was thus converted into a country occupied by a military force. Every accession to the number of the Repealers was followed by fresh additions to the troops at the disposal of the authorities. The session closed on the 24th of August, and the queen was advised to express her concern at the persevering efforts made to stir up discontent and disaffection, and her determination, under the blessing of Divine Providence, to maintain the Union inviolate. Yet, for more than six weeks after the Speech was read, the ministry quietly continued its preparations and made no sign. The man, who was regulating the military portion of the business, had quietly waited years before in Torres Vedras, and had allowed time to illustrate the perfection of his strategy. He would not allow himself to be precipitated into action by the progress of the Repealers and the taunts of O'Connell. The meeting prohibited. Clontarf lies on the north side of the Bay of Dublin. It overlooks the city which has for centuries been the capital of the Irish nation, and the beautiful bay which has at Clontarf been the constant subject of Irish song. But, even before the smoke cloud which shrouds the joys and sorrows, the hopes and disappointments of a populous city, the Irishman at Clontarf can only think of the past. It was at Clontarf that Brian Boru won his crowning victory, and secured his country's independence. Was it not possibleso thought the Irish-to win a second, and a greater, victory on the same historic field? Could not the Irish, assembled in tens and hundreds of thousands at Clontarf, conclude the agitation which had been successfully conducted, and demand, in a tone which would brook no refusal, the future independence of their country? The arrangements were made; Sunday, the 8th of October, was fixed for the meeting; everything pointed to a mighty gathering; the people in their thousands were rolling towards the city; when a notice in the Gazette forbade the meeting and cautioned all persons against attending it.3 1 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 353; and cf. Hansard, vol. lxix. p. 1239. Ibid. vol. lxxi. p. 1009. 3 Ann. Reg., 1843, Hist., p. 234 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 369. The notice was unexpected; the Repealers hastily met to consider what they should do. In the opinion of the younger and more daring members of their party only one course was possible. O'Connell had promised, over and over again, to take no step which would lead to civil war; but he had pledged himself repeatedly to resist any attempt to quell the agitation by force. "I for one defy all the ministers of England to put down the agitation in the diocese of Ardagh," so he had said at Mullingar. "Let their enemies attack them if they dare "—such had been his words at Cashel. "If the British Government were to use force against them, to trample on their constitutional rights, setting the law at defiance, and thus throw them on their own defence, they would be glad, in such an event, to get allies and supporters everywhere." 1 The enthusiasm with which these declarations had been received had committed the Irish generally to the opinions of their leader; and the younger men of the party, at any rate, were determined to follow up brave words with brave deeds. "We must not fail, we must not fail, however force or fraud assail; "2 There could be no reasonable doubt that, if Davis and Mr. Duffy had regulated the policy of the Repealers, the notice. of the Government would have been disregarded, and the Clontarf meeting would have been held. O'Connell shrinks from the contest. The Repealers, however, were nothing without O'Connell ; and O'Connell shrank from the decisive step which was, perhaps, the logical consequence of his agitation. He hurriedly decided to abandon the meeting. He persuaded his fellow-agitators to enjoin obedience to the orders of the Government. And so, when the morning broke, on which the people were to have assembled in their hundreds of thousands, the site of Brian Boru's victory was only occupied by the troops of the British nation. Eight 1 Cf. Ann. Reg., 1843, Hist., p. 228; and Duffy's Young Ireland, pp. 245, 249, 324. 2 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 377. centuries before Ireland had been won at Clontarf. And now, in 1843—so younger and more energetic Irishmen complained-she was to be lost at Clontarf.1 O'Connell, it was clear, had been playing a game of brag with Peel; and Peel had won the game. O'Connell had saved the Government from a second and a greater Peterloo. He possibly expected that his moderation. would earn its gratitude. But the Government, instead of acknowledging O'Connell's services, was only eager to follow up its victory. A week after the prohibition of the meeting, O'Connell and his leading colleagues were arrested, on a charge of conspiracy and sedition. It was obvious that the ministry had rejected all idea of compromise, and was bent on crushing out Repeal. The story of O'Connell's trial is not a satisfactory one for an Englishman to write. The Sheriff was appointed by the The trial of Crown; it rested with the Sheriff to prick the jury O'Connell. by which the prisoners would be tried. Technically the special jury list, from which the jury should have been. taken, ought to have included the names of all Dublin householders liable to serve. As a matter of fact it only included 388 names; and, of these 388 persons, 70 were disqualified by age, infirmity, or some other reason; among the remaining 318 there were only 23 Roman Catholics. The Crown lawyers hesitated to try O'Connell before a jury selected out of such materials; and the trial was postponed till the following February, in order that a revised jury list might be in operation. The revised list contained 717 names, but 60 qualified persons were omitted from it. The Chief-Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland thought that the omission did not vitiate the array; and O'Connell was accordingly tried by a jury chosen from an admittedly defective list. In forming a special jury 48 names are drawn from the whole number on the list; each side has a right of objecting to 12 names; of the remaining 24, the 12 who first answer to their names in court constitute the jury. Among the 48 jurors drawn in O'Connell's case there 1 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 370. 2 Ann. Reg., 1843, Hist., p. 237. were 11 Roman Catholics. In a country in which the Roman Catholics were to the Protestants as 7 is to 1, they stood on the jury as I is to 4. But the Crown solicitor was not satisfied with this advantage. He objected to every Roman Catholic in turn. "The most eminent Catholic in the empire, a man whose name was familiar to every educated Catholic in the world, was about to be placed upon his trial in the Catholic metropolis of a Catholic country, before 4 judges and 12 jurors, among whom there was not a single Catholic. "If it is possible that such a practice should be allowed to pass without remedy"-such was the striking commentary of the ChiefJustice of England-"trial by jury will be a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." 2 Flagrant as was this injustice, it was exceeded by another: O'Connell was tried on eleven counts. The counts contained 57 folio pages; the whole indictment was nearly a hundred yards long. The "stupendous document raised so many issues that to answer it, or even to understand it, was difficult." 3 The confusion which it created was afterwards severely condemned by the Chief-Justice of England. Some of the counts of the indictment were bad in law; the charges on some of them were not proved. Some of the defendants were convicted on only one count, some on several counts, some on all the counts; yet the Court proceeded to pass sentence without distinguishing between these details; and, by doing so, it again exposed itself to the severe reproof of the Chief-Justice of England. "This is no technical objection," so Denman argued. "So far from being merely technical, it may involve the greatest injustice, because you may inflict the heaviest punishment for the lightest offence, or indeed for that which may turn out to be no subject of punishment at all. To pass sentence for three offences when a party is convicted of only two, cannot be right." 4 Yet the Government had obtained a victory. With the 1 Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 412; and Arnould's Denman, vol. ii. p. 173. 2 Arnould's Denman, p. 176. • Duffy's Young Ireland, p. 398. • Denman, vol. ii. p. 180. His con viction. aid of a defective panel, and a Protestant jury; with the aid of judges tainted with the partiality which disgraced Ireland, it had succeeded in obtaining a verdict against O'Connell and his colleagues. An appeal lay against that verdict, indeed, to the House of Lords. But even the men, who advised that the appeal should be made, did not venture on anticipating its success. The political opinion of the Lords was opposed to the political opinion of O'Connell; and it seemed hopeless to expect that an assembly, composed of Tories and animated by Tory views, would allow the great agitator to escape. The appeal, however, was made. The Lords, before giving judgment, took the natural and dignified step of seeking the opinions of the English judges. Their views deprived O'Connell's friends of the little hope which they still retained. A majority of the judges thought that the defects in the panel and in the indictment did not invalidate the judgment, and that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland ought consequently to be confirmed.1 Nothing seemed wanting but the formal endorsement by the Lords of the views of the judges. Technically, in 1844, the vote of one peer was as good as that of another peer on such a matter. But it had been the practice on occasions of the kind for the lay lords to leave the decision to the law lords. Hotheaded Tories in 1844, indeed, thought that this practice should not be observed in such a case as O'Connell's. They claimed to revive an obsolete privilege for the sake of destroying a political opponent. Happily for the credit of the assembly in which they sat, they were persuaded to retract these pretensions, and to leave the decision to the law lords, who alone had the knowledge and the training which qualified them to pronounce it. Only five lords learned in the law-Lyndhurst, Brougham, Cottenham, Denman, and Campbell-had heard the whole case. The two first, one a Tory, the other a Whig who had passed over to the Tory The judg ment reversed. 1 The judgment of the House of Lords was given on the 4th of September 1844. Parliament had been adjourned from the 9th of August to the 5th of September, to allow time for the opinion of the judges to be taken, and it was prorogued on the 5th. Hansard, vol. lxxvi. p. 1997. |