In our last volume will be found an account of the progress of the repeal agitation in Ireland; and our narrative stated that Government had at length found it necessary to interpose with the arm of the law, and that a true bill had been found by the grand jury of the city of Dublin against Mr. O'Connell and his principal associates, charging them with a seditious conspiracy. Under various pretexts for delay on the part of the defendants, the trial was deferred until the 15th of January in the present year, and we propose now to give an account of the proceedings at the trial, at somewhat greater length than usual, on account of the national importance of the subject, and the interest taken by the public in the result.

It was fully intended that the trial should commence on Monday, the 15th of January; and on the previous Friday, Mr. Moore, one of the counsel for the defendants, (or traversers, as they were called, because they had traversed the indictment,) moved the Court of Queen's Bench that the panel of special jurors struck in the case should be quashed, and that a mandamus should issue to the Recorder, commanding him to place on the jury list the names of twenty-seven persons who had

been omitted, and whose claim had previously been allowed by him when he signed the list; or that a new sheriff's list should be made out, and that until the jury should be struck from the amended list, the trial should be postponed to the 1st of February, 1844. This motion was opposed by the Attorney-General, and after some discussion, the Chief Justice said that the court were unanimous in rejecting the application.

On Monday, the 15th, the Court of Queen's Bench was crowded with barristers and spectators, in the full expectation that the trial would then commence. All the Judges were on the bench, namely, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Crampton, Mr. Justice Perrin. The counsel for the Crown were-the AttorneyGeneral, the Solicitor-General, Sergeant Warren, Mr. Brewster, Q.C., Mr. Martley, Q.C., Mr. Freeman, Q.C., Mr. Bennett, Q.C., and Mr. Tomb, Q.C., and Messrs. Holmes, Smyley, Baker, and Napier. The counsel for the traversers were-Mr. Moore, Q.C., Mr. Henn, Q.C., Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., Mr. M'Donagh, Q.C., Mr. Monahan, Q.C., Mr. Fitzgibbon, Q.C., Sir Coleman O'Loghlen, and Messrs. O'Hagan, O'Hea, Close, and Perrin. The

traversers were called into court -namely, Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, John Gray, Thomas Steele, Richard Barrett, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, Charles Gavin Duffy, Thomas Matthew Ray, and the Rev. Peter James Tyrrell. Mr. Cantwell formally announced the death of Mr. Tyrrell. Mr. O'Connell obtained leave to robe himself, and reappeared in his wig and gown. Before the jury were sworn, Sir Coleman O'Loghlen, on the part of Daniel O'Connell, challenged the array, on the ground of the irregularities in the preparation of the jury lists which had already been so amply discussed. Sir Coleman stated that the challenges of the other traversers were identically the same, and would be handed in very shortly. The Attorney-General demurred to the challenge, which raised the question debated previously, and this was argued over again, at great length.

The Judges pronounced their decision seriatim. The Lord Chief Justice observed, that over the Recorder, within his own jurisdiction, the Court of Queen's Bench had no control, unless fraud or malversation were charged against him, which it was not; and therefore the court must accept the panel as it came from the sheriff. He condemned the proposition made by Mr. Moore, as tending to open the door for ruinous delays of justice. Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Crampton concurred with the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Perrin, with some doubt, dissented. The demurrer was of course allowed, in accordance with the decision of a majority; and the court adjourned at half-past seven, without swear ing the jury.

VOL. LXXXVI.

The court resumed at ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, the 16th. Considerable delay took place in calling over the jury, and selecting twelve names. Some of the defaulters were fined, and others were excused on the ground of ill health. At length twelve jurymen were sworn, and the following are their names:-James Hamil ton, foreman; Edward Roper, Edward Clarke, Francis, Faulkner, John Croker, Henry Flynn, Henry Thompson, Anston Floyd, John Rigby, Robert Hanna, William Longfield, William Ord.

Mr. Napier opened the pleadings, and then the Attorney-General (Mr. T. B. C. Smith) rose to state the case. He first described the nature of the charge against the defendants :

In the words of the indictment, the traversers stood accused of having "conspired and confederated together to raise and create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, and to excite them to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of the realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the said government and constitution, and to stir up hatred, jealousy, and ill-will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects; and especially to promote among her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in England; and to excite discontent and disaffection in the army; and to cause large numbers of persons to meet together, at different times and at different places, for the unlawful purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby created, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration

X

of great physical force at such meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and constitution of this realm as by law established; and particularly, by those means to bring about and accomplish a dissolution of the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland; and also by means of inflammatory and seditious publications to intimidate Parliament, and thereby bring about changes and alterations in the laws and constitution of this realm as now by law established; and to bring into hatred and disrepute the tribunals established for the administration of the law therein, and to assume and usurp the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of courts for the administration of the law."

re

He proceeded to explain the offence of conspiracy in the legal acceptation; citing various ceived authorities. Conspiracy is a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or acts, or to effect some legal purpose by illegal means. It is not necessary to prove that two parties came together and actually agreed to a common design; but it might be inferred from their pursuing a common object and resorting to common means. In the case of the Queen versus Murphy, Mr. Justice Coleridge observed: "I ought also to tell you, that by finding the defendants guilty you will not, as has been said, affect the right of petitioning. It is not wrongful to assemble in a public meeting to petition Parlia ment against that which is alleged to be a public grievance; neither is it unlawful to refuse payment of the church-rate in money, and to leave the collector to obtain payment by taking the goods of

the party, as is constantly done in the case of the Quakers: but it is unlawful, by means like those charged in this indictment, to prevent those rates being levied on the goods of the party. It is not necessary that it should be proved that those defendants met to concoct this scheme, nor is it necessary that they should have originated it. If a conspiracy be already formed, and a person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty."

The act of either party is considered to be done by the rest, and is evidence against the rest. In the case of the King versus York, Mr. Justice Rooke instructed the jury, that if the defendant went beyond the mere purpose of enlightening the minds of the people upon speculative points, to excite a spirit of discontent and sedition, or even if his speeches had that tendency, he must take the consequences. In 1819, in the case of the King versus Hunt, Mr. Justice Bayley said, alluding to drilling: "" If the object of the drilling is to secure the attention of the persons drilled to disaffected speeches, and give confidence by an appearance of strength to those willing to join them, that would be illegal; or, if they were to say,

66

We will have what we want, whether it is agreeable to law or not;' a meeting for that purpose, however it may be masked, if it is really for a purpose of that kind, is illegal."

The Attorney General proceeded:

He should be told, forsooth, that the meetings dispersed peaceably. Why, the dispersion of those meetings peaceably, and the intention that they should disperse peaceably, was one of the