had not in this matter stifled public opinion?  Of course, if anything be prohibited by government, the people obey—­of course I obey.  I would not have held the procession had I not understood that it was permitted.  But understanding that it was permitted, and so believing that it might serve the people for a safe and useful expression of their sentiment, I held the procession.  I did not hold the procession because I believed it to be illegal, but because I believed it to be legal and understood it to be permitted.  In this country it is not law that must rule a loyal citizen’s conduct, but the caprice of the English ministers.  For myself, I acknowledge that I submit to such a system of government unwillingly, and with constant hope for the restoration of the reign of law, but I do submit.  Why at first did the ministers of the crown permit an expression of censure upon that judicial proceeding at Manchester by a procession—­why did they not warn her Majesty’s subjects against the danger of breaking the law?  Was it not because they thought that the terrors of the suspended habeas corpus would be enough to prevent the people from coming openly forward at all to express their real sentiments?  Was it because they found that so vehement and so general was the feeling of indignation at that unhappy transaction at Manchester that they did venture to come openly forward—­with perfect peacefulness and most careful observance of the peace to express their real sentiments—­that the ministry proclaimed down the procession, and now prosecute us in order to stifle public opinion?  Gentlemen of the jury, I have said enough to convince any twelve reasonable men that there was nothing in my conduct in the matter of that procession which you can declare on your oaths to be “malicious, seditious, ill-disposed, and intended to disturb the peace and tranquility of the realm.”  I shall trouble you no further, except by asking you to listen to the summing up of this indictment, and, while you listen to judge between me and the attorney-general.  I shall read you my words and his comment.  Judge of us, Irish jurors, which of us two are guilty:—­“Let us, therefore, conclude this proceeding by joining heartily, with hats off, in the prayer of those three men, ‘God save Ireland.’” “Thereby,” says the attorney-general in his indictment, “meaning, and intending to excite hatred, dislike, and animosity against her Majesty and the government, and bring into contempt the administration of justice and the laws of this realm, and cause strife and hatred between her Majesty’s subjects in Ireland and in England, and to excite discontent and disaffection against her Majesty’s government.”  Gentlemen, I have now done.

   Mr. Martin sat down amidst loud and prolonged applause.