been in a great measure with Mr. O'Connell, the original author of this system, and see whether in any of their statements they made the slightest allusion with regard to the setting up of the arbitration courts for the diminution of oaths or any such purpose; on the contrary, was there not evidence, which the jury had heard read to them, from which they could draw a very different reason for the establishment of those arbitration courts, and that was in order to enable Mr. O'Connell and the association, to put down the existing courts of justice in the country, and to substitute in lieu of them courts to be called courts of arbitration, which were to be, as Mr. O'Connell stated, the foundation of a system of justice and judicature in the country. Recollect that in the address from the association to the subjects under the British crown, one of the grievances which was proclaimed to the world at large, as far as the British subjects were concerned, was that persons had been appointed to the bench hostile, or not having feeling with the people of the country, and, therefore, they were dissatisfied with those courts and the mode in which the administration of justice was dispensed in them. Now, if the people continued, in order to put down the existing courts appointed, as derived from the appointment of the Queen, and to set them at nought, and to induce the subjects of her Majesty to withdraw from their cognizance the administration of justice, if that were their effect, and to carry it out that courts, of arbitration be appointed in lieu of the Queen's courts, then such an association or confederacy for such a purpose, and with such an intent, was a violation of the law, and any infringment upon the Queen's prerogative in that respect had always been considered a high misdemeanour. The subject was treated clearly by Judge Blackstone, in his celebrated Commentaries, 1st vol., page 277 :---" the King is the fountain of justice and general conservator of the peace of the kingdom. The original power of judicature, by the fundamental principles of society, is lodged in the society at large; but in England this authority has been immemorially exercised by the King or his substitutes. He, therefore, has alone the right of erecting courts of judicature, and they should be created by his authority." Such was the common law of this country, as laid down by Blackstone, and it was, therefore, an infringement, and a violation of that law if two or more persons presumed, and took upon themselves to enter into a common design to detract from the respect due to the Queen's courts of justice, and the way in which the law was administered in those courts. Any person who had a grievance with regard to the manner in which his case was treated in any of the King or Queen's courts, had his remedy---the law was open to him by an appeal, and there was a tribunal as a dernier resort, vested for the most part in the House of Lords. But to attempt to deny the power of the crown to appoint, by its writ or patent, those courts, or to detract from the character or mode of the administration of justice in those courts, was a direct offence of a very high nature, and a direct infringement of the privilege of the crown, which had existed at all times in Great Britain and its dependents. Therefore it was something to be considered what had taken place---the manner, in which those arbitration courts, and the principle of arbitration was carried out by these parties. He held in his hand a report of the arbitration committee which was presented to the association, and dated the 21st of

August, 1843. It was brought forward again in the Repeal Association on Wednesday, the 23rd of August, and it was adopted, being moved by Dr. Gray and seconded by Mr. O'Hea, and carried unanimously. They would find in that report a statement of the system that had been proposed by Dr. Gray, and submitted to the association, and by them carried into one of its laws. It was a report of a new system of judicature to be created, not for any particular case-not for any particular district, but to be recommended, and intended to be adopted for the entire kingdom, so that in every part, the courts erected under that recommendation, which were the association's courts, were intended to be in substitution of the Queen's courts, which were not considered by Mr. O'Connell as longer dispensing justice to the subjects of this kingdom. The offence contained in the indictment with regard to those courts, was not an attempt to establish arbitration courts, although, perhaps, that might be an offence, but he did not say whether it would or would not. However, the one charged he took to be clearly criminal, and was a combination to bring into disparagement and disrepute the courts of justice as existing by law in the country to bring them into contempt and disregard amongst the subjects of her Majesty, and to induce them to go to other tribunals to settle their differences, which he had already shown from the language of the traversers themselves. A charge against the existing courts was also contained in the general address of the association, which was printed on a broad sheet, and circulated everywhere throughout the country, which was also announced by Mr. O'Connell at Clifden and other places. To the same effect was a speech delivered by Dr. Gray, at Mullaghmast, by Mr. O'Connell there, and other of the traversers. There was also a paper adopted by the association, being a report of the arbitration committee, dated in August, 1843, which contained the reason for the recommending and adopting of this new system of jurisprudence. It went on to say-" Your committee are strongly of opinion that, inasmuch as many of the magistrates who possessed the confidence of the people had been dismissed, and deprived of the commission of the peace, in consequence of their attachment to the cause of legislative independence, arbitration courts should be established, and in order to secure the harmonious working of such a system they recommend that a standing committee be formed to arrange and superintend the carrying out of those tribunals." The same report recommended the appointment of those dismissed magistrates for the reason that they had been dismissed by the government-by the constituted authorities of the realm, and not because of their legal or other knowledge, local information, property, conduct, or any other qualification, and the situation of chairman of the arbitrators was to be given to any dismissed magistrate, if one should be found in the district. Was that a reason why the parties in question were to dispense with the powers of those courts of justice which her Majesty, by her letters patent, thought proper to provide in the exercise of her undoubted prerogative, as courts of law for the benefit and protection of her subjects? Her judges in those courts possessed a great advantage. They were by law equally independent both of the crown and the subject. They were placed there to administer the law of the land, for which they were all educated. They were

designed for the performance of those duties to which it is to be presumed they were competent, and for the discharge of which her Majesty, by her letters patent, had thought fit to appoint. The administration of the law, as also the confidence of the public, was to be withdrawn from them, and the administration of the law was to be placed in the hands of persons who, as far as it appeared, never received any education upon the subject of the law of the land. The people, if they chose, if they thought it their advantage, might, of course, if they thought proper, refer their disputes to arbitration. There were many cases, he was persuaded, in which parties could not adopt a better plan than that of referring the matter in dispute to arbitration. Among other advantages it contributed to save expense. But was that the reason why arbitration courts should be established, and composed of individuals not chosen by the parties themselves, but by the association, who thought proper to assume to themselves the power which belonged alone to the Queen's prerogative. If the jury thought that these aspersions on the courts of justice were promulgated by the traversers with a view of bringing these courts of justice and the administration of justice into contempt and disrepute, and to withdraw from them that confidence which the people had in them---if the traversers did these acts, and did them with a common design, then he told the jury that what they so did was a high misdemeanor, was highly illegal, and that if they conspired to do these things by combination, they were guilty of the conspiracy imputed to them in that respect. There were four other grounds of accusation. The eight traversers were indicted for having conspired and agreed to raise and create disaffection, hatred, and unlawful opposition to the government and constitution. Secondly, whether they conspired and agreed, or any, and which of them, to stir up jealousies amongst the Queen's subjects, and to promote ill-will to her other subjects, especially the Irish against the English. Thirdly, whether they, or any, and which of them, conspired and agreed, or any, or which of them, to excite disaffection in the army. Fourthly, whether they conspired and agreed to collect unlawful assemblages in large numbers in Ireland, in order to obtain changes in the laws and constitution, by intimidation and the demonstration of physical force. And lastly, whether they, or any, and which of them, conspired and agreed to bring the courts of judicature, established by law, into disrepute, and with the intent to induce the subjects of the Queen to submit their disputes to other tribunals. If they were of opinion that the traversers, or any, and which of them. conspired and agreed to do or cause to be done the said several matters, or any of them, then they were to find such traversers or traverser guilty of the conspiracy as laid. I [continued the Chief Justice] put the questions to you in the language of the indictment. It lies upon the crown to establish, which they have undertaken to do, that the traversers or some of them are guilty of a conspiracy, such as I have already stated to you---a conspiracy consisting of five branches, any one of which being brought home to your satisfaction will maintain and establish the charges which the crown have undertaken to prove. But, gentlemen of the jury, you are never to lose sight of this fact, that criminality and crime is a thing that must be proved, and is not to be merely surmised Every person by the law of this country is entitled to have the benefit of

being deemed innocent until he is pronounced guilty. The traversers have, one and all of them, made the defence that their designs were not criminal---that they had grievances---that they had a right to complain of those grievances---that they had a right to lay them before the public, though it happened that in so doing they attended multitudinous meetings. If you should be of opinion that such were the designs and obvious intention of the traversers, and that they had no criminal intention, and did not mean to resort to any criminal means for the furtherance of these objects---if that be your opinion, you would be bound to acquit the traversers, but if, upon the other hand, you should be of opinion that these were not the real objects of the association or of the persons charged as traversers here, but that whatever their apparent designs might be, if they had in fact and in truth the criminal intentions which are attributed to them by the crown, and if you all are satisfied that the traversers, or some of them, in furtherance of this design acted in common concert, then in such case you will be bound conscientiously to find them guilty of the conspiracy of which you find them participators. A great deal has been addressed to you which I do not at all intend to recapitulate. You have been pressed by arguments in appeal to your feelings; I would say in appeal, sometimes to your apprehensions; you have been addressed by gentlemen of the greatest ability, I believe in greater numbers than ever persons accused of crime have ever yet had an opportunity of being heard in their behalves. Every topic that could be suggested by ingenuity and reasoning has been discussed-nothing has been omitted; but it has been thrown out to you that there were other grounds besides the evidence which has been laid before you which you might properly take into your consideration in arriving at your verdict. In answer to that, I have only to state to you that by the law you are to hold yourselves as perfectly indifferent parties; indifferent to every consideration except the evidence laid before you as jurors; and remember the oath you have taken is to give a true verdict according to the evidence; that is your oath. To enable you to do that, I must say you have paid the most marked attention; indeed, I may say I never saw a jury who, during a long and painful trial---extending over more than three weeks, have paid such unceasing and undeviating attention to the case and the evidence before them, than you have. In drawing your conclusion, and finding your verdict, you will attend to the evidence before you, and let it be conformable to the dictates of your reason and of your consciences, and I do trust that the Lord who rules over all will enlighten your direction. I have now no more to say.

The issue paper was then about being handed to the jury, when Mr. Henn asked to see it.

The foreman said the jury felt very much fatigued, and wished to know whether it would be necessary for them to go into the consideration of the case to-night?

The Chief Justice said, that after the charge had been delivered it was not possible to allow the jury to separate. They might retire to their chamber; but they should remain in the custody of the sheriff.

Mr. Justice Crampton said they should be supplied with every refreshment they required.

The jury then retired.

Mr. Henn submitted that there was no evidence of any act being done within the county of the city of Dublin, and the traversers were entitled to have a direction for an acquittal upon that point.

The Chief Justice-What do you call the meetings at the association ? Mr. Henn---There is no evidence of their having been held within the county of the city of Dublin.

Justice Crampton---I rather think there was evidence of some of the . papers having been printed in Dublin.

Mr. Henn---No, but we only require the court to take a note of the objection.

Justice Crampton (in the absence of the Chief Justice) accordingly did so.

Precisely at half-past five o'clock the issue was handed up to the jury, when

The foreman said---My lord, the jury are very much fatigued, and they wish to know if it is necessary they should go into the case to-night.

Chief Justice-I am sorry to tell you that after the charge has been delivered it will not be possible to allow you to separate. You may retire to your chamber, but I am sorry to say we have not the power of giving you the liberty you have hitherto enjoyed of going to your own homes. You must remain in court in the custody of the sheriff, and you cannot be allowed to have any communication with any other person. The chamber is the only place that I am aware at present you can occupy. I do not mean in what I now say in any way to influence the judgment of those whom I now address, but I may observe, that I have known instances in which a jury were not allowed to separate, but were allowed to remain together in the custody of the sheriff, and to have such accommodation as they might require during the time that elapsed before they gave their verdict. It is not a matter in which the court can give any direction, but if done at all, it can only be doue by consent; and unless it is done by consent, I am not aware that the court is at liberty to give any other answer to your question.

Judge Crampton-The high sheriff has prepared a room in the most comfortable manner-the grand jury room---and no doubt every necessary refreshment will be supplied.

Mr. Henn---My lords, we submit that there is no evidence in this case of any act having been done to support this charge within the county of the city of Dublin, and that we are, therefore, entitled to your lordships' direction for an acquittal, as the entre is not properly laid.

Chief Justice---What do you call the meetings of the association and the speeches made there ?

Mr. Henn-There is no evidence to show that they were in the county of the city of Dublin.

Judge Crampton-Well, as the Chief Justice is very much fatigued, I'll take a note of your objection.

Solicitor General-Is there no evidence of Brown, the printer, of Nassau-street, having printed their publications?

Their lordships then retired, Judge Burton having intimidated that they were only going to the chamber, but not leaving the court.

When the jury had retired, and the judges, with the exception of Mr Justice Perrin,