said, that after what had been suggested by two members of the Court, it was not his intention to call for judgment upon the Reverend Mr. Tierney. He applied for the next day to be fixed for giving sentence in the case.

On Saturday, Mr. Whiteside applied to have certain amendments made in the postea, by inserting thereon that the Jury had been allowed to separate from day to day during the trial, and also by altering the words so as to be strictly in accordance with the findings of the Jury upon the several issues sent before them ; the object being to put the facts in train for argument before another tribunal. The Attorney- General objected to the motion ; on the grounds that Mr. Moore, counsel for the traversers, had consented to the separation of the Jury, and that the other point had been argued on the new trial motion. The Court refused the application, because of the late period at which it was made, and because the parties had already made use of the very document for their purposes which they now said was erroneous. Mr. Justice Cramp- ton remarked, that the effect of allowing the alterations would be to put a falsehood on the record : a more monstrous attempt was never made.

Sir Coleman O'Loghlen rose and stated that he intended to move in arrest ofjadgment ; but he had left his notes at home, expecting that the motion to amend the postea would have lasted the whole of that day. The Court suggested that Sir Coleman should acquaint the oppo- site counsel with the points upon which he intended to rely. Sir Cole- man O'Loghlen gave a vague answer. Some further conversation en- sued ; and it was ultimately understood that he would furnish the Attorney-General that night with a list of the cases that he meant to cite.

When Sir Coleman O'Loghlen began his arguments in arrest of judg- ment, on Monday, the Chief Justice apprized him that the Court would only hear two counsel on each side—two for all the traversers ; as was the usual practice of the Court on mere points of law. Sir Coleman resisted that representation ; and Mr. Close contended for the right of each of the seven remaining traversers to be heard by his own counsel: but the Judges adhered to the announcement by the Chief Justice, who said that the public time could no more be wasted in that way. Sir Coleman O'Loghlen then proceeded; basing his motion upon two classes of objections—to the caption, and to the finding of the Jury. As to the caption, it stated that the bill was found upon the oath and affirmation of good and lawful men ; but it should appear on the doer. went that those who affirmed had a right to do so. He then urged several objections to the finding,—such as that certain of the counts in the indictment were" bad for duplicity," as it was a rule that no plead- ing could be double ; and that the indictment disclosed no legal of- fence—no indictable conspiracy ; the proper definition of a conspiracy being an "agreement to commit an indictable offence." When Sir Cole-. man had concluded, Mr. Fitzgibbon again urged the right of all the traversers to be heard by their counsel severally : but the four Judges repulsed their importuning, and peremptorily adhered to their previous. decision. On Tuesday, the Solicitor-General spoke in reply. The statement of the oath and affirmation of the jurors in the caption, he said, accorded with a form prescribed by Baron Alderson directly after the passing of the act which regulates the matter. He argued elaborately against Sir Coleman O'Loghlen's technical objections. Mr. M'Donogh followed up Sir Coleman's arguments ; and to hint the Attorney-General replied on Wednesday, citing many authorities. The Judges then pronounced their decision, which was unanimous. The ChiefJustice characterized the objection to the caption as groundless; and he dismissed all the others us bad.

In expectation of the sentence, on Thursday, the court was crowded. itt every part : and outside the building there was a strong guard of military stationed, to preserve the peace in case of mischance. Mr. O'Connell entered the court at half-past ten o'clock, accompanied by his son John, Mr. Smith O'Brien, and Sir Valentine Blake. As he entered, the bar, with few exceptions, rose, and saluted him with clapping of hands and cheers ; which greeting, continuing for some minutes, was loudly echoed by the visitors in the gallery. Mr. O'Connell bowed repeatedly in acknowledgment. The other traversers, Dr. Gray, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Ray, were also present ; but- none of them appear to have kept their seats.

At a quarter-past eleven, the full Court sat ; and Mr. Moore applied, to the Court to allow the traversers to stand out on bail until the House of Lords should decide upon the writ of error, which Mr. O'Connell had undertaken, on affidavit, to prosecute with all despatch. In reply, the Attorney-General contended that the Court could not delay the operation of a sentence, except only in the case of a person undergoing sentence for a previous offence, a second sentence on whom might be delayed in its effect until the expiration of the first. Mr. Whiteside having argued in support of the application, and the Solicitor-General against it, the Judges unanimously refused it. In doing so, however, they expressed their regret that they had no power to grant it; and Mr. Justice Burton observed, " He thought something might be done with equal justice to all parties. It would be a source of great uneasi- ness to his mind if the court sentenced parties to imprisonment—that the punishment was inflicted—and that afterwards it should be found that such sentence was illegal and improper."

The traversers were then called upon to receive sentence. On their re. appearance, Mr. O'Connell was again loudly cheered by the junior bars and the cheers were answered by those of the crowd outside the building.

Mr. Justice Burton pronounced sentence. He was much affected throughout, often so as to impede his utterance.

After alluding to the full discussion that every point had received in the course of the trial and subsequent proceedings, he said—" It is now then, my very painful duty—very, very painful indeed I feel it to be—to state what that sentence is, and as the law has awarded it. The main offence imputed to the traversers is that of attempting the abolition or abrogation of the Legislative Union, as at present subsisting, by means of a conspiracy, which it is alleged by the indictment, and has been so found by the Jury, was formed by them, with the intention to intimidate the subjects of the Queen who are opposed to such a measure, and to diminish the respect due to courts of law, as well as to inti- midate both Houses of Parliament and the Government of the country as it is at present constituted." He more minutely recapitulated the several points of the indictment ; said that the Court had considered the case in all its bear- ings; and then repeated—" It is, then, now my duty—my painful duty—(ho paused for a moment)—in truth, I do find it to be a moat distressing duty—to state what is the result of the consultation of the Court, and which is to affect the liberty of so many men—all of them I believe, one I fun sure—who stands very high in public estimation. It is, I say, particularly painful for me to state it with respect to one of these—to whose jutmelit.gs- a law- yer, and as a highly-informed man, in a case of such a de,cription as the present, I myself would look with the greatest reliance where others might be concerned. With respect, then, to him, the principal traverser, as compared with the other traversers now at the bar, the learned gentleman himself will, I am sure, agree with me in considering that he stands in a peculiar position." He went on to show how the other traversers might have been drawn into the commission of the offence, by the estimation in which—[Mr. John O'Connell here started up, and began, " Pardon me, my Lord —"; but his father laid his hand upon his shoulder and induced him to be seated. The Judge rev Burned.] " There is another gentleman also before the Court—I mean the son of the principal traverser—a gentleman of acknowledged talent, of great legal attainments, in high estimation, and with whom I am person- ally acquainted, and of whose general conduct I have a high opinion. In his case also, the principal traverser will see circumstances strongly in his favour from the near relationship in which he stands towards him."' He avowed with pleasure his thorough conviction, that Mr. O'Connell, while he sought to intimidate by the display of physical force, intended to carry his object without infraction of the peace or the shedding of one single drop of blood: but it must not be forgotten that a person using such authority could not tell how long be might be able to keep it and retain his influence ; nor did the consideration lessen the crime of conspiracy. It was a high misdemeanour, tending in this case to civil war, and inevitably leading to severe punishment. The Court, however, felt that it should not inflict punishment for punishment's sake ; and with these views it had determined upon the judgment which he had now to pronounce. [Here the Judge paused, and burst into tears. When he had recovered, he said, in an almost inaudible voice]—" With respect to the principal traverser, the Court is of opinion that he must be sentenced to be imprisoned for the space of twelve calendar months; and that he is further to be fined in the sum of 2,0001., and bound in his own recognizances in the sum of 5,000/., and two sureties in 2,500/., to keep the peace for seven years. With respect to the other traversers, we have come to the conclusion that to each shall be allotted the same sentence ; which is, that they be imprisoned for the space of nine calendar months, each of them to pay, 50/. fine, and enter into their own recognizances of 1,0004 and two Burettes of 500/., to keep the peace for seven years."

When the Judge had concluded, Mr. O'Connell rose and said-

" I beg to remind your Lordships, that I made a solemn affidavit, denying for myself, and on the part of the other travellers, that I had entered into any crime of conspiracy with them ; and it is now with great regret that I have to express that I am under the painful conviction that justice has nut been done." (Loud cheers burst forth as he ceased.)

Mr. Justice Burton told Mr. O'Connell that he might select which- ever prison in Dublin he thought would afford himself and the other traversers best accommodation. Mr. O'Connell named the Richmond Hridewell ; and the Attorney-General assented. The traversers all remained in custody of the Sheriff.

The usual meeting of the Repeal Association was held on Monday ; Sir S. Bradstreet in the chair. Several contributions were handed in from

America nod from the Roman Catholic clergy in various parts of Ire- had. The Reverend Mr. Tierney recorded his opinion of the State prosecution and the verdict, " by enrolling one hundred Repeaters of his parish of Clontibret as members of the Association."

Mr. O'Connell brought forward the chief motion of the day— that it be referred to the Committee of the Association to prepare an address to the people of Ireland on the present state of public affairs ; to be issued directly after the Judges should have pronounced sentence on the traversers. That sentence, he said, might be carried into ex- ecution immediately ; but whatever amount of fine or imprisonment might be inflicted on them, the people must be instructed to keep the peace--

If any delay had taken place in bringing the prosecution to its final issue, it was caused not by any shrinking on his part, but in order that he might have time

enough to prevent the people from playing the game of their enemies by resort- ing to violence, and to make them understand that their worst enemies desired nothing so much as to have an opportunity of pouring the military on the unarmed masses. This was now universally circulated among the people, and understood by them ; and it remained only for him to call the attention of Great Britain and Europe to the real position in which Ireland was placed. He proceeded to descant upon the ills of Ireland ; imputing them to the Union, and expecting no redress except through Repeal—

For entertaining these sentiments, their enemies had accused them of being conspirators : but he thanked Heaven that, in the course of the pending pro-

secution. an opportunity had ben afforded them of swearing that they bad not entered into any conspiracy. There were the oaths of educated Protestants to that effect—bad they perjured themselves? They had also the oaths of Catholics—of religious Catholics—hid they perjured themselves ? (Cries of "No, no! ") They had the oath of the anointed priest of God—bad he per- jured himself? (" 1tio, no!") Ile stood, then, on that swearing ; and he said,

they lied who asserted there had existed a olspiraey. But was that all? No;

one of the four Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, a man of the highest character for legal knowledge, especially of the common law, had solemnly, on his judicial oath, declared that there was no evidence against them to warrant a conviction. (Loud applause, followed by three cheers for Judge Perrin.) He would put their own oaths and the oath of that Judge in contrast with the oath of any other human being, he cared not who lie might be ; and he proudly declared that they were free from stain and reproach, and stood there acquitted of any guilt whatsoever. (l l!) It was highly probable that the traversers would in a few days be sent to prison: but they had not flinched ; they were a thousand times more in favour of Repeal than before the prosecution was instituted- " What had their prosecutors in view ? Surely not the miserable pleasure of having him in a pound ; although there were some ancient dames who, he sup- posed, would sweeten their tea and tracts with the thought that the man who achieved Emancipation was in gaol. With the blessing of God, however, they would live to come out of gaol. But be solemnly and awfully declared, for his own part, that he would not come out of it, except to his grave, if any man were guilty of any violation of the law in consequence of that imprisonment. Who- soever did so doomed him to his grave. He there, in their name, promised for them that they would be tranquil, come what might ; but he told them also, that if they wanted to keep him alive they should continue to agitate for Re- peal. Every man who refused to be a Repealer was a nail in his coffin. So long as he lived, the connexion between the two countries should be maintained ; and he thought that shortening his life was not the way to lengthen the con- npxion. His opinion was, that if the Union were not repealed in his lifetime it would be dissevered by force; and the flag foremost in the battle would be one having Inscribed on it The Monster Trial.'" This speech was much chee-ed • and the motion, seconded by Mr. Smith O'Brien was affirmed, The rent was 5444 he followlaft a4,1-- • ' • • • _ .—ess appeared in the Dublin Freeman's Journal of ikUl .uay. " PEACE AND QUIET

"People of lreland—Fellow-Country men—Beloved Fellow-Countrymen- The sentence is passed. But there is an appeal from that sentence. " The appeal lies to the House of Lords.

"I solemnly pledge myself to bring an appeal against that sentence; and I assure you there is every prospect that it will be reversed. (Ai) " Peace, then, and quiet. Let there be not one particle of riot, tumult, or violence.

"This is the crisis iu which it will be shown whether the people of Ireland will obey me or not. "Any person who violates the law, or is guilty of any violence, insult, or injury to person or property, violates my command, and shows himself an enemy to me and a bitter enemy to Inland. " The people of Ireland—the sober, steady, honest, religious people of Ire- land—have hitherto obeyed my commands and kept quiet.

"Let every man stay at home. Let the women and children stay at home. Do not crowd the streets; and, in particular, let no man approach the precincts of the Four Courts.

" Now, people of Dublin, and people of Ireland generally, I shall know, and the world will know, whether you love and respect me or not. Show your love and regard for me by your obedience to the law—your peaceable conduct—and the total avoidance of any riot or violence.


4‘ Preserve the peace, and the Repeal cause will necessarily be triumphant. 4' Peace and quiet I ask fur in my name, and as you regard me. " Peace and quiet I ask for in the name of Ireland, and as you love your native land.

" Peace—quiet--order, I call for an& r the solemn sanction of religion. I conjure you to observe quiet ; and I ask it in the adorable name of the ever- living God.

"Gratify me and your friends by your being quiet and peaceable.

"The enemies of Ireland would be delighted at your violating the peace, or being guilty of any disorder.

" Disappoint them—gratify and delight, by peace, order, and quiet.

" Your ever faithful friend, DANIEL O'CONNELL. n!, Corn Exchange Rooms, 30th May 1544."