Lordships some passages from these judgments, which refer to the present matter. In page 99, Mr. Justice Holroyd at the trial stated: "There is likewise another plea, which has let in a great "deal of evidence, viz., that there was a previous seditious conspiracy, to excite discontent amongst the King's subjects, entered into "by divers seditious persons, for the purpose of exciting disaffection "and hatred, and contempt of the government and constitution, as "by law established, and by unlawful means and combinations to al"ter the government and constitution of the realm. And then in "one of the pleas, the drillings are alleged, which are stated to be "clandestine. But whether they were clandestine or not, if they "were done for the purpose of overawing the government, or for "the purpose of exciting tumult or resistance to the civil power, they "would be unlawful." And in page 103, the same judge, citing the opinion of Mr. Justice Bayley, who had tried the case of Rex v. Hunt, a case arising out of the same meeting, in giving judgment in that case, said: "All persons assembled to sow sedition, and "bring into contempt the constitution, are in an unlawful assembly; "all persons assembled in furtherance of this object are unlawfully "assembled too;" and in the next page he says, also quoting the language of Mr. Justice Bayley: "what are the objects of the leader, "the person who means to occupy the chair,-the persons intending "to take distinguished parts in it? what are the objects of those "who bear the flags or banners?—those are to be considered with re"ference to the inscriptions; what are the objects of those who "have been drilled? 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, '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, would be illegal." I should have stated to your Lordship, that the motion for a new trial was on several grounds, independently of the objection in point of law; among others, that the verdict was against evidence. In page 112, Lord Tenterden, in giving judgment, stated: "If all that was "legitimate evidence, a fortiori, the conduct of persons probably "and apparently going towards the meeting, would most undoubt"edly be evidence; for it is by such evidence only, you are able to "discover that which, though not the professed, was the real object "of the meeting. Doubtless, in an assembly of this kind, many persons would go from different motives: some would go from "mere curiosity; there would be others who would think that there "were public grievances, which a meeting of this description might "prevent; others might go, meditating mischief immediately;" and I now pray your Lordships' attention to what follows: "others," observed the learned Judge, "might go there, who meditated mis"chief at some future time, when those drilled, who, up to this "period had been without arms, might have arrived at a further "stage in military discipline." You will be told that, forsooth, these

66

66

meetings dispersed peaceably. The peaceable separation of those meetings the intention that they should disperse peaceably, is one of the most formidable parts of this conspiracy. The meeting was to disperse peaceably, because the time had not arrived. In the language of one of the traversers: "England's infirmity was to be Ireland's opportunity ;" and the same traverser asked the assembly: "Will you be ready to come again when I call you; I know you will: but you must wait till the time arrives." If that course had not been adopted, the conspiracy would have broken up at an earlier period; but part of the system was to have the organization complete, from east to west, from north to south, before the signal should be given; therefore, those meetings peaceably dispersed. Thus, as Lord Tenterden said, persons might go to those meetings who meditated mischief at some future time, when those drilled might have arrived at a further stage in military discipline. In page 113, the noble Lord said: "When "we consider that these country people came marching in this way, through the town of Manchester, bearing flags and ban"ners inscribed with mottoes, not merely containing high-sounding "words, but inscriptions of No corn laws! Better die like freemen "than be sold like slaves! and various other expressions of defiance; "it is manifest that there was an avowed intention to insult those "who were intrusted with the administration of justice and the "laws; and if possible, by a show of numbers, to overawe and pre"vent them from interfering with the object their leader might be "supposed to have had." Lord Tenterden having given judgment, was followed by Judge Bayley, who, in page 116, says: "It appears by the evidence in the case, that the meeting was composed of an "immense number of persons; a very large portion therefore of "physical strength. It appears on the evidence in the case that "there was an elevation, from which elevation persons would have "the opportunity of making speeches; and it appeared also, that amongst other persons, there was one who had no particular con"nexion with the place, and who had come from a considera"ble distance, for the purpose of speaking, and for the purpose "of communicating his sentiments to that large body of people, "which was assembled at that place; and he might, by the in"timations which he there made, give to the physical force so "assembled, a direction which might operate in perfect innocence, "or with a degree of danger to the public peace. It appeared, that "before that period, it was notorious that he had been at another "public meeting, at which public meeting there had been certain re"solutions passed. At that time, then, you are to judge what the "language will be which he will make use of at the place, where "there is that large collection of physical strength, which may re"ceive a direction from him; what is likely to be the direction which "he may be disposed to give it." And are we to be told, or is it consistent with the law, as these learned judges have laid it down, that hundreds of thousands of people may assemble, whose course of proceeding is to be regulated by the directions of one individual, who may tell them to separate peaceably, who might do so to further

66

66

66

the design of the conspiracy, and because the organization was not yet complete, to enable him to withdraw the mask which concealed his design. They separated peaceably, but they were controlled by one man, and that man might have given them either one direction or the other. I say, therefore, that these meetings were inconsistent with the law of the land, and I shall ever hold that opinion, until I hear the contrary laid down positively from the Bench. In page 125 of the same Report, Lord Wynford, in delivering judgment, said, "It apIf it was pears to me impossible to say this drilling was innocent. "not innocent, what was it? We have the key to it in the evidence "of the witnesses, that though nothing was to be done at this meeting, "yet when their numbers were seen, others would join them, and "they should be then enabled to overturn the government." And you will hear it laid down, that these meetings and that this confederacy, which I trace to the Association in Dublin, for the purpose of organizing the population against the law, because they were peaceable, and peaceable only according to the determination of one man, were consistent with the law and constitution. In page 126, the same learned judge continues: "It is not necessary, for the "purpose of showing it was illegal, to decide whether immediate "mischief was to be then begun. I believe many went there with" out that intention; but I have so much experience in matters of "this sort, that I have known this occur, that those who follow are "more in a hurry for execution than those who plan. I think, "therefore, it is most probable that that which I have stated is cor"rect, at least as far as regards the intention of the leaders. Nothing "mischievous was to be done that day; they were only to ascertain "the numbers; to accustom them to meet in large parties; to in"spire mutual confidence; to incite others, by the great numbers "they presented, to join in the scheme of those who had embarked "themselves; and at some future day, when the drilling should be *more advanced, when, as was said by one of my learned brothers, "they should have a trifling addition made to their discipline, by "having arms put into their hands, then the mischief was finally to "be entered upon." Such, then, was the law laid down by Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Lord Wynford. I shall only advert to one more authority on this subject, before I proceed to state the facts of this case. The case I allude to is reported in 9 Car. & Payne, 460, The Queen v. Collins; in that case, Mr. Justice Littledale says: "With respect to the second resolution, it is "no sedition to say, that the people of Birmingham had a right to "meet in the Bull-ring, or any where else; but you are to consider "whether the words, that they are best judges of their own power ❝ and resources to obtain justice, meant the regular mode of proceed❝ing, by presenting petitions to the Crown or either House of Par"liament, or by publishing a declaration of grievances; or whether "they meant that the people should make use of physical force, as "their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the "people to take the power into their own hands, and meant to ex"cite them to tumult and disorder." That, my Lords, was a case of

I

far less enormity than the present, although the defendants were there found guilty, and will make the authority of it inore strikingly applicable to the present case. I shall trouble your Lordship with but one more case, that is the case of The King v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 178, where Lord Tenterden, in giving judgment, says, "In the King V. Bowes and others, the trial proceeded on this principle, when "no proof of actual conspiracy, embracing all the several conspira"tors, was attempted to be given, in Middlesex, where the trial took "place, and where the individual actings of some of the conspirators "were wholly confined to other counties than Middlesex ; but still "the conspiracy, as against all, having been proved, from the com"munity of criminal purpose, and by their joint co-operation in for"warding the objects of it in different places and counties; the locality required for the purpose of trial was holden to be satisfied by "overt acts done by some of them, in prosecution of the conspiracy, "in the county where the trial was had." That case illustrates the principle I took the liberty of adverting to, in the last part of my statement, that the act of one conspirator engaged with others in one common design, is in point of law the act of all, because, for the purpose of venue, an overt act done by one in the county in which the indictment was laid, is, in contemplation of law, the act of all. You may rely on it as evidence of a conspiracy by all, at the place where the venue is laid.

Having now called the attention of your Lordships shortly to the law applicable to a great portion of this case, except one branch of it, which I shall allude to hereafter, I shall now proceed, gentlemen of the jury, to open to you the facts of this momentous case. Gentlemen, I think it convenient, however, before I do so, to advert very shortly to the position in which the question of the repeal of the Union stood at the time of the constitution of the Repeal Association in Dublin. Shortly after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which, as your Lordships know, received the royal assent in 1829, an association was formed in this city, which changed its name on various occasions with a view of evading the law, having in contemplation a repeal of the legislative Union. Having that for its object, and there being a Statute then in force, which has since expired, the then Government, at the head of which was Lord Grey, issued a proclamation in January, 1831, suppressing this Association, stating, that the Association was an assembly assuming various denominations, and that they had assembled and beld meetings from time to time, for the purpose of promulgating seditious doctrines, and by means of inflammatory language to excite and keep alive a spirit of disaffection and hostility to the existing law; and further stating, that those meetings were dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the due administration of the law. Gentlemen, as I have already said, at this time a Statute was in force, giving a stronger power to the Government than they now possess, and that was passed by the Government of which Lord Grey was the head. In the course of the same year, a question was put in the House of Commons, to Lord Althorp, then a minister of the

Crown, relating to the repeal of the Union; he then stated the views of the Government with respect to it, thus: "The Hon. member for Waterford has, as it is well known, been exciting so much dis" content and disaffection in Ireland, and was keeping up so much "agitation in that country, by speeches, which, though concluding "with an advice to be obedient to the laws, it was evident to any "unprejudiced man who read them, or marked the course which the "honourable gentleman was pursuing, that his language and conduct "were evidently intended, and must have the effect of exciting an "insurrection throughout the country. His avowed object was, to "obtain a repeal of the legislative Union; but he would ask any "man who considered what such a repeal must produce; whether it "did not become the duty of the government to use every means in "their power for the suppression of such conduct, and the punish"ment of the man who pursued it? Is it not evident that the repeal "of the legislative Union must produce a seperation of the two "countries? I trust that those engaged in so dangerous a course "to the peace and prosperity of the country will not succeed, and if "they do, it must be by a successful war, and I know too much of "my countrymen to believe such an event to be possible. I have a "horror of all description of war, but particularly a civil war, which "is most to be dreaded and abhorred; but I think a civil war is pre"ferable to the dismemberment of the empire." That was the position in which the repeal question stood in 1831; that was the opinion entertained by the then English government, and by Lord Althorp, who was then a leading member of it; and this is of importance in considering the course they have adopted to carry out their object, which I shall show is not consistent with the law and the constitution; and before I close this case, I will prove out of the mouths of some of the traversers, that their object was to obtain a repeal of the Union, otherwise than by legal and constitutional means. This is not the first time that persons have been found to preach peace when they intend the contrary; for, as we find in the 31 State Trials, page 98, it has been well observed by Mr. Justice Grose, in passing sentence," that men, with rebellion in their "hearts, occasionally use words like you, recommending peace, or"der, tranquillity, and obedience to the law;" and they do so with an obvious purpose, because, if they did not continue to do so up to that point where they may venture to throw off the mask, it would defeat their own designs; they must therefore preach peace and tranquillity, until they have wound up the public mind, until they can tell the people now "is the time, the period has arThe effect of this rived in which you may carry out your object." proclamation, and the strong opinion expressed by the government, was to give a temporary check to repeal agitation; but the moment the Act had expired, the agitation was recommenced, the repeal of the Union was again brought forward, and in the commencement of the session of 1833, His late Majesty, in his speech on the opening of Parliament, desired to be furnished with additional powers for controlling the disturbers of the public peace in Ireland, and strength