infinitely prefer that it should prejudice me, than allow it to be suppposed that I would, for a moment, compromise what I consider thein alienable right of our country to an independent legislature (some sensation).

Mr. Moore, Q.C., then addressed the court and jury, and said in this case he was counsel on behalf of one of the traversers, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, and it now became his duty, as next counsel in seniority to his friend Mr. Sheil, and in that right and in that character alone, to lay before them the facts and the circumstances of his client's case. The facts and circumstances were such, that he, with very great respect, anticipated their verdict of acquittal in favor of his client. He very unfeignedly felt the great disadvantages he must labour under in having to address them after the able, brilliant, and eloquent display of his frieud, Mr. Sheil; but if that disadvantage was to be merely personal, if it could not in the slightest degree affect his client, it would not be deserving of one moment's consideration. Although he was to acknowledge his perfect inability either to amuse them by wit, or to delight them by eloquence, as his learned friend had done—although he must acknowledge his inability to address them in any of those affecting appeals which he made to them—yet he did expect that they would extend to him, whilst he was laying before them the facts of his client's case, that same patience and that same attention which he had observed them invariably bestow upon every branch and upon every feature of this most important case. There was one observation which was made by the Attorney General in his opening statement in which he (Mr. Moore) fully concurred, and from which he thought no man could dis-sent. He told them that this was a most momentous case. He might have added, that it came before them under momentous circumstances, and in most momentous times; and certainly, when they considered the great and important question---he meant the repeal of the union -out of which this prosecution had undeniably arisen -when they considered the deep and all-pervading interest that that question had excited though every part of Ireland, from one end to the other- when they considered that hundreds of thousands, he might say, millions of their countrymen had unequivocally, but peaceably, expressed their opinion in favour of it—and when they considered that one of the traversers at the bar was a gentleman possessing the unlimited confidence of those millons of his countrymen, and exercising a greater degree of moral influence over the minds of his countrymen than any other man ever exercised in a free country-when they found that man brought to the bar of the court, and branded, or sought to be branded, with the crime of conspiracy. -when they considered that in every part of this country there was the most feverish and restless anxiety felt as to the their verdict, the Attorney General might well say this was a momentous case. could not concur with the Attorney General in thinking that the prosecution which he had instituted, and whcih was now before them, was one that either in its circumstances or in its consequences was calculated to allay that state of excitement which existed in the country. The Attorney. General had not condescended to tell them what were his motives in instituting this prosecution. He had not explained to them what were the benefits which he expected to result from it. He, perhaps, may have told them that his object was to bring to justice persons whom he ha‍d

He

heard violated the law. If that were his motive, he (Mr. Moore) should presently show to him, and he hoped to the jury, that never was there a course less adapted to that purpose than the present prosecution. If the Attorney General expected that the result of this prosecution would allay the state of excitement at present existing in the country, never was there a more unfortunate expedient resorted to than the present prosecution. No man conld shut his eyes to this fact, that, from the first to the last of this prosecution, from the conduct of the prosecutors, of the Attorney General himself, a greater degree of bitteruess and animosity had never been exhibited in this country before. Was it the expectation of the Attorney General that the effect of this prosecution would be to put down the discussion of the question of repeal? Was that the hope or expectation of the government whom he served? If that be what he expected to result from prosecution, he (Mr. M.) must confess that, in his judgment, a more empty or a more idle chimera never crossed the mind of an Attorney General. The Attorney General had entered into an argument upon the repeal of the union; he (Mr. M.) did not mean to follow his example. He had held out to them what he considered to be strong grounds to show that it was impracticable. If the repeal of the union-that important question which now pervades every portion of this land were so destitute of merits as the Attorney General wished to represent it to them--if it were so impracticable ss he wished to represent it to them---that question did not want the aid of a prosecution to put it down it must stand or fall by its own weakness. On the other hand, if that question had those merits which hundreds of thousands, nay, millions, of their countrymen were of opinion it did possess, how idle must be the hope or expectation by a prosecution to crush or put down the discussion of it. Upon that great question he meant to express or intimate no opinion of his own; but let the merits or demerits of it be what they might, he trusted that the time would never arrive when it would be in the power of any government, or any Attorney General, to crush or stifle the discussion-the free discussion of any great public question. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance in this case that the jury should very distinctly carry in their minds the nature of the charge that had been preferred against the traversers at the bar. That charge was confined to the single one of conspiracy. He begged of them to carry in their recollections that there was no indictment against any one of the traversers for having attended an unlawful meeting; that there was no indictment against any of the traversers for uttering seditious speeches; that there was no indictment against any one of the traversers for having sent forward seditious publications; but the single charge that was preferred against the traversers at the bar was, that' they were guilty of a conspiracy. How was that charge sought to be made out? By the allegation that there were meetings held which were unlawful, which were attended by some of the traversers. By the allegation that seditious speeches were spoken by any of the traversers; or by the allegation that seditious speeches were published by any of the traversers. Did it not occur to them that if it was the object of the Attorney General to bring to justice persons for those offences, there was a most easy, a most simple, a most obvious and direct course for doing so. If the meetings, of which they had heard so much in detail, were unlawful now, they must have been

unlawful when they were held. If the speeches which were spoken were seditious now, they were seditious when they were spoken. How did it happen that though those meetings had been taking place for a period of nine months-though the speeches had been made during that period-how did it happen that the Attorney General had never yet ventured to prefer an indictment against any one of the traversers, or institute a prosecution against any one of them that he now told the jury were guilty? On the part of his client, in particular, and on behalf of all the traversers, he thought he had a strong reason to complain of the course which had been taken by the Attorney General in attempting to make one Iman responsible for the conduct of another. If he said those meetings were illegal, or the speeches seditious, what more easy course for him than to indict. for instance Mr. O'Connell ? Suppose he had indicted him for attending an unlawful meeting, could anything be more easy or more simple? That Mr. O'Connell attended them was undeniable. The material facts of the case were ready to the hand of the Attorney General, and in this he could have brought te matter to an issue in a single moment. But had he (Mr. Moore) reason to complaiu on the part of his client as the course which had been taken by the Attorney General ? He threw the entire body of the traversers into one indictment for conspiracy; and though it appeared in evidence that his (Mr. Moore's) client never was in connexion with any one of the traversers until the 3d October, after so many meetings which had taken place, yet it was sought by the proceeding in this case to make him responsible for all the acts which had been doue antecedent to his joining them. He was sought to be visited with all the consequences of meetings at which he never attended---with the consequences of speeches which he never heard---and with publications which he never read. The Attorney General availed himself to the peculiar doctrine of the law of conspiracy, and he sought, contrary to the true principle of justice, to make one man responsible for other than his A person in the position of the Attorney General had no right to abandon the usual course of proceeding, and to adopt the tortuous one he had done. In his humble judgment the adoption of such a course was at once unfair, oppressive, and unjust. The Attorney General had taken up all the meetings according to their dates, and he went down to the latest of them; and he told them, in very emphatic language, that they were illegal. He read to them a number of speeches, which he said were illegal, and a number of articles from newspapers, which he likewise characterised as unlawful. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Moore,) when the Attorney General was making that statement, that he was unconsciously and unwittingly pronouncing a severe censure not only upon himself, but upon the government which he serves. The meetings extended over a period of nine months; and if they were illegal, and the language used at them seditious, how could the Attorney General reconcile to himself his neglect of duty in not bringing to justice the parties so acting in violation of the law? Was his object, or was the object of the government, to lie by until they could collect a greater mass of criminals ? It was the duty of the government to bring to justice those who violated the law; and if the Attorney General expressed to them his opinion that the parties holding those meetings were committing illegal acts, and that the speeches made at them were seditious; and that, after all this, the governinent designedly

lay by until they could get together a greater number of criminals-he would unhesitatingly say that they were guilty of an act of the greatest and most unparalleled baseness. Did he impute such a design to the government? Did he bring a charge of that description against them, although the course adopted by them exposed them to a charge of criminality? He made no such charge against them, he imputed to them no such design— he did not impute to the Attorney General any such nefarious intention, for nefarious he believed it would be. He never would believe that a government could be guilty of such unparalleled baseness. He knew the members of that government; he was personally acquainted with two of them; he knew their sense of honor and of justice, and he was sure that they would fling to the winds the high stations which they occupied before they could stoop to such baseness. Should a charge of the kind be made, he himself would be the first to vindicate their character. Neither did he charge them with negligence; their conduct might be attributed to another source. The conviction upon his own mind was this, that though the Attorney General had now screwed up his courage to the sticking place," and although he was now prepared to come into court and brand all those meeting, speeches, and articles with illegality, yet he was not prepared to encounter any of them single-handed. Why not test his doctrine upon the character of any single one of those meetings? Let him take that single question and try whether those meetings were unlawful? But he would not do that. He never was prepared to tell the government that the meetings were unlawful. If his mind had been irrevocably made up that the meetings were illegal, he would at once have said to the government, that, seeing the law violated in the holding of those meetings, he felt bound, in the discharge of his duty, to institute the necessary proceedings to put them down, and to bring down the offending parties to justice. But he never was prepared to sanction such a proceeding by the weight of his authority, and the meetings were allowed to go on for a period of nine months; and if the Attorney General was unable to bring himself to the conclusion to give that advice to the government-if it was a doubtful question in his mind; was he now to be allowed to come forward and to class all those proceedings together; to throw them before them in a heap, and to charge the whole mass with illegality? It appeared to him (Mr, Moore) that when they found a high public officer like the Attorney General abandoning the plain and obvious course in such a proceeding as this, and adopting a tortuous one, no jury ought to lend their aid to the carrying of it out. The Attorney General having gone through all the previous meetings, he came to the one which was to have been held at Clontarf on the 8th October; and he (Mr. Moore) must confess he never experienced a greater degree of surprise or astonishment than when he heard him tell the court and the jury that the meeting which was fixed for that day was abandoned from the conviction of its illegality. He was sure the Attorney General entertained that opinion or he would not have expressed it; but he (Mr. M.) believed there was no other individual in the community who was of the same opinion: Did the Attorney General forget, or did the people of this country forget, the extraordinary circumstances which occurred with respect to that meeting? Did he forget the breathless haste made by the Lord Lieutenant in

travelling from England over here a few days before the meeting was to have been held, and his unexpected and sudden arrival? Did he forget the far-famed proclamation that came out on the evening of the day preceding the meeting? Did he forget that on the morning of the 8th of October the garrison of Dublin was poured forth and led to Clontarf for the purpose of preventing any assemblage of the people? Did he forget that every precaution was taken by the authorities to disperse any meeting that might be held by means of the sword, the bayonet, and by artillery? And did he after this say that the meeting was abandoned from a conviction of its illegality? That was not the cause of its abandonment. He was not finding fault with the government for issuing the proclamation; he knew nothing of the circumstances which caused its being issued; but he was prepared to say that the abandonment of the meeting was not a conviction of its illegality. The abandonmeni of it was owing to the exertions of a gentleman, one of the traversers, caused by his strong feelings of justice and of humanity---feelings which he entertained as a just and honest citizen. He foresaw what might have happened had the military come into contact with the people, and he used every effort to prevent such an occurrence. Picture to themselves if, under the circumstances, the meeting had been attempted to be held, what ́ would have taken place? They would have on the one hand the army of Great Britain in great numbers, under most experienced leaders, armed at every point, and ready to obey the orders of those leaders---and they would have, on the other hand, an unarıned and defenceless multitude; so that if, by any accident, there was the slightest approach to violence, a collision between the army and the people must have ensued, which would inevitably end in the slaughter of the people; and the plains of Clontarf, but for the exertions of Mr. O'Connell, would have been a second time saturated with human blood. He stopped it---not from a conviction of its illegality, but because he foresaw the frightful consequences which might have flowed from it; and he was entitled to a deep debt of gratitude for his conduct from the whole nation, and especially from the Attorney General himself. He hesitated not to say that if he were to select the act of Mr. O'Connell's life which in his humble judgment would be that which himself and every other friend of his would wish to go down to posterity, he would not select even Catholic emancipation---that great measure by which he restored millions of his countrymen to their rights; he would select that act, that conduct by which he prevented a collision between the military and the people at Clontarf, and thus saved. perhaps, the lives of his fellow creatures. Let him now for one moment call the attention of the court and the jury to what was the nature of the charges brought against the traversers. They were charged, in the language of the indictment, with combining, conspiracy, and confederating together for certain purposes. Now, a conspiracy, in point of law, was nothing more or less than this :---It was an engagement between two or more persons either to do an illegal act, or to do a legal act by illegal means. The very instant that agreement was entered into, the crime was complete. If men agreed to-day to do an illegal act to-morrow, they might be put on their trial for conspiracy the very hour or minute they made that agreement. It was not necessary that there should be any act