"The Attorney-General--'this wisest and best of men,' as his colleague, the Solicitor-General, called him in his presence,--the Attorney-General next boasted of his triumph over Pope and Popery; 'I put down the Catholic Committee; I will put down, at my good time, the Catholic Board.' This boast is partly historical, partly prophecy. He was wrong in his history--he is quite mistaken in his prophecy. He did not put down the Catholic Committee; we gave up that name the moment that this sapient Attorney-General's polemico-legal controversy dwindled into a mere dispute about words. He told us that, in the English language, 'pretence' means 'purpose.' Had it been French and not English, we might have been inclined to respect his judgment; but in point of English, we venture to differ with him. We told him, 'Purpose,' good Mr. Attorney-General, is just the reverse of 'pretence.' The quarrel grew warm and animated. We appealed to common sense, to the grammar, and to the dictionary; common sense, grammar, and the dictionary decided in our favor. He brought his appeal to this court, your lordship, and your brethren unanimously decided that in point of law--mark, mark, gentlemen of the jury, the sublime wisdom of the law--the court decided that, in point of law, 'pretence' does mean 'purpose'! "Fully contented with this very reasonable and most satisfactory decision, there still remained a matter of fact between us. The Attorney-General charged us with being representatives; we denied all representation. He had two witnesses to prove the fact for him; they swore to it one way at one trial, and directly the other way at the next. An honorable, intelligent, and enlightened jury disbelieved those witnesses at the first trial; matters were better managed at the second trial--the jury were better arranged. I speak delicately, gentlemen: the jury were better arranged, as the witnesses were better informed; and, accordingly, there was one verdict for us on the representative question, and one verdict against us.... "Let me pledge myself to you that he imposes on you when he threatens to crush the Catholic Board. Illegal violence may do it, force may effectuate it; but your hopes and his will be defeated if he attempts it by any course of law. I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject I ought to know something, and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney-General on this point, and to proclaim to you and to the country that the Catholic Board is a perfectly legal assembly; that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law; and in the very proudest tone of firmness, I hurl defiance at the Attorney-General!