5 
 0*. 
 
THE (jS^ 
 
 LIVES AND TRIALS 
 
 OF 
 
 ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN, 
 
 THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON, 
 
 THE DEFENDERS, 
 WILLIAM ORR, PETER FINNERTY, 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 EMINENT IRISHMEN. 
 
 WITH 
 
 INTRODUCTION, NOTES, & 
 
 c. 
 
 BOSTON COLLEGE LIE^.'Af^Y 
 CHESTNUT HILL. MASS. 
 
 BY THOMAS MAC NEVIN, ESQ- 
 
 BAURI3TER AT LAW. 
 
 DUBLIN : 
 PUBLISHED BY JAMES DUFFY', 
 
 10, WELLINGTON-QUAY. 
 
 MDCCCXLVI. 
 
 BOSTON COU-ESE LIB-^mk. 
 CHESTNUT HlUt, MAi>S- 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Historical Introduction, ... ... ... ... i 
 
 Memoir of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, ... ... 41 
 
 Trial of Archibald Hamilton Rowan for Seditious 
 
 J^lB£Xi^ ••• «•> ■•• ••• ••• ••• 01 
 
 Memoir of the Rev. William Jackson, ... ... 177 
 
 Trial of the Rev. William Jackson for High Treason, 187 
 
 Some Account of the Defenders, ... ... ... 283 
 
 Trials of the Defenders for High Treason, ... ... 297 
 
 Account of William Orr's Trial and Execution, ... 481 
 
 Trial of Peter Finertt for Seditious Libel,... ... 497 
 
 Trial of Patrick Finney for High Treason, ... ... 547 
 
 1797 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The principles of parliamentary reform had gained considerable 
 ground in Ireland previous to the year 1790 ; but their 
 proselytes, to a great extent, had been amongst the aristocratic 
 portion of society, and there were but few men who were 
 enlightened enough to combine with a demand for parliamentary 
 reform, that other equally necessary measure, the removal of 
 Catholic disability. 
 
 Parliamentary reform was a Whig measure, and the Whigs 
 of Ireland had not made up their minds that its blessings 
 should go beyond the pale of their own sect. The Northern 
 Whig Club, founded under the fatal auspices of Lord 
 Charlemont, partook of the character of its patron, and 
 amongst its numbers were men distinguished, but a few years 
 after its dissolution, for principles and conduct alike destructive 
 to civil and religious freedom, and to national independence. 
 It was founded in Belfast in March, 1790. Its career was 
 brief and useless. 
 
 A society, whose existence was pregnant with the most 
 important events, which, before its destruction, involved in 
 its body a considerable portion of the people, and threat- 
 ened the existence of English power in Ireland, followed 
 in order of time the Northern Whig Club. It occurred to a 
 few young and bold spirits — found in the middle ranks of life 
 in Belfast, and chiefly Presbyterians — that the great defect in 
 the previous movements for a redress of political grievances 
 was the sectarian bigotry which excluded the Catholics from 
 any participation in the blessings of reform. The young men 
 of Belfast judged justly, that the hope of obtaining a full 
 
 B 
 
11 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 representation of the people in parliament, whilst two-thirds 
 of them were to be excluded from any share in it, was 
 mischievous and absurd. " Our efforts for reform," said 
 Neilson to his friends, " have hitherto been ineffectual, and 
 they deserve to be so, for they have been selfish and unjust, as 
 not including the rights of the Catholics in the claims we put 
 forward for ourselves." 
 
 The result was, that they set about the formation of a 
 society which should be neither sectarian nor exclusive, but 
 whose objects should be the political amelioration of all the 
 people of this country. Attributing present evils to two 
 causes — the want of a liberal system of popular representation 
 and the existence of Catholic disability — they adopted as the 
 ends of their institution two remedial measures which have 
 since become parts of the British constitution. In the liberality 
 of their views towards their Catholic fellow-countrymen, they 
 were beyond their age in Ireland, but they went no farther 
 in either of their objects than did many of the enlightened and 
 liberal politicians, and some of the ablest statesmen in England. 
 The Report of the Commons' Committee of Secrecy in 1798 
 has given a version of the foundation and original objects of 
 the United Irishmen. There are few state papers which, 
 assuming a tone of philosophic candor, contains more misre- 
 presentation and direct falsehood than this Report. Speaking 
 of the institution of the society it says: — " The society, under 
 the name of United Irishmen, it appears, was established in 1791 ; 
 its founders held forth what they termed Catholic emancipation 
 and parliamentary reform as the ostensible objects of their 
 union; but it clearly appeared from the letter of Theobald 
 Wolfe Tone, accompanying their original constitution as trans- 
 mitted to Belfast for adoption, that from its commencement 
 the real purposes of those who were at the head of the insti- 
 tution was to separate Ireland from Great Britain, and to 
 subvert the established constitution of this kingdom ; in 
 corroboration of which your committee have annexed to this 
 Report several of their early publications, particularly a pro- 
 spectus of the society which appeared in 1791, as also the 
 plan of reform which they recommended to the people." * Tone 
 
 * Report, p. 4. 
 
INTRODUCTION. HI 
 
 was from the commencement of his career a republican. He 
 conceived that parliamentary reform was unattainable as long as 
 a connection with England existed, and from the earliest 
 period of his political career he struggled, either covertly or 
 openly, to eflPect a separation between the countries. But at 
 the period of the establishment of the Society of United 
 Irishmen he was nearly alone in these opinions ; and it is 
 worthy of remark, that long after the institution of the United 
 Irishmen, he, who was one of its most active founders, con- 
 tinued in the confidence and service of the Catholics. They 
 were not republicans, their principles were monarchical, and 
 it was not until loyalty refused and repelled them, that they 
 unwillingly — and never effectively — joined the republican party. 
 Had Tone made his opinions public, the timid and the servile 
 amongst that body would have shunned him, they would have 
 withdrawn their confidence from him, and avoided his dangerous 
 talents. But he continued one of their most confidential agents 
 and wannest partizans to the very last, and until the pressure 
 of circumstances had made their views identical with his own. 
 The letter which the Report would seem to represent as a 
 public document was a private communication. Its contents 
 could not bind the society, and it is clear they did not, for the 
 principles which he announces to be his were not adopted by 
 them till a much later period. With regard to the prospectus, it 
 has all the appearance of a vulgar artifice, an invention containing 
 what the committee might wish to find in the original constitution 
 of the society, but certainly not containing the open and avowed 
 doctrines on which it acted, up to the dispersion by force of the 
 Dublin branch of the Union in May, 1794. If it be not an 
 invention, yet, no more than Tone's letter, could it bind the 
 United Irishmen. It was not adopted in their meetings, it 
 formed no part of their constitution, it lays down propositions 
 which were far in advance of the acknowledged principles of 
 the first society. Neither does the plan of Reform men- 
 tioned in the Report of the Secret Committee, and proposed 
 to the Union, contain any republicanism, nor manifest any 
 desire of effecting a separation from England. Its doc- 
 trines have since been recognized as fundamental doctrines of 
 radical reform, have been discussed in the English House of 
 Commons, and, judging from the progressing strength of 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 popular opinions, are likely to become, at no very distant period, 
 as much a portion of our constitution as the other obnoxious 
 measures proposed by the original society of United Irishmen.* 
 But there is clearer proof of the intentions of that body to be 
 found in the declaration of sentiment made at a meeting con- 
 vened by the leaders of the United Irishmen, and held in 
 Belfast in December, 1792, when the Union had been some 
 time in operation. At this meeting Samuel Neilson was 
 secretary, and Charles Rankin chairman. A declaration of 
 their political sentiments was made, in which they declare, 
 " that a radical reform in the representation of the people had 
 long been and still is the great object to which all our wishes, 
 all our endeavours tend — the object which we have pursued 
 and which we shall never cease to pursue until it is attained — 
 that to attain it we shall think no sacrifice or risk too great ; 
 and that no reform can ever be adequate or useful, satisfactory 
 or just, unless all Irishmen of every description shall be equally 
 and fairly represented." f Out of this meeting grew the 
 assembly of northern deleg-ates at Duuffannon, who declared the 
 sense of the people in resolutions expressive of their attachment 
 to the form and original principles of the British Constitution, 
 and of their disapproval of republican forms of government as 
 applied to this country. They proceeded, however, to insist 
 upon a complete parliamentary reform and upon the immediate 
 and entire emancipation of the Roman Catholics, as a measure 
 indispensably necessary to the safety of the country. These 
 were the original views of the United Irishmen — views adopted 
 by the wisdom of our own day, and carried out by the exertions 
 of our ablest statesmen. The history of the times will fully 
 explain how principles like these were relinquished for the 
 republicanism of a later period. In the Memoir delivered 
 to the government in 1798, by Messrs. Emmet, Mac- 
 nevin, and O'Connor, the following statement of the views of 
 the Union is given : — " The disunion that had long existed 
 between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland, particularly 
 those of the Presbyterian religion, was found by experience to 
 be so great an obstacle to the obtaining a reform in parliament 
 
 • The Duke of Richmond's plan of Reform embraced annual parliaments and 
 universal suffrage. 1 Madd, 1st series, p. 102. 
 
 f Madden's United Irishmen, 1 vol., 2d series, p. 82. 
 
INTRODUCTION. V 
 
 on anything of just and popular principles, that some persons, 
 equally friendly to that measure and to religious toleration, 
 conceived the idea of joining both sects in pursuance of the 
 same object — a repeal of the penal laws, and a reform including 
 in itself an extension of the right of suffrage to the Catholic. 
 From this originated the societies of United Irishmen in the 
 end of the year 1791 ; even then it was clearly perceived, that 
 the chief support of the borough interest in Ireland was the 
 weight of English influence ; but as yet that obvious remark 
 had not led the minds of the reformers towards a separation 
 from England. Some individuals had convinced themselves 
 that benefit would result to this country from such a measure ; 
 but during the whole existence of the Society of United Irish- 
 men we may safely aver, that to the best of our knowledge 
 and recollection no such object was ever agitated by its 
 members either in pubHc debate or private conversation ; nor 
 until the society had lasted a considerable time were any traces 
 of republicanism to be met with there ; its views were purely 
 and in good faith what the test of the society avows." * And 
 such they continued to be until the hopes raised by the King's 
 Message to the House of Commons recommending the con- 
 sideration of the subject of reform, and by the limited con- 
 cessions to Catholics, in 1793, were dissipated by the policy of 
 coercion, which was resumed in 1794, and which, with the 
 slight intermission of Lord Fitzwilliam's administration, con- 
 tinued to increase in vigour until the rebellion exploded. 
 
 It would seem that despotism, frightened by the concessions 
 to the Catholics, in 1793, required the soothing stimulants of 
 strong measures to restore it to its propriety. These conces- 
 sions were followed hot foot by the Convention bill. It was much to 
 
 * Macnevin's Pieces of Irish History, p. 174. The test of the United Irish- 
 men adopted at the first meeting of the Dublin Society, held in the Eagle Tavern, 
 Eustace-street, 9th Nov., 1791, at which meeting the Hon. Simon liutler was 
 chairman, and James Napper Tandy was secretary, was as follows : — 
 
 " I. A. B., in the presence of God, do pledge myself to my coimtry, that I will 
 use all my abilities and influence in the attainment of an impartial and adequate 
 .representation of the Irish nation in parliament ; and as a means of absolute and 
 immediate necessity in the establishment of this chief good of Ireland, I will 
 endeavour as much as in my ability to forward a brotherhood of afl^ection, an 
 identity of interests, a communion of rights, and an union of power among Irish- 
 men of all religious persuasions, \vithout which every reform in parliament must 
 be partial, not national, inadequate to the wants, delusive to the wishes, and 
 insufficient for the freedom and happiness of this country." 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 have acknowledgedthe social existence of the Catholics. They had, 
 according to Grattan, paid two millions of taxes, without a share 
 in the representation or the expenditure ; they had discharged 
 the active and laborious offices of life, manufacture, husbandry, 
 and commerce, without those franchises which are annexed to 
 the fruits of industry ; and they had replenished the armies and 
 navies of Great Britain without commission, rank, or reward ; 
 it was going far then to concede to them the right to elect but 
 not to be elected — it was going far to tender to them the rank of 
 the officer, and the gown of the lawyer. These were partial con- 
 cessions, and required, to appease the offended spirit of ascen- 
 dancy, a commensurate quantity of general restriction, and the 
 Convention Act, which, under the pretence of preventing unlaw- 
 ful assemblies, virtually took away the right of meeting altoge- 
 ther, was the palinode composed by parliament to soothe the 
 ruffled spirits of the state. This act aimed directly at the system 
 of delegation which had rendered the name of Dungannon for- 
 midable to the ears of power — it destroyed that right of meeting 
 by delegates which ensured security to the liberties of the people 
 against the encroachments of a king or the corruption of a 
 parliament; and it was the subsequent operation of this act 
 against the meetings of the United Irishmen that changed 
 their tactics, and exacted secrecy in their proceedings. The 
 year 1794 was pregnant with coercion. Archibald Hamilton 
 Rowan was convicted of publishing the address of the Union to 
 the Volunteers, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and 
 a fine of £500. Mr. Ponsonby's bill for reform was rejected by 
 a considerable majority, and on the debate of that question 
 Grattan went out of his way to attack the United Irishmen. 
 He found no epithet too strong with which to stigmatize the 
 " seditious bunglers" — many of whom afterwards sealed with 
 their lives the sincerity of their political faith. And yet the 
 plan of reform which the society proposed, and which Grattan 
 denounced as levelling and subversive, was one applauded by the 
 English Whigs, and recommended by the high authority of the 
 Duke of Richmond. 
 
 Fortified by the rejection of Mr. Ponsonby's bill, and no 
 doubt encouraged by the tone taken on the Whig side of the 
 house with regard to the United Irishmen, the enemies of reform 
 took the active step of dispersing the Dublin society of the Union. 
 
INTRODUCTION. VU 
 
 They had given considerable offence to Government by the 
 boldness of their views and the violence of their manifestoes and 
 speeches. It was through their means that the public mind had 
 undergone so beneficial a change relative to the Catholic claims, 
 and it was by the example and advice of the United Irishmen of 
 Dublin that the Catholics themselves had assumed that bold 
 attitude to which the concessions of 1793 were mainly attri- 
 butable.* These were faults which it appears even patriotism 
 could not forgive, and which drew down the vengeance of power 
 upon the Society. On the 4th of May, 1794, their ordinary 
 place of meeting, the Tailors' Hall, in Back-lane,t was attacked 
 by the police, their meeting dispersed, and their papers seized. 
 The forcible suppression of the Dublin Society primarily 
 led to the change from open discussion and constitutional 
 propagandism to secret plotting and conspiracy ; the effects 
 of which became so fatal to public peace after the recal of 
 Lord Fitzwilliam. When he was sent over here, Govern- 
 ment might, most probably, have saved the country all 
 the horrors which followed. " The Parisian massacres of Sep- 
 tember, 1792, had an immense effect in Ireland; men who were 
 moderate republicans feared to accept freedom accompanied by 
 such horrors ; the Catholic aristocracy, always a timid and 
 selfish body, offered to support Government in withholding their 
 own privileges ; the Catholic clergy separated in a body from 
 the reformers, and denounced the atheism of France from their 
 altars; if the Government had only united conciliation with 
 coercion, the tranquillity of Ireland would have been ensured. 
 Such was the policy the English ministers first resolved to adopt. 
 Earl Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland ; measures were introduced 
 which at that crisis would have been received with enthusiastic 
 gratitude ; but unfortunately the intrigues of party interfered, 
 and to all the causes of discord, which had been accumulating 
 for centuries, were added unexpected triumph in the party of the 
 few, and unexpected disappointment in the party of the many ."J 
 Lord Fitzwilliam was sent over with full powers to remove 
 Catholic disabilities, and to crush the faction by which this 
 
 * The French Republic was every where triumphant in March, 1793, the date 
 of the introduction of the Relief Bill into the House of Commons, 
 t Madd. U. I., 1st vol. 1 s. 143. 
 X Historical Introduction to Dr. Madden's United Irishmen. 
 
Vm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 country was misgoverned ; but the impediments he met with dis- 
 appointed his expectations, and baffled his mission of peace — he 
 looked to the Eng-Ksh cabinet for support and received none — the 
 Beresfords triumphed, the Catholics were sacrificed, and he 
 abandoned the Government with mortification and disgust. It 
 has been constantly asserted, that the appointment and the recall 
 of Lord Fitzwilliam were portions of a plan of deep policy on 
 the part of Mr. Pitt, and that his design was to disappoint and 
 disgust all parties, in order that irritated hopes and baffled fac- 
 tion might become the ripeners of rebellion. This is suscep- 
 tible of argument, and is generally enough believed ;* but it 
 appears too keen and subtle, too full of an impossible foresight, 
 too Machiavellian even for him to whom it is attributed. It is 
 more probable that the minister adopted a plan of concession 
 when the temper of the times seemed to demand it, and that he 
 relinquished it the moment he found himself to be, or imagined 
 that he was, able to rule the country without its aid, and by the 
 assistance of the oligarchic faction which Lord Fitzwilliam 
 sought to destroy. However this may be, and it appears imma- 
 terial whether Mr. Pitt's policy was guided by the infamous 
 sagacity thus attributed to it, or that the change of measures 
 arose from the facility of resuming coercion, the result of Lord 
 Fitzwilliara's recall promoted the views of the republican 
 section of the United Irishmen. Gentle measures would have 
 rendered them innocuous ; coercion, producing disappointment 
 and irritation, was the apt agent of their wildest views. 
 
 The expectations of the Catholics were immoderately high ; 
 their despondency was proportionately great. They coidd have 
 been made loyal without difficulty. Loyalty with them was a 
 prompt, not to say a slavish, virtue. The distinguished servility 
 of Lords Kenmare and Gormanstown might not, indeed, have 
 been easily equalled amongst the most ignorant of the democratic 
 portion of their body ; but yet they were open to the seduction 
 of ministerial promise, and would have given a vast deal 
 of practical gratitude for very little practical good. These 
 loyal and servile tendencies received a rough shock from the 
 recall of the popular viceroy, and in the revulsion of disap- 
 pointed hope the Catholics caught a new fire from the United 
 
 * Plowden distinctly assumes it as an uncontrovertible proposition. 
 
INTRODUCTION. IX 
 
 Irishmen. From this period both of these bodies, not hitherto 
 much animated by common impulses, began to look to identical 
 means in the prosecution of their objects, and these objects gra- 
 dually began to define themselves, and assume the form of repub- 
 licanism and religious equality. Were any thing wanted to 
 drive the Catholics into the ranks of the Union, it was supplied 
 by the crimes of the Orangemen, committed against the unfor- 
 tunate and proscribed members of that religion. They were 
 made the victims " of a persecution conceived in the bitterness 
 of bigotry, carried on with the most ferocious barbarity, by a 
 banditti, who, being of the religion of the state, had committed 
 with the greater audacity and confidence the most horrid 
 murders, and had proceeded from robbery and massacre to 
 extermination."* 
 
 In this state of affairs, so promising to the friends of revolu- 
 tion, the change of the United system took place. The Report 
 of the Secret Committee says, " For the first three years their 
 attention was entirely directed to the engaging in their society 
 persons of activity and talent, in every quarter in the kingdom ; 
 and in preparing the public mind for their future purposes by 
 the circulation of the most seditious publications, particularly 
 the works of Thomas Paine.f At this time, however, the leaders 
 were rather cautious of alarming minds not sufficiently ripe for 
 the adoption of their principles by the too open disclosure of the 
 real objects they had in view. In 1795 the test of the society 
 underwent a striking revision ; the words in the amended test 
 stand ' a full representation of all the people,' omitting the words 
 ' in the Commons House of parliament,' and the reason for 
 which has been admitted by the members of the executive, 
 examined before your committee, to be the better to reconcile 
 reformers and republicans in a common exertion to overthrow the , 
 state."t 
 
 The three gentlemen referred to, Messrs. Emmet, Macnevin, 
 and O'Connor, in their memoir, seem to contradict the latter 
 part of this statement, and one would probably attach more im- 
 portance to their account than to a document like this state paper, 
 
 • Grattan. 
 
 t These works were circulated largely by the Whig party in England, under 
 the sanction of Fox and Erskine, and the other eminent leaders. 
 X Report, p. 5. 
 
X TNTRODUCTION. 
 
 drawn up and prepared as it is with profound skill and commen- 
 surate falsehood. Even at this period, when the Union had 
 commenced to be a private association, meeting under the sanc- 
 tion of an oath, and with a test amended in the way that it has 
 been mentioned, the great body of them, so far from contem- 
 plating revolution as their favored alternative, would gladly have 
 accepted a reform in parliament, and the removal of Catholic 
 disabilities as the fulfilment of their highest expectations ; such 
 is at least the evidence of three of their ablest and most trusted 
 leaders. After having stated that the suppression of the Dublin 
 society of United Irishmen, and the other stringent measures had 
 led to the formation of new bodies, preserving the popular name 
 of United Irishmen, but differing in their plan and with an 
 amended test, the memoir proceeds, " the first of these societies 
 was, as we best recollect, in the year 1795. In order to secure 
 co-operation and uniformity of action, they organized a system 
 of committees, baronial, county, provincial, and even national ; 
 but it was long before the skeleton of this organization was filled 
 up. While the formation of these societies was in agitation, the 
 friends of liberty were gradually, but with a timid step, advancing 
 towards republicanism ; they began to be convinced that it 
 would be as easy to obtain a revolution as a reform, so obstinately 
 was the latter resisted, and as this conviction impressed itself on 
 their minds they were inclined not to give up the struggle, but 
 to extend their views ; it was for this reason that in their test th^^, 
 words are ' an equal representation of all the people of Ireland,' 
 without inserting the word ' parliament.' The test embraced 
 both the republican and the reformer, and left to future circum- 
 stances to decide to which the common strength should be directed; 
 but still the iclwle body we are conmnced woidd stop at reform."* 
 It is not necessary for me to give the details of the change in 
 the civil organization which took place in the Union, and which 
 was completed on 10th May, 1795. The reader will find them 
 in the evidence of Thomas Reynolds, upon the trials of M'Cann, 
 Byrne, and Bond.t In addition to the change of the test 
 already alluded to, an oath of secrecy was added ; and after the 
 meeting of the executive directory of the society. May, 1796, 
 
 * Macnevin's Pieces of Irish History, 176. And see the cross-examination of 
 Reynolds on Bond's trial. 
 
 I See post. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XI 
 
 in which it was resolved to seek for foreign aid, the military 
 organization grew out of the civil system.* 
 
 The existence of the military organization was well known to 
 Government, from April 14th, 1797, by means of Nicholas 
 Maguan, a traitor, who was colonel in the military system. Dr. 
 Macnevin says the organization commenced to be military in the 
 latter end of 1796, and we find this Maguan communicating the 
 details of the Provincial meeting of Ulster, with the returns of 
 arms and ammunition, of the date of the 14th April, 1797, 
 and thenceforward until the 31st May, 1798. This Maguan's 
 secret information is thus prefaced in the Appendix of the Se- 
 cret Committee of the Commons : — " The information contained 
 in this number of the Appendix was received from Nicholas 
 Maguan, of Saintfield, in the county of Down, who was him- 
 self a member of the Provincial and County Committees, and 
 also a Colonel in the military system of United Irishmen.f He 
 
 * Dr. Macnevin gives the following account of the system, in his examination 
 before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords, on the 7th August, 1798 : — 
 
 Q. When did you become an United Irishman ? A. About September or Oc- 
 tober, 1796, I became a member of the close society of United Irishmen ; it con- 
 sisted of societies, at first, composed of thirty-six members, afterwards these 
 societies were reduced to twelve members ; each society of twelve chose a secre- 
 tary, and generally a treasurer. 
 
 Q. What was the next higher society ? A. The Secretaries of five societies 
 formed a lower Baronial Committee ; out of each of the lower Baronial Com- 
 mittees one person was chosen to be a member of the upper Baronial, each of the 
 upper Bai'onials consisted of ten members thus chosen. The next superior com- 
 mittees were, in populous towns. District Committees ; and County Committees, 
 in counties ; these were composed of one member elected from each Baronial. 
 The next superior Committees were the Provincial Committees, composed of two 
 members, sometimes three, elected from each County Committee. 
 
 Q. How was the Executive chosen ? A. Each Provincial Committee elected 
 five persons by ballot, the secretary examined the ballots, and reported to the 
 persons elected their appointment ; but made no report of the election to the Pro- 
 vincial, who were thus kept in ignorance of the persons who composed the Execu- 
 tive. The Executive had the command of the whole body thus organized. 
 
 Q. What was the organization originally? A. At first it was purely a civil 
 organization; but I believe it was military in Ulster, about the latter end of 1796^ 
 
 Q. What was the nature of the military organization ? A. The Secretary of 
 the society of twelve was the petty officer, that is, Serjeant or Corporal ; the De- 
 legate of five societies to a lower Baronial was usually the Captain, and thus had 
 sLxty men under his command ; and the Delegate of ten lower Baronials to the 
 Upper or District Committee was usually the Colonel, and thus a battalion was 
 composed of six hundred. The Colonels of each county sent in the names of 
 three persons to the Executive, one of whom was appointed by the Executive 
 Adjutant-General of the county, his duty was to receive and communicate all 
 military orders from the Executive. ( App. to Report of the Commons' Committee, 
 xxxi.) 
 
 f Dr. Madden gives an account of this informer which would lead us to sup- 
 pose that the representation of his being a colonel in the military system was a 
 falsehood. " This Magin, (for such was his name) of Saintfield, in the county of 
 
Xll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 was present at each of the meetings, of which an account is here 
 given ; and from time to time, immediately after each meeting, 
 communicated what passed thereat to the Rev. J. Cleland, a 
 magistrate of that county. The person giving this information 
 has since verified it upon oath, before the Committee of the 
 Lords, and Mr. Cleland has likewise sworn that the papers pre- 
 sented to the Committee contain the exact information so com- 
 municated to him by Maguan." These papers commence with 
 a return of the arms and ammunition in the possession of the 
 Union, in the ten northern counties, and is dated the 14th April, 
 1797. There is a great mass of information upon the numbers, 
 organization, and objects of the Union. The various meetings 
 of the northern counties, the names of the members attending 
 them, and the business transacted are given in detail, and 
 extends from the above date to the 31st May, 1 798, so that for one 
 whole year the Executive of the country were intimately 
 acquainted with the conspiracy against them in the North of 
 Ireland ; at any moment they could have arrested the active 
 members of the Union, and crushed its designs in that part of the 
 country in which republicanism could count its staunchest and 
 most numerous friends, and if the government had proceeded 
 with vigor there, they would have found little difficulty in 
 baffling the efforts of treason in the other provinces. The infor- 
 mation, too, which they obtained through the profligate agency 
 of this double traitor, was of so full and ample a nature as to 
 have enabled them to prosecute their efforts successfully, in 
 utterly destroying the organization, detecting the leaders, and 
 
 Down, was a poor man, holding a few acres of ground in the neighbourhood of 
 Saintfield. If the services rendered by Magin are to be estimated by the amount 
 of their reward they must have been considerable. The followmg items, at least, 
 will give some idea of the estimation in which they were held — 
 
 August 16, 1798 J. Magin, ... " ... £700 
 
 „ 17, Do. Do. 56 17 6 
 
 Notwithstanding the immense siun of money lavished on him — from being an 
 industrious, honest man, previously to his new pursuits as an informer, he became 
 an improvident, indolent, dissipated person, addicted to gambling, and in the 
 course of a few years his easily gotten wealth was gone, and he had to earn his 
 bread in the neighbourhood of Belfast, as a common working gardener ; and in 
 this employment he died there a few years ago." — Madden, 1 vol. 1 series, p. 327. 
 The list from which Dr. Madden has given the above items, and which he has pub- 
 lished in the appendix to his interesting volumes, is a most extraordinary docu- 
 ment. From August, 1797, to Sept., 1798, government allocated £38,419 8s., 
 to the payment of every ruffian who had a conscience and a country to sell, or a 
 friend to betray. There are some names in the list which will add new honors to 
 the proudest families in the land. The publication is a benefit. It may serve to 
 prevent the recurrence of the practices it records. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Xlll 
 
 bringing the guilty parties to justice. It is difficult to understand 
 the policy which permitted a treasonable conspiracy to proceed 
 to the most formidable length, to organize a country, to spread 
 the ramifications of discontent through a whole people, at the 
 same time that the government of the country were well 
 aware of its existence, watched its progress, and could have 
 crushed it at a blow. It is not too much to say that solid 
 reasons are required to justify this conduct, and to exonerate 
 the persons who then governed the country from being justly 
 charged with the brutal wisdom of permitting a whole people to 
 become implicated in crime, for the sinister purpose of wresting 
 from them, amidst the horrors of an unsuccessful rebellion, their 
 national independence and honor. This is a charge not lightly to 
 be made, and one that we should be slow to believe. But there 
 are circumstances, which they, who defend the conduct of the 
 government of that day, are called upon to explain, and the 
 satisfactory explanation of which is necessary to their exculpa- 
 tion. We are not to forget that the Rev. William Jackson, an 
 emissary of France — a man chosen for the guilty object of 
 disseminating treason, and scattering the seeds of rebellion 
 amongst a loyal people — was permitted to visit this country, 
 although his objects were known to the English minister, while 
 he was in London on his way from Paris. He was guilty of 
 high treason in the capital of Great Britain — that treason was 
 known to the government — the object of his mission was detailed 
 to them. Yet he was left free to proceed to Ireland to tender 
 the assistance of a foreign power for the purpose of overthrow- 
 ing the established government. There was no' impediment 
 offered to him. He was not made — as in mercy to the people of 
 Ireland he ought to have been made — a victim to his own uncon- 
 summated treason. He was allowed to go amongst a people — 
 at that time at least untouched to any great extent by what were 
 called " French principles" — the permitted apostle of these 
 principles, the corrupter, and the tempter. Coupling this with 
 the other no less undoubted fact, that from the moment the 
 military organization of the Union commenced, the government 
 had the most accurate information of its whole details, it is 
 difficult to conceive that rebellion was not in their eyes, in some 
 sort, an object to be attained — not a calamity to be avoided. 
 And if such a policy were pursued, it is not too much to lay at the 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 door of the men who pursued it all the crimes and outrages of 1 798. 
 Mr. Curran, in his interesting biography of his father, whilst he 
 appears to doubt that the object of government was to "foment 
 conspiracy in order that the excesses to which it would lead, 
 might reconcile the nation to a legislative Union ;" yet adds, 
 "that, however vulgar and improbable the supposition may 
 appear, it is still perhaps the only one that can satisfactorily 
 explain the inconsistencies and infatuation of their councils."* 
 
 The change in the system of the United Irishmen by which 
 a military organization was engrafted upon the civil, and with 
 which it has been seen that the Government was perfectly 
 acquainted, took place in the latter part of the year 1796, and 
 was hastened by several important events which occurred during 
 that year. The vigorous pressure of Government at home and 
 the arrival of the French in Bantry Bay, in December, 1796, 
 tended equally to the same object. By the former the people 
 were driven to despair, and by the latter the ruling faction was 
 at once terrified and enraged. The severity of Government 
 increased the popular resentment, and the fear and hatred of 
 France gave new vigour to the system of coercion and persecu- 
 tion. The Insurrection Act (Feb. 1796), by which, to use the 
 words of the Secret Committee, " the Lord Lieutenant and 
 council were enabled upon the requisition of seven magistrates 
 of any court assembled at a session of the peace to declare the 
 whole or any part thereof to be in a state of disturbance, within 
 which limits the law, giving increased power to the magistracy, 
 was to have effect," was passed through Parliament with little 
 opposition except from Grattan, Ponsonby, and Lord Edward 
 Fitzgerald. This bill was designated by Mr. Ponsonby " the 
 grave of the Constitution." It might more correctly be termed 
 ' the cradle of rebellion.' It revived the ancient despotism of 
 the curfew ; it enabled a partizan and factious magistracy to put 
 their country outside the law, to send obnoxious or suspected 
 persons on board the fleet, and under its sanction and the pre- 
 tence of searching for arms, to force open the houses of the 
 peasants at any hour of the day or night. An indemnity act had 
 previously passed, and though it did not provide for the commis- 
 sion of future acts of violence, it bestowed so large a measure of 
 
 * Ourran's Life. I Vol. p. 374. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 oblivion for the past, that the people might well suppose that no 
 crime could be committed against tliera. If we are to credit the 
 testimony of Grattan and Ponsonby, the prisoners were taken 
 from goal just before the assizes, when they ought to have been 
 tried, and sent on board the King's ships ; and the magistrates on 
 conference together were in the habit at their pleasure of arrest- 
 ing and dragging the peasants from their beds at midnight, and 
 transporting them without trial of any kind. Lord Carhampton 
 was distiguished for the same infamous lawlessness. For crimes 
 like these against the peace of the community and the con- 
 stitution of the country, the parliament provided a wholesale 
 indemnity. 
 
 These two measures — one of them arming the magistracy with 
 extraordinary powers, and the other indemnifying them for gross 
 misconduct and oppression, and thereby indicating the impunity 
 likely to attend the repetition of their insolent disregard to law 
 — were provocatives, unhappily too strong for the uneasy spirits 
 of the people. The Catholic Defenders complained, and it 
 would appear but too justly, that the provisions of the Insurrec- 
 tion Act were exclusively aimed at them, and were inoperative 
 against the Peep-o '-day-boys, whose outrages had produced their 
 retributive crimes. They felt themselves exposed to the brutal 
 and inhuman persecution of " an atrocious banditti, whose bar- 
 barity exceeded that of modern times, and brought back the 
 recollection of the ancient ferocity and bloodshed." They had no 
 hope from Government ; it was the powerful ally of triumphant 
 faction ; and if thenceforward they became ready for any change, 
 it was because no change could make them worse. 
 
 Following upon these acts of Parliament, bills were brought in 
 for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus and for the establish- 
 ment of the Yeomanry. The vigor of the Executive equalled 
 that of the Parliament. Proclamations were issued with various 
 preambles but with one intent — to arm the Magistracy and 
 Yeomanry with unlimited power over the lives, property, and 
 hberties of the people. 
 
 Lord Camden's proclamation of l7th May, 1797, giving 
 increased powers to the military, and declaring that the civil 
 authority was ineffectual to preserve the public peace, let loose 
 upon the country the furious passions of an unbridled soldiery. 
 The letters of Mr. Pelham the secretary to the commander-in-chief 
 
XVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Earl of Carhampton (whose name acquired fresh historical 
 celebrity during this period) imparted to him unrestricted power 
 over the habitations and persons of the people.* The military 
 were ordered to act without waiting for any directions from civil 
 magistrates in the dispersion of all meetings which they might 
 consider tumultuous, unlawful, or threatening to the public peace. 
 The houses of the living and the coffins of the dead were alike 
 violated in the pursuit of hidden arms. Gay meetings were dis- 
 persed by the armed rabble who overran the country. Nor was 
 the sombre march of death left uninterrupted. The Executive had 
 detected organization in the funeral train and arms in the coffins : 
 and the luxury of joy and sorrow was equally prohibited by the 
 martial discretion which then governed the people with a rod of 
 iron. In fine, the country was a pandemonium of military 
 demons. The houses of the peasantry were broken open at night 
 — men were whipped, hanged, or shot at their doors without a 
 pretence or shadow of trial — the cabins of humble industry were 
 set on fire by drunken military mobs, and the inhabitants bayo- 
 netted or shot as they sought to escape from the flames of their 
 own homesteads. Lust, rapine, and murder rushed through the 
 land in appalling companionship ; — and yet, speaking of the 
 results of this proclamation, the Report of the Committee calls it a 
 measure of " mercy and warning " and is surprised that it was 
 thrown away upon the rebellious obduracy of an affrighted, 
 tortured, maddened population ! 
 
 It certainly was not thrown away upon them. Its fruits were 
 visible enough in the enormities of the rebellion, which was 
 hastily advancing, and which only waited for a few more " well- 
 timed measures to procure an " explosion."! One of these 
 measures, which deserve notice for many reasons, was the death 
 of William Orr. His conviction was not that of a common 
 criminal, which might be either the just retribution of crime, or 
 the mistaken severity of angry justice. It was felt to be a 
 deliberate murder perpetrated by the government of the day for 
 its own purposes on an innocent man. It was looked upon as a 
 national calamity: for Orr was popular beyond his sphere, 
 
 * Pelham's Letter, Report of, See Com. App. xi. 
 
 t Lord Castlereagh asked one of the state prisoners " would not the Union have 
 become stronger but for the means taken to make it explode?" Pieces of Irish 
 History, p. 203. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XVU 
 
 and respected through the country, as one well endowed with 
 superior qualifications of mind and body. His alleged crime 
 was the administering the United Irishman's oath ; and the 
 evidence against him was that of a perjured murderer. He 
 was arraigned in October, 1797, to plead to an indictment 
 under the Insurrection act. He was found guilty by a drunken 
 jury, three of whom made affidavits of their drunkenness before 
 the judge who tried him — he was recommended to mercy, respited 
 three times, and hanged.* 
 
 From the moment of this judicial murder, until the extinction 
 of the rebellion, the United Irishmen were the peculiar objects of 
 the vengeance of the Executive. The attempt of the French at 
 Bantry Bay stimulated the energy of Government ; and the con- 
 viction and execution of Orr preceded but by a few months the 
 arrests of the Leinster delegates, the Dublin Executive, and the 
 second Directory. 
 
 The former were arrested at the house of Oliver Bond, in 
 Lower Bridge Street, on the 12th of March, 1798. The parti- 
 culars of their arrest will be found in the Evidence of Swan, who 
 was one of the confidential agents of the Castle in those days.f 
 Fourteen of the delegates fell into the power of the Government, 
 all of whom were returned from localities in Leinster, and the 
 principal persons amongst them were William Michael Byrne, 
 and John M'Cann. Oliver Bond was arrested at the same 
 time. 
 
 These arrests were followed by others still more important. 
 On the same day, Emmet, Macnevin, Jackson, and Sweet- 
 man, the Leinster Executive, fell into the power of Government, 
 O'Connor having been previously, for a considerable period, a 
 prisoner in the Birmingham Tower in the Castle. The arrest of 
 these gentlemen, deprived the Union of its ablest leaders. Neilson 
 and Lord E. Fitzgerald were the only persons now left to carry 
 their designs into execution, excepting the two unfortunate bro- 
 thers Henry and John Sheares, who were chosen to fill the vacan- 
 cies, occasioned by the arrests of the members of the Executive.! 
 
 * " Remember Orr" was a watchword of rebellion, and medals were struck 
 with his name. 
 
 t Trial of M'Cann, post, p. 
 
 t Madd. United Ir., 2 v., 2 series, p. 293. 
 
 C 
 
XVIU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The new Directors fixed upon the 23d of May for the general 
 rising ; but the hopes of success had gradually grown less with 
 delay and disappointment, and the rebellion might have been said 
 to have been crushed before it commenced. The last and the 
 greatest blow of all was the arrest of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, 
 on the 19th of May, followed by that of the Sheareses, on the 
 21st, and of Neilson, on the 23d. 
 
 " When all their secrets were betrayed, all their measures 
 known, and all their leaders seized, the United Irishmen allowed 
 the rebellion to begin. It had been too long languishing and 
 uncertain to inspire the people with confidence or enthusiasm ; it 
 was ill concerted, worse directed, received with coldness by some 
 and terror by others ; there was division between its leaders, 
 there was disunion amongst its followers, it had neither guidance 
 nor support. In fact, it might have been said to have been dead 
 before its birth, had not the Government forced it into premature 
 existence, by the stimulants of whipping and free quarters."* 
 Similar testimony of the efficacious measures of Government to 
 elaborate rebellion, is borne by the Report of the Secret Com- 
 mittee. This document says — " It appears that from the 
 vigorous and summary expedients resorted to by Government, and 
 the consequent exertions of the military, the leaders found them- 
 selves reduced to the alternative of immediate insurrection or of 
 being deprived of the means on which they relied for effecting their 
 purpose ; and that to this cause is exclusively to be attributed 
 that premature and desperate effort, the rashness of which has 
 so evidently facilitated its suppression."t 
 
 In the notes of Mr. Emmet's examination before the Com- 
 mittee of the Lords, August 10, 1798, the following question 
 and answer appear : — 
 
 Lord Chancellor : Pray, Mr. Emmet, what caused the late in- 
 surrection ? 
 
 Emmet : The free quarters, the house burnings, the tortures 
 and the military executions in the counties of Kildare, Carlow, 
 and Wicklow. 
 
 The evidence of Mr O'Connor is still fuller on this subject. 
 In his examination before the Commons' Committee of Secrecy, 
 he was asked a similar question : 
 
 Q. How was the late rising occasioned ? 
 
 * Introduction to Madden's United Irishmen. t Rep. p. 30. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XIX 
 
 A. I liave already told you how : from the beginmng of the 
 French Revolution the measures pursued by the British ministry 
 and the Irish Government have worked up the minds of the 
 people of Ireland to their present highly irritated state — at one 
 time raising their hopes — at another time blasting these hopes ; 
 at one time promising Emancipation and Reform — and at another 
 time resisting both with fire and sword, burning houses, hanging, 
 lashing, and torturing ; means unjustifiable to support any sys- 
 tem, and which a just Government could not for one instant stand 
 in need of. These no human patience could endure, and yet 
 (from a conviction that they were practised to goad the people 
 to a premature attempt to put down their oppressors) as long as 
 I could remain I used every means in my power to endure a 
 little longer ; but when, to avoid being dispatched, I was forced 
 to fly, those in whose hands the Executive power of the Union 
 was vested yielded to the pressing solicitations of the people of 
 the most oppressed parts, who were desirous to risk their lives in 
 order to rid themselves of the cruelties they hourly experienced. 
 
 Dr. Macnevin gives the same testimony in his examination 
 (August 8, 1798) before the same Committee : 
 
 Sjjeaker : Pray, sir, what do you think occasioned the insur- 
 rection ? 
 
 Macnevin : The insurrection was occasioned by the house- 
 burnings, the whippings to extort confession, the torture of 
 various kinds, the free quarters, and the murders committed upon 
 the people by the magistrates and the army. 
 
 Speaker : This only took place since the insurrection. 
 
 Macnevin — It is more than twelve months since these horrors 
 were perpetrated by the Antient Britons about Newry ; and long 
 before the insurrection, they were quite common through the 
 counties of Kildare and Carlow, and began to be practised with 
 very great activity, in the counties of Wicklow and Wexford. 
 
 Curry and Latouche — Yes, a few houses were burned. 
 
 Macnevin — Gentlemen, there were a great deal more than a 
 few houses burned. * * * * 
 
 Lord Castlereagh — Were not the different measures of the 
 Government, which are complained of, subsequent to various 
 proceedings of the United Irishmen ? 
 
 Macnevin — Prior, my Lord, to most of them ; if your Lord- 
 ship desires it, I will prove by comparison of dates, that Govern- 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ment throughout, has been the aggressor. (His Lordship was 
 not curious.) 
 
 There can be no difficulty in interpreting the phrases, " the 
 vigorous and summary expedients resorted to by Government,'' 
 and " the consequent exertions of the mihtary." 
 
 By a proclamation of the 30th March, the country was 
 declared in a state of rebellion. This was certainly not the 
 truth, for no blow had as yet been struck, nor any rising taken 
 place. The country was every where lighted with the flames of 
 the houses of the people. The lash resounded on all sides ; 
 half strangulation, pitch caps, and triangles were in use through 
 the different counties, and it is said, on competent authority, 
 were most used where the people were least disaffected. But 
 as yet, they had endured, nor had they, at the period of the 
 proclamation, been goaded into open resistance by the mistaken 
 severities of the Government party. The readers of the history 
 of that day, will well remember the memorable description of the 
 army, given by the gallant and humane Abercrombie, " They 
 were, from their licentiousness, formidable to every one but the 
 enemy." It is difficult, in one glance, to comprehend the 
 whole picture of misery in which they bore such conspicuous 
 parts. We may take, as an example of the result of letting 
 them loose upon the people, the facts connected with the 
 rebellion in Wexford. The movement there was isolated ; 
 it was not in connection with that going on elsewhere ; it was 
 forced into being by the scenes of tremendous cruelty which 
 took place in a county not sworn in the united system, not 
 discontented, and not disloyal. But the fact of its peaceful and 
 loyal tendencies had no effect in preserving its inhabitants from 
 the visitation of free quarters, and all the consequent evils, and 
 as though to justify the proclamation of the 30th March, Wex- 
 ford was subjected to the discretion of the soldiers. " They 
 became masters of every house in the country, the real owners 
 were obliged to procure them every necessary they thought 
 proper to demand, and as their will was then the only law, and 
 a very imperious and tyrannical law it was, the people dared not, 
 except at the risk of their lives, complain of any outrage or 
 brutality of which their savage disposition prompted them to be 
 guilty. The inevitable consequence was, that such horrid acts 
 were perpetrated, such shocking scenes were exhibited, as must 
 
INTRODUCTION. Xxi 
 
 rouse the indignation, and provoke the abhorrence of all not 
 dead to human feeling, or not barbarised by unnatural hatred of 
 their fellow creatures."* Wexford was unvisited by the Orange 
 system until April, 1798, and it was, therefore, untainted by 
 that spirit of insurrectionary fury which was sure to be evoked 
 wherever the principles and practices of the Orangemen existed. 
 The truth is, the people believed that the Orange system was 
 formed for their extermination. It was a mistake pregnant with 
 evil, for the spirit of resistance which it created was furious and 
 sanguinary. And though, doubtless, it was imputing to that 
 system an object which it would be difficult to bring home to it, 
 the conduct of the Orangemen furnished some excuse for the 
 error. With Lord Kingsborough and the North Cork Militia, 
 Orangeism became known, for the first time, in Wexford, in 
 April, 1798, and with the loyalty of the system, some other 
 attendant blessings were bestowed upon the population, which 
 worked out their due effects in the following months. " It is 
 said that the North Cork Regiment were the inventors, but they 
 certainly were the introducers of the pitch cap torture into 
 Wexford. Any person having their hair cut short (and there- 
 fore called a Croppy, by which appellation the soldiery desig- 
 nated a United Irishman,) on being pointed out by some loyal 
 neighbour, was immediately seized and brought into a guard- 
 house, where caps, either of coarse linen or strong brown paper, 
 besmeared inside with pitch, were kept ready for service. The 
 unfortunate victim had one of these, well heated, compressed on 
 his head, and when judged of a proper degree of coolness, so 
 that it could not be easily pulled off, the sufferer was turned out 
 amidst the horrid acclamations of the merciless torturers, and 
 to the view of vast numbers of people who generally crowded 
 about the guard-house door, attracted by the afflicting cries of 
 the tormented. Many of those persecuted in this manner, expe- 
 rienced additional anguish, from the melted pitch trickling into 
 their eyes. This afforded a rare addition of enjoyment to these 
 keen sportsmen, who reiterated their horrid yells of exultation, 
 on the repetition of the several accidents, to which their game 
 was liable on being turned out, for, in the fury and hurry of 
 
 * Hay's Histoi'y of the Rebellion. This gentleman was an eye witness of what 
 he states. 
 
XXU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 escaping from the ferocious hands of these more than savage 
 barbarians, the blinded victims frequently fell, or dashed their 
 heads against the walls in their way. The pain of disengaging 
 this pitch cap from the head, must be intolerable. The hair was 
 often torn out by the roots, and, not unfrequently, parts of the 
 skin were so scalded or blistered as to adhere to, and come off 
 along with it. The terror and dismay, that these outrages occa- 
 sioned, are inconceivable. A Serjeant of the North Cork, named 
 Tom the Devil, was most ingenious in devising new modes of 
 torture. Moistened gunpowder was frequently rubbed into the 
 hair, cut close, and then set on fire. Some, while shearing for 
 this purpose, had the ears nipped off; sometimes an entire ear, 
 and often both ears were completely cut off, and many lost part 
 of their noses during the like preparation. But, strange to tell, 
 these atrocities were publicly practised, without the least reserve, 
 in open day, and no magistrate or officer ever interfered, but 
 shamefully connived at this extraordinary mode of quieting the 
 people. Females were also exposed to the grossest insults from 
 the military ruffians. Many women had their petticoats, hand- 
 kerchiefs, caps, ribbons, and all parts of their dress that exhi- 
 bited the shade of green, (considered the national colour of 
 Ireland,) torn off, and their ears assailed by the grossest 
 ribaldry."* 
 
 All the new devices of cruelty, it is observable, were of Irish 
 origin. The spirit of Orangeism was inventive ; for whilst the 
 mercenary soldiers of England contented themselves with the 
 hackneyed crimes of lust and murder, the Irish Orangeman em- 
 ployed a genius, versed in torment, in the discovery of some- 
 thing new and striking in oppression. If the reiteration of 
 scenes and deeds like these were successful in rousing the 
 hitherto tranquil county of Wexford, one may imagine that in 
 other places, where the United Irishmen had succeeded in 
 extending their organization, they were eminently adapted to 
 drive the people into resistance. Loyalty was a virtue whose 
 fruits were burning houses, whippings, and half hangings. 
 Many wretches were taken from their cabins, strung up as if to 
 be hanged, indulged in the first agonies of strangulation, and 
 
 * Hivy's Irish Rebellion, and ate Life of Sampson in Maddou's U. Irishman. 
 2 V. 2 series, 353. 
 
INTRODUCIXON. XXUl 
 
 then respited for the purpose of giving information, if they pos- 
 sessed it, or inventing it, if they did not. Men whose trades 
 brought them amongst the people, such as carpenters and smiths, 
 were selected, by virtue of their calling, as fit objects for experi- 
 mental torment, and many of them expired under the merciless 
 lash of the persecutor, or were shot by the ruthless yeoman. A 
 Protestant historian of the rebellion furnishes us with the fol- 
 lowing details — " I now heard of many punishments of suspected 
 persons, both by flogging and strangulation, being put into 
 execution in the barrack yard in Ross, to extort confessions of 
 guilt. There were two of these victims brought from the bar- 
 rack yard to the Court House, to undergo a repetition of former 
 punishments. One of them of the name of Driscol, was found 
 in Camlin Wood, near Ross, where he said he generally wan- 
 dered as a hermit ; upon him were found two Roman Catholic 
 prayer books, with which, it wa8 supposed, he administered oaths 
 of disloyalty ; he had been half strangled three times, and 
 flogged four times during confinement, but to no purpose ; his 
 fellow-sufferer was one Fitzpatrick, of Dunganstown, near 
 Sutton's parish, he was a schoolmaster, he was not strangled, 
 however, but flogged with great severity, and it was not with 
 dry eyes that I saw the punishment inflicted upon this humble 
 pioneer of literature. About a month after the battle, both 
 these men were tried before General Cowley, and matters 
 appearing no farther against them than I have stated, they were 
 liberated from a close and filthy confinement ; the General pre- 
 sented both with a small sum of money, expressing a good-na- 
 tured concern that he could not then give them greater pecuniary 
 assistance."* The Rev. Mr. Gordon, a clergyman of the 
 Established Church, who resided near Gorey, in Wexford, and 
 who was a witness of the various extraordinary facts contained 
 in his history, aflfords us further unimpeachable testimony in aid 
 of the statements made by Messrs. Emmet, O'Connor and 
 Macnevin — " Whether an insurrection, in the then existing state 
 of the kingdom, would have taken place in the county of Wexford, 
 or, in case of eruption, how far less formidable and sanguinary 
 it would have been if no acts of severity had been committed by 
 the soldiery, the yeomen, or their supplementary associates, 
 
 * Alexander's Account of the Usbellion, p. 28. 
 
XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 without the direct authority of their superiors, or command of 
 the magistrates, is a question I am not able positively to answer. 
 In the neighbourhood of Gorey, if I am not mistaken, the 
 terror of the whippings was, in particular, so great, that the 
 people would have been extremely glad to renounce, for ever, 
 all notions of opposition to Government, if they could have 
 been assured of permission to remain in a state of quietness. 
 As an instance of this terror, I shall relate the following fact — 
 ' On the morning of the 23d of May, a labouring man, named 
 Denis M' Daniel, came to my house with looks of the utmost 
 consternation and dismay, and confessed to me that he had taken 
 the United Irishman's oath, and had paid for a pike, with which 
 he had not yet been furnished, nine pence half-penny, to one 
 Kilty, a smith, who had administered the oath to him and many 
 others. Whilst I sent my eldest son, who was a Lieutenant of 
 Yeomanry, to arrest Kilty, I exhorted M'Daniel to surrender 
 himself to a magistrate, and make his confession ; but that he 
 positively refused to do, saying that he should, in that case, he 
 lashed to make Mm produce a jnlie wldcJi he^Mad not, and to con- 
 fess what he knew not. I then advised him, as the only alter- 
 native, to remain quietly at home, promising that if he should 
 be arrested on the information of others, I would represent his 
 case to the magistrates. He took my advice ; but the fear of 
 arrest and lashing had so taken possession of his thoughts that 
 he could neither eat nor sleep, and on the morning of the 25th 
 he fell on his face and expired, in a grove near my house.' "* 
 We may imagine the frequency and horror of that punishment, 
 the mere contemplation of which, could produce such an effect ; 
 and we may take this single figure, as a correct specimen of the 
 national grouping of victims and tormentors, which shocked 
 the senses of humanity in that memorable year. These were 
 the practices — monstrous punishments, unheard of in civilized 
 Europe, reproductions of the cruelties of ancient times, or copies 
 from the despotisms of Asia — of Irishmen on Irishmen, at the 
 bidding, and to serve the policy of the English Minister. This 
 mangling of the body, this sport extracted from the agonies of 
 the sufferer, from his blinded eyes or tortured back — this base 
 disregard to female honor, did more to produce rebellion than 
 all the plottings, conspiracies, and sedition of the day. 
 
 * Gonlon's History of the Irish Rebt'irum, p. 87. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXV 
 
 It is fortunately no part of the design of this Introduction — 
 which does but briefly indicate the facts, with which the following 
 trials are conversant — to enter upon a detail of the scenes of 
 1798. Remembering the rebuke of Abercrombie to the army, 
 we may easily conceive that every atrocity, which could be 
 devised and executed by licentious power, was committed by 
 them, and we are not, therefore, to be much astonished at the 
 dreadful retaliation of a peasantry, which had to exact vengeance 
 for the murder, or violation, of the dearest relatives and friends. 
 If it were worth argument in this place, it would be easy to 
 show that the savage acts of the people were, all of them, sub- 
 sequent to some inhuman and wholesale cruelty, practised by the 
 yeomen or soldiery ; and that, detestable as the conduct of the 
 rebels was, it was retributive, not aggressive. But there are 
 better lessons to be learned from the history of that day than 
 those taught by faction and party hatred. The people were 
 driven into a rebellion in which — by death in the field, on the 
 gallows, or by torture — seventy thousand men perished. Ireland 
 was left in a state of exhaustion, and not of tranquillity ; of 
 rancorous hatred to men who used their victory as a scourge ; 
 so deeply, so universally disaffected as to require, ever since, 
 with the exception of a short period, the presence of a large 
 army to preserve an unwilling dependency to the Crown of Eng- 
 land. The rebellion might have been avoided : the concession 
 of favours, which have since been yielded to the people, would 
 have satisfied their wishes, and completely battled the designs of 
 the republicans. Concession was refused, coercion deliberately 
 adopted, and the Government trusted to the bloody experiment 
 of unsuccessful rebellion, to enable them to crush the spirit and 
 complete the subjection of the people. The experience of times 
 near our own, is sufficient evidence of the failure of the attempt. 
 
 The events of the rebellion passed rapidly and bloodily on. 
 Two months' hard fighting demonstrated the superiority of mili- 
 tary organization, over the undisciplined courage of the people. 
 The Northern insurrection terminated with the abortive battles 
 of Antrim and Ballinahinch ; the Leinster rebellion, after a 
 brief but desperate career, was crushed at Vinegar Hill, and 
 with the capitulation of Ovidstown, on the 12th of July, the 
 assemblages of armed masses may be said to have ceased. The 
 last aff'air was followed by the massacre of a body of the United 
 
XXVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Irishmen who had capitulated, on the Rath of the Curragh of 
 Kildare. This monstrous act was committed, if we are to 
 believe the authorities on the subject, and I see no reason to 
 doubt them, by the command of Major-General Sir James Duff, 
 and principally by the agency of Captain Bagot's yeomanry 
 cavalry, and Lord Roden's Foxhunters. The same cruelty 
 which had forced the rebellion into being, attended it in all its 
 stages, and was active long after all hope had departed from the 
 rebel camps. There never was an insurrection punished more 
 inhumanly. The despatches of the military authorities are full 
 of details of hangings, shootings, and burnings, whose flippancy 
 affords too pregnant proof of the frequency of savage punish- 
 ment. No quarter was given in the field, and the fate of any 
 prisoner, brought before the court-martials, was assured and cer- 
 tain. Hurried trial and instant conviction were followed by 
 execution in every case. Never did justice assume so hideous 
 an aspect. Military tribunals of furious partizans, sat in every 
 quarter, and sent thousands to instant death. The infliction of 
 torture was unremitting ; persons of rank and station were 
 executed without trial, or with the barbarous mockery of trial 
 which is furnished by drum-head judicature. Men lost all reason, 
 all humanity ; the people groaned under the frightful infliction 
 of a terrible military tyranny. 
 
 When the rebellion was virtually over, but whilst court-mar- 
 tials, and special commissions were still doing their duty, it 
 occurred to some of the state prisoners that an useful and 
 honorable arrangement might be made with Government, by 
 which a stop should be put to the effusion of blood, a general 
 amnesty be procured, and the people be restored to the benefits 
 and protection of the constitution. These gentlemen, feeling 
 that they participated with Government in the guilt of producing 
 the insurrection, and aftrighted, not so much at their own pos- 
 sible fate as at the ghastly spectacle of a bleeding country, 
 were anxious, if it could be done, to restore peace, and to 
 reconcile the two contending parties. An opportunity soon pre- 
 sented itself. The Executive had been well aware of the plans 
 of the United Irishmen, and of their intercourse with France. 
 They possessed a great mass of information upon the whole 
 system of the Union, its members, its projects, and its intrigues, 
 and they were anxious to impart the knowledge they possessed 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXvii 
 
 to the public ; but there were difficulties in their way — their 
 information was obtained from foreign and domestic treachery, 
 their home agents were vulgar tools, and their names would 
 have given but little authority to their statements, and the Go- 
 vernment were bound by agreement not to disclose those parties 
 connected with France who had betrayed at once the secrets of 
 their own Government and of the Irish Union. Speculation 
 has been busy as to them ; but it is as vain as useless to seek to 
 penetrate the secret of the treachery, by whose active agency, 
 the English Minister became acquainted with the negotiations of 
 the United Irishmen with foreign powers. It must have been 
 deep, and extensive. The Government being thus anxious to 
 give all the information they possessed to the world, and being 
 at the same time deterred from proclaiming its sources, it became 
 an object with them to obtain from the leaders of the Union, 
 then in prison, a full disclosure of its history, organization, and 
 foreign negotiations ; by which means they would at once possess 
 the most accurate information, on the best possible authority, 
 and be enabled to make whatever use they pleased of it. Va- 
 rious motives operated with Government in their anxiety upon 
 this matter. They, no doubt, wished to terrify their dependents 
 by a display of the vigorous and well-concerted measures which 
 had been taken to subvert their authority, and to shake off the 
 English yoke ;* and they wished to alarm the English people 
 by a detail of the external relations of the Union. Proposals 
 were, with these objects, made to the state prisoners in Dublin, 
 and were accepted by them. They saw their countrymen daily 
 devoted to death, whilst Ireland gained nothing by the sacrifice, 
 and they entered at once into a treaty, whose faithful fulfilment 
 was to rescue their country from civil and military execution, 
 and to restore to the people of Ireland the protection of the civil 
 law. The idea of this compact was first started in the middle 
 of July. John and Henry Sheares had been executed ; Michael 
 William Byrne was on his trial and there was no doubt of its 
 issue, Oliver Bond was to be tried next, and the special com- 
 mission which was sitting was proceeding surely and rapidly in 
 its work. Pending the arrangement of the treaty, on the very 
 day on which it was all but completed, and contrary to its spirit, 
 
 * Account of the Coni^jact in Madden, 2 vol. 2 series, p. 103. 
 
XXVlil INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Byrne was executed. The assent of Government and the sig- 
 nature of the state prisoners were, however, finally obtained on 
 the 29th of July. " When it was proposed to make a draught 
 of the stipulations. Lord Castlereagh laboured to produce a per- 
 suasion of its being superfluous, since every thing was so well 
 understood, and would be honorably construed. The deputies 
 of the prisoners, however, thought it their duty to commit the 
 substance, at least, to writing, and drew up a paper which must 
 be considered as a memorandum, and not a detail of the agree- 
 ment. The following is that paper : — ' That the undersigned 
 state prisoners in the three prisons of Newgate, Kihnainham, 
 and Bridewell, engage to give every information in their power 
 of the whole of the internal transactions of the United Irishmen ; 
 and that each of the prisoners shall give detailed information of 
 evei'y transaction that has passed between the United Irishmen 
 and foreign states ; but that the prisoners are not, by naming or 
 describing, to implicate any person whatever ; and that they are 
 ready to emigrate to such country as shall be agreed upon be- 
 tween them and Government, and give security not to return to 
 this country without the permission of Government, and not to 
 pass into an enemy's country — if, on doing this, they are to be 
 freed from prosecution, and also Mr. Bond be permitted to 
 take the benefit of this proposal. The state prisoners also 
 hope that the benefit of this proposal may be extended to such 
 persons in custody or not in custody, as may choose to benefit 
 by it.' "* 
 
 By the fulfilment of this compact, on the part of the leaders 
 of the United Irishmen, the Government gained their object. 
 They were enabled to conceal the real channels of their pre- 
 vious information ; and to put forward the state prisoners, to 
 vouch for what they wished to make publicly known, and which 
 they could thus authenticate. They wished to escape from, or 
 to palliate the infamy of their conduct — their house burnings, 
 torturings, arbitrary banishments, and licensed murders, by 
 proving that the United Irishmen entertained the idea of effect- 
 ing a separation from England, a design which the favourers of 
 English power at that period would consider as sufficient provo- 
 cation for the violation of all principles, and the infliction of all 
 
 * Macnevin's Pieces of Irish History, p. 157. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXIX 
 
 horrors.* This they effected to the fullest extent. The leaders 
 were examined before the Committees of the Lords and Com- 
 mons, and garbled extracts of their evidence, were published by 
 Government. The case was made out to the satisfaction of its 
 partizans, and a load of obloquy thrown upon the unfortunate 
 gentlemen, who, in thus submitting to the searching examination 
 of the Committees, and undertaking to transport themselves 
 from their country, expected to have been instrumental in restor- 
 ing peace, and stopping the effusion of blood. It was not their 
 fault that they did not succeed in their design. 
 
 It may be now proper to consider, for a moment, what was the 
 object of this treaty, what conditions it contained, and how the two 
 contracting parties fulfilled their relative parts. The leaders 
 amongst the prisoners have given their statements, and few will be 
 inclined to doubt their sincerity or truth. They were men of unim- 
 peached personal honor, and, as the subsequent career of several 
 of them fully proves, with virtues and genius capable of serving 
 and conferring distinction on any country but that which an 
 infamous Government would not permit them to live in. None 
 but those furious bigots who can see in Emmet, Macnevin and 
 Sampson only " unhanged traitors," will doubt the veracity of 
 their account of this very important negotiation. 
 
 It is obvious that the idea of ensuring their personal safety 
 did not enter into their views. Against many of them, no evi- 
 dence of any kind was in the possession of Government. Neil- 
 son, who was one of the movers in this business, was assured by 
 Mr. Curran, and his other friends, that there was no evidence to 
 be adduced against him, which could in any way affect his lifcf 
 " Those who know him best will readily give him credit, when 
 he says, that the failure of the insurrection, and the daily exe- 
 cution of his virtuous friends in town and country, martyrs to 
 the same cause, had, so far from creating a terror of death, 
 actually made life a burthen to him. He further declares, that 
 so far as he knows, there was not a prisoner who took part in 
 this measure, but was actuated chiefly, if not solely, by conside- 
 rations of a nature far from selfish or personal ; by far the 
 greater part of them were, and had long been, imprisoned merely 
 
 * Macnevin's Pieces of Irish History, p. 157. 
 
 t Madden's United Irishmen, 1 vol. 2 series, p. 153. 
 
XXX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 on suspicion ; nor was there any idea whatever of bringing them 
 to trial, at that or any other time."* Their object was to stop 
 the effusion of blood, and when the idea of a treaty was first 
 started, it was received more gladly from the hope of saving the 
 life of Byrne. That was sacrificed by the treacherous cruelty 
 of Government. But yet the prisoners imagined, that much 
 good might still be eff"ected, and that mercy might, though late, 
 visit their afflicted country, as the price of their disclosures and 
 self exile. They saw that the insurrection was quenched in the 
 blood of the people, and that whilst four or five counties were 
 making head against the whole of the King's forces, no effectual 
 attempt was made to assist them through the rest of the country; 
 that the valour and courage of the people, were rendered fruit- 
 less, from the want of military knowledge and capacity in their 
 leaders ; that the arrest of the deputies, and the ablest agents 
 of the Union had completely destroyed its power for effecting 
 any thing of consequence ; that from the several defeats endured 
 at New Ross, Vinegar Hill, and in the North of Ireland, fur- 
 ther resistance was useless and ruinous ; that from the gross and 
 profligate corruption of juries, and the unconstitutional conduct 
 of judges, justice was perverted into a monstrous engine of 
 murder ; that Government was already aware of all their internal 
 and external transactions ; and finally, their ears were daily 
 assailed with the accounts of military and civil executions, and 
 their eyes pained, by seeing their friends led out to die upon 
 gibbets. To stop this waste of life, to arrest the furious ven- 
 geance of Government, they agreed to disclose the history of 
 their previous efforts, and to abandon their country, their families, 
 and their friends.t 
 
 To impute to them treachery to the cause they had served so 
 long, and to the men whom they had led into treason and rebel- 
 lion, was a most gross and unfounded imputation, one worthy of 
 the Government of that day, but not to be revived nor listened 
 to, at this time. The character of men, who, whatever was 
 their rashness, and whatever was their guilt, are still revered by 
 their fellow-countrymen, is so valuable that it compels me to 
 dwell upon the vindication of their motives longer than may be 
 
 * Maddens United Irishmen, 1 vol. 2 series, p. 153. 
 
 t Macnevin's account of the Compact in Madden's book, 2 vol. 2 series, p. 112. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXxi 
 
 thought necessary. Emmet sums them up thus — " We entered 
 into this agreement the more readily, because it appeared to us 
 that, by it, the public cause lost nothing. We knew, from the 
 different examinations of the state prisoners, before the Privy 
 Council, and from conversations with Ministers, that Govern- 
 ment was already in possession of all the important knowledge, 
 which they could obtain from us. Whence they derived their 
 information, was not entirely known to us ; but it is now manifest 
 that Reynolds, Magin, and Hughes, not to speak of the minor 
 informers, had put them in possession of every material fact 
 respecting the internal state of the Union; and it was from 
 particular circumstances, well known to one of us, and entirely 
 believed by the rest, that its external relations had been betrayed 
 to the English Cabinet, through the agency of a foreigner, with 
 whom we had negotiated. This was even so little disguised, 
 that, on the preceding 1 2th of March, the contents of a memoir 
 which had been prepared by one of the undersigned,* at Ham- 
 burgh, and transmitted thence to Paris, were minutely detailed to 
 him by Mr. Cooke. Nevertheless, those with whom we negotiated, 
 seemed extremely anxious for our communications. Their reasons 
 for this anxiety may have been many, but two particularly suo-- 
 gested themselves to our minds — they obviously wished to give 
 proof to the enemies of an Irish Republic, and of Irish Indepen- 
 dence, of the facts with which they were themselves well acquaint- 
 ed, while, at the same time, they concealed from the world 
 their real sources of intelligence. Nor do we believe we are 
 uncharitable in attributing to them the hope and wish of ren- 
 dering unpopular and suspected, men in whom ithe United 
 Irishmen had been accustomed to place almost unbounded con- 
 fidence. 
 
 The injurious consequences of Government succeeding in both 
 these objects, were merely personal ; and, as they were no more, 
 though they were revolting and hateful to the last degree, we 
 did not hesitate to devote ourselves, that we might make terms 
 for our country ."T Another motive, too, impelled them to their 
 decision. They felt anxious to vindicate the cause of the 
 United Irishmen, and they conceived that this could be done, by 
 a fair and candid development, of the objects of the Union. 
 
 * Dr. Macnevin. f Madden, 2 vol. 2 series, 103. 
 
XXXll IXTRODUCTION. 
 
 These objects centred in the liberation of Ireland. But in that 
 evil and anerry time, the United Lnshmen had been accused of 
 every thino" that was rile and infamous ; thev had been denounced 
 in Parliament as a " blasted society " — infidels in religion — a nest 
 of selfish traitors. They wished to prove the falsehood of these 
 charges ; and they conceived that they could prove this, even in 
 the council-chambers and committee-rooms of their enemies, by a 
 fair and manlv avowal of their opinions and their designs. x\nd 
 it is submitted, that their vindication was perfect. The evidence 
 thev o-ave is a most valuable record — full of startlinof truths — and 
 full of bold theories, that mav not be impossible. Thev tausfht 
 the Government how this country might be ruled, with advantage 
 to itself, and honor to its rulers : and, furthermore, they taught 
 their countrymen how to achieve, and how to use a rational free- 
 dom. The Government cannot be said to have g-ained much bv 
 the treaty. 31isrepresentation, false and garbled extracts of the 
 evidence of the prisoners, achieved a miserable and temporary 
 triumph ; but truth soon emerged from the mist that was thrown 
 around it ; and the historian and the pohtician can consult, with 
 advantage, the singular details given by these able and distin- 
 guished men, in the searching examinations to which they were 
 subjected. 
 
 Such being the objects of the State prisoners, and of the Go- 
 vernment, in entering upon this treaty, let us see how it was ful- 
 filled on the part of the former. In the first place, they prepared 
 an ample memoir of the foundation and progress of the Union — 
 of its original and subsequent organization — and of its internal 
 and external policy. This was not acceptable to Government, 
 though Mr. Cooke acknowleged it was a fulfilment of the strict 
 letter of the aorreement. However, he suffffested that it mio-ht 
 be altered, according to the Lord Lieutenant's wish, so that it 
 should not be a vindication of the United Irishmen. The Lord 
 Lieutenant was not pleased, because it was a defence of the 
 Union. How could it be otherwise than a defence ? It reviewed 
 the history of the United Irishmen from the beginning, when 
 their objects were strictly constitutional, and the conduct of their 
 proceedings accordinor to the law, down to that period when the 
 aggressions of power upon popular liberty compelled them to 
 abandon the safe course of open discussion, for the devious an<l 
 dangerous paths of conspiracy and intrigue. It detailed, the 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXXlll 
 
 several aggressive acts of Government — the proscription of the 
 friends of reform — the final extinction of the Volunteers* — the 
 penal laws against meeting by delegates — the Insurrection and 
 Indemnity acts, and the other stringent measures which were 
 passed with the avowed or latent object of crushing the United 
 Irishmen. The memoir dwelt particularly upon the provisions 
 of the Insurrection Act, which punished the administering the 
 United Irishmen's oath with death, and g-ave masristrates the 
 power of proclaiming counties, and restoring peace to unquiet 
 districts by breaking into the cabins between sunrise and sunset, 
 seizing the inmates, sending them on board tenders, and trans- 
 porting them, or wounding the national honour where it is most 
 keenly susceptible, by outraging the delicacy of women. In fine, 
 it made a case — so strong and convincincf, and indicating the exist- 
 ence of a state of things, which would have made submission a 
 greater crime than resistance. This might do very well as a 
 piece of history, but it was not the kind of document adapted to 
 the uses of the castle. The authorities there would gladly have 
 proved the naked fact, that there had existed for a long time a 
 deep-seated hostility to England amongst the United Irishmen. 
 The memoir did this ; but it did something more. It vindicated 
 that hostility, in demonstrating- the existence of a powerful cause 
 for such a sentiment ; it proved the ancient truth, that tyranny, 
 cruelty, and oppression will beget the monstrous progeny of evU 
 passions, hatred, and furious resistance. And this demonstration 
 was not required by Lord Castlereagh or Lord Clare. A change, 
 a slight alteration, the muffling of a few truths, the insinua- 
 tion of a few falsehoods, would have rendered the memoir a 
 document of vast utility. But the state prisoners were men of 
 rough honesty. They promised the truth, and they told it. They 
 would make no change, nor introduce the slightest alloy into the 
 pure and unvarnished facts. And, therefore, the Government hit 
 upon an expedient, by which they could make their own case, 
 by which the power of garbling, colouring, and suppressino: should 
 be in their own power. The ablest men amongst the prisoners, 
 Emmet, Macnevin, O' Connor, and Neilson, were summoned before 
 
 * For the brilliant career of this body, the reader may consult the books wTitten 
 about that period, which are filled with the most exaggerated praises and eastern 
 flattery. To me they appear to have been a collection of men who, with gre;it 
 power, effected little, and could not keep what they had gotten. They might have 
 had liberty — they took a few privileges ; and were soon dispersed, leaving nothing 
 but a name behind them. 
 
XXXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the committees of the Lords and Commons, and were examined 
 by the members composing them, on the subject of the Union, its 
 views, and its organizations. The questions were ingeniously put, 
 and were fully answered. If the Government desired the truth, 
 it was told to them — if they sought to learn the means of future 
 good government, these were supplied by men, who knew Ireland 
 intimately. But that such was not their object, was speedily 
 proved. The publication of the Report of the Commons' com- 
 mittee followed quickly in the order of time ; and it was a docu- 
 ment quite unparalleled in the proverbial falsehood of state 
 papers for the utter disingenousness of its texture. Misrepre- 
 sentation, false induction, perversion of history, combined to make 
 it a diplomatic wonder — wondrous from the utter recklessness of 
 its composition. The newspapers in the service of Government 
 were filled with grarbled extracts from the testimonv of the state 
 prisoners, untrue statements of their evidence, and, in many 
 instances, containing the direct reverse of its import. So far was 
 this carried, that — though it was a part of the compact that names 
 were not to be disclosed — the Government papers represented 
 the prisoners as having given those of their associates in 
 treason. This falsehood was not endured in silence, for three 
 of the gentlemen managed to obtain means of contradicting it by 
 an advertisement, which they published in two of the Dublin 
 newspapers, to the following effect :* 
 
 " Having read, in the different newspapers, publications pre- 
 tending to be abstracts of the report of the Secret Committee of the 
 House of Commons, and of our depositions before the committees 
 of the Lords and Commons, we feel ourselves called upon to assure 
 the public they are gross, and to us astonishing misrepresenta- 
 tions, not only unsupported by but, in many instances, directly 
 contradictory to the facts we really stated on those occasions. 
 We further assure our friends that in no instance did the name 
 of any individual escape from us ; on the contrary, we always 
 refused answering such questions as might tend to implicate any 
 person whatever, conformably to the agreement entered into by 
 the state prisoners with Government. 
 
 " Arthur O'Connor. 
 
 " Thomas Addis Emmet. 
 
 " William James Macnevin." 
 
 * Macnevin's Pieces of Irish History, 161. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXXV 
 
 This temperate refutation excited a perfect tempest of furious 
 invective in the Irish House of Commons. Mr. M'Naughten, 
 and " two virulent barristers, Francis Hutcheson and Cun- 
 nyngham Plunket,"* humanely suggested summary execution 
 as the fittest measure to be adopted towards the rash asser- 
 tions of their own honour — a proposition not much more 
 execrable than the one made on the previous 24th March, 
 by Lord Farnham, who submitted " to the wisdom of the 
 House whether it would not be right and necessary, that 
 military executions should have retrospect to the persons who 
 were then confined, and that they should he disposed of as 
 expeditiously as possible."'\ The humanity of Lord Castle- 
 reagh interposed itself between this brutal suggestion, and the 
 prisoners ; and on the former occasion, military execution was not 
 done. The prisoners were merely remanded to close confine- 
 ment, and the visits of their friends and relatives strictly for- 
 bidden. During this confinement, the Government proceeded, in 
 its career of blood and calumny. In September, an act passed 
 the houses of parliament, professedly to carry into efl'ect the 
 conditions of the treaty. That such was not its object must be 
 clear from the fact, that so far from permitting the state prisoners 
 to emigrate, according to these conditions, twenty of the parties 
 who signed the compact, were sent to Scotland, and kept for 
 upwards of four years, in close confinement. That the real 
 object of this miscalled act of amnesty, was to put upon the 
 shameless records of the legislature a statutary falsehood — 
 a gross calumny upon the leaders of the United Irishmen, is 
 apparent from its preamble. The act referred to is the 38th 
 Geo. III. c. 78, which recites — " Whereas, during the wicked 
 and unnatural rebellion which hath broken out in this kingdom, 
 several persons who had taken up arms against His Majesty, or 
 had traitorously and wickedly corresponded with and adhered to 
 his enemies, or had been otherwise engaged in fomenting the 
 said rebellion, and acting therein, have been apprehended and 
 
 * Pieces of Irish History, 162. — Irish Patriotism in those days was a strange 
 thing. The eloquent opponent of a Union is found, buf a year, before the " virulent " 
 advocate for doing military execution on men at least as honest as himself ! 
 
 t Debates in the House of Commons. Commons' Journal, March, 1793. This 
 proposal is justified in the Dublin University Magazine, for December, 1843, p. 
 690 ; and the classic writer humanely suggests, that the Government, in acceding 
 to his proposition, would have but followed the example of Cicero, and would have 
 done well in reviving the tragedy of the TuUianum ! 
 
XXXVl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 committed to prison for such their treasons, several of ivhom 
 being conscious of their flagrant and enormous guilty have expressed 
 their contrition for the same, and have most humbly implored his 
 Majesty's mercy, and that he ivould be graciously pleased to order 
 all further prosecution against them to stop and surcease, and to 
 grant his royal pardon to them, on condition of their being trans- 
 ported, &fc., to any foreign country, ^c." 
 
 Let the reader who feels any interest in the characters of men, 
 who suffered, for what they at all events conceived to be, the 
 happiness of this country, turn to the memoir which they prepared 
 in fulfilment of their arrangement with Government, and which 
 it is to be remembered was rejected by the agent of Government, 
 because it was a vindication of the United Irishmen, and he will 
 certainly find no proof of these statements — no whimpering con- 
 trition — no mean demand of pardon.* Again, let the examina- 
 tions of the prisoners — even in the appendix of wilful falsehood 
 which follows the Report of the Committee of Secrecy — be read, 
 and the same bold honesty, the same probably rash adherence to 
 dangerous convictions, will be found to give a direct contradic- 
 tion to this preamble. The Government, bad as it was, did not 
 ask for any mean submissions ; they were content with falsely 
 representing that they had been made. Dr. Macnevin, in reply 
 to a question of the Archbishop of Cashel, suggested by pious 
 horror at the independent notions of an acknowledged traitor, 
 said, " I have not, I own, any idea of sacrificing the interests of 
 Ireland to those of any other country ; nor why we should not in 
 that, as in every other respect, be as free as the English 
 themselves."t This is not the language of recantation. 
 The Speaker asked the same person whether the people 
 would consider themselves bound hereafter by the oaths of the 
 Union ? He was answered thus — " I, who am going to be an 
 emigrant from my country, am dispensed from answering that 
 question ; yet I acknowledge, that were I to stay, I would think 
 myself bound by them."| Does this speak consciousness of guilt, 
 contrition, or abject supplication ? That the prisoners themselves 
 were utterly unaware of the pusillanimity imputed, by the 
 preamble of the 38th Geo. III., to them, may be inferred from 
 the steps they took to refute the calumny, and by the threats 
 
 * Pieces of Irish History, 142. f Ibid, 196. % Ibid, 211 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXXVll 
 
 which were made, if they persisted in publishing their denial. 
 Having, by chance, seen a copy of the act in a London newspaper, 
 one of the calumniated parties, Samuel Neilson, prepared a letter 
 of refutation addressed to the editor, stating that there had 
 been no retraction — no expression of sorrow for " unnatural 
 rebellion" — no demand for pardon. But that the state prisoners 
 had entered into a treaty with Government, by which they 
 expected to stop the effusion of blood, and to terminate the 
 afflictions of the country. A copy of this letter was sent to Lord 
 Castlereagh ; and, as the state prisoners had stipulated for free- 
 dom of publication, they did not anticipate any interference on 
 the part of the Executive. This was ridiculous confidence, 
 though, probably taking into consideration the subsequent con- 
 duct of that unrighteous body, it was wise not to have stimulated 
 their appetite for oppression. Shortly after Lord Castlereagh 
 had received the communication from Neilson, the latter was 
 visited by two of the Government agents, Mr. Marsden and the 
 indefatigable Cooke, who conveyed to him a message direct from 
 the Lord Lieutenant. He was told, that if he published 
 that letter, it was the firm determination of the Lord Lieu- 
 tenant to abandon the conditions of the comijact and to cause 
 civil and military executions to proceed as before ! These were 
 the men who ruled our country at that time, men capable of 
 recording falsehood in their abominable edicts, and of preventing 
 its refutation by threatening the sword and the rope ! These 
 were the men against whose unholy rule, treason and rebellion 
 were " unnatural !" This message was not from the remorseless 
 Camden ; it proceeded from the lips of Lord Cornwallis. It is, 
 however, but just to him to remember, that he was surrounded by 
 such advisers as Castlereagh ; and that he was aided and assisted 
 in the infamy of his conduct by the House of Commons, where 
 propositions, equal in remorseless cruelty to his own, had been 
 repeatedly and gravely made by men who assumed to be pecu- 
 liarly the ' friends of the people.' In the long list of oppres- 
 sions inflicted by the Anglo- Irish Government upon its victims, 
 there is scarcely one of them, more full of refined cruelty than 
 this. The character of men who were dear to the people was 
 traduced in a solemn act of Parliament ; they were represented 
 as repentant sinners against their king ; as having confessed their 
 flagrant and enormous guilt; and as having implored pardon. 
 
XXXVm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The truth was no where told that they had consented to abandon 
 their country, and to submit to the searching inquisition of two 
 parliamentary committees, for the purpose of saving the lives of 
 their countrymen. Their motive was grossly misrepresented; and 
 when indignant honour would have repudiated the calumny, it was 
 silenced by the threat of resuming the career of decimation, by 
 the aid of drumhead judges and military hangmen. That was, 
 indeed, a time of horror, full of pregnant warning to future 
 Governments, as well as to impatient patriotism ; preaching 
 forbearance and mercy to the one, and caution and much 
 endurance to the other. The wise humanity of our days will 
 not refuse the lesson. 
 
 A Government capable of using this artifice, was capable of 
 any wrong. Twenty of the gentlemen who entered into the 
 compact, and who fulfilled its conditions with exemplary correct- 
 ness, after some interval of confinement in the prisons of Dublin 
 — hateful to them as the scenes of the suff'erings, and death of 
 their friends — were transmitted to Fort St. George, in Scotland, 
 where, for four years, they were, in breach of all honour and for- 
 getfulness of all treaties, kept closely imprisoned. The humanity 
 of the governor, Colonel Stuart, a Scotchman, contended with 
 his duty and instructions in rendering their condition at all 
 endurable. In this list of exiles — driven from Ireland by its 
 factious Government — were Thomas Addis Emmett, William 
 James Macnevin, and William Sampson.* After more than four 
 years' imprisonment, those gentlemen, as well as the other pri- 
 soners, obtained their freedom, and their subsequent fate will be 
 found detailed at large in Dr. Madden's very interesting memoirs 
 of the United Irishmen, to which I have been so much indebted 
 for the facts in the preceding pages. 
 
 It is hoped, that though of necessity, the events growing out 
 of the existence of the society of the United Irishmen, have been 
 but briefly dealt with in this Introduction, its perusal will enable 
 the reader to a])preciate more fully the interesting trials which , 
 
 * Of these three men, the first became the leading member of the bar of New 
 York ; thn second, one of the first medical men in that city ; and the third, an , 
 advocate of great distinction in the honourable profession of wliich Thomas Addis j 
 Emmet was the greatest ornament. Is this any comment upon tlie Government, 
 whose shrewdness found in them unsafe citizens of a state, administered by a Clare 
 and a Castlereagh ? A late writer, in speaking of the leaders of the rebelli(m of 
 1798, says that they were " almost without exception, shallow, and conceited 
 sciolists." University Magazine (December, 1843), p. 6S5. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX 
 
 follow. They have been arranged with care ; the best reports 
 in all cases have been obtained ; and they are printed in the order 
 in which they occurred. Their succession, too, will serve to 
 indicate the progress of the assaults made by Government upon 
 public liberty — from the attack upon the press in the prosecutior 
 of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, down to the various trials for 
 high treason with which they sought to consummate their 
 triumph, over the principles and projects, of the United Irishmen. 
 The men with whom this Introduction and these trials are 
 conversant, were, no doubt, traitors ; but it is probable that the 
 details, both here and there given, may impart a meaning to that 
 word, more restricted than that which it enjoys in the comprehen 
 sive language of a statute, or in the unlimited phraseology of a 
 court sycophant, or an Irish loyalist. No man will unconditionally 
 defend the rash projects in which they embarked; but let us not 
 be blinded — there is no motive for such meanness now — to the 
 unbounded devotion and disinterested zeal with which they sought, 
 after their own fashion, to serve their country. And let it be 
 always remembered, that if they abandoned the straight and open 
 course of the constitution, it was when an arbitrary, a dishonest, 
 and sanguinary government had made its ancient ways unsafe and 
 perilous to the lovers of civil and religious equality. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 
 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, the descendant of a distinguished 
 Scotch family, which settled in Ireland, in the reign of James the First, 
 was celebrated for the leading part he took in the struggles of Irish 
 nationality. He was born in London, on the 12th May, 1751 (old 
 style). He was connected with the noble family of Abercorn, and 
 descended from Sir James Hamilton, who was afterwards created 
 Viscount Claneboye, and whose son became Earl of ClanbrassiL* 
 
 His father, Gawin Hamilton, had gone to settle in London in 
 1750, where Archibald Hamilton was born. His name of Rowan 
 was taken, together with the fortune, of his maternal grandfather, 
 who had assumed the care of his education and advancement, and who 
 was a man of sturdy independence, in his notions both of politics, and 
 religion. 
 
 The events of Rowan's life, previous to his coming to reside per- 
 manently in Ireland, though amusing and strange enough, may be 
 briefly noticed in this place. He received a good education, which 
 was superintended by Mr. Rowan, his grandfather, until his death, in 
 1767. After this event, Archibald Hamilton Rowan was sent to 
 Wesminister school, where his proficiency was not very great, though 
 he was observed, as a boy, anxious for distinction, as well as for being 
 fond of gaiety ; and ready for any frolic, however wild or dangerous. 
 His father took a house in the neighbourhood of the school, and young 
 Rowan met, in his circle, a society from whose teaching it is not im- 
 probable that he derived the peculiar political bias, which influenced 
 his future career. Amongst the frequent visitors at his father's house, 
 was Dr. Charles Lucas, the celebrated Irish patriot. 
 
 From Westminister, Rowan was removed to Cambridge. Whilst 
 a member of this university, his life was gay and dissipated. He had 
 a command of money, kept hunters, mixed in what is called the best 
 
 * Both these titles became extinct on the death of Henry, the third Lord 
 Claneboye and second Earl of Clanbrassil ; but the former was revived in 1800, 
 when it was conferred on Sir James S. Blackwood (connected by marriage with 
 the family), together with a sum of £13,000, as a reward for his vote in favour of 
 the Legislative Union. The title of Clanbrassil has been also revived, and is that 
 by virtue of which, Lord Roden (another branch of the family) sits in the House 
 of Lords. 
 
42 MEMOIR OF 
 
 society, and took part in some of these extraordinary freaks in which 
 the young aristocracy loved to indulge. He carried to Cambridge 
 the same wildness which distinguished him at Westminister ; and was 
 rusticated for throwing some obnoxious personage into the Cam. The 
 Duke of Manchester gave him a commission in the Grenadiers of the 
 Huntingdon Militia, and, whilst a Captain in that regiment, he ob- 
 tained considerable eclat by swimming in his full regimentals, with a 
 fusee slung at his back, from Gossport to Plymouth. His college and 
 military life abound in none, but trivial details, like these. 
 
 During his college career, he accepted the post of secretary to Sir 
 Charles Montague, who was governor of South Carolina. With him 
 he sailed to Charleston, where, however, he remained only three 
 months. In his autobiography, he gives us no reason for his return, 
 which he notices thus : — 
 
 " Having spent nearly three months at Charleston, I got a passage 
 from Captain Hayward to England, on board the Swallow ; taking 
 with me a racoon, an oppossum and a young bear. After a very 
 rough passage, I landed at Portsmouth — my racoon dead, my bear 
 washed overboard, and my opossum lost in the cable tier — and I re- 
 turned to Cambridge." 
 
 The character of Rowan was given in the World newspaper by 
 Topham Beauclere, who was a contemporary of his at Cambridge, and 
 who published a series of characters of the different young men about 
 London who had been educated at Westminister and Eton. The fol- 
 lowing extracts will serve to show the estimate, in which he was held 
 by his fashionable intimates : — 
 
 " With more than boyish aptitudes and abilities, he should not have 
 been lost amongst boys. His incessant intrepidity, his restless curi- 
 osity, his undertaking spirit, all indicated early maturity — all should 
 have led to pursuits, if not better, at least of more spirit and moment, 
 than the mere mechanism of the dead languages. * * 
 
 " Besides, Hamilton was to be found in every daring oddity. Lords 
 Burlington and Kent, in all their rage for pediments, were nothing to 
 him in a rage for pediments. For often has the morning caught him 
 scaling the high pediments of the school door, and, at the peril of his life, 
 clambering down, opening the door within, before the boy who kept 
 the gate came with the key.* His evenings set upon no less perils ; 
 in pranks with gunpowder, in leaping from unusual heights into 
 tlie Thames ! * * * * 
 
 " Had he been sent to Woolwich, he might have come out, if not a 
 
 * This is wretched stuff; but it shows the description of society and the pursuits | 
 of the future politician, who was foremost in teaching, and in suffering for, the ' 
 bold and noble doctrines of " Universal Emancipation." — Ed. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAUHLTON ROWAN. 43 
 
 rival of the Duke of Richmond, at least a first-rate engineer. In 
 economic arts and improvements, nothing less than national, he might 
 have been the Duke of Bridgewater of Ireland. Had the sea been 
 his profession, Lord Mulgrave might have been less alone in the rare 
 union of science and enterprize. * * * * 
 
 " To Cambridge, therefore, he went ; where, having pursued his 
 studies, as it is called, in a ratio inverse and descending, he might have 
 gone on from bad to worse, and so, as many do, putting a grave face 
 upon it, he might have had his degree. But his animal spirits and 
 love of bustle could not go off thus undistinguished ; and so, after coolly 
 attempting to throw a tutor into the Cam — after shaking all Cambridge 
 from its propriety, by a night's frolic, in which he climbed the sign- 
 posts and changed the principal signs, he was rusticated until the good 
 humour of the University returning, he was readmitted and enabled 
 to satisfy his grandfather's will.* Through the intercourse of private 
 life, he is very amiable. The same suavity of speech, courteous atten- 
 tions, and general good nature he had when a boy, are continued and 
 improved. Good qualities the more to be pi-ized as the less probable 
 from his bold and eager temper, from the turbulence of his wishes and 
 the hurry of his pursuits." 
 
 IS all this affected description be true, and there is no reason to 
 doubt it, as we find it copied, without any disclaimer in Rowan's Au- 
 tobiography, it presents to us the image of a gay young man, leading 
 fasliion in fashion's silliest shapes, and fitter to be the founder of the 
 modern school of aristocratic rioters, than to be the grave and ener- 
 getic reformer of political grievances, and the martyr of strong and 
 generous convictions ; but still with good qualities that promised a 
 release, sooner or later, from the giddiness of his youthful pursuits. 
 He continued, however, for some years, the career which his rank, 
 fortune and disposition opened to him ; and having visited France 
 during the period of the American war, he met with George Robert 
 Fitzgerald, and enjoyed the unenviable honour of acting as his friend 
 in a duel which he fought with Major Baggs, in which both principals 
 behaved badly, and both were sevei-ely wounded. The French 
 authorities made a great deal of noise about the matter, but in the end 
 did nothing, and Mr. Rowan escaped the consequences of his folly. 
 Shortly after this last feat, he was appointed by the Marquis de 
 Pombal, then minister in Portugal, to a lieutenant-colonelcy in the 
 Poi'tuguese service, but the Marquis having been disgraced, Mr. Rowan 
 never served, and spent the next few years in the gratification of a 
 roving habit of mind — visited Tangiers, and became intimate with its 
 
 * Mr. Rowan had directed him to graduate in Cambridge. 
 
44 MEMOIR OF 
 
 governor — went to Paris and amused himself to the top of his bent ; 
 in fact, went everywhere, saw everything, and did a great many 
 eccentricities, which he details with amusing simplicity in his Auto- 
 biography. The period, however, was come, when, if he did not 
 altogether throw aside the wild habit of his youth, the first step was 
 taken, and the foundation was laid of a future course of useful exertion 
 and honourable sufFei'ing. Speaking of this period, he says : — 
 
 " When I mentioned my mother's family at Pinnel, I alluded to a 
 young Irish lady, then a visitor with her. I should explain how 
 Miss Dawson had become almost an inmate in her family — my mo- 
 ther had the strongest friendship for her father, Walter Dawson, 
 Esq., of Lisanisk, near Carrickmacross ; this gentleman had deter- 
 mined to give a London education to Sarah Anne, his only daughter, 
 who was possessed of great personal beauty and innate elegance of 
 manner ; and, at the age of thirteen, he brought her over from Ire- 
 land, and placed her at one of the most celebrated schools. During 
 the vacation she resided with my mother, who thus became extremely 
 attached to her ; and when, at the age of sixteen, she left school, and 
 had not yet returned to her parents ; my sister's absence made her 
 affection and society more than ever necessary to my mother. At my 
 mother's earnest entreaty. Miss Dawson consented to accompany her 
 to France. I saw in her so much good sense and propriety, in many 
 different and embarrassing situations, that I determined on offering 
 her my hand, and wrote to her father in Ireland for his permission, 
 to which he consented, and in 1781, we were married by the Dutch 
 Ambassador's chaplain in Paris, and for the purpose of registry we 
 set out immediately for London where we were married a second 
 time, in St. James's parish church, from my mother's house in Gi*eat 
 Marlborough-street." 
 
 He returned to Paris, and I'esided with his mother in a house 
 which she had taken from Lord Southwell, where his eldest son, 
 Gawin Hamilton, was born. He remained for two years in France 
 after his marriage, and after the expiration of that period came to 
 reside in Ireland. He purchased Rathcoffey, in the county of Kil- 
 dare, in 1784. Nor did his active mind remain long unemployed, 
 though its activity found occupation altogether different from scaling 
 pediments, fighting duels, or swimming tutors. Before he was long 
 in Ireland he strenuously took up the case of Mary Neale, a young 
 girl of fourteen years of age, who had been grossly abused in the 
 house of a Mrs. Lewellyn, and whose abuser was one in high station. 
 The woman was prosecuted and sentenced to death, and one Edge- 
 worth, who had induced a girl to swear a robbery against Neale, his 
 wife, and the injured child, was also tried and sentenced to a year's 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 45 
 
 imprisonment and the pillory. These wretches were fit objects for 
 the mercy of the Government, and received a pardon, to the amaze- 
 ment and indignation of the public, who felt the iniquity of the 
 interference more keenly as it was supposed that the infamous Lord 
 Carhampton, (who was suspected of being a principal in the trans- 
 action), had influenced Lord Westmorland to this abuse of mercy.* 
 This was resisted by Mr. Rowan, and his opposition to this extension 
 of pardon to such atrocious criminals, together with his active exer- 
 tions in bringing them to justice, earned for him a considerable share 
 of popular affection, and general esteem. Sir Jonah Barrington, in 
 his Personal Sketches, gives a ludicrous account of the excess to 
 which Mr. Rowan carried his enthusiam on the part of Mary Neale ; but 
 Sir Jonah's statements are rather more valuable for their wit, than 
 their truth. One passage is worth preserving, as a description of Mr. 
 Rowan, done in the broad style of caricature for which Barrington is 
 celebrated — " A man who might serve as a model for Hercules ; his 
 gigantic limbs conveying the idea of almost supernatural strength ; 
 his shoulders, arms, and broad chest were the very emblems of mus- 
 cular energy; and his flat, rough countenance, overshadowed by 
 enormous dark eyebrows, and deeply furrowed by strong lines of 
 vigor and fortitude, completed one of the finest, yet most formidable 
 figures I ever beheld." 
 
 Mr. Rowan entered the ranks of the Volunteers, as a private, in 
 his father's Company, at Killyleagh, and attended the last review of 
 that body which took place in the plain of the Falls near Belfast, on 
 the 12th and 13th of July, 1784, and was appointed by the line to 
 present an address, (which he had drawn up himself,) to Lord Char- 
 lemont, " from a body of armed citizens determined to continue that 
 association." The Earl of Charlemont — always elegant, and always 
 weak, a hero-bigot — declined to receive the address ; but said that 
 they would shortly meet in their civil capacity and pass an address to 
 Parliament for a I'eform of abuses. Rowan made a characteristic 
 reply, " that citizens with Brown Bess on their shoulders Avere more 
 likely to be attended to."f In May, 1786, he was elected to com- 
 mand the Killyleagh Volunteers. In every political movement, and 
 
 * The following lines were written at the time : — 
 
 PETITION OF THE STATUE OF JUSTICE ON THE CASTLE GATE. 
 
 Since Justice is now but a pageant of state, 
 Remove me, I pray you, from this Castle gate. 
 Since the rape of an infant, and blackest of crimes, 
 Are objects of mercy in these blessed times 
 On the front of their prison, or hell let me dwell in, 
 For a pardon is granted to Madam Lewellyn. 
 
 t Autobiography of A. H. Rowan, 1 17- 
 
46 MEMOIR OF 
 
 every military display of the national army, he took an active part. 
 It suited the character of his mind, and the tone of his politics. 
 Brave and impetuous, an ardent lover of liberty ; he delighted in the 
 display of armed citizens, by whose courage and constancy he vainly 
 hoped that she might be boldly attained, and nobly preserved. In 
 1790, he became a member of the Northern Whig Club, formed | 
 under the sanction of Lord Charlemont, and mainly by the exertions \ 
 of Dr. Halliday, a man of great Avit and general attainments ; and j 
 at a later period he joined the Society of United Mshmen. He 1 
 entered warmly into their views, made the acquaintance of the lead- i 
 ing men of that party, and was soon himself one of the most popular 1 
 persons in the Union. His connection with them led to the circum- \ 
 stances disclosed in the following memorable trial — memorable for | 
 being amongst the first attacks of Government upon the society, and 
 memorable too for the splendid ability with which the doctrines of 
 universal freedom were defended by John Philpot Curran — a name 
 never to be mentioned in Ireland, but with pride and aftection. The 
 libel for which Mr. Rowan was prosecuted will be found set out in 
 the ex officio information filed by the Attorney- General. It was a 
 paper addressed by the United L-ishmen to the Volunteers, and was 
 circulated at a meeting of the Dublin Volunteers, held in Cope-street, 
 at the house of a fencing master. It is unnecessary to give any 
 detail of the circumstances, which appear in full in the testimony of 
 the witnesses for the crown. Mr. Rowan was inclined to employ 
 none but barristers who were members of the Union, to defend him ; 
 but Messrs. Emmet and Butler, conceiving themselves too junior for 
 the conduct of so grave a case, declined, and at the special instance 
 of Mrs. Rowan, Curran was retained on this understanding, (to which 
 he alludes in his speech) that he should employ his talents more in 
 defence of the paper than on any minor subject.* The trial came 
 off" on the 29th January, 1794, and Mr. Rowan was found guilty. A 
 motion for a new trial having been unsuccessfully made, he was 
 called up, and Mr. Justice Boyd pronounced the sentence of 
 the Court of King's Bench, that Mr. Rowan should pay a fine of 
 £500, and be imprisoned for two yeai's, and that he should find secu- 
 rity for good behaviour for seven years, himself in the sum of two ' 
 thousand pounds, and two others in one thousand each. Mr. Rowan 
 was committed to Newgate, and his situation was rendered as agree- 
 able as it could well be made, under the circumstances. His convic- 
 tion having been calculated upon, it is told by the editor of his Au- 
 tobiography, that some respectable adherents of Government antici- 
 
 * Autobiography of A. H. Rowan, 184. 
 
ARCHIBAIiD HAMILTON ROWAN. 47 
 
 pated, and sought to realize the anticipation by their influence, that 
 he would he exposed to the degrading punishment of the pillory ; on 
 hearing which, Kirwan, the philosopher and chemist, who had the 
 entre of the Castle, went to the secretary and asked if it were pos- 
 sible that such a punishment could have been contemplated? "What! 
 shew such a vindictive spirit as to make the pillory a punishment for 
 a political offence ! Shame ! The pillory is a punislmient for dis- 
 graceful crimes. Rebellion may be a crime, but not a disgrace ; nay 
 more, if successful it becomes a virtue. Should you put Rowan into 
 the pillory, you would revolt the entire order of gentlemen in Europe. 
 I know it is improper to hold out a threat to Government ; but let 
 me assure you the people of Dublin will not allow this ; and weak as 
 I am, I will draw my sword and head a mob, and break yom* pillory 
 to atoms ; and let the blood which may be shed be charged to the 
 vindictive spirit of those Avho proposed so infamous a proceeding." 
 The secretary assured him that though certain persons had hinted 
 at such a punishment, it Avas not intended. It may not be difficult 
 to divine that the same parties who prompted the extension of mercy 
 to a pander and reprobate, woidd instigate the disgraceful punishment 
 of a gentleman like Mr. Rowan. 
 
 Whilst Mr. Rowan was in Newgate, Mr. Jackson arrived from 
 France on his mission of rebellion, and unfoi'tunately for Mr. Rowan 
 obtained an introduction to his prison. It was a strange place to 
 contemplate a revolution, but Mr. Rowan was sanguine, and probably 
 was excited by his own condition, as well as by his political bias, to 
 lend his attention to the temptations held out by Mr. Jackson. He 
 involved himself with that unfortunate person so much, that he was 
 obliged to consult his safety by flight, which he effected by bribing 
 his under jailer, to permit him to leave the prison, and to visit his 
 house for the alleged transaction of some legal business ; whilst there 
 he got down by a back window, and took refuge with Mr. Sweetman, 
 a friend of his, who resided at Baldoyle, in the neighbourhood of 
 Dublin, whence he escaped in a small open boat to France, passing 
 through the English fleet in a dense fog. Mrs. Rowan, in a letter 
 subsequently written to her husband, somewhat unreasonably charges 
 Wolfe Tone, with having seduced Mr. Rowan into the treasonable 
 correspondence with Jackson. There is no evidence of this fact in 
 Rowan's own account of the transaction ; the contrary would rather 
 appear to have been the true state of the case, and if there was any 
 seduction at all it might as well have proceeded from Mr. Rowan. 
 " It was also proposed that some well-informed and trusty person 
 should immediately proceed to France, to arrange the plan of pro- 
 
48 MEMOIR OF 
 
 ceeding. Our eyes were immediately turned to Mr. Tone, &c."* 
 Mr. Rowan's adventures in France were varied, and occasionally 
 dangerous — at one time the companion of galley slaves, and suspected 
 of being an English spy — at another, living at the expense of the 
 nation — he saw some of the strangest scenes of the revolution, being 
 a resident in that country at the time of the execution of Robespierre 
 and the Terrorists. He did not remain many months in France, and 
 after considerable difficulties, arrived in Philadelphia, amongst the 
 first of the United Irishmen who sought and received the hospitality 
 and protection of America. 
 
 He remained for five years in America, separated from his wife 
 and children, discontented and speculating. He was a farmer, and a 
 calico manufacturer, and succeeded in neither pursuit. Essentially 
 aristocratic, he disliked the manners of the people, though he made 
 some valuable friends amongst them, and we accordingly find his 
 letters filled with constant expressions of discontent, if not despair. 
 By considerable influence he was permitted to return to Eui'ope, and 
 had the happiness of a reunion with his faithful and noble-minded 
 wife, with whom, and with his family, he settled at Altona, where he 
 remained from 1800 to 1803. 
 
 Mr. Rowan was, after some time, admitted to the full enjoyment 
 of the King's pardon, and returned to settle finally in Ireland, in 
 1806, and on the death of his father took up his residence ^in Killy- 
 leagh Castle, his patrimonial estate, in the county of Down. From 
 this period, his career was one of easy domestic enjoyment. He 
 spent his large fortune in doing good to a grateful tenantry — 
 reducing to practice the doctrines he had taught and sufiered for, and 
 living to see the triumph of the political opinions for which he had 
 been driven from his country, and for which his friends had sacri- 
 ficed their lives. He made no compromise with power, nor proved 
 his gratitude by apostasy. Consistently the friend of his Catholic 
 countrymen, he became a member of the Association, where his 
 name was received with the most grateful enthusiasm. Attacked in 
 Parliament by Mr. Peel and Mr. Dawson as an " attainted traitor," 
 he had the spirit, in his 74th year, to seek for reparation at the hands 
 of the latter gentleman, and the good fortune to obtain a disclaimer 
 of intentional offence.* 
 
 He died on the 1st November, 1834, in his 84th year, his attached 
 wife having preceded him to the grave only a few months before. 
 " He had," says the Editor of his Autobiography, " a full and com- 
 manding person, in which agility, strength, and grace were combined. 
 His features were expressive and strongly marked — in his younger 
 
 * Autobiography of A. H. Rowan. 211. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 49 
 
 days he was universally regarded as handsome, and so attractive of 
 admiration that the eyes of all were turned upon him whenever he 
 came into public ; a circumstance which must have greatly tended to 
 foster his love of popularity and stimulate him to the achievement of 
 those feats for which he became so distinguished in his younger days. 
 In Rowan's character were blended many of the best virtues, with a 
 due share of human imperfections. The great tendency of his 
 mental constitution was a love of popularity — nimium gaudens popu- 
 larihus auris — and this fostered that taste for politics which had 
 been early implanted in his mind, and which " grew with his growth, 
 and strengthened with his strength." In private life, he was social 
 and domestic, an early riser, temperate in his habits, and when not 
 provoked to anger, bland, courteous, amiable, and capable of winning 
 and retaining the most devoted friendship, as he experienced in no 
 ordinary degree in many trying circumstances. As a husband he 
 was constant, fond, and studious of meriting the esteem of his wife, 
 by whose judgment he often suffered himself to be directed, and of 
 whose matronly virtues he always expressed the highest appreciation. 
 No father could be more affectionate, none more anxious for the best 
 interests of his children."! 
 
 Such was the first victim of distinction selected by the Anglo-Irish 
 Government, as a sacrifice to the policy with which this country was 
 ruled — as a sacrifice to perpetuate a system which has since been 
 destroyed by the hands of British statesmen themselves — but one whose 
 evil results are yet felt in the distracted state of Ireland, and in the 
 disunion, poverty, and crimes of her children. 
 
 * Autobiography, 414. \ Autobiography, 435. 
 
KING'S BENCH. 
 
 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION 
 
 WAS FIJLED 
 
 BY HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENEEAL, 
 
 EX OFFICIO, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN, ESQ. 
 
 Of Trinity Term in the thirty third year of the reign of our sove- 
 reign Lord George the Third, now King of Great Britain, and 
 soforth, and in the year of oui' Lord one thousand seven hundred 
 and ninety-three. 
 County of the Citij of \ Be it remembered that the Right Honour- 
 Dublin, to wit. / able Arthur Wolfe, Attorney General of our 
 present Sovereign Lord the King, who for our said Lord the King pro- 
 secutes in his behalf, in his proper person comes into the Coui't of our 
 said Lord the King, before the King himself, at the city of Dublin, in 
 the county of the said city, on the eighth day of June in this same 
 term, and for our said Lord the King gives the court here to understand 
 and be informed, that Archibald Hamilton Rowan, of the city of 
 Dublin, Esq., being a person of a wicked and turbulent disposition, 
 and maliciously designing and intending to excite and diffuse amongst 
 the subjects of this realm of Ireland, discontents, jealousies, and 
 suspisions of our said Lord the King and his government, and disaffec- 
 tion and disloyalty to the person and government of our said Lord 
 the King, and to raise very dangerous seditions and tumults within this 
 kingdom of Ireland ; and to draw the government of this kingdom into 
 great scandal, infamy, and disgrace, and to incite the subjects of our 
 Lord the King to attempt, by force and violence, and with ju'ms, to 
 make alterations in the government, state, and constitution of this 
 kingdom, and to incite his Majesty's said subjects to tumult and anar- 
 chy, and to overturn the established constitution of this kingdom, and 
 to overawe and intimidate the legislature of this kingdom, by an 
 armed force, on the sixteenth day of December, in the thirty-third 
 year of the reign of our said present Sovereign Lord George the 
 Third, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, 
 
52 TRIAL OF 
 
 King, defender of the faitli, and soforth, with force and arms, at Dublin, 
 aforesaid, to wit, in the parish and ward of St. Michael the Arch- 
 angel, and in the county of the said city, wickedly, maliciously, and 
 seditiously, did publish, and cause and procure to be published, a 
 certain false, wicked, malicious, scandalous, and seditious libel, of and 
 concerning the government, state, and constitution of this kingdom, 
 according to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, — " The 
 Society of United Irishmen at Dublin, to the Volunteers of Ireland. 
 William Drennan, chairman, Archibald Hamilton Rowan, secretaiy. 
 Citizen soldiers, you first took up arms to protect your country from 
 foreign enemies and from domestic disturbance ; for the same purposes 
 it now becomes necessary that you should resume them ; and a pro- 
 clamation has been issued in England for embodying the militia, and 
 a proclamation has been issued by the Lord Lieutenant and Council 
 in Ireland, [meaning a proclamation which issued under the great seal 
 of the kingdom of Ireland, the eighth day of December, one thousand 
 seven hundred and ninety-two,] for repressing all seditious associa- 
 tions ; in consequence of both these proclamations it is reasonable to 
 apprehend danger from abroad and danger at home, for whence but 
 from apprehended danger are these menacing preparations for war 
 drawn through the streets of this capital [meaning the city of Dublin] 
 or whence if not to create that internal commotion which was not 
 found, to shake that credit which was not affected, to blast that Volun- 
 teer honour which was lutherto inviolate, are those terrible sugges- 
 tions and rumours and whispers that meet us at every corner, and agi- 
 tate at least our old men, our women, and children ; whatever be the 
 motive, or from whatever quarter it arises, alarm has arisen ; and you 
 Volunteers of Ireland are therefore summoned to arms at the instance 
 of government, as well as by the responsibility attached to your 
 character, and the permanent obligations of your institution. We 
 will not at this day condescend to quote authorities for the right 
 of having and of using arms, but we will cry aloud, even amidst the 
 storm raised by the witchcraft of a proclamation, tliat to your forma- 
 tion was owing the peace and protection of this island, to your 
 relaxation has been owing its relapse into impotence and insignificance, 
 to your renovation must be owing its futui'e freedom and its present 
 tranquillity ; you are therefore summoned to arms, in order to preserve 
 your country in that guarded quiet which may secure it from 
 external hostility, and to maintain that internal regimen throughout 
 the land, which, superseding a notorious police or a suspected militia, 
 may preserve the blessings of peace by a vigilant preparation for war. 
 Citizen soldiers, to arms, take up the sliield of freedom and the pledges 
 of peace — peace, the motive and end of your virtuous institution — war, 
 an occasional duty, ought never to be made an occupation ; every man 
 should become a soldier in the defence of his rights ; no man ought 
 to continue a soldier for offending the rights of others ; the sacrifice of 
 life in the service of our country is a duty much too lionourable to be 
 intrusted to mercenaries, and at this time, Avhen your country has, by 
 publK! authority, been declared in danger, we conjure you by your 
 interest, your duty, and your glory, to stand to your arms, and in spite 
 of a police, in spite of a fencible militia, in virtue of two proclamations, 
 to maintain good order in your vicinage, and tranquillity in Ireland. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 53 
 
 It is only by the military array of men in whom they confiile, whom 
 they have been accustomed to revere as the guardians of domestic 
 peace, the protectors of their liberties and theii' lives, that the present 
 agitation of the people can be stilled, that tumult and licentiousness 
 can bo repressed, obedience secured to existing law, and a calm 
 confidence diffused through the public mind in the speedy resurrection 
 of a free constitution, [meaning that the people of Ireland had not at 
 the time of the publishing aforesaid a free constitution] of liberty and 
 of equality, words which we use for an opportunity of repelling 
 calumny, and of saying, that by liberty w^e never understood unlimited 
 freedom, nor by equality the levelling of property, or the destruction 
 of subordination ; this is a calumny invented by that faction, or that 
 gang, wliich misrepresents the King to the people, and the people to the 
 King, traduces one half of the nation to cajole the other, and by keeping 
 up distrust and division, wishes to continue the proud arbitrators of the 
 fortune and fate of Ireland ; liberty is the exercise of all our righi s, 
 natural and political, secured to us and our posterity by a real repre- 
 sentation of the people ; and equality is the extension of the constituent 
 to the fullest dimensions of the constitution, of the elective franchise 
 to the whole body of the people, to the end that government, which is 
 collective power, may be guided by collective will, and that legislation 
 maj^ originate from public reason, keep pace with public improvement, 
 and terminate in public happiness. K our constitution be imperfect, 
 nothing but a reform in representation will rectify its abuses ; if it be 
 perfect, nothing but the same reform will perpetuate its blessings. 
 We now address you as citizens, for to be citizens you became soldiers, 
 nor can we help wishing that all soldiers partaking the passions and 
 interest of the people would remember, that they w^ere once citizens, 
 that seduction made them soldiers, but nature made them men. We 
 address you without any authority save that of reason, and if we 
 obtain the coincidence of public opinion, it is neither by force nor 
 stratagem, for we have no power to terrify, no artifice to cajole, no 
 fund to seduce ; here we sit without mace or beadle, neither a mystery 
 nor a craft, nor a corporation; in four words lies all our power — 
 universal emancipation and representative legislature — ^yet we are 
 confident that on the pivot of this principle, a convention, still less a 
 society, still less a single man, wnll be able first to move and then to 
 raise the world ; we therefore wish for Catholic emancipation without 
 any modification, but still we consider this necessary enfranchisement 
 as merely the portal to the temple of national freedom ; wide as this 
 entrance is, wide enough to admit thi'ee millions, it is narrow when 
 compared to the capacity and comprehension of our beloved principle, 
 which takes in every individual of the Irish nation, casts an equal eye 
 over the whole island, embraces all that think, and feels for all that 
 suffer ; the Catholic cause is subordinate to our cause, and included 
 in it ; for, as United Irishmen, we adhere to no sect, but to society — 
 to no cause, but Christianity — to no party, but the whole people. In 
 the sincerity of our souls do we desire Catholic emancipation : but 
 were it obtained to-morrow, to-morrow would we go on as we do 
 to-day, in the pursuit of that reform, which w^ould still be wanting 
 to ratify their liberties as well as our own. For both these purposes 
 it appears necessary that pix)vincial conventions should assemble pre- 
 
54 THIAL OF 
 
 paratory to the convention of the Protestant people ; the delegates of 
 the Catholic body are not jvistified in communicating with individuals 
 or even bodies of inferior authority, and therefore an assembly of a 
 similar nature and organisation is necessary to establish an intercourse 
 of sentiments, an uniformity of conduct, an united cause and an united 
 nation ; if a convention on the one part does not soon follow, and is 
 not soon connected with that on the other, the common cause will split 
 into the partial interest, the people will relapse into inattention and 
 inertness, the union of affection and exertion will dissolve, and too pro- 
 bably some local insurrections, instigated by the malignity of our 
 common enemy, may commit the character and risk the tranquillity of 
 the island, which can be, obviated only by the influence of an assembly 
 arising from, assimilated with the people, and whose spirit may be, 
 as it were, knit with the soul of the nation. Unless the sense of the 
 Protestant people be on their part as fairly collected and as judi- 
 ciously directecl, unless individual exertion consolidates into collective 
 strength, unless the parts unite into one mass ; we may perhaps serve 
 some person or some party for a little, but the public not at all ; the 
 nation is neither insolent, nor rebellious, nor seditious ; while it 
 knows its rights, it is unwilling to manifest its powers ; it would rather 
 supplicate administration to anticipate revolution by well-timed reform, 
 and to save their countiy in mercy to themselves. Tlie fifteenth 
 of February approaches, a day ever memorable in the annals of this 
 country as the birth-day of new Ireland ; let parochial meetings be held 
 as soon as possible, let each parish return delegates, let the sense of Ulster 
 be again declared from Dungannon, on a day auspicious to iniion, peace 
 and freedom, and the spirit of the North will again become the spirit of 
 the nation. The civil assembly ought to claim the attendance of the 
 military associations, and we have addressed you, citizen soldiers, on 
 this subject from the belief, that your body uniting conviction with 
 zeal, and zeal with activity, may have much influence over your 
 countrymen, your relations, and friends. We offer only a general 
 outline to the public, and meaning to address Ireland, presume not at 
 present to fill up the plan, or pre-occupy the mode of its execution. 
 We have thought it our duty to speak. Answer us by actions ; you 
 have taken time for consideration ; fourteen long years are elapsed 
 since the rise of your associations ; and in 1782 did you imagine that 
 in 1792 this nation would still remain unrepresented? How many 
 nations, in this interval, have gotten the start of Ireland ? How many 
 of yovu' countrymen have sunk into the grave ?" In contempt of our 
 said Lord the King, in open violation of the laws of this kingdom, 
 to the evil and pernicious example of all others in the like case 
 offending, and against the peace of our said Lord the King, his crown 
 and dignity. WHEREUPON the said Attorney General of our 
 said Lord the King, who for our said Lord the King in this behalf 
 prosecutes, prays the consideration of the court here in the premises, 
 and due ]>rocess of law maybe awarded against him the said Archibald 
 HainiltoTi Rowan in this behalf, to make him answer to our said Lord 
 the King touching and concerning the premises aforesaid. 
 
 ARTHIUR WOLFE. 
 THOMAS KEMMIS, Attorney. 
 
 Received the 8th of June 1793. 
 (Copy.) 
 
AKCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 55 
 
 To this information Mr. Rowan appeared, by Matthew Dowling, 
 gent, his attorney, and 2:)leaded the general issue — Not Guihy — and 
 the court having appointed Wednesday the 29th day of January, 
 1794, for tlie trial of the said issue, the undernamed persons were 
 sworn upon the jury: 
 
 Sir F. Hutchinson, Bart. John Read, 
 
 Frederick Trench, Esq. Robert Lea, 
 
 William Duke Moore, Richard Fox, 
 
 Humphry Minchin, Christopher Harrison, 
 
 Richard Manders, George Perrin, 
 
 George Palmer, Thomas Sherrard. 
 
 Upon calling over the jury, John Read was objected to, as holding 
 a place under the crown,* but the Attorney General insisting upon the 
 illegality of the objection, and observing that it went against all that 
 was honourable and respectable in the land, it was overruled by the 
 court. Richard Fox, when called to the book, was interrogated 
 whether he had ever given an opinion upon the subject then to be 
 tried, to which he answered, that he did not know what the subject 
 of the trial was. The same question was put to Thomas Sherrai'd, 
 who returned a similar answer. 
 
 Joshua Dixon, who had been sworn upon the jury, without any 
 objection, here stated, that he had given an opinion upon the subject, 
 upon which Mr. Attorney General consented that he should be with- 
 drawn, but protested against the right of the defendant's counsel to 
 examine the jurors as they had done. If they had any objection, 
 they ought to make their challenge, and support it by evidence. 
 
 The counsel for the defendant answered, that they would not 
 acquiesce in the consent of the Attorney General to withdraw the 
 juror, if their examination was to be objected to, and intimated that 
 the juror ought to be withdraAvn upon the desire of the Attorney 
 General, without any consent whatever being entered into. 
 
 Hereupon the Attorney General desired that the juror might be 
 withdi'awn. 
 
 Counsel for the Prosecution. Counsel for the Defendant. 
 
 Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Curran, 
 
 Prime Serjeant, Mr. Recorder, 
 
 Solicitor General, Mr. Fletcher. 
 
 Mr. Frankland, 
 
 Mr. RuxTON, 
 
 Agent — Mr. Kemmis. Agent — Mr. Dowling. 
 
 Mr. Ruxton opened the pleadings. 
 
 Mr. Attorney General — My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, 
 In this case, between the King and Archibald Hamilton Rowan, 
 Esq., it is my duty to prosecute on behalf of the crown. The traverser 
 in this case, gentlemen, stands accused upon an information filed 
 ex officio, by the King's Attorney General, for publishing a seditious 
 libel. It is my duty to lay the facts of this case before you — it will 
 be the duty of another of his majesty's servants to observe upon 
 the evidence. I shall state the nature of the charge and the questions 
 
 * Co. Litt. 156 a ; 2 Hale. His. PI. c. 271 ; Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, ch. 
 4:?, sections 32, 33. 
 
56 TRIAL OF 
 
 you are to try ; I will then state such circumstances as are necessary 
 to be taken into your consideration, for the purpose of understanding 
 and expounding that paper which the information charges to be 
 a malicious, and seditious libel. The information charges, that 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, maliciously designing and intending to 
 excite and diffuse amongst the subjects of this realm, discontents, dis- 
 aifection and disloyalty to the king and government, and to raise very 
 dangerous seditions and tumults, and to draw the government into 
 scandal, infamy and disgrace, and to incite the subjects to attempt, 
 by force and with arms, to make alterations in the government, and 
 to excite the subjects to anarchy, to overturn the constitution and 
 overawe the legislature of the kingdom, did publish the libel set forth 
 in the infoi'mation. In this case, therefore, it will be for you, gen- 
 tlemen, upon the evidence which shall be laid before you, to deter- 
 mine, whether the traverser has been the publisher of that paper or 
 not. I shall, in the course of what I am to offer to the court and to 
 you, read the very libel itself, and make such observations as occur to 
 me to be proper in the present state of the business. Previous, how- 
 ever, to my doing so, I will take the liberty, gentlemen, of stating to 
 you some facts and circumstances that appear to me deserving of 
 attention in the investigation of the matter before you ; and in doing 
 so, I shall carefully avoid mentioning many facts and circumstances 
 which those disgraceful times have furnished, that might lead your 
 verdict one way or the other. I shall not attempt to excite your 
 passions. I am happy at length that this case has come before an 
 impartial jury. It has long been the desire of every good man that 
 this matter should come to trial before that constitutional tribunal 
 who stand arbiters in this case, to protect the accused against the 
 power of the crown ; not resembling any of those prosecutions which 
 the turbulence of former times have excited, you are assembled with 
 that coolness which tlie solemnity of the occasion requires, to deter- 
 mine whether Mr. Rowan be guilty, criminally, of the offence charged 
 against him. Take the libel into your consideration, and determine, 
 as tlie law now allows you to do, whether it be a libellous publication, 
 tending to excite sedition, to overawe the government ; or tending to 
 produce any of the effects imputed to it. I shall now proceed to state 
 a few facts which I said it was my duty to do. I shall call your 
 attention to the history of the times about which this libel was pub- 
 lished : — No man, let his situation be what it may, can be too cau- 
 tious in uttering what ought not to be said, which might influence 
 your judgment upon your oaths ; and in that office which I hold, 
 which is the office of the people, as well as of the crown, it is more 
 than a common duty to take care, not to step beyond that line which 
 leads to common justice. I am warranted by the authority of a court 
 of justice, by the proceedings of the King's Bench in England ; by 
 the opinion of a Judge of as much spirit and independence as any 
 man, I allude to the case of the printer of the Morning Chronicle, 
 in which Lord Kenyon informs the jury, that it is necessary, in cases 
 of this kind, to attend to the circumstances and history of the times 
 in which the libel was published.* They tend to explain the motiA^s 
 
 * Howell. St. Trials, vol. 22, p. 1017. 
 
AECHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 57 
 
 which induced tlie publication, and the meaning of the libel itself. 
 He says it is impossible for the court, or a jury, to shut their ears 
 against the history of the times. Besides that common principle, I 
 am the moi'e justifiable in what I shall state, because the libel charged 
 comes from that body of men, who have constituted themselves by the 
 name of " The Society of United Irishmen in Dublin." From the 
 time of the restoration of our constitution — from the year 1784 to 
 the year 1792 — this country advanced in prospei'ity, with a regular 
 progress and gradation. The agriculture, commerce and police im- 
 proved ; the civilization of the country proceeded uniformly from 
 year to year ; the commonalty began to enjoy blessings they had been 
 strangers to — ships crowded in our harbours — commerce occupied 
 our ports — culture in our fields, and peace and happiness every where 
 prevailed. The French revolution took place, when there were found 
 many men, who from situation, from circumstances, from ambition, 
 were desirous of commotion. Clubs were formed in the metropolis 
 with the avowed intention of improving the constitution, for they 
 must assume some pretext, but with a view, I fear, under colour of 
 that, to overturn it. They subsisted here in this tovf n under different 
 names, till at length in 1791? they formed themselves into a club, 
 called the Society of United Irishmen, consisting at first of a small 
 number, composed of various classes of men, certainly some of them 
 of the learned professions ; — some of the lowest members in the com- 
 munity. In 1791 they continued to pour upon the public daily 
 publications, setting forth the distresses of the people, teaching them 
 to be discontented with their situation and the government of the 
 covmtry. Things thus proceeded, down to the latter end of the year 
 1792. In the latter end of autumn, 1792, the allied armies I'etired 
 from the kingdom of France : the convention of that kingdom began 
 to hold a high language, and to talk of ovei'setting the government 
 of kings. An attack was made upon regal authority, a spirit was 
 stirred among those desirous of such schemes — it seemed to inspire 
 them. There was a talk of overturning the government of king, 
 lords, and commons — success at the same time seemed to crown the 
 arms of the French ; they advanced beyond their own territory, and 
 menaced an attack upon the United States of Holland. In this 
 situation of things, there did pervade a gloomy apprehension for the 
 safety of the countr3^ Emissaries from France were spread through- 
 out Europe ; a new array of a new corps was made in Dublin in the 
 noon day, decorated with emblems of sedition ; they were to parade 
 in your streets, and to be marshalled in your squares. The Volun- 
 teers of Ireland, a name revered by this country and by every good 
 man loving the constitution, that sacred name was made a cloak for 
 arming a banditti, that arraigned the constitution and degraded the 
 name of Volunteer ; a National Guard was formed upon the plan of 
 those in Paris. It is notorious to every man in Ireland, to every 
 man in the British dominions, that such men assembled with clothing 
 of a peculiar uniform, with emblems of harps divested of the royal 
 crown ; every thing was undertaken to spread the spirit which 
 animated themselves, and can any man forget the situation of Dublin, 
 in September, October, and November, 1792, which caused appre- 
 hensions in those who were well affected to the government and 
 
58 TRIAL, OF 
 
 tranquillity of the country ? Can any man forget the state of the 
 nation at this period ? her credit was shaken, good people stood 
 appalled ; those loving peace stood astonished at the languidness of 
 government. At length that government came forward wliich had 
 never slept, but had been proceeding with mildness, determined not 
 to go forth to action, nor have recourse to any severer remedies until 
 every man in the state, who had a moment's reflection, must see the 
 necessity of the exertion. The troops are summoned to meet, the 
 guai'ds are summoned to assemble, and the first battalion of National 
 Guards were to have paraded, clothed like Frenchmen. The night 
 before the Lord Lieutenant had summoned the council of the king- 
 dom ; upon that night, a proclamation issued, stating that there were 
 intentions to assemble men in ai'ms, with seditious signs, and appre- 
 hending danger from their so assembling ; it prohibited their meeting. 
 The proclamation issued on a Saturday night, and it produced that 
 satisfaction which all good men desirous of order seek to enjoy ; and 
 they felt once more the pleasurable assm'ance that they had a govern- 
 ment. Appalled by this proclamation, the corps did not meet on the 
 8th December, as it was intended, though some few were seen dressed 
 in the National Guard uniform, parading the streets, with a mob, 
 crowding at their heels ; but however nothing followed. They were 
 seen, and blessed be God, they were seen no more. This proclama- 
 tion, having for its object the preservation of the peace of this king- 
 dom, and the city in particular, mildly and coolly cautioning 
 all men against those measures, held out the consequences that 
 must necessarily follow, if they did not obey. A proclamation 
 which received the applause of the great and good, of the lovers of 
 society, and of every man not lost to the sense of order and the 
 constitution ; but odious to every man who was attached to the 
 Society of United Irishmen, and whose views corresponded with it. 
 While I speak of that Society let me not be understood as imputing 
 to every man who is in it, those illegal motives which I impute to the 
 Society in general : there might have been in it no doubt many well- 
 meaning persons ; for there were men picked up industriously to lend 
 their names, in the streets, in the lanes, in the markets, in the high- 
 ways, and in the fields. Even the rich and industrious grazier was 
 procured to lend his name. To the got)d, this proclamation gave 
 pleasure and satisfaction, to the bad it became odious and detestable ; 
 and they accordingly formed the intention of bringing the government 
 into disgrace, for issuing that proclamation. A few days after, I am 
 not aware of the particular day, but a few days after the issuing the 
 proclamation, the Society assembled ; the proclamation was upon the 
 7th, the address I speak of was published the 16th of December. 
 The meeting, therefore, must liave been between the 7th and the 16th 
 of December. The society, I say, assembled, and they agreed upon 
 a certain address to the Volunteers of Ireland, and Dr. l)rennan is 
 there stated to have been in the chair, and the tra\erser. Secre- 
 tary. At that meeting the address to the Volunteers was agreed 
 upon, which is the libel charged against Mr. Rowan, as being- 
 guilty of publishing it. Under that address, this was to be done. The 
 Volunteers of Dublin were to be called into action, and those papers 
 were to be dispersed among them. For that piu'pose the several 
 
ARCHIBALD MAMIJLTOIV IIOWAN. 59 
 
 Volunteer corps at that time existing in Dublin were summoned to 
 assemble in a house in Cope-street, belonging to Pardon, a fencing- 
 master, u]ion the iGtli of December. Accordingly upon that day, 
 the several corps of Volunteers did go with side arms to tiiis fencing- 
 school in Cope-street. The travei'ser was, I believe, at the head of 
 one of these corps ; another very celebrated name was at the head 
 of another of them, James Napper Tandy. Who was at the head of 
 the others I am not able to inform you. But in the afternoon of the 
 16th of December, several Volunteers, with uniforms and side arms, 
 assembled in the fencing-school. In this fencing-school, gentlemen, 
 there was a gallery, and into that gallery there was such public access 
 tliat what passed below may be said to have passed in the face of the 
 world ; to such excess had those persons carried their designs as to 
 expose them to open view, and if I state what is not true, there are 
 one hundred persons in the Volunteer corps of the city of Dublin, out 
 of whom a multitude may be called to contradict me. The corps, I 
 say, assembled in that room. There stood in the middle of the room 
 a table, and there was a vast number of printed papers brought in 
 and placed on the table. The different coi'ps entered into several 
 resolutions, having taken into their wise consideration the proclama- 
 tion issued by the Lord Lieutenant and Council ; the necessity for 
 issuing it is investigated, each of the corps took severally into their 
 consideration the propriety of it, and next day published their dif- 
 ferent sentiments all expressive of strong disapprobation. So that it 
 is manifest they were brought publicly together for a state purpose, 
 and to debate a state matter. While these resolutions were in dis- 
 cussion, Mr. Tandy and Mr. Rowan were seen to take from the 
 table the printed papers that lay upon it, and disperse them among 
 the several Volunteers who stood around them, and to hand them 
 from the lower room to persons in the gallery, and to persons not in 
 their confidence ; they were handed up promiscuously to any man 
 there, and to many persons in the streets that evening and the next 
 day ; they were flung out of the windows to the mob that stood round 
 the room. These, gentlemen, are the circumstances which preceded 
 the publication of this paper by the traverser : it will be for you to 
 consider with what view and purpose a paper like this was composed 
 and thus dispersed. If you believe it was a candid and fair discussion 
 upon constitutional subjects, or upon grievances real or supposed, 
 you will not consider it as a libel : but if from internal evidence in 
 the paper itself, and from the circumstances attending it, you believe 
 it was no such thing, but that it was published Avith a view to raise 
 discontents against the government — to disturb the people — to overawe 
 the parliament, or any branch of the state, then you must find him 
 guilty. You, gentlemen, will take the paper into your room with you ; 
 consider it cooly, and discharge from your minds, all you have 
 heard abroad respecting it, and determine whether it be possible 
 to give any other construction than that which the information has 
 ascribed to it. I will submit to you, gentlemen — to you alone I 
 desire to submit the cool examination of that paper, upon the paper 
 itself. It is impossible with all the ingenuity (and he who comes after 
 me on the other side has as much ingenuity as any man) to shew that 
 it was not written for the purpose of overawing the legislature, or to 
 
60 TRIAL OF 
 
 ?«ccount for it in any other way. This brings me now to the libel itself, 
 and as it has not been read to you in this court, for in open court I wish 
 it to be read, I will read it, and make such observations as I think 
 necessary. " The Society of United Irishmen, at Dublin, to the 
 Volunteers of Ireland, William Drennan, Chairman, Archibald 
 Hamilton Rowan, Secretary. Citizen Soldiers." A language, gentle- 
 men, which excites ideas in one's mind that cannot be described. 
 You will perceive in this publication the frippery of the French 
 language as now used ; and those ideas will be excited, which must fill 
 the mind of every man who regards religion, society, or peace, with 
 terror and alarm. " Citizen Soldiers, you first took up arms to protect 
 your country from foreign enemies, and, from domestic disturbance. 
 For the same purpose, it now becomes necessary, that you should 
 resume them." The Society of United Irishmen, who say they are no 
 corporation, yet as if they were a corporation, presume to tell the 
 armed people of Ireland when it is they should assemble : Is that or 
 is it not tending to sedition ? Is it or is it not assuming a power to 
 overawe the parliament and overturn the government itself ? "A 
 proclamation has been issued in England for embodying the militia, and 
 a proclamation has been issued by the Lord Lieutenant and Council 
 in Ireland, for repressing all seditious associations. In consequence of 
 both these proclamations, it is reasonable to apprehend danger from 
 abroad, and danger at home. From whence but from apprehended 
 danger, are those menacing preparations for war drawn through the 
 streets of this capital," (alluding to some cannon which were drawn 
 through the streets a few days before to protect the inhabitants 
 against the dangers apprehended,) " or whence if not to create that 
 internal commotion Avhich was not found, to shake that credit which 
 was not affected, to blast that Volunteer honour which was hitherto 
 inviolate." What ! did the proclamation, forbidding seditious asso- 
 ciations and assemblies of men, with banners expressive of disloyalty, 
 violate the honour of that glorious institution, which was raised to 
 protect and support the constitution, that those seditious men calling 
 themselves Volunteers were assembled to destroy, and this Society of 
 United Irishmen did wish to overturn ? That is what is stated in 
 this, for so I will call it until you teach me another language, this 
 abominable seditious libel. " Whence are those terrible suggestions and 
 rumours and whispers, that meet us at every corner and agitate at 
 least our old men, our women and children ? Whatever be the motive, 
 or from whatever quarter it arises, alarm has arisen ; and you, 
 VOLUNTEERS OF IRELAND, are therefore summoned to arms 
 at the instance of government, as well as by the responsibility attached 
 to your character, and the permanent obligations of your institution." 
 First you will observe gentlemen, they make the ancient Volunteers 
 those whose honor was wounded and blasted by the proclamation, and 
 then they tell them that the proclamation has summoned them to 
 assemble in arms — strange inconsistency of rhapsody ! With regard 
 to sucli parts as are unintelligible, for there are many parts the most 
 bombastical and absurd that ever appeared in any publication, I pass 
 them over, it is not my wish to criticise them. " We will not at 
 this day, condescend to quote authorities for the right of having and 
 of using arms." Who had called in question the right of the i^eople 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON HOWAN. 61 
 
 to carry anns ? Is it because the goverament said, that arms should 
 not be used to the destruction or danger of the people, that, therefore, 
 the legality of carrying them is questioned ? " But we will cry aloud, 
 even amidst the storm raised by the Avitchcraft of a proclamation." Is 
 tliat a direct charge against government, that they laid a scheme to 
 raise a storm ? " That to your formation was owing the peace and 
 protection of this island, to your relaxation has been owing its relapse 
 into impotence and insignificance, to your renovation must be owing 
 its future freedom, and its present tranquillity. You are, therefore, 
 summoned to arms, in order to preserve your country in that guarded 
 (juiet, which may secure it from external hostility, and to maintain 
 that internal regimen throughout the land, which superseding a 
 notorious police or a suspected militia, may preserve the blessings of 
 peace, by a vigilant preparation for war." Now, gentlemen, here you 
 see a reflection cast : if they meant to state a grievance, or to reason 
 upon a point of constitution why not do it ? — they had a right. 
 But does that mark the meaning and intention of the publication ? 
 Why reflect upon legal establishments, and why endeavour to cry 
 down a body of men, Avhich it was well known to be in the con- 
 templation of government to raise? They endeavoured to i-ender 
 odious the militia before it was created, because they foresaw it would 
 protect the state, against the schemes which they had formed. They 
 next inform these men, that they are not embodied as before stated, 
 for the protection of their country, but to resist a body of men about 
 to be constituted by government for the protection and safety of the 
 state, but whom they are pleased to deem suspicious ; is not this to 
 raise disturbance ? is not this to excite tumult ? " Citizen soldiers, to 
 arms! Take up the shield of freedom and the pledges of peace — 
 peace the motive and end, of your virtuous institution. War an 
 occasional duty, ought never to be made an occupation. Every man 
 should become a soldier, in the defence of his rights; no man ought 
 to continue a soldier, for oifending the rights of others. The sacrifice 
 of life in the service of our country, is a duty much too honourable to 
 be entrusted to mercenaries, and at this time, when your country has 
 by public authority been declared in danger, we conjure you by your 
 intei'est, your duty, and your glory, to stand to your arms, and in 
 spite of a police, in spite of a fencible militia, in virtue of two proclama- 
 tions, to maintain good order in your vicinage, and tranquillity in Ire- 
 land." The police established in the diiFerent counties are first 
 repi-esented in an odious light to the Volunteers ; a reflection is cast 
 upon the militia, and now the mercenai'ies are stigmatized, and a 
 distinction taken between them and the Volunteers of Ireland, thus 
 summoned by the corporation of United Irishmen. " It is only by the 
 military array of men in whom they confide, Avhom they have been 
 accustomed to revere as the guardians of domestic peace, the pro- 
 tectors of their liberties and lives, that the present agitation of the 
 people can be stilled, that tumult and licentiousness can be repressed, 
 obedience secured to existing law, and a calm confidence diffused 
 through the public mind, in the speedy resm-rection of a free con- 
 stitution, of liberty and of equality." Here, gentlemen, let me call 
 your attention. What meaning can be given to these words by the 
 plainest man in the hall of these courte ? What ! was our free 
 
62 TRIAL OF 
 
 constitution dead ? Do the gentlemen intend by way of argument 
 to excuse this, as the consideration of a grievance ? They tell the 
 l>eople they have no constitution, that they miglit look for another. 
 Is this a cool disquisition upon a matter, that every man has a right 
 to inquire into ? Is not this to excite tumult ? Liberty and Equality ! 
 Words, gentlemen, that it would be painful to me to observe upon to 
 the extent to which they go, words that suggest but too much to 
 every good and reasonable mind ; there is no man in this kingdom 
 who would not lay down his life to presei've true liberty and equality ; 
 but these are but deceptions to cajole the ignorant : the vulgar abuse 
 of a constitution which we possess to the envy of the world. 
 " Liberty and equality, words which w^e use for an opportunity of 
 repelling calumny and of saying, that by liberty we never understood 
 unlimited freedom, nor by equality, the levelling of property, or the 
 destruction of subordination. This is a calumny invented by that 
 faction, or that gang, which misrepresents the king to the people, 
 and the people to the king, traduces one half of the nation to cajole 
 the other, and by keeping up distrust and division, wishes to con- 
 tinue the proud arbitrators of the fortune and fate of Ireland." Is not 
 this traducing the government ? But attend, gentlemen, to their de- 
 finition of liberty. " Liberty is the exercise of all our rights, natural 
 and political, secured to us and our posterity by a real representation 
 of the people ; and equality is the extension of the constitvient, to the 
 fullest dimensions of the constitution, of the elective franchise to the 
 whole body of the people, to the end that government, which is col- 
 lective power, may be guided by collective will, and that legislation 
 may originate from public reason, keep pace with public improvement, 
 and terminate in public happiness." Certainly, gentlemen, the 
 sentence is very sonorous, and agreeable enough to the ear ; but to 
 the mind it conveys nothing but this, that government is to be con- 
 ducted by the will of every man, high and low, rich and poor, ignorant 
 and leai'ned ; the people are to govern the people, and how they will 
 do so, unhappily for mankind, has been learned from experience. 
 Mark this next passage, gentlemen, for I confess I do not under- 
 stand it. " If our constitution be imperfect, nothing but a reform 
 in the representation will rectify its abuses ; if it be perfect, 
 nothing but the same reform will perpetuate its blessings." If 
 our constitution be imperfect, nothing but a reform will render 
 it perfect ; if it be perfect, still the reform is necessary to keep 
 it perfect. In whatever light it is viewed, reform is necessary, and 
 a good constitution requires amendment as much as a bad one. I 
 do not feel it necessary to dwell upon this, because it is so un- 
 intelligible, that it cannot deserve notice. But see next what 
 endeavours have been used to render odious among the people, 
 those forces upon whom our peace and tranquillity depend. " We now 
 address you as citizens, for to be citizens you became soldiers, nor can 
 we help wishing that all soldiers, partaking the passions and interests 
 of the people, would remember that they were once citizens, that 
 seduction made them soldiers, but nature made them men." How will 
 my learned friend when he comes to speak of this part of the case 
 satisfy you, that it was necessary in a ])ublication of this sort, recom- 
 mending a reform in parliament, and to be disseminated among thousands, 
 
An<:HiBALr> iiamii^ton uowax. (j;5 
 
 to tell the soldiers, th(i forces of the state, that their profession was 
 dishonourable, that they were imposed upon, that they should not 
 be entrusted with the protection of the state ? Gentlemen, 1 am 
 unwilling to dwell upon these passages, it is but necessary to mention 
 them to shew their danger, if they deserve consideration you will 
 give it to them, if not, you will not waste your attention upon them. 
 " That nature made them men." It required no authority to satisfy 
 them of that. "We address you without any authority, save that of 
 reason, and if Ave obtain the coincidence of ])ublic opinion, it is 
 neither by force nor stratagem, for we have no power to terrify, no 
 artifice to cajole, no fund to seduce. Here Ave sit Avithout mace or 
 beadle." What they allude to, I suppose you, gentlemen, apprehend; 
 they seem to disdain any distinction in civil institutions. " Neither a 
 mystery, nor a craft, nor a corporation In four Avords lies all our 
 
 power, UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION and REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLA- 
 TURE." In these four words lies all the poAver of the United 
 Irishmen, according to this publication, approved of by the traverser ; 
 he himself a member of that society, and secretary of the meeting 
 which composed it. " UniAcrsal Emancipation !" By that I presmne 
 is meant the giving a right of voting, to CACry man in the community. 
 " And Representative Legislature !" The meaning of these Avords, is 
 but too obA'ious. The constitution is often in the mouths of men, 
 Avhen the destruction of it is in their hearts. If the plan of these 
 people were carried into effect, where would be the House of Peers ? — 
 for our legislature, gentlemen, consists of King, Lords and Commons. 
 When government is guided by the will of all the people and their 
 force carried into action, Avhere Avill be the House of Peers ? AVTiere 
 Avill be our constitution ? buried in the anarchy of republican poAver, 
 formed from the dregs of the people. A goA'ernment consisting of 
 all the people, guided by the will of all the people ; Avhat sense but 
 this can be put upon these words ? If indeed the context of the paper 
 shews you, gentlemen, that any thing else was meant, than as I 
 interpret the words, you will take it altogether in that sense, in Avhich 
 it appears to haA*e been meant. God forbid I should endeaAour to 
 Avrest any thing to impute guilt to the gentleman, Avho now stands at 
 your bar, that the Avhole of the paper does not warrant ! But if the 
 words bear that meaning which I give them, who will, say, that guilt 
 shall not be imputed to him ? You Avill form your opinion from 
 reading the Avhole, and comparing the scA^eral parts with each other. 
 Here comes a sentence Avhich Avill puzzle you a little, but Avhich Avith 
 some comment may be understood. " Yet we are confident that on 
 the pivot of this principle, a convention, less still, a society, less a 
 single man, will be able first to moA^e and then to raise the world." 
 Here is an open declaration of their Avish to raise the people, not only 
 of this coiuitry but of the Avhole Avorld ; a proof of peaceable intent. 
 " We therefore Avish for Catholic emancipation Avithout any modification, 
 but still Ave consider this necessary enfranchisement as merely the 
 portal to the temple of national freedom ; Avide as this entrance is — 
 wide enough to admit three millions — it is narroAv Avhen compared to 
 the capacity and comprehension of our beloved principle, Avhich takes 
 in cA'ery individual of the Irish nation, casts an equal eye over the 
 Avhole island, embraces all that think, and feels for all that suffer. 
 
64 TRIAL OF 
 
 The Catholic cause is subordinate to our cause, and included in it ; 
 for, as United Irishmen, we adhere to no sect, but to society — ^to no 
 creed, but Christianity — to no party, but to the Avhole people. In the 
 sincerity of our souls, do we desire Catholic emancipation ; but were 
 it obtained to-morrow, to-morrow would we go on as we do to-day, 
 in the pursuit of that reform, which would still be wanting to ratify 
 their liberties as well as oui" own. For both these purposes it ajjpears 
 necessary that provincial conventions should assemble pi'eparatory to 
 the convention of the Protestant people. The delegates of the Catholic 
 body are not justified in communicating with individuals, or even bodies 
 of inferior authority, and therefore an assembly of a similar nature and 
 organization," (French language still occurring with French ideas) 
 "is necessary to establish an intercourse of sentiment, an uniformity of 
 conduct, an united cause and an united nation. If a convention on 
 the one part does not soon follow, and is not soon connected with 
 that on the other, the common cause will split into the partial intei-est ; 
 the people relax into inattention and inertness ; the union of affection 
 and exertion will dissolve ; and too probably some local insurrections, 
 instigated by the malignity of our common enemy, may commit the 
 character and risk the tranquillity of the island." Gentlemen, the 
 paper mentions here the common enemy ; as to Avho is meant by the 
 expression, you will judge ; did they mean those who were about to 
 defeat their machinations, and who would not commit the tranquillity 
 of the island to the convention to be assembled ? It says " an assembly 
 of a similar nature and organization is necessary." These are 
 Gallic sentences and suited only to the soil of France. " Local 
 insurrection may commit the character and risk the tranquillity 
 of the island, which can be obviated only by the influence of an 
 assembly arising from, assimilated with the people, and whose spirit 
 may be, as it were, knit with the soul of the nation, unless the 
 sense of the Protestant people be, on their part, as fairly collected 
 and as jvidiciously directed; unless individual exertion consolidates 
 into collective strength ; unless the particles unite into one mass, we 
 may perhaps serve some person or some party for a little, but the 
 public not at all. The nation is neither insolent, nor rebellious, 
 nor seditious. While it knows its rights, it is unwilling to mani- 
 fest its powers ; it would rather supplicate administration to an- 
 ticipate revolution by a well-timed reform, and to serve their 
 country in mercy to themselves." An addi-ess to the Volun- 
 teers to obtain universal emancipation ! — holding out, that 
 this kind of remonstrance should be attended to, before the 
 power of the nation should be exerted. What meaning does a com- 
 mon understanding annex to these words ? Was it not a threat ? 
 Was it not to spirit up the minds of the people against the members 
 of parliament ? Was it necessary for the purpose of cool investi- 
 gation, or to obtain constitutional redress, that the people should 
 exert their power ? and to threaten parliament, by teUing them there 
 was a force to be raised against them ? Unless a reasonable account 
 is given why tliis language was inserted, and what the meaning of it 
 was, I must presume, it was for the purpose I mention. " The 
 fifteenth of February approaches, a day ever memorable in the annals 
 of this country as the birth-day of new Ireland ; let parochial meetings 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 65 
 
 be liekl as soon as possible — [here you have an exact delineation of 
 the French government] — let each parish return delegates, let the 
 sense of Ulster be again declared from Dungannon on a day auspi- 
 cious to union, peace, and freedom, and the spirit of the North will 
 again become the spirit of the nation." Now, gentlemen of the jury, 
 you will mark this next sentence, and it will be a clue to the whole. 
 " The civil assembly ought to claim the attendance of the military 
 associations, and we have addressed you, citizen soldiers, on this 
 subject, from the belief, thai your body, uniting conviction with zeal, 
 and zeal with activity, may have much influence over your country- 
 men, your relations and friends." The nation is in danger from 
 foreign foes and from domestic enemies — so they state. The procla- 
 mation calls forth the forces of the state. The United Irishmen raise 
 their audible voice, and call the people to arms. For what ? Is it 
 to assist the government to repel the foreign enemy, and seditious foe ? 
 But how ? A convention is to be assembled, and they are to call 
 around them the national forces. The convention was to meet at 
 Dungannon — there assembled, were these forces to repress foreign 
 foes and domestic sedition ? Gentlemen, it is but too obvious for what 
 purpose this was intended : this sentence speaks the language of the 
 whole of this paper — and if it had been drawn with more art than it 
 is, here is the clue to the whole : — the force of the nation was to be 
 assembled under the centre ul of the convention, assembled under the 
 great seal of the United Irishmen, who say they are not a corpo- 
 ration ; but who have a corporation seal : — For what purpose ? to 
 obtain imiversal emancipation and representative legislature ! They 
 are held up as such a force and controuling power, as must produce 
 that eftect upon the king, lords and commons. An effect which they 
 profess to have designed for the good of their country — if they did, 
 they should seek its accomplishment, by reason and by argument. 
 But to publish a call to arms to that power and authority which for 
 years this country has respected, and from which, certainly, since 
 1784 every blessing in society has been derived (and every man who 
 looks for those blessings of life, otherwise than by a due regard to all 
 ranks of men, blasphemes the God which made us all) — I say, to call 
 u]>on the whole body of the people to rise in arms, and be their own 
 nders, is a species of government, which, when it comes, will be an 
 equal misfortune to the poor and the rich. The rich would lose that 
 which they enjoy, and more — the power of contributing to the neces- 
 sities of the poor — industry Avill no longer continue to have tlie 
 motives to laboiu' and those habits of economy which the protection 
 of a mild constitution encourages, but the people will be turned out 
 to a system of plunder, robbery and murder, such as we find prevail- 
 ing in another country. The paper goes on and recites, " We offer 
 only a general outline to the public, and meaning to address Ireland, 
 we presume not at present to fill up the plan or pre-occupy the mode 
 of its execution, we have thought it our duty to speak — Answer us 
 by actions. [An open invitation to force and violence.] You have 
 taken time for consideration. Fourteen long years are elapsed since 
 tlie rise of your associations ; and in 1782 did you imagine that in 
 1792 this nation would still remain unrepresented?" These Volun- 
 teers of 1782 had not all these schemes in view — but this Society 
 
66 TRIAL Of 
 
 here expressly tells the people, with arms in their hands, that they 
 remain unrepresented ; and adds, " How many nations in this interval 
 have gotten the start of Ireland ? How many of our countrymen 
 have sunk into the grave ?" What is meant by nations having got 
 the start of Ireland ? is it the revolution in France ; they indeed 
 have gotten the start of Ii'eland in calamity and distress, long may 
 they hold their distance, and that long may be the period before we 
 shall overtake them, is my most sincere and earnest wish. 
 
 Such is this paper — I have read it accurately. Gentlemen of the 
 jury, it is for you to consider the whole of it, and determine whether 
 it was published by Mr. Rowan, and whether it be a libel or not ? If 
 you should be of opinion that Mr. Rowan is guilty of publishing this 
 paper, then you are to consider whether it is a libel or not ? Gentle- 
 men, it is the peculiar felicity of this country, the great blessing of 
 our constitution, that Ave have a trial by jury ; in France it is polluted ; 
 but it is the boast of our constitution that we have a trial by jury, 
 and the great preservative of that blessing and of the constitution 
 itself, is the liberty of the press ; that is the great bulwark of our free 
 constitution, we have a trial by jury, and of the freedom of the press 
 you are the guardians. You, gentlemen, are by the constitution 
 appointed to decide upon all these questions touching the freedom of 
 the press. The freedom of the press cannot be destroyed but in two 
 ways, first, by the overweening power of the crown, 2dly, by its own 
 licentiousness, corrupting the minds of the people ; and when it is 
 destroyed, then will our constitution be at an end. While the press 
 is left open to cool and fair discussion upon legal and public topics of 
 grievance and constitution, so long will the freedom of our constitu- 
 tion endure, and whenever an attempt is made to controul it, you will 
 step in and guard and protect it as you would guard your property, 
 your lives, and your liberties ; you will secure it from licentiousness. 
 Where its licentiousness is not punished through the weakness or 
 timidity of a jury, its freedom can no longer exist. What does the 
 paper which is the subject of the present question purport to be ? it 
 looks for a reform of parliament, it calls to arms the citizens under 
 pretence of supporting the government by resisting it, by speaking of 
 grievances which cannot be endured, it is overawing the parliament. 
 If such licentiousness be tolerated, then the freedom of the press will 
 be destroyed. You, gentlemen, Avill consider whether this paper 
 contains in itself internal evidence to shew that the motives of its 
 publication were not for the purpose of reasoning with the people, or 
 for the necessary connection of any evil in the constitution, but to 
 excite sedition and tumult. If in that case you believe that Mr. 
 Rowan published it, then you must find him guilty. If, on the other 
 hand, you are of opinion, that this was a cool and dispassionate papex', 
 reasoning with the people in a becoming manner, acknowledging the 
 authority of the law, then you will acquit him. Further, let the 
 tendency of the paper be what it may, if you are of opinion, he did 
 not publish it, then you must acquit him. We will produce a witness 
 to shew he published an individual papei' — we will prove that he took 
 several others and dispersed them abroad — if you believe the evidence, 
 it will be impossible but that you must be satisfied he is guilty. Tlius 
 stands the evidence. I have stated that the traverser was Secretary 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 67 
 
 to the United Ii-islimen. It will be proved thus : — he published that 
 paper ; if he did, he acknowledged the contents of it to be true, and 
 the paper states him to be secretary of the Society. Gentlemen, 
 such is the case as it appears to me on the pai-t of the crown. I will 
 not pretend to anticipate what may be offered by the gentlemen on 
 the other side. Two topics, however, have occurred as likely to be 
 introduced: — one is, the case of the Volunteers — the other, the 
 functions of a jury under the late act of parliament. Upon the first, 
 I have said abundance to satisfy you. I will suppose however, that this 
 paper was addressed to the old Volunteers : what then ? The 
 tendency of the paper was to excite those Volunteers to commit 
 actions that would tarnish the honour acquired by their previous 
 conduct. Let them shew that the proclamation (against which this 
 was a counter proclamation) went against the old Volunteers — it 
 meant no such thing — it describes them so and so. But there were 
 among the old Volunteers men actuated by new principles and new 
 motives, that it became the duty of government to suppress them. 
 For your sake they did so — no government should be influenced but 
 by the prosperity of the whole state. But in what respect did these 
 men resemble the old Volunteers ? Not in a single feature : these men 
 were assembled by the call of the United Irishmen in Back-lane ; the 
 ancient Volunteers were assembled by the call of govei'nment and the 
 Lord Lieutenant, who distributed arms among them from the arsenal, 
 for the public defence ; they added to these out of their own pockets 
 whatever they thought necessary ; they were collected to support that 
 constitution which is now sought to be overturned. Were these new 
 Volunteers of that description ? Were they so formed ? How were 
 they equipped ? The green cockade was adopted in the place of the 
 black. I have no necessity for this ; but fearful that men will have 
 recourse to such topics to cajole you, I think it necessary to take notice 
 of them. Secondly, as to the act of parliament within this kingdom, 
 I am not aware that it operates here ; but even by it, as it now stands 
 and I told you so before, you have a right to enter into the guilt or 
 innocence of intention upon this occasion, as you would upon the trial 
 of any other offence. Gentlemen, to you, and most willingly, I 
 commit this case ; I desire no more than that you will by your 
 verdict vindicate the freedom of the press and punish the licentious- 
 ness of it. 
 
 First witness for the prosecution — John Lyster. — Examined by the 
 
 Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the l6th of December 1792 ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect having been at any place that day ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At one Pai-don's house in Cope-street. 
 
 Q. Were there many people assembled there ? A. There were to 
 the amount of 150 or 200, with side-arms and uniforms ; there was a 
 table in the room. 
 
 Q. Did any person, and who, sit at that table ? A, There was 
 Mr. Hamilton Rowan and Mr. Napper Tandy at it, and a good many 
 others. 
 
 Q. (By the court — What do you mean by uniforms? A. Regi- 
 mental uniforms — scaxdet with different facings.) 
 
68 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did you know the person of Mr. Rowan ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. (By the coui't — Do you know him now ? A. He is just 
 opposite to me.) 
 
 Q. Was he sitting at the table ? A. At one time he was — at 
 another time he was standing. 
 
 Q. What brought you there ? A. Merely curiosity. 
 
 Q. How was it excited ? A. I happened to pass through Cope- 
 street, and saw a great crowd — I asked what it was — they said it was 
 a meeting of the United Irishmen. My brother was with me, and 
 we went into the room ; we were in coloured clothes, and to the best 
 of my recollection, Mr. Rowan said, no gentleman with coloured 
 clothes could be there ; but mentioned, that there was a gallery 
 to which we might go, 
 
 Q. Did you perceive any person perform any particular part in 
 that assembly ? A. I perceived Mr. Rowan about the table very 
 busy — he had papers in his hand, and there was pen and ink on the 
 table ; he walked about the room, with the papers in his hand. 
 Napper Tandy came up to him, read part of one of the papers — they 
 were handed about — some were handed up to the gallery — I got one 
 of them, and so did my brother, and several others in the gallery 
 along with me. 
 
 Q. Look at that paper — is that the one ? A. This is the paper I 
 got there. 
 
 Q. Was it one of the papers handed up to the gallery ? A. It 
 was one of the papers handed by Mr. Rowan to some of the people 
 about him, and by them handed up to the gallery. 
 
 Q. Your brother also got one ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Was thei-e a number distributed ? A. About 30 were thrown 
 up to the gallery. 
 
 Q. Have you any reason to ascertain that to be the particular 
 paper ? A. I have, because it has my own hand- writing upon it. 
 
 Q. You made that memorandum upon it ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Read it. A. " I got this paper at a meeting of the United 
 Ii-ishmen in Cope-street, the 1 6th of December — it came through the 
 hands of Archibald Hamilton Rowan." 
 
 Q. (By the court — You say one of these papers was read by Mr. 
 Rowan, how do you know that ? A. Because I attended to the words 
 he read, and they agreed with what are in this paper. 
 
 Q. Can you swear that one of these very papers was read by 
 him ? A. I can swear that part of the words were read, I cannot 
 swear to the whole.) 
 
 Cross-examined by the Recorder. 
 
 Q. At what hour was this ? A. To the best of my knowledge it 
 was between one and two. 
 
 Q. Was this upon the 1 6th of December ? A. It was upon the 
 16th of December, 1792. 
 
 Q, It was upon a Sunday ? A. I believe it was. 
 
 Q. How long did you remain there ? A. For about three quarters 
 of an hour. 
 
 Q. There were about one or two hundred Volunteers below stairs ? 
 A. There were. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 69 
 
 Q. Were they dressed in the uniforms which you had seen the old 
 Volunteers were ? A. I cannot exactly say as to the facings of the 
 uniforms — some of them were green. 
 
 Q. Had not some of the old Volunteers green uniforms ? A. They 
 had, and there were some of the old Volunteers in the room. 
 
 Q. Were not the old Volunteer uniforms scarlet faced with different 
 colours ? A. They were. 
 
 Q. Were all these men sitting down, or walking up and down ? 
 A. They were walking — there were very few forms or chaii's in 
 the room. 
 
 Q. Were they conversing ? A. They were chatting and talking. 
 
 Q. Did you see many of them go up to this table where the 
 papers were ? A. I saw a good many of them go up to it, in the 
 course of their walking back and forward. 
 
 Q. Did you see many take papers off the table ? A. I did not see 
 very many of them — I saw four, or five, or six of them. 
 
 Q. They read them and handed them about ? A. Yes, I saw 
 them do so. 
 
 Q. Did you not see them hand them about, from one to another ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath, did you ever see that paper in your 
 hand, in the hands of Mi\ Rowan. A. I swear it was among the 
 parcel upon the table, some of which were handed up to the gallery 
 — I cannot say it was touched by his fingers. 
 
 Q. (By the court — You say it was among the parcel handed to the 
 gallery? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. It was in the bundle handed by Mr. Rowan 
 to several there, and by them handed up to the gallery.) 
 
 Q. Did that bundle of papers pass through the hands of more 
 Volunteers than one, before it came to the gallery? A. I believe it did. 
 
 Q. Did he hand several parcels ? A. I only saw him hand one to 
 a Volunteer, who gave it to another. 
 
 Q. Then it went through the hands of several, before it got to the 
 gallery ? A. It did, through four or five. 
 
 Q. Can you tell the name of any man through whose hands it 
 passed ? A. I cannot — I was not so well acquainted with the gentlemen. 
 
 Q. When this bundle of papers was handed up, do you know who 
 in the gallery received it ? A. They were broken and separated, I 
 held out my hand and got one of them — my brother another, and 
 other people got some. 
 
 Q. Were there many in the gallery ? A. There were a great many. 
 
 Q. Did every man there get one ? A. I cannot say — every one 
 that chose to take one, might. 
 
 Q. Did they hand them about in the gaUery ? A. The next man 
 saw what his neighbour got ; they gave them about ; but I never parted 
 with mine till yesterday. 
 
 Q. Did you know any other Volunteers below stairs besides Mr 
 Rowan ? A. I did, Mr. Tandy ; and to the best of my recollection, 
 there was a Mr. Kenny whom I knew before. 
 
 Q. Did several of the Volunteers below stairs hand up papers to 
 the gallery or not ? A. I dare say several of them did. 
 
 Q. Did not several men take papers from the table ? A. I suppose 
 
70 TRIAL OF 
 
 they did — I did not observe whether tliey did or not. Several, as 
 they passed back and forward, went to the table, and might take them off. 
 Q. Do you not know that several did take papers off ? A. Several 
 of them did. 
 
 Q. You saw those papers passed through the hands of four or five 
 Volunteers, before they came to the gallery ? A. A parcel of the 
 papers among which this was, came up. 
 
 Q. How came you to pitch upon that paper so accurately ? A. I 
 was the first, who put out my hand. 
 
 Q. Did you watch this particular paper ? A. Not that particular 
 paper, but the bundle in which it was. 
 
 Q. "Will you swear, there were no other papers handed up ? A. To 
 the best of my knowledge, there were not. 
 
 Q. When did you put that memorandum upon it ? A. The very 
 day I got it. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. In my lodging. 
 
 Q. Did any body advise you to make a memorandum ? A. No one 
 did : — I generally, when I get an improper paper, make such memo- 
 randum. 
 
 Q. For what purjiose ? A. Just a fancy of my own. 
 Q. Did you make that memorandum in order to enable you to 
 prove it upon a prosecution ? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. To whom did you first communicate your having this paper 
 and the memorandum ? A. I shall tell you. There was a brother 
 of mine who did business for the late Mr. Adderley — there were 
 different accounts between them — my brother went to the Castle to 
 Mr. Hobart to shew the accounts — Mr. now Lord Hobart, desired my 
 brother to call upon Mr. Pollock, the agent for young Mr. Adderley. — 
 Mr. Pollock said he had heard that I and my brother were present at 
 the meeting in Cope-street, and that he understoood it was a very 
 improper meeting. 
 
 Q. How long was this after the meeting ? A. I cannot say. 
 Q. Was it a week or a month ? A. I cannot recollect. Mr. Pollock 
 said, " You have been there I understand." I said, we were, and that 
 we saw such things going forward. I had one of the papei's in my 
 pocket and shewed it to him. He said, Mr. Hobart heard I was 
 there, and that I should give information of it as it was against the 
 king and constitution. I said I would not encourage any thing against 
 the king, but would do what was proper. Mr. Kemmis came to my 
 lodging next day — the circumstances were talked over — we said we 
 would make no delay in making any information concerning it, and 
 it Avas in that manner they came to a knowledge of it. 
 
 Q. (By the court) What Mr. Kemmis ? A. The Crown Solicitor. 
 Q. Were you of any profession at the time you attended this 
 meeting ? A. I was not. 
 
 Q. You are in the army now ? A. I have that honour. 
 Q. What Commission ? A. An ensign's commission. 
 Q. How long since did you obtain it ? A. I have been gazetted 
 since the 27th of June last. 
 
 Q. In what regiment ? A. In the 40th. 
 
 Q. You say you heard some of that paper read ? A. I do, Sir, the 
 greater part of it. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 71 
 
 Q. Was this when all the Volunteers were walking about ? A. Some 
 were walking about, others gathered about the place, while the paper 
 was reading by Mi*. Rowan. 
 
 Q. Can you point out any part of the paper you heard read. A. I 
 can. 
 
 Q. Show such part as you heard ? A. He began, " The Society of 
 United Irishmen," and so on. 
 
 Q. He did not read it all ? A. He read the greater part. 
 
 Q. Can you say where he stopped ? A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Did you obtain your commission by purchase ? A. No, I did 
 not ; I got it through the interest of a lady I have the honour of being 
 related to — Lady Hobart. 
 
 Q. Pray, were you ever a witness to a bond or two bonds executed 
 by your fatlier to one of your brothers ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. To your younger brother ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was there any suit or issue directed to try whether the bond 
 was genuine or a forgery ? A. There was an issue to try whether it 
 was my fatliei''s bond or not. I do not say it was to try whether it 
 was a forgery. 
 
 Q. Was it not alleged by your father and your elder brother that it 
 was a forgery ? A. My elder brother thought to keep my younger 
 brother out of the property, and I supposed he alleged it was a forgery. 
 I am Sony to mention these matters here. My father filed a bill 
 against us, alleging the bonds to be forgeries, and Mr. Simon Butler,* 
 a very honourable gentleman, to whom I am under many obligations, 
 undertook the business, and we recovered the money. I see the 
 defendant has brought parchments into court this day. I saw Mr. 
 Blake who is to give evidence against me here. If I was aware of 
 these things being mentioned, I should have the gentleman here who 
 could prove them — I speak of the bonds for £500. 
 
 Q. Was there not an issue to try them ? A. There was an order 
 to have it tried in the country. 
 
 Q. Were you not examined in the country upon that trial ? A. I 
 believe I was. 
 
 Q. You are not sure ? A. I am sure. 
 
 Q. Did you swear to the due execution of these bonds ? A. To 
 the best of my knowledge I was examined — I was witness to the 
 bond. 
 
 Q. Can you swear whether you were examined or not? A. I 
 cannot say positively whether I was or not — one of my brothers was 
 examined — My elder brother, I believe, cried out to the jmy, that he 
 would leave it to a reference. 
 
 Q. You cannot swear positively whether you were examined or 
 not? A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe you were examined ? A. I cannot swear 
 positively I was ; I do believe to the best of my recollection I was — 
 but I cannot swear positively. 
 
 Q. How long is this ago ? A. It is a good while — I cannot exactly 
 say. 
 
 Q. Is it three years ago ? A. I believe it is. 
 
 * An intimate friend of Mr. Rowan. 
 
72 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Only three years ago and you cannot say positively whether 
 you were examined or not? A. I know I was to be examined, but 
 I cannot say whether I was or not. 
 
 Q. Were you not examined to the best of yotar belief? A. To 
 the best of my recollection I was ; but I cannot swear positively. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the judge before whom that issue was tried ? 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. Before whom was it ? A. Before one of their lordships on the 
 bench (Judge Boyd.) 
 
 Q. Were there not more witnesses than one, examined to shew it 
 was not your father's hand writing ? A. I do not know, I believe 
 there were many examined, but they did not say positively it was 
 not my fathei"'s hand-writing. 
 
 Q. What verdict was there ? A. There was no verdict at all. 
 
 Q. Was it not because the jury could not agree ? A. No, it was 
 not. 
 
 Q. Will you swear to that ? A. I will not ; but I think my elder 
 brother called out, perceiving himself wrong, and said, he would 
 leave it to a reference. 
 
 Q. Was it ever left to the reference ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. What was done ? A. I cannot say, I was not there ; but most 
 people imagined the referees were wrong in doing as they did. 
 
 Q. Did they give the amount of the bonds ? A. They did not. 
 
 Q. What Avas the amount of the bonds ? A. One was £500 the 
 other £300, it is not yet decided, my brother intends to bring it into 
 the courts to set aside the award. 
 
 Q. (By the court. Do you know what they allowed ? A. I 
 know not. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear ? A. Some hundreds.) 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear it was £200 ? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Two hundred are some hundreds ? A. They are, but as I was 
 not to get any of the money, I believe nothing about it. 
 
 Q. Did not a gentleman of the name of Walter Lambert file a bill 
 against you ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Was he executor of Peter Hamilton ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Why did he file a bill? A. It is a very unjust bill. Peter 
 Hamilton had married my sister, he became insane and I went to 
 stay with him in a madhouse in England ; I had no support from 
 my father at that time, and I thought Mr. Hamilton's relations 
 should pay my expenses and support me ; a Mr Nagle recommended 
 me to bring Mr. Hamilton home ; I did by force put him on board a 
 ship and brought him to Cork, and from thence home to Galway ; he 
 had intervals of reason, and he gave me a bond for £150 part of 
 which was paid. I went to Judge Kelly, a relation of his, to inter- 
 fere ; in some time I got a note for the money, and after his death the 
 executor filed a bill against me. 
 
 Q. Did he not charge the note not to be the hand- writing of Peter 
 Hamilton ? A. No : the note was in my hand-writing with Mr. 
 Hamilton's name signed by himself. 
 
 Q. Did you ever recover any part of it ? A. No, it is not yet 
 determined. 
 
 Q. Is there an injunction against you ? A. No: I believe not; I 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 73 
 
 was nonsuited by the neglect of Mr. Morton, my attorney, who left 
 the papers in town, when the trial came on in the country. 
 
 Q. After you drew this note, Mr. Peter Hamilton put his name to 
 it? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And you sued for it, and did not recover? A. He was as 
 perfectly in his senses when he put his name to it as I am ; he 
 transacted his own business as if he had not been mad. 
 
 Q. Did he not live many years after this ? A. No, he did not : 
 he might have lived many years if he had not shot himself. 
 
 Q. (By Juror, Mr. Minchin. Did you see many more of the 
 papers handed up ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Were there any of another tendency ? A. There were not.) 
 
 Second "Witness, Mr. William Morton. — Examined by the 
 
 Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. Do you remember being at Cope-street, Dublin, on the 16th of 
 December, 1792 ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect to have seen anything there, or to have got 
 admission into any place there ? A. I do ; I saw a number of men 
 assembled there, for what purpose I cannot say ; they were arrayed 
 in military dress. 
 
 Q. What were they doing ? A. They drew up a form of resolu- 
 tions at a table. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect to have seen any particular person there ? 
 A. I recollect to have seen Mr. Hamilton Rowan and Mi-. Napper 
 Tandy. 
 
 Q. (By the court.) Do you know Mr. Rowan ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Did you know him before that day ? A. I have seen, but was 
 not acquainted with him. 
 
 Q. Do you know him now ? A. I do ; he is there, (pointing to him.) 
 
 Q. Did or did not Mr. Rowan appear to take an active part in that 
 meeting ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything about papers of any description ? A. 
 I shall mention Avhat I know : I gained admission into the gallery, 
 there were a number of papers or advertisements brought in, as if wet 
 from the press, and distributed about. 
 
 Q. Were they in large or small parcels ? A. There was a large 
 parcel in a man's arm, wet as from the press. 
 
 Q. What became of them ? A. They were laid upon the table, 
 and some were given to Mr. Napper Tandy. 
 
 Q. Did you see any of them ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Had you an opportunity of reading them ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. How came you to have that opportunity? A. I saw some of 
 them taken up by Mr. Rowan and delivered to some of the members, 
 and by them handed up to the gallery. A gentleman near me 
 received one of them ; I immediately took it out of his hand : there 
 were many thrown up ; one was read by a gentleman, and I remember 
 while he read it, a number were thrown out of the windows to the mob, 
 who desired more of them, and accordingly they were sent to them. 
 
 Q. Was the paper read in a loud manner ; did every man know what 
 was doing in the gallery ? A. Every man could hear it I believe. 
 
74 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did you keep one of these papers ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where is it ? A. I gave it to a person, Avho, I understand 
 has since mislaid it. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any part of it ? A. The beginning of it : it 
 was from the association of United Irishmen : it began — " To arms 
 citizens, to arms !" 
 
 Q. Did you hear it read ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. When it was begun, did that passage make an impression upon 
 you, that you remember it ? A. It was a young gentleman in the 
 gallery who read it through ; the people there called out, read it for 
 the benefit of us all. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Fletcher. 
 
 Q. Are you of any profession ? A. I am a gold-beater. 
 
 Q. Do you get your livelihood by that ? A. I am an apprentice, 
 serving my time to that business. 
 
 Q. Is your father living ? A. He is not. 
 
 Q. How came you to be at this meeting ? A. It was on a Sunday, 
 and I was unemployed. I met a young gentleman who asked me to 
 go to Cope-street. I went from curiosity. 
 
 Q. At what hour did you go there ? A. It was in the forenoon, 
 from eleven to one. There were several gentlemen in uniform. 
 
 Q. What was their uniform ? A. Scarlet faced with green ; there 
 were some light infantry in their jackets ; there were different corps. 
 
 Q. Upon your oath, were not all the uniforms you saw, the 
 appropriated uniforms of the old Volunteer corps? A. I cannot 
 say. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe they were ? A. I suppose they were ; but 
 I had been absent, and had not seen them for some time. 
 
 Q. You were in the gallery when you saw those bundles of 
 papers ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Were there more than one ? A. Not that I remember ; I saw 
 but one. 
 
 Q. Did not several persons go up to the table and get these papers ? 
 A. I cannot say ; I believe not. I was in the gallery ; there was a 
 beam in the middle of the room, and when they went to the upper 
 end of the room, the beam prevented me from seeing them. 
 
 Q. You said you saw Mr. Rowan take one of these papers and 
 hand it to some otlier person ? A. I did not say one : I saw him 
 take some papers, and had them about. 
 
 Q. What papers were they ? A. I cannot say, whether he took 
 them off the table or not. He took part of those that came in : 
 several of the members asked him for some ; I suppose he gave them. 
 
 Q. Supposition Avill not do ; say upon your oath, Avhat you saw 
 take place with regard to Mr. RoAvan and these papers ? A. When 
 they came in, Mr. Rowan and Mr. Tandy took some of them, they 
 delivered them to the Volunteers ; one of the Volunteers threw some 
 up to the gallery, and I got one. 
 
 Q. Did you not say there was but one bundle ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did you say, that from your situation you could not see what 
 passed at the table ? A. Part of the table I could see. 
 
 Q. Were you in such a situation as to see everything which passed 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 75 
 
 at the table ? A. The Volunteers were walking up and down, and 
 sometimes I could not see everything there. 
 
 Q. Do you know the names of any of the persons from whom these 
 papers came to the gallery ? A. No. I did not know any one in 
 the room but Mr. Tandy, and Mr. Rowan. 
 
 Q. Can you say who the person was who read the paper, in the 
 gallery ? A. I cannot. I never saAv him before. 
 
 Q. Did he read it more than once ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Had you any of the papers in your hand, when he read it ? A. I 
 had. 
 
 Q. You kept that paper which you received ? A. I did for some 
 time. 
 
 Q. How long ? A. I do not recollect : I kept it a week or less. 
 
 Q. Whom did you give it to ? A. An acquaintance of mine. 
 
 Q. Has he no name ? [Here the witness hesitating in his answer, 
 Mr. Sheriff Gitfard called out, that he was the person to whom the 
 witness delivered the paper, upon which the witness said it was to Mi*. 
 Giffiird.] 
 
 Q. Why did you resort to him ? A. I had no reason : I gave it 
 by accident. 
 
 Q. You had no reason ? A. None, but that he was the first person 
 I met that I was acquainted with. 
 
 Q. Did you not keep it a week ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you keep it five days ? A. No, I believe not ; for I think 
 I gave it to him the day after I got it. 
 
 Q. When you said you gave it in a week, did you mean the day 
 after ? A. It was less than a week. 
 
 Q. Did you mean to convey the idea that you had it but one day, 
 when you said you had it less than a week ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Upon your oath that was the meaning you intended to convey ? 
 A. It was. 
 
 Q. Upon your oath you say so? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Do you generally speak in riddles of that kind ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How long did you keep that paper ? A. Not one day : on the 
 same day that I received it, I gave it to Mr. Gitfard. 
 
 Q. This meeting was in the forenoon ? A. It Avas. 
 
 Q. How long after the paper was distributed did you continue at 
 this assembly ? A. I do not remember when it broke up. 
 
 Q. Was it before or after dinner ? A. It was before dinner. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. Did you stay till the assembly broke up? A, I did.) 
 
 Q. Can you say how long you remained in the place after getting 
 that paper ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. What do you believe ? A. Half the time was not elapsed when 
 the papers were distributed, but I do not recollect ; there was a young 
 man with me and we were in conversation. 
 
 Q. What became of you afterwards ? A. We separated : he went 
 to dinner I suppose. 
 
 Q. Where did you go ? A. I went to Mr. Ryan. 
 
 Q. You dined there ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Who is Mr. Ryan ? A. He is a surgeon. 
 
 Q. Did you shew the paper to Mr. Ryan ? A. No ; but I met 
 Mr. Giffard there and I gave it to him. 
 
76 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did you expect to meet liim there ? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Of what business is Mr. Ryan ? A. He is a surgeon. 
 
 Q. Does he get money by any other business ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. There is a paper printed in the house where he lives? 
 A. There is. 
 
 Q. What paper ? A. The Dublin Journal. 
 
 Q. Does not Mr. Ryan superintend the publication of that paper ? 
 
 A. I believe he does not. 
 
 Q. Who is the proprietor of that paper ? A. George Faulkner. 
 
 Q. Do you believe he conducts that paper now ? A. I am not to 
 know any thing about it. 
 
 Q. But can you not form a belief? A. I cannot form a belief. I 
 do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you never hear that Mr. Giffard had some interest in that 
 paper ? A. I did hear it. 
 
 Q. Do you believe it ? A. I do not. I know not. 
 
 Q. What do you believe ? A. I believe he has not.* 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear it ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Why do you disbelieve it ? A. I heard it from several persons. 
 
 Q. And you do not believe it ? A. I do not. 
 
 Q. You do not believe that he has any connexion with that paper ? 
 A. I do not believe it. 
 
 Q. Have you heard it contradicted ? A. I have. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. What relation are you to Mr. Giffard ? A. His nephew by 
 marriage. 
 
 Q. And will you, his nephew, say he has not any interest in that 
 paper ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Is not Mr. Ryan a relation of Mr. Giifard ? A. He is. 
 
 Q. What relation ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Who pays the rent of the house where Mr. Ryan lives ? A. 
 I do not know. 
 
 This witness retired, and then the paperf produced by Mr. Lyster 
 
 * This paper (the Dublin Journal) was originally established by Mr. George 
 Faulkner, one of the aldermen of the city of Dublin, and was ably conducted by 
 him for upwards of fifty years. His house was the rendezvous of the leading 
 parliamentary, literary, and political men of his day. He associated with persons 
 of the highest rank, and was in the habit of entertaining them, it is said, in a style 
 of splendour. From the period of his death, his paper gradually declined in spirit 
 and integrity till its doom was fixed, where its fanatical career commenced on its 
 coming into the hands of one of the most illiterate and illiberal men, that ever 
 became ambitious of conducting a public journal. This person, Mr. John 
 Giffard, better known by the complimentary soubriquet of the " dog in office," 
 was brought up in the Blue Coat Hospital. He was taken by the hand, by a 
 person of the name of Thwaites, a brewer, and was brought up to the business of 
 an apothecary. He married a young woman in humble life in the county of 
 Wexford, and set up as an apothecary in the town of Wexford ; but got mal- 
 treated in a brawl by a man of the name of Miller, and removed to Dublin where 
 he set up in the business of an apothecary in Fishamble street, in 1771- Just 
 previous to the trial of Hamilton Rowan, in 1794, for a seditious libel, it was 
 found necessary to have a jury which could be relied upon for a conviction, 
 
 and a sheriff that could be trusted in such an emergency Mr. Giifard was made 
 
 sheriff' some mouths previous to the trial. Madden's United Irishmen, vol. 2, 1st 
 series, p. 85. 
 
 f See the paper at large in the information. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 77 
 
 was read — upon which the case for prosecution was rested. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice, asked the counsel for the defendant 
 whether they wished to have the information i*ead, in order to com- 
 pare it with the publication. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — We have instructions not to take any captious 
 objections, and therefore do not think it necessary to accept of the 
 offer of the court. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — A good reason why, Mr. Curran ; there 
 is no error in the record. 
 
 Evidence for the Defendant. — Francis Blake, Esq. — Examined by 
 
 Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. You live in Galway ? A. I live now in Dublin, but I did live 
 in the county of Roscommon. 
 
 Q. Do you know a gentleman who was examined here to-day, of 
 the name of John Lyster ? A. I believe I do. 
 
 Q. The son of Thomas Lyster of Grange ? A. I do know him. 
 
 Q. Do you think that Mr. Lyster is a person who would deserve 
 credit, in what he would swear in a court of justice ? A. That is a 
 very hard question to ansM^er, for I never had any dealing with him, 
 so as to say from my own knowledge whether he should be believed 
 or not. 
 
 Q. I only ask your opinion ; is it your opinion that he deserves 
 credit upon his oath ? Do you believe it ? A. I cannot say he is : 
 I might hesitate. 
 
 Q. Can you form an opinion ? A. I have made all the answer I 
 can — I cannot say that he does not deserve credit — at the same time 
 I might have doubts. 
 
 Lord Clonmel He only says he might hesitate — he has doubts. 
 
 Mr. John Smith. — Examined by the Recorder. 
 
 Q. Do you know John Lyster ? A. I have seen him, I have had 
 no acquaintance with him. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen him examined as a witness ? A. I liave. 
 
 Q. Where? A. At Galway siunmer assizes, 1791. 
 
 Q. Was he the son of Thomas Lyster of Grange ? A. I believe 
 he was. 
 
 Q. Did you see him on the table to-day ? A. I think I did 
 while I was standing upon the steps of the Exchequer. 
 
 Q. Is it your opinion that he is a person to be believed upon his 
 oath in a court of justice? A. I cannot form a general opinion, 
 with regard to the matter upon which he was examined to-day : from 
 what I know of him I would give very little credit to him. 
 
 Q. Wliat is his general character ? 
 
 IVIr. Attorney-General I object to that question. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — You are a man of' business ; upon your oath, 
 do you know enough of this man to say whether you think he ought 
 to be believed upon his oath ? A. I do not ; for I know nothing of 
 him, but what I saw at the trial in Galway. 
 
78 TRIAL OF 
 
 Cross-examined by Mi-. Attorney-General, 
 
 Q. Are you a member of the United Irishmen ? A. I really am 
 not. 
 
 Mrs. Mary Hatchell Examined by Mr. Fletcher. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mr. John Lyster, son of Thomas Lyster of 
 Grange ? A. I knoAv Mr. John Lyster. 
 
 Q. Is he in the army ? A. He is an ensign of the 40th. 
 
 Q. Have you known him long ? A. I have known him well for 
 better than a year ; by sight I know him a long time. 
 
 Q. From all that you know and have heard of this gentleman, can 
 you form an opinion whether he is a person to be credited upon his 
 oath ? A. From my opinion he is not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. Pray Madam where do you live ? A. Upper Ormond-quay. 
 
 Q. You know a brother of Mr. Lyster ? A. I do well : it calls 
 painful remembrances to my mind by talking of him. 
 
 Q. "Was there any particular infidelity imputed to this gentleman 
 or his brother? A. George "William Lyster was married to a 
 daughter of ours (my husband is living.) 
 
 Q. "Who is George "William Lyster ? The younger brother of John 
 Lyster. 
 
 Q. Your first intercourse then originated from that connexion 
 between George Lyster and your daughter? A. Yes: George 
 "William Fitzgerald Lyster married my daughter. 
 
 Q. It was not with your consent ? A. It was not. 
 
 Q. You have not been induced to any painful necessity of breaking 
 the marriage? A. John Lyster has found means to take away his 
 brother from his wife, insisting that he had another wife. 
 
 Q. (By the jury.) How do you know that John Lyster is the 
 person who inveigled his brother from your daughter ? A. His elder 
 brother told me so. 
 
 Q. (By the court.) Is that the reason you do not believe him? 
 A. It is one of the reasons. 
 
 Q. "What other reasons have you? A. Conversations with his 
 elder brother. 
 
 [Here the case was closed by the defendant.] 
 
 A few moments before the defendant's counsel rose, a guard of 
 soldiers was brought into the court-house by the sheriff. 
 
 Mr. Curran, for defendant — Gentlemen of the jury, when I 
 consider the period at which this prosecution is brought forward ; 
 when I behold the extraordinary safeguard of armed soldiers resorted 
 to, no doubt for the preservation of peace and order : when I catch, 
 as I cannot but do, the throb of public anxiety which beats from one 
 end to the other of this hall ; when I reflect on what may be the fate 
 of a man of the most beloved personal character, of one of the most 
 respected families of our countiy ; himself the only individual of that 
 fimiily, I may almost say of that country, who can look to that 
 possible fate with unconcern, it is in the honest simplicity of my heart 
 I speak, when I say that I never rose in a court of justice with so 
 much embarrassment, as upon this occasion. 
 
 If, gentlemen, I could entertain a hope of finding refuge for the 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON KOWAN. 79 
 
 disconcertion of my mind, in the perfect composure of yours ; if I 
 could suppose that those awful vicissitudes of human events, which have 
 been stated or alluded to, could leave your judgments undisturbed 
 and your hearts at ease, I know I should form a most erroneous 
 opinion of your character : I entertain no such chimerical hope ; I 
 form no such unworthy opinion ; I expect not that your hearts can be 
 more at ease than my own ; I have no right to expect it ; but I have 
 a right to call upon you in the name of your country, in the name of 
 the living God, of whose eternal justice you are now administering 
 that portion which dwells with us on this side of the grave, to 
 discharge your breasts as far as you are able of every bias of prejudice 
 or passion ; that, if my client is guilty of the oiFence charged upon 
 him, you may give tranquillity to the public by a firm verdict of 
 conviction ; or if he is innocent, by as firm a verdict of acquittal ; and 
 that you will do this in defiance of the paltry artifices and senseless 
 clamours that have been resorted to in order to bring him to his trial 
 with anticipated conviction. And, gentlemen, I feel an additional 
 necessity of thus conjuring you to be upon your guard, from the able 
 and imposing statement which you have just heard on the part of the 
 prosecution. I know well the virtues and the talents of the excellent 
 person who conducts that prosecution ; I know how much he would 
 disdain to impose on you by the trappings of office ; but I also 
 know how easily we mistake the lodgment which character and 
 eloquence can make upon our feelings, for those impressions that 
 reason and fact and proof only ought to work upon our understandings. 
 
 Perhaps, gentlemen, I shall act not unwisely in waiving any further 
 observation of this sort, and giving your minds an opportunity of 
 growing cool and resuming themselves, by coming to a calm and 
 uncoloured statement of mere facts, premising only to you that I 
 have it in strictest injunction from my client, to defend him upon 
 facts and evidence only, and to avail myself of no technical artifice 
 or subtility that could withdraw his cause from the test of that 
 enquiry, which it is your province to exercise, and to which only he 
 wishes to be indebted for an acquittal. 
 
 In the month of December 1792, Mr. Rowan was arrested on an 
 information, charging him with the offence for which he is now on 
 his trial. He was taken before an honourable personage now on that 
 bench, and admitted to bail. 
 
 He remained a considerable time in this city, soliciting the 
 threatened prosecution, and offering himself to a fair trial by a jury 
 of his country ; but it was not then thought fit to yield to that 
 solicitation ; nor has it now been thought proper to prosecute him in 
 the ordinary way, by sending up a bill of indictment to a grand jury. 
 I do not mean by this to say that informations ex-officio are always 
 oppressive or unjust; but I cannot but observe to you, that when a 
 petty jury is called upon to try a charge not previously found by the 
 grand inquest, and supported by the naked assertion only of the 
 king's prosecutor, that the accusation labours luider a weakness of 
 probability which it is difficult to assist. If the charge had no cause 
 of dreading the light — if it was likely to find the sanction of a grand 
 jury, it is not easy to account why it deserted the moi'e usual, the 
 moi'o popular, and the more constitutional mode, and prefei'red to 
 
80 TRIAL OF 
 
 come forward in the ungracious form of an ex-officio informa- 
 
 tion * 
 
 If such bill had been set up and found, Mr. Rowan would have 
 been tried at the next commission; but a speedy trial was not the 
 wish of his prosecutors. An information was tiled, and when he 
 expected to be tried upon it, an error, it seems, Avas discovered in the 
 record. Mr. Rowan offered to waive it, or consent to any amendment 
 desired. No — that proposal could not be accepted — a trial must have 
 followed. That information, therefore, was withdrawn, and a new 
 one filed, that is in fact a third i)rosecution was instituted upon the 
 same charges. This last was filed on the 8th day of last July. 
 Gentlemen, these facts cannot fail of a due impression upon you. 
 You will find a material part of your inquiry must be, whether Mr. 
 Rowan is pursued as a criminal or hunted doAvn as a victim. It is 
 not, therefoi-e, by insinuation or circuity, but it is boldly and directly 
 that I assert that oppression has been intended and practised upon him, 
 and by those facts which I have stated I am warranted in the assertion. 
 
 His demand, his intreaty to be tried was refused, and why ? A hue 
 and cry was to be raised against him ; the sword was to be suspended 
 over his head — some time was necessary for the public mind to 
 become heated by the circulation of artful clamours of anarchy and 
 rebellion ; those same clamours which with more probability, but not 
 more success, had been circulated before through England and Scot- 
 land. In this country the causes and the swiftness of their progress 
 were as obvious, as their folly has since become to every man of the 
 smallest observation ; I have been stopped myself, with, " Good God, 
 Sir, have you heard the news ? No Sir, what ? Why one French 
 emissary was seen travelling through Connaught in a post-chaise, and 
 scattering from the windows as he passed little doses of political 
 poison, made up in square bits of paper — another was actually sur- 
 prised in the fact of seducing our good people from their allegiance, 
 l)y discourses upon the indivisibility of French robb(n'y and massacre, 
 which he preached in the French language to a congregation of Irish 
 peasants." 
 
 Such are the bugbears and spectres to be raised to warrant the 
 sacrifice of whatever little public spirit may remain amongst us — but 
 time has also detected the imposture of these Cock-lane apparitions, 
 and you cannot now, with your eyes open, give a verdict without 
 asking your consciences this question ; is tliis a fair and honest pro- 
 secution ? Is it brouglit forward with the single view of vindicating 
 public justice, and promoting public good ? And here let me remind 
 you that you are not convened to try the guilt of a libel, afifecting the 
 personal character of any private man ; I know no case in which a 
 jury ought to be more severe than where personal calumny is conveyed 
 through a vehicle, which ought to be consecrated to public informa- 
 tion ; neither, on tlie other hand, can I conceive any case in which 
 the firmness and the caution of a jury should be moi*e exerted, than 
 Avhen a subject is prosecuted for a libel on the state. The peculiarity 
 of the British constitution, (to which in its fullest extent we have 
 an undoubted right, however distant we may be from the actual 
 
 * See Case of Sir Wm. Williams, 13 Howell's St. Tr. p. I3G9; Home's Case, 
 '2U Howell's St. Tr. pp. 677, G92. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 81 
 
 enjoyment) and in which it surpasses every known government in 
 Europe, is this ; that its only professed object is the general good, and 
 its only foundation the general will ; hence the people have a I'ight 
 acknowledged from time immemorial, fortified by a pile of statutes, 
 and authenticated by a i-evolution which speaks louder than them all, 
 to see whether abuses have been committed, and whether their proper- 
 ties and their liberties have been attended to as they ought to be. This 
 is a kind of subject which I feel myself overawed when I approach ; 
 there are certain fundamental principles which nothing but necessity 
 should expose to public examination ; they are pillars the depth of 
 whose foundation you cannot explore without endangering their 
 strength ; but let it be recollected that the discussion of such topics 
 should not be condemned in me, nor visited upon my client. The 
 blame, if any there be, should rest only with those who have forced 
 them into discussion. I say, therefore, it is the right of the people to 
 keep an eternal watch upon the conduct of their rulers ; and in order 
 to that, the freedom of the press has been cherished by the law of 
 England. In private defamation let it never be tolerated; in wicked 
 and wanton aspersion upon a good and honest administration let it never 
 be supported, not that a good government can be exposed to danger 
 by groundless accusation, but because a bad government is sure to 
 find in the detected falsehood of a licentious press a security and a credit, 
 which it could never otherwise obtain. I said a good government 
 cannot be endangered ; I say so again, for whether it be good or bad 
 can never depend upon assertion, the question is decided by simple 
 inspection : to try the tree look at its fruit ; to judge of the government 
 look at the people ; what is the fruit of good government ? The 
 virtue and happiness of the people ; do four millions of people in this 
 country gather those fruits from that government to whose injured 
 purity, to whose spotless virtue and violated honour, this seditious and 
 atrocious libeller is to be immolated upon the altar of the constitu- 
 tion ? To you, gentlemen of that jury, who are bound by the most 
 sacred obligation to your country and your God, to speak nothing 
 but the truth, I put the question — do they gather those fruits ? are 
 they orderly, industrious, religious and contented ? do you find them 
 free from bigotry and ignorance, those inseparable concomitants of 
 systematic oppression ? or to try them by a test as unerring as any of 
 the former, are they united ? The period has now elapsed in which 
 considerations of this extent would have been deemed improper to a 
 jury; happily for these countries, the legislature for each has lately 
 changed, or, perhaps to speak more properly, revived and restored 
 the law respecting trials of this kind. For the space of thirty or forty 
 years a usage had prevailed in Westminister Hall, by which the 
 judges assumed to themselves the decision of the question, whether 
 libel or not ; but the learned counsel for the prosecution are now 
 obliged to admit that this is a question for the jury only to decide. 
 You will naturally listen with respect to the opinion of the court, but 
 you will receive it as matter of advice, not as matter of law ; and you 
 will give it credit not from any adventitious circumstances of autho- 
 rity, but merely so far as it meets the concurrence of your own 
 understandings. 
 
 Give me leave now to state to you the charge, as it stands upon the 
 
 G 
 
82 TRIAL OF 
 
 record: — It is that Mr. Rowan "being a person of a wicked and 
 turbulent disposition, and maliciously designing and intending to excite 
 and diffuse amongst the subjects of this realm of Ireland discontents, 
 jealousies and suspicions of our Lord the King and his government, 
 and disaffection and disloyalty to the person and government of our 
 said Lord the King, and to raise very dangerous seditions and 
 tumults within this kingdom of Ireland, and to draw the government 
 of this kingdom into great scandal, infamy and disgrace, and to incite 
 the subjects of our said Lord the King to attempt, by force and 
 violence and with arms, to make alterations in the government, state 
 and constitution of this kingdom, and to incite his Majesty's said 
 subjects to tumult and anarchy, and to overturn the established 
 constitution of this kingdom, and to overawe and intimidate the 
 legislature of this kingdom by an armed force ;" did " maliciously 
 and seditiously" publish the paper in question. 
 
 Gentlemen, without any observation of mine, you must see that 
 this information contains a direct charge upon Mr. Rowan ; namely, 
 that he did, Avith the intents set forth in the information, publish this 
 paper ; so that here you have in fact two or three questions for your 
 decision : first, the matter of fact of the publication : namely, did Mr. 
 Rowan publish that paper ? If Mr. Rowan did not in fact publish that 
 paper, you have no longer any question on which to employ your 
 minds. If you think that he was in fact the publisher, then and not 
 till then arises the great and important subject to which your 
 judgments must be directed. And that conies shortly and simply to 
 this, is the paper a libel ? and did he publish it with the intent 
 charged in the information ? But whatever you may think of the 
 abstract question ; whether the paper be libellous or not, and of which 
 paper it has not even been insinuated that he is the author, there can 
 be no ground for a verdict against him, unless you also are pei'suaded 
 that what he did was done with a criminal design. I wish, gentlemen, 
 to simplify and not to perplex ; I therefore say again, if these three 
 circumstances conspire, that he published it, that it was a libel, and 
 that it was published with the purposes alledged in the informotion, 
 you ought unquestionably to find him guilty ; if on the other hand, 
 you do not find that all these circumstances concurred ; if you cannot 
 upon your oaths say that he published it ; if it be not in your opinion 
 a libel, and if he did not publish it with the intention alledged : I say 
 upon the failure of any one of these points, my client is intitled, in 
 justice, and upon your oaths, to a verdict of acquittal. 
 
 Gentlemen, Mr. Attorney- General has thought proper to direct 
 your attention to the state and circumstances of public affairs at the 
 time of this transaction ; let me also make a few retrospective 
 observations on a period, at which he has but slightly glanced ; I 
 speak of the events which took place before the close of the American 
 war. You know gentlemen that France had espoused the cause 
 of America, and we became thereby engaged in a war with that 
 nation. Heu nescia mens hominum futuri ? Little did that ill- 
 fated monarch know that he was forming the first causes of 
 those disastrous events, that were to end in the subversion of 
 the throne, in the slaughter of his family, and the deluging of his 
 country with the blood of his people. You cannot but remember 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 83 
 
 that at a time, when we had scarcely a reguhir soldier for our defence ; 
 when the old and young were alarmed and terrified Avith the appre- 
 hension of descent upon our coasts; that Providence seemed to have 
 worked a sort of miracle in our favour. You saw a band of armed 
 men come forth at the great call of natui'e, of honour, and their coun- 
 try. You saw men of the greatest wealth and rank ; you saw every 
 class of the community give up its members, and send them armed 
 into the field, to protect the public and private tranquillity of Ireland. 
 It is impossible for any man to turn back to that period, without 
 reviving those sentiments of tenderness and gratitude, which then 
 beat in the public bosom : to recollect amidst what applause, what 
 tears, what prayers, what benedictions, they walked forth amongst 
 spectators, agitated by the mingled sensations of terror and reliance, 
 of danger and protection ; imploring the blessings of Heaven upon 
 their heads, and its conquest upon their swords. The illustrious and 
 adored, and abused body of men stood forward and assumed the title, 
 which, I trust, the ingratitude of their country will never blot from 
 its history, " the Volunteers of Ireland." 
 
 Give me leave now, with great respect, to put one question to you : 
 Do you think the assembling of that glorious band of patriots was an 
 insurrection ? do you think the invitation to that assembling would 
 have been sedition ? They come under no commision but the call of 
 their country ; unauthorised and unsanctioned except by public 
 emergency and public danger. I ask was that meeting insurrection 
 or not ? I put another question : If any man then had published a 
 call on that body, and stated that war was declared against the state ; 
 that the regular troops were withdrawn ; that our coasts were 
 hovered round by the ships of the enemy ; that the moment was 
 approaching when the unprotected feebleness of age and sex — when 
 the sanctity of habitation would be disregarded and prophaned by 
 the brutal ferocity of a rude invader ; if any man had then said 
 to them "leave your industr)^ for a while, that you may return to 
 it again, and come forth in arms for the public defence " — I put 
 the question boldly to you gentlemen — it is not the case of the 
 Volunteers of that day ; it is the case of my client, at this hour, 
 which I put to you — would that call have then been pronounced in 
 a court of justice, or by a jury on their oaths, a .criminal and 
 seditious invitation to insurrection ? K it would not have been so then, 
 upon what principle can it be so now — what is the force and 
 perfection of the law ? It is the permanency of the law ; it is that 
 whenever the fact is the same, the law is also the same ; it is that the 
 law remains a written, monumented and recorded letter to pronounce 
 the same decision, upon the same facts whenever they shall arise. I 
 will not affect to conceal it : you know there has been an artful, 
 ungrateful, and blasphemous clamour raised against these illustrious 
 characters, the saviours of the kingdom of Ireland. 
 
 Having mentioned this, let me read a few words of the paper alleged 
 to be criminal : " You first took up arms to protect your country 
 from foreign enemies and from domestic disturbance. For the same 
 purposes it now becomes necessary that you should resume them." 
 I should be the last in the world to impute any want of candour to 
 the rijiht honourable gentleman, who has stated the case on behalf of 
 
84 TRIAL OF 
 
 the prosecution : but he has certainly fallen into a mistake, which, if 
 not explained, might be highly injurious to my client. He supposed 
 that this publication was not addressed to those ancient Volunteers, 
 but to new combinations of them, formed upon new principles, and 
 actuated by different motives. You have the words to which this 
 construction is imputed upon the recoi'd ; the meaning of his mind can 
 be collected only from those words which he has made use of to 
 convey it. The guilt imputable to him can only' be inferred from the 
 meaning ascribable to those words. Let his meaning then be fairly 
 collected by resorting to them. Is there a foundation to suppose that 
 this address was directed to any such body of men, as has been 
 called a banditti, with what justice it is unnecessary to inquire, and 
 not to the old Volunteers ? As the sneer at the words Citizen 
 Soldiers, I should feel that I was treating a veiy respected friend 
 with an insidious and unmei'ited unkindness, if I aifected to expose it 
 by any gravity of refutation. I may, however, be permitted to 
 observe, that those who are supposed to have disgraced this expression 
 by adopting it, have taken it from the idea of the British constitution, 
 " that no man in becoming a soldier ceases to be a citizen." Would 
 to God, all enemies as they are, that that unfortunate people had 
 borrowed more from that sacred source of liberty and virtue ; and 
 would to God, for the sake of humanity, that they had preserved even 
 the little they did borrow. J£ even there could be an objection to 
 that appellation, it must have been strongest when it was first 
 assumed.* To that period the writer manifestly alludes ; he addresses 
 " those who first took up ai'ms :" you first took up arms to protect 
 your country from foreign enemies and from domestic disturbance, 
 For the same purposes it now becomes necessary that you should 
 resume them. Is this applicable to those who had never taken up 
 arms before? "A proclamation," says this paper, "has been issued 
 in England for embodying the militia, and a proclamation has been 
 issued by the Lord Lieutenant, and council in Ireland, for repressing 
 all seditious associations. In consequence of both these proclamations, 
 it is reasonable to apprehend danger from abroad, and danger at home." 
 God help us, from the situation of Europe at that time, we were threat- 
 ened with too probable danger from abroad, and I am afraid it was not 
 without foundation we were told of our having something to dread 
 at home. I find much abuse has been lavished on the disrespect 
 with which the proclamation is treated, in that pai*t of the paper 
 alleged to be a libel. To that my answer for my client is short ; I do 
 conceive it competent to a British subject — if he thinks that a pro- 
 clamation has issued for the purpose of raising false terrors, I hold it 
 to be not only the privilege, but the duty of a citizen, to set his 
 countrymen right, with respect to such misrepresented danger ; and 
 until a proclamation, in this country, shall have the force of law, the 
 reason and grounds of it are surely at least questionable by the people. 
 Nay, I will go farther, if an actual law had passed receiving the 
 sanction of the three estates, if it be exceptionable in any matter, it 
 
 • Whoever will take the trouble of reading the resolutions and addresses of the 
 old Volunteers, at and prior to 17H3, will find the terms Citizen Soldiers, and 
 Citizen Soldiei-y, to have been no uncommon appellations to that body. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 85 
 
 is warrantable to any man in the community to state, in a becoming 
 manner, his ideas upon it. And I should be at a loss to know, if the 
 positive laws of Great Britain are thus questionable, upon what 
 ground the proclamation of an Irish government should not be open 
 to the animadversion of Irish subjects. 
 
 " Whatever be the motive, or from whatever quarter it arises," 
 says this paper, " alarm has arisen." Gentlemen, do you not know 
 that to be the fact ? It has been stated by the Attorney- General, and 
 most truly, that the most gloomy apprehensions were entertained by 
 the whole country. " You Volunteers of Ireland are therefore 
 summoned to arms at the instance of government, as well as by 
 the responsibility attached to your character, and the permanent 
 obligations of your institution." I am free to confess if any man 
 assuming the liberty of a British subject, to question public topics, 
 should under the mask of that privilege publish a proclamation 
 inviting the profligate and seditious, those in want and those in 
 despair to rise up in arms to overawe the legislature, to rob us of 
 whatever portion of the blessings of a free government we possess ; 
 I know of no offence involving greater enormity. But that, gentlemen, 
 is the question you are to try. If my client acted with an honest 
 mind and fair intention, and having, as he believed, the authority of 
 government to support him in the idea that danger was to be appre- 
 hended, did apply to that body of so known and so revered character, 
 calling upon them by their former honour, the principle of their 
 glorious institution, and the great stake they possessed in their 
 country. If he interposed not upon a fictitious pretext, but a real 
 belief of actual and imminent danger, and that their arming at that 
 critical moment was necessary to the safety of tlieir country ; his 
 intention was not only innocent, but highly meritorious. It is a 
 question, gentlemen, upon which you only can decide ; it is for you 
 to say Avhether it was criminal in the defendant to be so misled, and 
 whether lie is to fall a sacrifice to the prosecution of that government 
 by Avhich he was so deceived. I say again, gentlemen, you can look 
 only to his OAvn words as the interpreter of his meaning ; and to the 
 state and circumstances of his country, as he was made to believe 
 them, as the clue to his intention. The case then, gentlemen, is 
 shortly and simply this ; a man of the first family and fortune, and 
 character and propei'ty among you, reads a proclamation stating the 
 country to be in danger from abroad and at home, and thus alarmed — 
 thus upon authority of the prosecutor, alarmed, applies to that august 
 body, before whose awful presence sedition must vanish, and insur- 
 rection disappear. You must surrender, I hesitate not to say it, your 
 oaths to unfounded assertion, if you can submit to say that such an 
 act, of such a man, so warranted, is a wicked and seditious libel. If 
 he was a dupe, let me ask you, who was the imposter ? I blush and 
 I shrink with shame and detestation from that meanness of dupery 
 and servile complaisance, which could make that dupe a victim to^the 
 accusation of that imposter. 
 
 You perceive, gentlemen, that I am going into the merits of this 
 publication, before I apply myself to the question which is first in 
 order of time, namely, whether the publication, in point of fact, is to 
 be ascribed to Mr, Rowan or not. I have been unintentionally led 
 
86 TRIAL OF 
 
 into tills violation of order. I should effect no purpose of either 
 brevity or clearness, by returning to the more methodical course of 
 observation. I have been naturally drawn from it by the superior 
 importance of the topic I am upon, namely, the merit of the publication 
 in question. 
 
 This publication, if ascribable at all to Mr. Rowan, contains four 
 distinct subjects ; the first the invitation to the Volunteers to arm ; 
 upon that I have already observed ; but those that remain are surely 
 of much importance, and no doubt are prosecuted as equally criminal. 
 The paper next states the necessity of a reform in parliament ; it 
 states, thirdly, the necessity of an emancipation of the Catholic 
 inhabitants of Ireland ; and as necessary to the achievement of all 
 these objects, does, fourthly, state the necessity of a general delegated 
 convention of the people. 
 
 It has been alledged that Mr. Rowan intended by his publication 
 to excite the subjects of this country to effect an alteration in the 
 form of your constitution. And here, gentlemen, perhaps, you may 
 not be unwilling to follow a little farther than Mr. Attorney- General 
 has done, the idea of a late prosecution in Great Britain upon the 
 subject of a public libel. It is with peculiar fondness I look to that 
 country for solid principles of constitutional liberty and judicial 
 example. You have been pressed in no small degree with the 
 manner in which this publication marks the different orders of our 
 constitution, and comments upon them. Let me shew you what 
 boldness of animadversion on such topics is thought justifiable in the 
 British nation, and by a British jury. I have in my hand the report 
 of the trial of the printers of the Morning Chronicle., for a supposed 
 libel against the state, and of their acquittal ; let me read to you 
 some passages fi'om that publication, which a jury of Englishmen 
 were in vain called upon to brand with the name of a libel. 
 
 " Claiming it as our indefeasible right to associate together, in a 
 peaceable and friendly manner, for the communication of thoughts, 
 the formation of opinions, and to promote the general happiness, we 
 think it unnecessary to offer any apology for inviting you to join us 
 in this manly and benevolent pursuit ; the necessity of the inhabitants 
 of every community endeavouring to procure a true knowledge of 
 their rights, their duties, and their interests, will not be denied, except 
 by those who are the slaves of prejudice, or the interested in the 
 continuation of abuses. As men who wish to aspire to the title of 
 freemen, we totally deny the wisdom and the humanity of the advice, 
 to approach the defects of govei'nment with " pious awe and trembling 
 solicitude." What better doctrine could the pope or the tyrants of 
 Europe desire ? "We think, therefore, that the cause of truth and 
 justice can never be hurt by temperate and honest discussions ; and 
 that cause which will not bear such a scrutiny, must be systematically 
 or practically bad. We are sensible that those who are not friends 
 to the general good, have attempted to inflame the public mind with 
 the cry of " Danger," whenever men have associated for discussing 
 the pi-inciples of government, and we have little doubt but such 
 conduct will be pursued in this place ; we would therefore caution 
 every honest man, who has really the welfare of the nation at heart, 
 to avoid being led away by the prostituted clamours of those who live 
 
AKCHIBALI) HAMlLTOiN llOWAN. 87 
 
 on the sources of corruption. We pity the fears of the tiuiorous, 
 and we ai'e totally unconcerned respecting the false alarms of the 
 
 venal." 
 
 -" We view with concern the frequency of wars We are 
 
 persuaded that the interests of the poor can never be promoted by 
 accession of territory, when bought at the expense of their labour 
 and blood ; and we must say, in the language of a celebrated author— 
 " We, who are only the people, but who pay for wars with our 
 substance and our blood, will not cease to tell kings," or governments, 
 "that to them alone wars are profitable; that the true and just 
 conquests are those which each makes at home, by comforting the 
 peasantiy, by promoting agriculture and manufactories; by multiplying 
 men, and the other productions of nature, then it is that kings 
 may call themselves the image of God, whose will is perpetually 
 directed to the creation of new beings. If they continue to make us 
 fight and kill one another, in uniform, we will continue to write and 
 speak, until nations shall be cured of this folly." — We are certain 
 our present heavy burthens are owing, in a great measure to cruel 
 and impolitic wars, and therefore we will do all on our part, as 
 peaceable citizens who have the good of the community at heart, to 
 enlighten each other, and protest against them. 
 
 " The present state of the representation of the people, calls for 
 the particular attention of every man who has humanity sufficient to 
 feel for the honour and happiness of his country ; to the defects and 
 corruptions of Avhich we are inclined to attribute unnecessary wars, 
 &c. &c. We think it a deplorable case when the poor must support 
 a corruption which is calculated to oppress them ; when the labourer 
 must give his money to affiDrd the means of preventing him having a 
 voice in its disposal ; when the lower classes may say — " We give 
 you our money, for which we have toiled and sweat, and Avhich would 
 save oui' families from cold and hunger ; but we think it more hai'd 
 that there is nobody whom we have delegated, to see that it is not 
 imi)roperly and wickedly spent ; we have none to watch over our 
 
 interests ; the rich only are represented." 
 
 An equal and uncorrupt repi-esentation would, we are per- 
 
 suaded, save us from heavy expences, and deliver us from many 
 oppressions, we will therefore do our duty to procure this reform, 
 which appears to us of the utmost importance." 
 
 " In short we see with the most lively concern, an army of placemer, 
 pensioners, &c., fighting in the cause of corruption and prejudice, and 
 
 spreading the contagion far and wide." 
 
 We see with equal sensibility the present outcry against 
 
 reforms, and a proclamation (tending to cramp the liberty of the 
 press, and discredit the true friends of the people) receiving the 
 
 support of numbers of our countrymen." 
 
 -" We see burdens multiplied — the lower classes sinking into 
 
 poverty, disgrace, and excesses, and the means of these shocking 
 
 abuses increased for the purposes of revenue." 
 
 " We ask ourselves — " Are we in England ?" — Have our 
 
 forefathers fought, bled, and conquered for liberty? And did they 
 not think that the fruits of their patriotism would be more abundant 
 in peace, plenty, and happiness ?" 
 
88 TRIAL OF 
 
 " Is the condition of the poor never to be improved ? Great 
 
 Britain must have arrived at the highest degree of national happiness 
 and prospei'ity, and our situation must be too good to be mended, or 
 the present outcry against refoi'ms and improvements is inliuman and 
 criminal. But we hope our condition will be speedily improved, and 
 to obtain so desirable a good is the object of our present association ; 
 an union founded on principles of benevolence and humanity ; dis- 
 claiming all connection with riots and disorder, but firm in our purpose, 
 and warm in our affections for liberty. 
 
 " Lastly — We invite the friends of freedom throughout Great 
 Britain to form similar societies, and to act with unanimity and 
 firmness, till the people be too wise to be imposed upon ; and their 
 influence in the government be commensurate with their dignity and 
 importance. ,, rpj^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^.^^ ^^^^ happy." 
 
 Such, gentlemen, is the language, which a subject of Great 
 Britain thinks himself warranted to hold, and upon such language 
 has the corroborating sanction of a British jury been stamped by a 
 verdict of acquittal. Such was the honest and manly freedom of 
 publication, in a country too where the complaint of abuses has not 
 half the foundation it has here. I said I loved to look to England for 
 principles of judicial example, I cannot but say to you that it depends 
 on your spirit whether I shall look to it hereafter with sympathy or 
 with shame. Be pleased now, gentlemen, to consider whether the 
 statement of the imperfection in your representation, has been made 
 with a desire of inflaming an attack upon the public tranquillity, or 
 with an honest purpose of procuring a remedy for an actually existing 
 grievance. 
 
 It is impossible not to revert to the situation of the times, and let 
 me remind you that whatever observations of this kind I am compelled 
 thus to make in a court of justice, the uttering of them in this place 
 is not imputable to my client, but the necessity of defence imposed 
 upon him by this extraordinary prosecution. 
 
 Gentlemen, the representation of your people is the vital principle 
 of their political existence, without it they are dead, or they live 
 only to servitude ; without it there are two estates acting upon and 
 against the third, instead of acting in co-operation with it ; without 
 it, if the people are oppressed by their judges, where is the tribunal 
 to which their judges can be amenable ? Without it, if they are 
 trampled upon and plundered by a minister, where is the tribunal to 
 which the offender shall be amenable ? Without it, where is the 
 ear to hear, or the heart to feel, or the hand to redress their sufferings ? 
 Shall they be found, let me ask you, in the accursed band of imps 
 and minions that bask in their disgrace, and fatten upon their spoils, 
 and flourish upon their ruin ? But let me not put this to you as a 
 merely speculative question. It is a plain question of fact ; rely 
 upon it, playsical man is every where the same, it is only the various 
 operation of moral causes that gives variety to the social or individual 
 character and condition. How happens it that modern slavery looks 
 quietly at the despot, on the very spot where Leonidas expired ? 
 The answer is easy, Sparta has not changed her climate, but she has 
 lost that government which her liberty could not survive. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 89 
 
 I call you, therefore, to the plain question of fact ; this paper 
 recommends a reform in parliament ; I put that question to your 
 consciences, do you think it needs that reform ? I put it boldly and 
 faiidy to you, do you think the people of Ireland are represented as 
 they ought to be ? Do you hesitate for an answer ? If you do, let 
 me remind you that until the last year three millions of your country- 
 men have by the express letter of the law been excluded from the 
 reality of actual, and even from the phantom of viilual representation. 
 Shall we then be told that this is only the affirmation of a wicked 
 and seditious incendiary ? If you do not feel the mockery of such a 
 charge, look at your country, in what state do you find it ? Is it in 
 a state of tranquillity and general satisfaction ? These are traces by 
 which good is ever to be distinguished from bad government. Without 
 any very minute enquiry or speculative refinement ; do you feel that 
 a veneration for the law, a pious and humble attachment to the con- 
 stitution, foi-m the political morality of your people ? Do you find 
 that comfort and competency among your people, which are always 
 to be found where a government is mild and moderate ; where taxes 
 are imposed by a body who have an interest in treating the poorer 
 orders with compassion, and preventing the weight of taxation from 
 pressing sore upon them ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I mean not to impeach the state of your representation, 
 I am not saying that it is defective, or that it ought to be altered or 
 amended, nor is this a place for me to say, whether I think that 
 three millions of the inhabitants of a country whose whole number is 
 but four, ought to be admitted into any efficient situation in the state ; 
 it may be said, and truly, these are not questions for either of us 
 directly to decide ; but you cannot refuse them some passing conside- 
 ration at least, when you remember that on this subject the i-eal 
 question for your decision is, whether the allegation of a defect in 
 your constitution is so utterly unfounded and false, that you can 
 ascribe it only to the malice and perverseness of a wicked mind, and 
 not to the innocent mistake of an ordinary understanding ; whether it 
 cannot be mistake ; whether it can be only sedition. 
 
 And hei-e, gentlemen, I own I cannot but regret, that one of our 
 countrymen should be criminally pursued for asserting the necessity 
 of a reform, at the moment Avhen that necessity seems admitted by 
 the parliament itself; that this unhappy reform shall at the same 
 moment be a subject of legislative discussion, and criminal prosecu- 
 tion ; far am I from imputing any sinister design to the virtue or 
 wisdom of our government, but who can avoid feeling the deplorable 
 impression that must be made on the public mind, when the demand 
 for that reform is answered by a criminal information ? 
 
 I am the more forcibly impressed by this concern, when I consider 
 that when this information was first put upon the file, the subject was 
 transiently mentioned in the House of Commons. Some circumstances 
 retarded the progress of the inquiry there ; and the progress of the 
 information was equally retarded here. The first day of this session 
 you all know, that subject was again brought forward in the House 
 of Commons, and as if they had slept together, this prosecution was 
 also revived in the Court of King's Bench ; and that before a jury, 
 taken from a pannel partly composed of those very members of par- 
 
90 TRIAL OF 
 
 liament, who, in the House of Commons, must debate upon this 
 subject as a measure of public advantage, which they might have here 
 to consider as a public crime.* 
 
 This paper, gentlemen, insists upon the necessity of emancipating 
 the Catholics of Ireland, and that is charged as part of the libel. If 
 they had waited another year, if they had kept this prosecution im- 
 pending another year, how much would remain for a jury to decide 
 upon, I should be at a loss to discover. It seems as if the progress of 
 public reformation was eating away the ground of the prosecution. 
 Since the commencement of the prosecution, this part of the libel has 
 unluckily received the sanction of the legislature. In that interval 
 our Catholic bi'ethren have obtained that admission, which it seems 
 it was a libel to propose : in what way to account for this, I am really 
 at a loss. Have any alarms been occasioned by the emancii)ation of 
 our Catholic brethren ? Has the bigotted malignity of any individuals 
 been crushed ? Or has the stability of the government, or has that of 
 the country been weakened ? Or is one million of subjects stronger 
 than four millions ? Do you think that the benefit they received 
 should be poisoned by the sting of vengeance ? If you think so, you 
 must say to them, " you have demanded emancipation and you have 
 got it ; but we abhor your persons, we are outraged at your success ; 
 and we will stigmatise by a criminal prosecution the relief which you 
 have obtained from the voice of your country." I ask you, gentlemen, 
 do you think as honest men, anxious for the public tranquillity, 
 conscious that there are wounds not yet completely cicatrized, that you 
 ought to speak this language at this time, to men who are too much 
 disposed to think that in this very emancipation they have been saved 
 from their own parliament by the humanity of their sovereign ? Or 
 do you wish to prepare them for the revocation of these improvident 
 concessions ? Do you think it wise or humane at this moment to 
 insult them, by sticking up in a pillory the man who dared to stand 
 forth their advocate ? I put it to your oaths, do you think, that a 
 blessing of that kind, that a victory obtained by jvistice over bigotry 
 and oppression, should have a stigma cast upon it by an ignominious 
 sentence upon men bold and honest enough to propose that measure ? 
 To propose the redeeming of religion from the abuses of the church, 
 the I'eclaiming of three millions of men from bondage, and giving 
 liberty to all who had a right to demand it ; giving, I say, in the so 
 much censured woxxls of this paper, giving " universal emancipa- 
 tion !" I speak in the spirit of the British law, which makes liberty 
 commensurate witli and inseparable from British soil ; which proclaims 
 even to the stranger and the sojourner, the moment he sets his foot 
 upon British earth, that the ground on which he treads is holy, and 
 consecrated by the Genius of universal emancipation. No matter 
 in what language his doom may have been pronounced — no matter 
 what complexion incompatible with freedom, an Indian or an African 
 sun may have burnt upon him — no matter in what disastrous battle 
 his liberty may have been cloven down — no matter with what solemnities 
 
 * Among the names on the pannel were Right Hon. J. Cuffe, M.P Right Hon. 
 
 D. Latouchc, M.P Sir W. G. Neweomen, Bart. M.P .T. Maxwell, M.P 
 
 C. H. Coote, M.P — Henry Bruen, M.P H. V. Brooke, M.P J. Reilly, M.P. 
 
 . — J. Pomerov, M.P. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 91 
 
 he may have been devoted upon the ahar of shivery ; the first moment 
 he touches the sacred soil of Britain, the altar and the god sink 
 together in the dust ; his soul walks abroad in her own majesty ; his 
 body swells beyond the measure of his chains, that burst from around 
 him, and he stands redeemed, i-egenerated, and disenthralled, by the 
 irresistible Genius of universal emancipation. 
 
 [Here Mr. Curran was interrupted by a sudden burst of applause 
 from the court and hall, silence however was restored after some 
 minutes, by the interposition of Lord Clonmel, Avho declared the great 
 pleasure he felt himself, at the exertion of professional talents, but 
 disapproved any intemperate expression of applause in a court of 
 justice.] 
 
 Mr. Curran then proceeded — Gentlemen, I am not such a fool, as 
 to ascribe any effusion of this sort to any merit of mine. It is the 
 mighty theme, and not the inconsiderable advocate, that can excite 
 interest in the hearer ! What you hear is but the testimony which 
 nature bears to her own character ; it is the effusion of her gratitude 
 to that power, which stampt that character upon her. 
 
 And, gentlemen, permit me to say, that if my client had occasion 
 to defend his cause by any mad or drunken appeals to extravagance 
 or licentiousness, I trust in God I stand in that situation, that humble 
 as I am, he would not have resorted to me to be his advocate. I was 
 not recommended to his choice by any connexion of principle or 
 party, or even private friendship, and saying this I cannot but add, 
 that I consider not to be acquainted with such a man as Mr. Rowan, 
 a want of personal good fortune. 
 
 Gentlemen, upon this great subject of reform and emancipation, 
 there is a latitude and boldness of remark, justifiable in the people, 
 and necessary to the defence of Mr. Rowan, for which the habits of 
 professional studies, and technical adherence to established forms, have 
 rendered me unfit. It is however my duty, standing here as his 
 advocate, to make some few observations to you, which I conceive to 
 be material. 
 
 Gentlemen, you are sitting in a country, which has a right to the 
 British constitution, and which is bound by an indissoluble union 
 with the British nation. If you wei'e now even at liberty to debate 
 upon that subject ; if you even were not by the ' most solemn 
 compacts, founded upon the authority of your ancestors and of 
 yourselves, bound to that alliance, and had an election now to make ; 
 in the present unhappy state of Europe, if you had been heretofore a 
 stranger to Great Britain, you would now say, we will enter into 
 society and union with you ; 
 
 Una salus ambobus erit, commune periclum ; 
 But to accomplish that union let me tell you, you must learn to 
 become like the English people ; it is vain to say, you will protect 
 their freedom if you abandon your own. The pillar whose base has 
 no foundation, can give no support to the dome under which its head 
 is placed, and if you profess to give England that assistance which 
 you refuse to yourselves, she will laugh at your folly, and despise 
 your meanness and insincerity. Let us follow this a little further, I 
 know you will interpret what I say with the candour in which it is 
 spoken. England is marked by a natural avarice of freedom, which 
 
92 TRIAL OF 
 
 she is studious to engross and accumulate, but most unwilling to 
 impart, whether from any necessity of her policy, or from her weak- 
 ness, or from her pride, I will not presume to say, but that so is the 
 fact, you need not look to the East, or to the West, you need only 
 look to yourselves. 
 
 In order to confirm that observation, I would appeal to what fell 
 from the learned counsel for the crown, that notwithstanding the 
 alliance subsisting for two centuries past, between the two countries, 
 the date of liberty in one goes no further back than the year 1784. 
 
 If it required additional confirmation, I should state the case of 
 the invaded American, and the subjugated Indian, to prove that the 
 policy of England has ever been to govern her connexions more as 
 colonies, than as allies ; and it must be owing to the great spii'it 
 indeed of Ireland if she shall continue free. Rely upon it she will 
 ever have to hold her course against an adverse current ; rely upon it 
 if the popular spring does not continue strong and elastic, rely upon 
 it, a short interval of debilitated nerve and broken force will send you 
 down the stream again, and reconsign you to the condition of a 
 province. 
 
 If such should become the fate of your constitution, ask yourselves 
 what must be the motive of your government ? It is easier to govern 
 a province by a faction, than to govern a co-ordinate country by 
 co-ordinate means. I do not say it is now, but it will be always 
 thought easiest by the managers of the day, to govern the Irish 
 nation by the agency of such a faction, as long as this country shall 
 be found willing to let her connection with Great Britain be preserved 
 only by her own degradation. In such a precarious and wretched 
 state of things, if it shall ever be found to exist, the true friend of 
 L'ish liberty, and British connexion, will see, that the only means of 
 saving both must be, as Lord Chatham expi-essed it, the infusion of 
 new health and blood into the constitution. He will see how deep a 
 stake each country has in the liberty of the other ; he will see what a 
 bulwark he adds to the common cause, by giving England a 
 co-ordinate, and co-interested ally, instead of an oppressed, enfeebled 
 and suspected dependant ; he will see how grossly the credulity of 
 Britain is abused by those, who make her believe that her solid 
 interest is promoted by our depression ; he will see the desperate 
 precipice to which she approaches by such a conduct, and with 
 an animated and generous piety he will labour to avert her danger. 
 But, gentlemen of the jury, what is likely to be his fate? The 
 interest of the sovereign must be for ever the interest of the people, 
 because his interest lives beyond his life, it must live in his fame, it 
 must live in the tenderness of his solicitude for an unborn posterity ; 
 it must live in that heart-attaching bond by which millions of men 
 have united the destinies of themselves and their children with his, 
 and call him by the endearing appellation of king and father of his 
 people. 
 
 But what can be the interest of such a government as I have 
 described ? Not the interest of the king, not the interest of the 
 people, but the sordid interest of the hour ; the interest in deceiving 
 the one, and in oppressing and deforming the other: the interest 
 of unpunished rapine and unmerited favour : that odious and abject 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 93 
 
 interest, that prompts them to extinguish public spirit in punishment 
 or in bribe ; and to pursue every man, even to death, who has sense to 
 see, and integrity and firmness enough to abhor and to oppose them. 
 What therefore I say, gentlemen, will be the state of the man, -who 
 embarks in an enterprise of so much difficulty and danger ? I will 
 not ansAver it. Upon that hazard has my client put everything that 
 can be dear to man ; — his fame, his fortune, his person, his liberty and 
 his children ; but with what event your verdict only can answer, and 
 to that I refer your country. 
 
 Gentlemen, there is a fourth point remaining. Says this paper, 
 " For both these purposes, it appears necessary that provincial 
 conventions should assemble preparatory to the convention of the 
 Protestant people. The delegates of the Catholic body are not justified 
 in communicating with individuals, or even bodies of inferior 
 authority, and therefore an assembly of a similar nature and organ- 
 ization, is necessary to establish an intercourse of sentiment, an 
 uniformity of conduct, an united cause and an united nation. If a 
 convention on the one part does not soon follow, and is not soon 
 connected with that on the other, the common cause will split into 
 the partial intei'est ; the people will relax into inattention and inert- 
 ness ; the union of afiection and exertion will dissolve, and too 
 probably some local insurrection, instigated by the malignity of our 
 common enemy, may commit the character and risque the tranquillity 
 of the island, which can be obviated only by the influence of an 
 assembly arising from, assimilated with the people, and whose spirit 
 may be, as it were, knit with the soul of the nation, unless the sense 
 of the Protestant people be on their part as fairly collected and as 
 judiciously directed, unless individual exertion consolidates into col- 
 lective strength, unless the particles unite into mass, we may perhaps 
 serve some person or some party for a little, but the public not at all ; 
 the nation is neither insolent, nor rebellious, nor seditious ; while it 
 knows its rights, it is unwilling to manifest its powers; it would 
 rather supplicate administration to anticipate revolution by well-timed 
 reform, and to save their country in mercy to themselves." 
 
 Gentlemen, it is with something more than common reverence, it is 
 with a species of terror that I am obliged to tread this ground. But 
 what is the idea put in the strongest point of view. We are willing 
 not to manifest our powers, but to supplicate administration, to 
 anticipate revolution, that the legislature may save the country 
 in mercy to itself. 
 
 Let me suggest to you, gentlemen, that there are some circum- 
 stances which have happened in the history of this country, that may 
 better serve as a comment upon this part of the case than any I can 
 make. I am not bound to defend Mr. Rowan as to the truth or 
 wisdom of the opinions he may have formed. But if he did really 
 conceive the situation of the country such as that the not redressing 
 her grievances might lead to a convulsion, and of such an opinion 
 not even Mr. Rowan is answerable here for the wisdom, much less 
 shall I insinuate any idea of my own upon so awful a subject, but if 
 he did so conceive the fact to be, and acted from the fair and honest 
 suggestion of a mind anxious for the public good, I must confess, 
 gentlemen, I do not know in what part of the British constitution to 
 find the principle of his criminality. 
 
94 TRIAL OF 
 
 But, gentlemen, be pleased further to consider, that he cannot be 
 understood to put the fact on which he argues on the authority of 
 his assertion. The condition of Ireland was open to the observation 
 of every other man as to that of Mr. Rowan ; what then does this 
 part of the publication amount to ? In my mind simply to this : "the 
 nature of oppression in all countries is such, that although it may be 
 borne to a certain degree, it cannot be borne beyond that degi-ee ; you 
 find it exemplified in Great Britain ; you find the people of England 
 patient to a certain point, but patient no longer. That infatuated 
 monarch, James II., experienced this ; the time did come, when the 
 measure of popular suffering and popular patience was full ; when 
 a single drop was sufficient to make the waters of bitterness to 
 overflow. I think this measure in Ireland is brimful at present ; 
 I think the state of misrepresentation of the people in parliament is 
 a grievance, I think the utter exclusion of three millions of people is 
 a grievance of that kind that the people are not likely long to endure, 
 and the continuation of which may plunge the country into that state 
 of despair wliich wrongs exasperated by perseverance never fail 
 to produce." But to whom is even this language addressed ? Not to 
 the body of the people, on whose temper and moderation if once 
 excited, perhaps not much confidence could be placed ; but to that 
 authoritative body whose influence and power would have restrained 
 the excesses of the irritable and tumultuous ; and for that purpose 
 expressly does this publication address the Volunteers. " We are 
 told that we are in danger ; — I call upon you, the great constitutional 
 saviours of Ireland, defend the country to which you have given 
 political existence, and use whatever sanction your great name, your 
 sacred character, and the weight you have in the community, must 
 give you to repress wicked designs, if any there are. 
 
 " We feel ourselves strong, the people are always strong, the public 
 chains can only be rivetted by the public hands ; look to those 
 devoted regions of Southern despotism, behold the expiring victim on 
 his knees, presenting the javelin reeking with his blood to the fero- 
 cious monster who returns it into his heart. Call not that monster 
 the tyrant, he is no more than the executioner of that inhuman 
 tyranny which the people practice upon themselves, and of wliich he 
 is only reserved to be a later victim than the wretch he has sent before. 
 Look to a nearer country, where the sanguinary characters are more 
 legible ; whence you almost hear the groans of deatli and torture. 
 Do you ascribe the rapine and murder of France to the few names 
 that we are execrating here ? or do you not see that it is the phrenzy 
 of an infuriated multitude abusing its own strength, and practising 
 those hideous abominations upon itself. Against the violence of this 
 strength let your virtue and influence be our safeguard." What 
 criminality, gentlemen of the jury, can you find in this? what at any 
 time ? But I ask you, peculiarly at this momentous period, what 
 guilt can you find in it ? My client saw the scene of horror and 
 blood which covers almost the face of Europe : he feared that causes, 
 which he thought similar, might produce similar effects, and he seeks 
 to avert those dangers by calling the united virtue and tried 
 moderation of the country into a state of strength and vigilance. Yet 
 this is the conduct which the prosecution of this day seeks to punish 
 
ABCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 95 
 
 and stigmatize. And tliis is the language for which this paper is repro- 
 bated to-day, as tending to turn the hearts of the people against their 
 sovereign, and inviting them to overturn the constitution. Let us 
 now, gentlemen, consider the concluding part of this publication ; it 
 recommends a meeting of the people to deliberate on constitutional 
 methods of redressing grievances. Upon this subject I am inclined 
 to suspect that I have in my yovith taken up crude ideas, not founded, 
 perhaps, in law ; but I did imagine that when the bill of rights re- 
 stored the right of petitioning for the redress of grievances, it was 
 understood the people might boldly state among themselves that 
 grievances did exist ; that they might lawfully assemble themselves in 
 such manner as they might deem orderly and decorous. I thought I 
 had collected it from the greatest luminaries of the law. The power 
 of petitioning seemed to me to imply the right of assembling for the 
 purpose of deliberation. The law requiring a petition to be pre- 
 sented by a limited number, seemed to me to admit that the petition 
 might be prepared by any number whatever, provided, in doing so, 
 they did not commit any breach or violation of the public peace. I 
 know that there has been a law passed in the Irish parliament of last 
 year, which may bring my former opinion into a merited want of 
 authority. That law declares that no body of men may delegate a 
 power to any smaller number, to act, think, or to petition for them. 
 If that law had not passed I should have thought that the assembling 
 by a delegated convention was recommended, in order to avoid the 
 tumult and disorder of a promiscuous assembly of the whole mass of 
 the people. I should have conceived before that act that any law to 
 abridge the orderly appointment of the few to consult for the interest 
 of the many, and thus force the many to consult by themselves or not 
 at all, would in fact be a laAv not to restrain but to pi'omote insurrec- 
 tion, but that law has spoken and my error must stand corrected. Of 
 tliis, however, let me remind you, you are to try this part of the 
 publication by what the law was then, and by what it is now. How 
 was it vniderstood until last session of parliament ? You had both in 
 England and Ireland, for the last ten years, these delegated meetings. 
 The Volunteers of Ireland, in 1782, met by delegation ; they framed 
 a plan of parliamentary reform ; they presented it to the representative 
 wisdom of the nation ; it was not received, but no man ever dreamed 
 that it was not the undoubted right of the subject to assemble in that 
 manner. They assembled by delegation at Dungannon, and to sheAv 
 the idea then entertained of the legality of their public conduct, that 
 same body of Volunteers was thanked by both houses of parliament, 
 and their delegates most graciously received at the throne. The other 
 day, you had delegated representatives of the Catholics of Ireland, 
 publicly elected by the members of that persuasion, and sitting in 
 convention in the heart of your capital, carrying on an actual treaty 
 with the existing government, and under the eye of your own par- 
 liament, which was then assembled ; you have seen the delegates 
 from that convention, carry the complaints of their grievances to the 
 foot of the throne ; from whence they brought back to that convention, 
 the auspicious tidings of that redress which they had been refused at 
 home. 
 
 Such, gentlemen, hav(^ been the means of popular communication 
 
96 TRIAL OF 
 
 and discussion, which until the last session have been deemed legal 
 in this country ; as happily for the sister kingdom, they are yet con- 
 sidered there. 
 
 I do not complain of this act as any infraction of popular liberty ; 
 I should not think it becoming in me to express any complaint against 
 a law, when once become such. I observe only, that one mode of 
 popular deliberation is thereby taken utterly away, and you are 
 reduced to a situation in which you never stood before. You are 
 living in a country, where the constitution is rightly stated to be 
 only ten years old ; where the people have not the ordinary rudiments 
 of education. It is a melancholy story, that the lower orders of the 
 people here have less means of being enlightened than the same class 
 of people in any other country. If there be no means left by which 
 public measures can be canvassed, what will be the consequence ? 
 Where the press is free, and discussion unrestrained, the mind by the 
 collision of intercourse, gets rid of its own asperities, a sort of in- 
 sensible perspiration takes place, by which those acrimonies, which 
 would otherwise fester and inflame, are quietly dissolved and dissipated. 
 But now, if any aggregate assembly shall meet, they are censured ; 
 if a printer publishes their resolutions he is punished ; rightly to be 
 sure in both cases, for it has been lately done. If the people say, let 
 us not create tumult, but meet in delegation, they cannot do it ; if 
 they are anxious to promote parliamentary reform, in that way, they 
 cannot do it ; the law of the last session has for the first time declared 
 such meetings to be a crime. What then remains ? Only the liberty 
 of the press, that sacred palladium, which no influence, no power, no 
 minister, no government, which nothing but the depravity, or folly, 
 or corruption of a jury, can ever destroy. And what calamity are 
 the people saved from, by having public communication left open to 
 them ? I will tell you, gentlemen, what they are saved from, and 
 what the government is saved from ; I will tell you also, to what 
 both are exposed by shutting up that communication ; in one case 
 sedition speaks aloud, and walks abroad ; the demagogue goes forth, 
 the public eye is upon him, he frets his busy hour upon the stage, but 
 soon either weariness, or bribe, or [)unishment, or disappointment 
 bears him down, or drives him off, and he appears no more ; in the 
 other case, how does the work of sedition go forward ? Night after 
 night the mufiied rebel steals forth in the dark, and casts another 
 and another brand upon the pile, to which, when the hour of fatal 
 maturity shall arrive, he will apply the flame. If you doubt of the 
 horrid consequences of suppi'essing the effusion even of individual 
 discontent, look to those enslaved countries where the protection of 
 despotism is supposed to be secured by such restraints, even the 
 person of the despot there is never in safety. Neither the fears of 
 the despot, nor the machinations of the slave have any slumber, the 
 one anticipating the moment of peril, the other watching the oppor- 
 tunity of aggression. The fatal crisis is equally a surprise upon 
 both ; the decisive instant is precipitated without warning, by folly 
 on the one side or by frenzy on the other, and there is no notice of 
 the treason till the traitor acts. In those unfortunate countries (one 
 cannot read it without horror) there are officers whose province it is, 
 to have the water, which is to be drank by their rulers, sealed up in 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 97 
 
 bottles, lest some wretched miscreant should throw poison into the 
 draught. 
 
 But, gentlemen, if you wish for a nearer and more interesting 
 example, you have it in the history of your own revolution ; you have 
 it at that memorable period, when the monarch found a servile 
 acquiescence in the ministers of his folly, Avhen the liberty of the 
 press was trodden under foot, when venal sheriffs returned packed 
 juries to carry into effect those fatal conspiracies of the few against 
 the many; when the devoted benches of public justice were filled by 
 some of those foundlings of fortune, who, overwhelmed in the torrent 
 of corruption at an early period, lay at the bottom like drowned bodies, 
 while soundness or sanity remained in them ; but at length becoming 
 buoyant by putrefaction, they rose as they rotted, and floated to the 
 surface of the polluted stream, where they were drifted along, the 
 objects of terror, and contagion and abomination. 
 
 In that awful moment of a nation's travail, of the last gasp of 
 tyranny, and the first breath of freedom, how pregnant is the example ? 
 The press extinguished, the people enslaved, and the prince undone. 
 
 As the advocate of society, therefore, of peace, of domestic liberty, 
 and the lasting union of the two countries, I conjure you to guard the 
 liberty of the press, that great centinel of the state, that grand 
 detector of public imposture : guard it, because when it sinks, there 
 sinks with it, in one common grave, the libei'ty of the subject and the 
 security of the crown. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am glad that this question has not been brought 
 forward earlier; I rejoice for the sake of the court, of the jury, and 
 of the public repose, that this question has not been brought forward 
 till now. In Great Britain analagous circumstances have taken place. 
 At the commencement of that unfortunate war which has deluged 
 Europe with blood, the spirit of the English people was tremblingly 
 alive to the terror of French principles ; at that moment of general 
 paroxysm, to accuse was to convict. The danger looked larger to 
 the public eye, from the misty medium through which it was surveyed. 
 We measure inaccessible heights by the shadows which they project ; 
 where the lowness and the distance of the light form the length of 
 the shade. 
 
 There is a sort of spring, and adventurous credulity, which disdains 
 assenting to obvious truths, and delights in catching at the im- 
 probability of circumstances, as its best ground of faith. To what 
 other cause, gentlemen, can you ascribe that in the wise, the reflecting 
 and the philosophic nation of Great Britain, a printer has been 
 gravely found guilty of a libel, for publishing those resolutions, to 
 which the present minister of that kingdom had actually subscribed 
 his name ? To what other cause can you ascribe, what in my mind 
 is still more astonishing, in such a country as Scotland, a nation cast 
 in the happy medium between the spiritless acquiescence of submissive 
 poverty, and the sturdy credulity of pampered wealth ; cool and 
 ardent, adventurous and persevering ; winning her eagle flight against 
 the blaze of every science, with an eye that never winks, and a wing 
 that never tires ; crowned as she is with the spoils of every art, and 
 decked with the wreath of every muse ; from the deep and scrutinizing 
 researches of her Hume, to the sweet and simple, but not less sublime 
 
 H 
 
98 TRIAL OF 
 
 and pathetic morality of her Burns — how from the bosom of a country- 
 like that, genius and character, and talents, should be banished to a 
 distant barbarous soil ; condemned to pine under the horrid com- 
 munion of vulgar vice and base-born profligacy, for twice the period 
 that ordinary calculation gives to human life ? But I will not further 
 press any idea that is painful to me, and I am sure must be painful to 
 you : I will only say, you have now an example, of Avhich neither 
 England nor Scotland had the advantage ; you have the example of 
 the panic, the infatuation and the contrition of both. It is now for 
 you to decide whether you will profit by their experience of idle 
 panic and idle regret, or whether you meanly prefer to palliate a 
 servile imitation of their frailty, by a paltry affectation of their 
 repentance. It is now for you to shew that you are not carried away 
 by the same hectic delusions, to acts, of which no tears can wash 
 away the fatal consequences, or the indelible reproach. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have been warning you by instances of public 
 intellect suspended or obscured ; let me rather excite you by the 
 example of that intellect recovered and restored. In that case which 
 Mr. Attorney General has cited himself, I mean that of the trial of 
 Lambert in England, is there a topic of invective against constituted 
 authorities ; is there a topic of abuse against every department of 
 British government, that you do not find in the most glowing and 
 unqualified terms in that publication, for which the printer of it was 
 prosecuted, and acquitted by an English jury ? See too what a 
 difference there is between the case of a man publishing his own 
 opinion of facts, thinking that he is bound by duty to hazard the 
 promulgation of them, and without the remotest hope of any personal 
 advantage, and that of a man who makes publication his trade. And 
 saying this let me not be misunderstood ; it is not my province to 
 enter into any abstract defence of the opinions of any man upon 
 public subjects. I do not affirmatively state to you that these 
 grievances, which this paper supposes, do in fact exist ; yet I cannot 
 but say, that the movers of this prosecution have forced that question 
 upon you. Their motives and their merits, like those of all accusers, 
 are put in issue before you ; and I need not tell you how strongly 
 the motive and merits of any informer ought to influence the fate of 
 his accusation. 
 
 I agree most implicitly with Mr. Attorney General, that nothing 
 can be more criminal than an attempt to work a change in the 
 Government by armed force ; and I entreat that the court will not 
 suffer any expression of mine to be considered as giving encourage- 
 ment or defence to any design to excite disaffection, to overawe or to 
 overturn the Government ; but I put my client's case upon another 
 ground — if he was led into an opinion of grievances where there were 
 none, if he thought there ought to be a reform where none was 
 necessary, he is answerable only for his intention. He can be 
 answerable to you in the same way only that he is answerable to that 
 God before whom the accuser, the accused, and the judge must appear 
 together, that is, not for the cleai*ness of his understanding, but for the 
 purity of his heart. 
 
 Gentlemen, Mr. Attorney General has said, that Mr. Rowan did 
 by this publication (supposing it to be his) recommend, under the 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON UOWAN. 99 
 
 name of equality, a general indiscriminate assumption of public rule 
 by every tbe meanest person in the state. Low as we are in point of 
 public information, there is not, I believe, any man, who thinks for a 
 moment, that does not know, that all which the great body of people, 
 of any country, can have from any government, is a fair encourage- 
 ment for their industry, and protection for the fruits of their labour. 
 And there is scarcely any man, I believe, who does not know, that if 
 a people could become so silly as to abandon their stations in society, 
 under pretence of governing themselves, they would become the dupes 
 and the victims of their own folly. But does this publication recom- 
 mend any such infatuated abandonment, or any such desperate 
 assumption ? I will read the words which relate to that subject, — • 
 " By liberty we never understood unlimited freedom, nor by equality 
 the levelling of property or the destruction of subordination." I ask 
 you with what justice, upon what principle of common sense, you can 
 charge a man for the publication of sentiments, the very reverse of 
 what his words avow ? And that, when there is no collateral evidence, 
 where there is no foundation whatever, save those very words, by 
 which his meaning can be ascertained ? Or if you do adopt an arbitrary 
 principle of imputing to him your meaning instead of his own, what 
 publication can be guiltless or safe ? It is a sort of accusation that 
 I am ashamed and sorry to see introduced into a court acting on the 
 principles of the British constitution. 
 
 In the bitterness of reproach it was said, ' out of thine own mouth 
 will I condemn thee ;' from the severity of justice I demand no more. 
 See if in the words that have been spoken, you can find matter to 
 acquit, or to condemn. " By liberty we never understood unlimited 
 freedom, nor by equality the levelling of property, or the destruction 
 of subordination. This is a calumny invented by the faction or that 
 gang, which misrepresents the king to the people, and the people to 
 the king, traduces one half of the nation to cajole the other, and, by 
 keeping up distrust and division, wishes to continue the proud arbi- 
 trators of the fortune and fate of Ireland." Here you find that meaning 
 disclaimed as a calumny, which is artfully imputed as a crime. 
 
 I say therefore, gentlemen of the jury, as to the four parts into which 
 the publication must be divided, I answer thus : it calls upon the 
 Volunteers. Consider the time, the danger, the authority of the 
 prosecutors themselves for believing that danger to exist, the high 
 character, the known moderation, the approved loyalty of that vener- 
 able institution, the similarity of the circumstances between the period 
 at which they were summoned to take arms, and that in which they 
 have been called upon to reassume them. Upon this simple ground, 
 gentlemen, you will decide, whether this part of the publication was 
 libellous and criminal or not. 
 
 As to reform, I could wish to have said nothing upon it, I believe 
 I have said enough ; if he thought the state required it, he acted like 
 an honest man ; for the rectitude of the opinion he was not answerable, 
 he discharged his duty in telling the country he thought so. 
 
 As to the emancipation of the Catholics, I cannot but say that Mr. 
 Attorney General did very wisely in keeping clear of that. Yet, 
 gentlemen, I need not tell you how important a figni-e it was intended 
 to make upon the scene, though from imlucky accidents, it has become 
 necessary to expunge it during the rehearsal. 
 
100 TRIAL OF 
 
 Of the concluding part of tliis publication, the convention which it 
 recommends, I have spoken already. I wish not to trouble you with 
 saying more upon it. I feel that I have already trespassed much upon 
 your patience. In truth, upon a subject embracing such a variety of 
 topics, a rigid observance either of conciseness or arrangement could 
 perhaps scarcely be expected. It is, however, with pleasure I feel I 
 am drawing to a close, and that only one question remains, to which 
 I would beg your attention. 
 
 Whatever, gentlemen, may be your opinion of the meaning of this 
 publication, there yet remains a great point for you to decide upon : 
 namely, whether, in point of fact, this pviblication be imputable to Mr. 
 Rowan or not ? Whether he did publish it or not ? And two wit- 
 nesses are called to that fact, one of the name of Lyster, and the other 
 of the name of Morton. You must have observed that Morton gave 
 no evidence upon which that paper could have even been read ; he 
 produced no paper, he identified no paper, he said that he got some 
 paper, but that he had given it away. So that, in point of law, there 
 was no evidence given by him, on which it could have gone to a jury, 
 and, therefore, it turns entirely upon the evidence of the other witness. 
 He has stated that he went to a public meeting, in a place where there 
 was a gallery crowded with spectators ; and that he there got a printed 
 paper, the same which has been read to you. I know you are well 
 acquainted with the fact, that the credit of every witness must be 
 considered by, and rest with the jury. They are the sovereign judges 
 of that, and I will not insult your feelings, by insisting on the caution 
 with which you should watch the testimony of a witness that seeks to 
 affect the liberty, or property, or character of your fellow citizens. 
 Under what circumstances does this evidence come before you ? The 
 witness says he has got a commission in the army by the interest of a 
 lady, from a person then high in administration. He told you that he 
 made a memorandum upon the back of that paper, it being his general 
 custom, when he got such papers, to make an endorsement upon them ; 
 that he did this from mere fancy ; that he had no intention of giving 
 any evidence upon the subject ; he " took it with no such view." There 
 is something whimsical in this curious story. Put his credit upon the 
 positive evidence adduced to his character. Who he is I know not, I 
 know not the man ; but his credit is impeached. Mr. Blake was 
 called, he said he knew him. I asked him — " do you think. Sir, that 
 Mr. Lyster is or is not a man deserving credit upon his oath ?" If 
 you find a verdict of conviction, it can be only upon the credit 
 of Mr. Lyster. What said Mr. Blake ? Did he tell you that he 
 believed he was a man to be believed upon his oath ? He did 
 not attempt to say that he was. The best he could say was, that he 
 would hesitate. Do you believe Blake ? Have you the same opinion 
 of Lyster's testimony that Mr. Blake has ? Do you know Lyster ? If 
 you do know him, and know that he is credible, your knowledge should 
 not be shaken by the doubts of any man. But if you do not know 
 him, you must take his credit from an unimpeached witness, swearing 
 that he would hesitate to believe him. In my mind there is a circum- 
 stance of the strongest nature that came out from Lyster on the table. 
 I am aware that a most respectalile man, if impeached by surprise, 
 may not be prepared to repel a wanton calumny by contrary testimony. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 101 
 
 But was Lyster unapprised of this attack upon him? What said he? 
 " I knew that you had Blake to examine against me, you have brought 
 him here for that purpose." He knew the very witness that was to 
 be produced against him, he knew that his credit was impeached, and 
 yet he produced no person to support that credit. What said Mr. 
 Smyth, " From my knowledge of him I would not believe him upon 
 his oath." 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I beg pardon but I must set Mr. Curran 
 right. Mr. Lyster said he had heard Blake would be here, but not 
 in time to prepare himself. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — But what said Mrs. Hatchell ? Was the production 
 of that witness a sui-prise upon Mr. Lyster ? Her cross-examination 
 shews the fact to be the contrary. The learned counsel, you see, was 
 perfectly apprised of a chain of private circumstances, to which he 
 pointed his questions. Did he know these circumstances, by inspira- 
 tion ? No ; they could come only from Lyster himself. I insist, 
 therefore, the gentleman kncAv his character was to be impeached ; his 
 counsel knew it, and not a single witness has been produced to support 
 it ; then consider, gentlemen, upon what ground you can find a verdict 
 of conviction against my client, when the only witness produced to 
 the fact of publication is impeached, without even an attempt to defend 
 his character. Many hundreds, he said, were at the meeting, why not 
 produce one of them to swear to the fact of such a meeting ? One he 
 has ventured to name, but he was certainly very safe in naming a 
 person, who he has told you is not in the kingdom, and could not 
 therefore be called to confront him. 
 
 G-entlemen, let me suggest another observation or two. If still you 
 have any doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, give me 
 leave to suggest to you what circumstances you ought to consider, in 
 order to found your verdict : You should consider the character of the 
 person accused, and in this your task is easy. I will venture to say, 
 there is not a man in this nation, more known than the gentleman 
 who is the subject of this prosecution, not only by the part he has 
 taken in public concerns, and which he has taken in common with 
 many, but still more so, by that extraordinary sympathy for human 
 affliction, which, I am sorry to think, he shares with so small a numbei'. 
 There is not a day that you hear the cries of your starving manufac- 
 turers in your streets, that you do not also see the advocate of their 
 sufFei'ings — that you do not see his honest and manly figure, with 
 uncovered head, soliciting for their relief, searching the frozen heart 
 of charity, for every string that can be touched by compassion, and 
 urging the force of every argument and every motive, save that which 
 his modesty suppresses — the authority of his own genex'ous example. 
 Or if you see him not there, you may trace his steps to the private 
 abode of disease, and famine, and despair, the messenger of heaven, 
 bearing with him food and medicine and consolation. Are these the 
 materials, of which you suppose anarchy and public rapine to be 
 formed ? Is this the man, on whom to fasten the abominable 
 charge of goading on a frantic populace to mutiny and bloodshed ? 
 Is this the man likely to apostatize from every principle that 
 can bind him to the state ; his birth, his property, his education, 
 his character, and his children ? Let me tell you, gentlemen of the 
 
1U2 TRIAL, OF 
 
 jury, that if you agree with his prosecutors, in thinking that there ought 
 to be a sacrifice of such a man, on such an occasion, and upon the 
 credit of such evidence, you are to convict him — never did you, never 
 can you give a sentence, consigning any man to public punishment 
 witli less danger to his person or to his fame : for where could the 
 hireling be found to fling contumely or ingratitude at his head, whose 
 private distresses he had not laboured to alleviate, or w^hose public 
 condition he had not laboured to improve. 
 
 I cannot, however, avoid adverting to a circumstance that distin- 
 guishes the case of Mr. Kowan, from that of a late sacrifice in a 
 neighbouring kingdom. 
 
 The severer law of that country, it seems, and happy for them that 
 it should, enables them to remove from their sight the victim of their 
 infatuation ; — the more merciful spirit of our law deprives you of that 
 consolation ; his suiFerings must remain for ever before your eyes, a 
 continual call upon your shame and your remorse. But those suffer- 
 ings will do more ; they will not rest satisfied with your unavailing 
 contrition, they will challenge the great and paramount inquest of 
 society, the man will be weighed against the charge, the witness and 
 the sentence; and impartial justice vAW demand, why has an Irish 
 jury done this deed? The moment he ceases to be regarded as a 
 criminal, he becomes of necessity an accuser ; and let me ask you, 
 what can your most zealous defenders be prepared to answer to such 
 a charge ? When your sentence shall have sent him forth to that 
 stage, which guilt alone can render infamous ; let me tell you, he will 
 not be like a little statue upon a mighty pedestal, diminishing by 
 elevation ; but he will stand a striking and imposing object upon a 
 monument, which, if it does not, and it cannot, record the atrocity of his 
 crime, must record the atrocity of his conviction. And upon this sub- 
 ject, credit me when I say, that I am still more anxious for you, than I 
 can possibly be for him. I cannot but feel the peculiarity of your situa- 
 tion. Not the j uiy of his own choice — which the law of England allows, 
 but which ours refuses — collected in that box by a person, certainly no 
 friend to Mr. Rowan, certainly not very deeply interested in giving him 
 a very impartial j ury — ^feeling this, as I am persuaded you do, you cannot 
 be surprised, however you may be distressed at the mournful pi-esage, 
 with which an anxious public is led to fear the worst from your possible 
 determination. But I will not, for the justice and honour of our common 
 country, suffer my mind to be borne away by such melancholy antici- 
 pation, I will not relinquish the confidence that this day will be the 
 period of his sufferings ; and, however mercilessly he has been hitherto 
 pursued, that your verdict will send him home to the arms of his 
 family, and the wishes of his country. But if, which heaven forbid, 
 it hath still been unfortunately determined, that because he has not 
 bent to power and authority, because he would not bow down before 
 the golden calf and worship it, he is to be bound and cast into the 
 furnace ; I do trust in God, that there is a redeeming spirit in the 
 constitution, which will be seen to walk with the sufferer through the 
 flames, and to preserve him unhurt by the conflagration. 
 
 [After Mr, Curran had concluded, there was another universal 
 burst of applause tlirou;:;li tlie court and hall, for some minutes, which 
 was again silenced by the interference of Lord Clonmel.J 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMIliTON ROWAN. 103 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — My Lords, It is Mr. Prime Serjeant's 
 duty to speak to the evidence, but as Mr. Curran has let fall some 
 things to make an impression not merely upon those Avho surround us, 
 I must be excused in stating some facts known to no human being but 
 myself. It has been stated that this was an oj^pressive prosecution, 
 and that oppression has been intended by the delay. Now, I do aver 
 that the instructions he has I'eceived are false ; that I received no 
 instructions of tlie kind from government, and no government could 
 think of prevailing with me in such a measure. I feel within myself, 
 that no man could ask me such a thing twice in the office I hold. 
 Let the jury consider the fact as it is, let them consider the evidence, 
 and God forbid ! they should be influenced by anything but the 
 evidence. Mr. Curran states that oppression is practised — I am 
 responsible to the court for my conduct hei-e, and if I have carried on 
 this prosecution with oppression, I am responsible to the country. 
 Let this gentleman, if he thinks he has been oppressed, call me to 
 punishment — let me be a disgrace in the eye of the country, and let 
 me be driven from that profession, in which I have so long been 
 honoui'ed. The facts are these : — the accusation against Mr. Rowan 
 was made in the month of December, 1792, he was arrested in Janu- 
 ary following, and brought before JNIr. Justice Downes and discharged 
 upon bail. The information was filed in Hilary Term ; as soon as it 
 was possible by the rules of the court, Mr. Rowan pleaded, and the 
 ve7iire issued, I do protest with a bona fide intention to try Mr. Rowan. 
 After that, an error was found in the record, though it had been com- 
 pared before ; the error was this ; in the record the words were " we 
 would do" so and so ; in the publication it was "would we do" so and 
 so. As soon as that was discovered, notice was given that the trial 
 could not come forward, and the witnesses were dismissed. In Trinity 
 Term, application was made to issue the venire^ and it appeared from 
 the Recorder, that he was aware of the defects ; I am above conceal- 
 ing anything, I admit he did offer to waive any objection to the error 
 and go to trial directly. I asked Mr. Kemmis, " are the witnesses 
 gone out of town" — "They are gone to Galway." I was therefore 
 obliged to refuse the offer, but entered a Noli prosequi and filed a new 
 information. Mr. Rowan put his plea upon the file, and in Michaelmas 
 Term I applied for a trial. There were several trials at bar appointed, 
 and the coui't refused, in consequence of the business before them, to 
 try it in that term ; and appointed it for this term. These are the 
 facts I think it my duty to mention, and have no more to say upon 
 the subject, but will leave the case entirely to the jury, whose verdict 
 will not be influenced by such topics as have been thrown out. 
 
 Mr. Curran — Mr. Attorney, I could not know the cii'cumstance 
 you mention, of your witnesses being gone out of town. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — It was impossible you should.* 
 
 * 111 the latter end of December, 1792, Mr. Rowan was arrested by virtue of 
 Mr. Justice Downes's warrant, on a charge of distributing a seditious paper — 
 Mr. Justice Downes having assured Mr. Rowan, that the examinations, upon 
 wliich the warrant was grounded, would be returned to the Clerk of the Crown, 
 and that they would, he supposed, be in course by him laid before the next term 
 grand jury, Mr. Rowan, instead of going to jail, in pursuance of his own opinion, 
 followed the advice of liis law friends, and giive bail for his appearance in the 
 
104 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Prime Sergeant — Wearied and exhausted as you, my lords, 
 and gentlemen of the jury, must be at this late hour, I yet feel it my 
 duty to trespass a short time upon you, in a prosecution which the 
 Attorney- General has been obliged to institute : Gentlemen, I say 
 obliged, because prosecution is painful to him, as well as to those who 
 act with him. The infliction of punishment is disagreeable to the 
 court, but in our public duty these weaknesses must give way. 
 There is justice due to the public ; my learned friend is the advocate 
 of justice to the public, not of persecution against the defendant. 
 There is no man, who recollects the period at which this publication 
 came out, too notorious and shameful to be forgotten, who must not have 
 thought it highly proper to bring the publisher to a legal trial. To 
 
 King's Bench, to answer such charges as should be there made against him. Dur- 
 ing the succeeding Hilary Term, Mr. Rowan daily attended in tlie King's Bench, 
 and on the last day of that term, finding that no examinations had been laid be- 
 fore the grand jury against him, he applied, by counsel, to the court, that the 
 examinations should be forthwith returned, particularly as Mr. Attorney- General 
 had, in the course of the term, filed two informations ex-officio against him, the 
 one for the same alledged offence of distributing a seditious paper, and the other 
 for a seditious conspiracy ; whereupon, Mr. Justice Downes, who was on the 
 bench, having asserted that he had on the first day of the term, returned the ex- 
 aminations to the Clerk of the Crown, and the Clerk of the Crown having said 
 that from the multiplicity of examinations returned to him on the first day of the 
 term, in the course of the term, and even on that day, he had not had time to look 
 them over, the court refused to make any order. Air. Rowan daily attended the 
 King's Bench in the following Easter Term, until the same was nearly spent, 
 and finding that no bills were sent up to the Grand Jury against him, he moved the 
 court, by counsel, that the recognizance entered into by him and his bail, should 
 be vacated, and publicly declared that if this motion was not granted, he would 
 surrender himself in discharge of his bail. The Attorney-General consenting, 
 the motion was granted, and the recognizance was vacated. 
 
 [It may not be improper here to state, that the above examinations having 
 charged Mr. James Napper Tandy, with having distributed a seditious paper 
 equally with Mr. Rowan, he likewise gave bail ; but not having appeared in court 
 pursuant to his recognizance, it was estreated, green-wax process issued against 
 the bail, and the amount of the recognizance levied from them, though no bill of 
 indictment, grounded on these examinations, was ever preferred against him, and 
 though his absence was notoriously on another account.] 
 
 In the above mentioned Easter Term, a motion was made, on behalf of Mr. 
 Rowan, to fix certain days for trial of the informations filed ex-officio against him, 
 and the Attorney-General having agreed to the appointment of two days in the 
 ensuing Trinity Term, viz. the i3d and 7th days of May, those days were accord- 
 ingly appointed for the purpose. However, in the Easter vacation, the Attorney- 
 General served a notice on Mr. Rowan, that he would not proceed to trial on 
 those days, and would apply to the court to appoint other days, grounded on aa 
 affidavit to be filed, of which notice would be given : nothing was done upon this 
 notice, and no affidavit was filed, or motion made thereon, and the venire, the pro- 
 cess necessary for impannelling juries on the days appointed, having been, after 
 being issued, kept by Mr. Kemmis, the crown solicitor, instead of being delivered 
 to the sheriff, a motion was made, on behalf of Mr. Rowan, in tiie last Trinity 
 Terra, that the venire should be delivered to the proper officer, in order, that the 
 trials might be had on the days appointed, in case the court should not grant any 
 motion the Attorney-General might make for postponing the trials. This motion 
 was opposed by the Attorney-General — he declared, that there was error in the 
 information for distributing a seditious paper. Mr. Rowan offered to agree to an 
 immediate amendment of the information, or that a fresh one should be filed and 
 pleaded to instanter, or that he would release all errors ; — all these offers were 
 severally refused. The object of the Attorney-General appeared to be to post- 
 pone the trials, and though only one of the informations was stated to be informal, 
 yet the day appointed for the trial of the other, which was supposed to be formal. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 105 
 
 the exertions of government, at that time, it is to be attributed that 
 the trial by jury still subsists among us, and that he has not been 
 before now tried at another court ; that the King's Bench has not 
 been superseded by a Revolutionary Tribunal ; and that my learned 
 friend has not, ere now, made room for the Public Accuser. The 
 defendant must think it fortunate that he is tried according to 
 established law, and defended by counsel of his own election, and 
 before a jury, bound by a solemn appeal to God, to find according to 
 the evidence given to them, notwithstanding that disgraceful situation 
 in which it has been stated they will be held, if they presume to find 
 a verdict of conviction. I feel no danger that this jury can be 
 intimidated by apprehensions, or influenced by prejudice. My learned 
 friend and I have been represented as instruments of oppression 
 against the gentleman at the bar. I consider it as the talk of the 
 moment, because his learned counsel little knows us, if he thinks us 
 capable of acting so abominable a part ; he could not mean it in the 
 extent to which it reaches the common ear. I can consider it only as 
 the splendid effusion of his talents ; he was anxious to lead you, 
 gentlemen, from that which was the true object of consideration. You 
 have been told, the defendant was prosecuted because he published an 
 invitation to the Volunteers, entered into the discussion of a reform 
 and Catholic Emancipation, and endeavoured to have a national 
 convention assembled. I will tell the jury it is not a prosecution 
 upon any one of these grounds ; but a prosecution, because these 
 subjects were thrown before the public in a paper crammed with 
 libellous and seditious matter, calculated to inflame. These measures, 
 which were sought after, should be procured by the power of reason 
 and not by an intimidation of the legislature. Little does the 
 defendant's counsel know me, if he thinks I could prosecute a man for 
 calling upon the Volunteers to suppress domestic tumult or resist 
 a foreign foe ; these are the subjects to which he calls your attention, 
 totally evading the offensive matter in the publication. Gentlemen, 
 the questions which you are to try are these : Was this matter 
 published ? Is it a libel ? And was the intention criminal ? Can 
 he desire more ? If it was not published, if it be not libellous and 
 the intention was not criminal, I agree that the defendant ought to be 
 
 passed away Avithout trial, equally with the day appointed for the trial of the one 
 which was stated to be informal. The Attorney-General afterwards withdrew 
 the information stated to have been informal, and filed another in the stead thereof. 
 INIany of Mr. Rowan's friends suspected, that the motive for postponing the trials 
 was the expectation of having, under the shrievalty of Mr. Giffard, juries more 
 favourable to government prosecutions, than they could entertain any hopes of 
 having during the shrievalty of Mr. Hutton. In Michaelmas Term last, the 
 Attorney-General applied to the coiu-t, that a day should be appointed for the trial 
 of the information for distributing a seditious paper ; the court would not appoint 
 a day in that term, but appointed a day for the trial of that information in Hilary 
 Term following, viz. the '29th January last. After Mr. Rowan had received his 
 sentence, being desirous of having the information for a seditious conspiracy also 
 tried and disposed of, he instructed his counsel to move for the appointment of a 
 day for the purpose ; and the counsel having mentioned to the Attorney-General 
 such his instruction, the Attorney-General said that it was not his intention to 
 proceed upon that information, and that he had been prevented only by a press of 
 business from withdrawing it, but would without further delay, and accordingly 
 the Attorney-General has since entered a noli prosequi as to that information. 
 
106 TRIAL OF 
 
 acquitted ; and if the jury acquit him after a fair and candid 
 discussion of the case, no man will be more satisfied than I shall. 
 But if, without such a consideration, a juiy, in times of distraction 
 and disorder should, acquit the factious, I agree with the gentleman, 
 that the world would bear hard upon a jury, who from fear or favour 
 betrayed that situation in which the law and the constitution placed 
 them. 
 
 Let me now, gentlemen, take that place which it is my duty to 
 take, and which the gentleman on the other side, I suppose from 
 address, so lightly touched upon. I shall reverse the order he adopted. 
 The first question then is, " Whether the publication of this libel was 
 by the defendant ?" If there be a man, entertaining a doubt after the 
 evidence stated, it is in vain for me to address him. In support of the 
 fact of publication Mr. Lyster has been examined ; he states that, 
 upon the day of the publication of the paper, he Avas passing through 
 Cope-street, in this city, and seeing a great crowd at the house of Mr. 
 Pardon, he went there to know what the object of the meeting was ; 
 he says, that on going to the door he saw Mr. Rowan, Avho prevented 
 him from going to that part where the assembly was, saying he could 
 not be let in with coloured clothes : afterwards he went up to the 
 gallery : a bundle of papei's was brought, some were thrown upon the 
 table, and some handed up to the gallery, and this particular paper 
 which he produced was thrown from a parcel which Mr. Hamilton 
 Rowan had in his hand. The witness got this paper, which was thus 
 for the first time put into cii-culation : he gave an account of the 
 manner in which this matter was communicated to the CroAvn Solicitor. 
 The witness was questioned much as to family matters, with a view 
 to impeach his character, but it has had a contrary efiect, for 
 the matter was submitted to reference, and the authenticity of the 
 instrument under which his brother claimed, has been established, 
 and some hundreds awarded, one shilling of Avhich would not have 
 been given if they believed the instrument to be forged. When he 
 was interrogated as to these matters, he said he heard, this day, that 
 Mr. Blake was to be examined to impeach his character, " If I knew 
 it before, said he, I could have had witnesses from the country 
 to support me." But when Mr. Blake was called, did he in any 
 respect whatever impeach the chai'acter of Mr. Lyster? he would 
 not say that Mr. Lyster was not to be believed. What then must you 
 think, when resort has been had to distant counties to find witnesses to 
 impeach the character of Mr. Lyster, and out of the 150 men assembled in 
 Cope-street, no one has been brought forAvard to deny the fact which has 
 been SAvorn to ? Will the jury believe that if the fact could be contro- 
 verted, men would not come forAvard Avith emulation to acquit Mr. 
 RoAvan ? I there join with his counsel : he is far above bringing any man 
 forward to swear that Avhich is not the fact ; he Avoidd not pui'chase 
 an acquittal by such means, and therefore it is, gentlemen, that you 
 have not witnesses to prove he was not there, or to prove he Avas in- 
 active upon the occasion. 
 
 The next Avitness, gentlemen, was Mr. Moi'ton: he goes in direct 
 confirmation of every tiling sworn to by Lyster, though he does not 
 pi'ove the same individual paper; but he remembered hearing the 
 words of such another paper read, it l)egan Avith the Avords, " Citizen 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 107 
 
 soildiers, to arms!" This evidence, though not decisive of itself as 
 to the identity of the paper, is corroborative of the testimony of 
 Lyster, and shows that Mr. Rowan was there. Thus stafids the 
 evidence as to the publication. Can any man doubt that this paper 
 was i)ublished by Mr. Rowan ? It is not necessary for me to tell you 
 what is a publication in point of law, as to writing or printing ; but 
 putting it into circulation is a publication in law and fact. I forgot 
 to take notice of the other impotent attempts to impeach the credit of 
 Mr. Lyster by the evidence of Smyth, who could not jirove any thing; 
 and the evidence of an unfortunate woman, between whose daughter 
 and Mr. Lyster's brother there had been some attachment. But that 
 I leave as matter of law to your loixlships to state to the jury. Thus 
 stands the evidence ; and with regard to the publication, if I were 
 upon the jury, no earthly consideration could induce me not to give a 
 verdict of conviction. 
 
 I shall now beg leave to call your attention to the publication itself. 
 It is charged in the information that it was designed to overthrow the 
 Government, to overawe the Legislature, to create tumvilt and dis- 
 order. There are paragraphs in the paper to warrant every charge 
 contained in the information, which is, in point of law, sufficiently 
 sustained. If there be a single paragraph of this paper to warrant 
 the jury to draw this conclusion, that it was intended to throw the 
 Government into disgrace, to excite the subjects to make alterations 
 in the Government by force, to excite them to tumult, to overawe the 
 Legislature by an armed force; if, I say, there is a single paragraph 
 in this paper, from which you can di'aw that inference, it sutficiently 
 proves the subject matter of the information. The gentleman con- 
 cerned for the defendant read, from the account of a trial, what an 
 English jury did in the case of the Morning Chronicle, as an example 
 for an Irish jury, as if that was to bind you upon your oaths; and 
 yet what was the case ? The jury thought that a printer, endea- 
 vouring to get his bread, was not as guilty as the person composing 
 the libel, and that the former did not distribute it with any malicious 
 view. But suppose 500 juries fovuid such a verdict, are you to follow 
 their example ? I am wishing to take up the distinction made by 
 the defendant's counsel and my learned friend in the prosecution. If 
 this paper had rested with the invitation of the Volunteers to arms, 
 he never would have instituted this prosecution upon that account. 
 As in the case in England, Loi'd Kenyon said, " there may be much 
 innocent matter in the publication, but latet unguis in herba, there 
 may be much to censm-e." But here is a publication teeming with 
 faction, tumult, and sedition ; it is impossible to suppose it was intended 
 for the old Volunteers, it comes from the Society of United Irishmen. 
 The first words have been passed over by the defendant's counsel, 
 but they shew at once the wicked adoption of French principles and 
 French language. Is there any man who does not know that at that 
 period, the French revolutionists universally adopted the expression 
 of " Citizens." This paper begins, " Citizen soldiers, you first took 
 up arms to protect your country from foreign enemies and domestic 
 disturbance ; for the same purposes it now becomes necessary tliat 
 you should resume them." It is not confined to summoning the Vo- 
 lunteers to protect their country, it calls them to political discussion : 
 
108 TRIAL OF 
 
 was this a period for such proceedings ? "A proclamation has been 
 issued in England for embodying the Militia, and a proclamation has 
 been issued by the Lord Lieutenant and Council in L-eland, for 
 repressing all seditious associations ; in consequence of both these 
 proclamations it is reasonable to apprehend danger from abroad and 
 danger at home. For whence but from apprehended danger are 
 those menacing preparations for war drawn through the streets of 
 this capital ? or whence, if not to create that internal commotion 
 which was not found, to shake that credit which was not affected, to 
 blast that Volunteer honor which was hitherto inviolate." Gentlemen, 
 was public credit affected or not ? Was there a man at that time who 
 could reckon upon the security of his house for a night ? " Whence 
 are those terrible suggestions, and rumours, and whispers that meet 
 us at every corner, and agitate at least our old men, our women, and 
 our children ? Whatever be the motive, or from whatever quarter it 
 arises, alarm has arisen ; and you Volunteers of Ireland are there- 
 fore summoned to arms at the instance of Government, as well as by 
 the responsibility attached to your character, and the permanent obli- 
 gations of your institution." If this Avere a real invitation to the 
 Volunteers, it would endeavour to reconcile them to Government. 
 They were called upon to defend, to stand or fall with the consti- 
 tution, which they had, so much to their honor, exerted themselves 
 to establish. But here follows a direct insinuation calculated to 
 excite jealousy between the Government and them. " We will not 
 at this day condescend to quote authorities for the right of having 
 and of using arms, but we will cry aloud, even amidst the storm 
 raised by the witch-craft of a proclamation." Is that a peaceable 
 invitation to the Volunteers ? " that to your formation was owing 
 the peace and protection of this island, to your relaxation has been 
 owing its relapse into impotence and insignificance ;" here the country 
 is represented to be in such a state, that every man is called upon to 
 rescue it from insignificance ; " to your renovation must be owing its 
 future freedom and its present tranquillity ; you are therefore sum- 
 moned to arms, in order to preserve your country in that guarded 
 quiet which may secure it from external hostility, and to maintain 
 that intenial regimen throughout the land which, superseding a noto- 
 rious police or a suspected militia, may preserve the blessings of peace 
 by a vigilant preparation for war." This is a peaceable, quiet 
 invitation to the Volunteers, setting them against the legalised 
 establishments of the country, and against that measure which was in 
 agitation. 
 
 It is called a " suspected militia." The establishment of a great 
 constitutional force, a militia, will be soon experienced to be of 
 advantage to tlie kingdom, and not an oppression ; but too fiital have 
 been the consequences of decrying it ; opposition Avas giA^en to the 
 militia law, and numbers have fallen sacrifices to their error. It is 
 nothing less than an order to the army to disband ; that body of men 
 to whom we OAve the safety of the state, are told they are not to be 
 entrusted. " Citizen soldiers, to arms, take up the shield of freedom 
 and the pledges of peace — peace, the motive and end of your virtuous 
 institution — Avar, an occasional duty, ought never to be made an 
 occupation ; every man should become a soldier in the defence of his 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 109 
 
 rights ; no man ouglit to continue a soldier for offending the rights 
 of others ; the sacrifice of life in the service of our country is a duty 
 much too honorable to be intrusted to mercenaries." In another 
 paragraph it says, " By liberty we never understand unlimited free- 
 dom, nor by equality the levelling of property or the destruction of 
 subordination ; this is a calumny invented by that faction, or that 
 gang, which misrepresents the King to the people, and the people to 
 the King." What is the meaning of this paragraph ? it was unintel- 
 ligible to me, until I heard the argument of the counsel ; he did fairly 
 avow it to be the Government of this country, that a gang was 
 formed to preserve themselves in power ; otherwise indeed it is the 
 most rank nonsense and ribaldry that ever fell from the pen of man ; it 
 seems to be a French idea, to excite tumult in the whole body of the 
 people. The publication goes on and says, " Here we sit without mace 
 or beadle, neither a mystery nor a craft, nor a corporation — in four 
 words lies all our power, UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION and 
 REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE; yet we are confident 
 that on the pivot of this principle, a convention, still less a society, 
 less still a single man, will be able first to move and then to raise the 
 world. We therefore wish for Catholic emancipation, without any 
 modification, but still we consider this necessary enfranchisement as 
 merely the portal to the temple of national freedom ; wide as this 
 entrance is — wide enough to admit three millions — it is narrow when 
 compared to the capacity and comprehension of our beloved prin- 
 ciple, which takes in every individual of the Irish nation, casts an 
 equal eye over the whole island, embraces all that think, and feels for 
 all that suffer. The Catholic cause is subordinate to our cause, and 
 included in it ; for, as LTnited Irishmen, we adhere to no sect but to 
 society — to no creed but Christianity — to no party but the whole 
 people. In the sincerity of our souls do we desire Catholic emanci- 
 pation ; but were it obtained to-morrow, to-morrow would we go on, 
 as we do to-day, in the pursuit of that reform, which would still be 
 wanting to ratify their liberties as well as our own." Here the libel 
 recommends an emancipation to the Catholics, as a colourable pi-etence 
 for accomplishing their other schemes. " For both these purposes," 
 says it, " it appears necessary that provincial conventions should 
 assemble preparatory to the convention of the Protestant people. 
 The delegates of the Catholic body are not justified in communicating 
 with individuals, or even bodies of inferior authority, and therefore 
 an assembly of a similar nature and organization — here the very 
 terms made use of by the French revolutionists are again adopted in 
 this publication — " is necessary to establish an intercourse of sentiment, 
 an uniformity of conduct, an united cause and an united nation." 
 In the subsequent paragraph, the author enforces the necessity of 
 
 the speedy meeting of conventions " If," says he, " a convention on 
 
 the one part does not soon follow, and is not soon connected with that 
 on the other, the common cause will split into the partial interest ; 
 the people will relax into inattention and inertness ; the union of 
 affection and exertion will dissolve ; and too probably some local 
 insurrections, instigated by the malignity of our common enemy, 
 may commit the character and risque the tranquillity of the island ; 
 which can be obviated only by the influence of an assembly arising 
 
110 TRIAL, OF 
 
 from, assimilated with the people, and whose spirit may be, as it 
 were, knit with the soul of the nation — unless the sense of the 
 Protestant people be, on their part, as fairly collected and as 
 judiciously directed ; unless individual exertion consolidates into 
 collective strength ; unless the particles unite into mass, we may 
 perhaps serve some person or some party for a little, but the public 
 not at all." Does this mean to give the fullest dominion to the 
 whole body of the people, to overawe the governing executive 
 power? Gentlemen, the mass of the people is to be collected after 
 the French manner, and bear down all before them. French doctrines 
 were to be carried into execution. Are those the innocent exami- 
 nation of claims, and the discussion of great political subjects? To 
 what part of the discussion was it necessary to tell the army, that 
 " seduction made them soldiers ?" Was it necessary for the delibera- 
 tion of that great question, the emancipation of the Catholics of 
 Ireland, to say to the army, " seduction made tliem soldiers, but nature 
 made them men ?" The words are, " We now address you as citizens, 
 for to be citizens you become soldiers, nor can we help wishing that 
 all soldiers partaking the passions and interest of the people would 
 remember, that they were once citizens, that seduction made them 
 soldiers, but ' Nature made them men.' " I say, gentlemen, where was 
 the necessity of telling the army, that seduction made them soldiers? 
 Was it necessary to detach them from their duty, for the pui'poses 
 which this publication intended to accomplish ? You are told that 
 their whole creed, their whole system "lay in four words, UNIVER- 
 SAL EMANCIPATION and REPRESENTATIVE LEGIS- 
 LATURE." I say, without universal slavery there cannot be 
 universal emancipation, and without the ruin of that constitution, the 
 panegyric upon which produced such a bui'st of applause in favour 
 of the learned counsel, there cannot be a representative legislature. 
 The legislative authority consists of King, Lords and Commons. 
 But they must have an elected King, and elected nobles to answer 
 their ideas of representative legislature. I am unwilling to state the 
 seditiousness of this libel farther : but there is another paragraph 
 that deserves to be considered, it says, " The nation is neither inso- 
 lent, nor rebelliovis, nor seditious ; while it knows its rights, it is 
 unwilling to manifest its powers ; it would rather supplicate adminis- 
 tration to anticipate revolution by a well-timed reform, and to save 
 their country in mercy to themselves." Here the government of this 
 country was called upon to yield to this reform, to anticipate revo- 
 lution, and save this country in mercy to themselves. The peaceable 
 language of discussion ! Can you read this publication and say it 
 was not the intention of the publisher to intimidate and overawe the 
 government of this country ? The people are invited to arms to 
 catch a revolution by force, and then the government is called upon 
 to anticipate the revolution by a reform. Is this the peaceable dis- 
 cussion for which the counsel contend ? Or is this the freedom of 
 the press, for which I would go as far as any man. Here the libel 
 appoints a particular day for the convention to meet ; it says " The 
 15th of February approaches — a day ever memorable in the annals 
 of this couiitry, as the birth day of New Ireland ; let parochial meet- 
 ings be held as soon as possible ; let each parish retm-n delegates ; 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. Ill 
 
 let the sense of Ulster be again declared from Dungannon, on a day 
 auspicious to union, peace and fi-eedom, and the spirit of the North 
 will again become the spirit of the nation. The civil assembly ought 
 to claim the attendance of the military associations." Here the mi- 
 litary associations were particularly called on to attend the civil as- 
 sembly at Dungannon : Was it for the purpose of giving weight to 
 their resolutions ? Was it for the purpose of sending their reso- 
 lutions to parliament, backed by the people in arms ? It was 
 a national convention to be attended by a national guard. — • 
 This was the object of this publication as it strikes me ; the 
 very able manner in which it was gone through by my learned 
 friend, makes it unnecessary for me to dwell upon it, least I should 
 weaken the force of his remarks. If you are satisfied of the fact 
 that Mr. Rowan did publish tlie instrument in question, then you 
 will consider whether that publication, was likely to produce the 
 effects mentioned in the information, and you Avill decide whether 
 the publication was an innocent or a criminal one ? I will agree it 
 is matter for your consideration what was the immediate effect of 
 publishing this libel ? Immediately after it was read, some copies of 
 it were thrown out to the mob in the street, who called out for more 
 of them, and more of them were thrown out. Here is a fact, which 
 if you believe, is of considerable weight. Gentlemen, in this case 
 there has been no justification, nothing has been said to palliate the 
 publication. You will decide on the matter of this libel, and whether 
 it was published with an innocent intention, or with that seditious 
 view charged in the information. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, in any case where a man kills another, it 
 is prima facie evidence of malice, but it admits of proof to shew the 
 manner in which it was done, and whether the party accused killed 
 the person with a felonious intent, or whether the killing was by 
 accident, and not done with any intention of taking away the life of 
 the party. The allusion comes home ; here is a libel, and unless it 
 is shewn by excuse or justification, that it can be qualified, the law 
 will say it is libellous. 
 
 In the present case, the learned counsel on the part of the de- 
 fendant has endeavoured to set your hearts and passions against your 
 consciences and judgments, by representing that the liberty of the 
 press would be destroyed by a verdict against the defendant ; but I 
 appeal to the authority to whic^i he appealed to shew what the liberty 
 of the press is, " It is employed as the centinel to alarm us ; we 
 should take care it is not abused and converted into a traitor ; the 
 instant it degenerates into licentiousness it must be punished. That 
 is an opinion to which every man must subscribe, and which should 
 be as lasting as the constitution itself. Gentlemen, I have trespassed 
 too long upon your patience ; if you can reconcile it to your oaths, 
 that Mr. Rowan did not publish this paper, or that it does not contain 
 any matter libellous, no man will be better pleased at an acquittal 
 than I shall. But on the other hand, I conjure you by your oaths, 
 that uninfluenced by power or prejudice, favour or affection, you 
 discharge your duty to God, your country, and yourselves. 
 
 Earl Clonmel, Lord Chief- Justice Gentlemen of the Jury. At 
 
 this late hour, it is some relief to the bench and myself that the 
 
112 TRIAL OF 
 
 learned gentlemen of the bar, on both sides, have so ably spoken in 
 this case, that it is not now necessary for me to be very prolix or 
 voluminous in my observations. I shall therefore, for your convenience 
 and that of the bench, contract my observations within as short a 
 space as, in the discharge of my duty, I think I ought to do. Before 
 I go into the particulai's or give any opinion upon the publication, 
 I think it my duty to state and fully apprize you of a statute which 
 passed the last session of parliament in this kingdom, by which it is 
 declared and enacted, that upon all trials by indictment or information, 
 (which, if it wanted it, is an additional solemnization of this mode of 
 trial) where issue is joined, as in the present case, for making or 
 publishing any libel, the jury may give a verdict of guilty or not, 
 upon the whole matter put in issue, and shall not be required or 
 directed, by the court, to find gviilty merely upon proof of publication, 
 provided the court shall, according to their discretion, give their 
 opinion upon the matter in issue, in like manner as in other criminal 
 cases. I shall endeavour, as far as I can, to conform to the spirit 
 and words of the law. You had the power to do so before, perhaps 
 you had the right ; this act of parliament is a legislative exposition 
 of that right, and you will exercise it as becomes you. Though the 
 evidence is not long or complicated, yet the paper is both long and 
 complicated, therefore I will adopt that order which has been made 
 by the bar, and class my observations under four heads, being the 
 leading objects complained of in this information : 
 
 1st. To make the government odious by endeavouring to disparage 
 and degrade it. 
 
 2d. To render the people discontented, not only with the govern- 
 ment, but the constitution. 
 
 3d. To solicit the people to take up arms, to intimidate the 
 legislature. 
 
 4th. Endeavouring, by tumult and by force, to make alterations 
 in the constitution and government, and overturn them both. 
 
 Gentlemen, every thing which I shall say to you, will fall under 
 one of these heads. The information, of which I have an abstract in 
 my hand, is that Archibald Hamilton Rowan, maliciously designing 
 and intending to excite and diifuse among the subjects of this realm, 
 discontents, jealousies, and suspicions of our lord the king and his 
 government, and to raise dangerous seditions within this kingdom of 
 Ireland, and to draw it into scandal and disgrace, and to incite the 
 subjects of our said lord the king to attempt by force and violence to 
 make alterations in the state and constitution, and to excite the sub- 
 jects of our said lord the king to overturn the established constitution 
 of this kingdom, and to intimidate the legislature of this kingdom 
 by an armed force, on the 16th of December, in the 32d year of the 
 king, in the county of the city of Dublin, wickedly, seditiously, and 
 maliciously, did publish a libel of and concerning the government 
 of this kingdom, according to the tenor and effect following : — " Society 
 of United Irishmen to the Volunteers of Ireland," &c. They state 
 themselves to be a self-created body ; they state it vauntingly, they 
 say they have no authority save that of reason, they have no au- 
 thority in the state. I will therefore consider the language of this 
 paper as that of a body not known to the constitution, calling upon 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 113 
 
 the subjects at large, though they scorn to call them so. Let me 
 bring to your minds, that one gentleman thought the address was to 
 a new created body of Volunteers ; another gentleman thought 
 it Avas addressed to the original and respectable Volunteers ; take it 
 either way, if addressed to the new created Volunteei's it was for the 
 purposes of sedition, and if to the old original Volunteers, it would be 
 still more dangerous if they wei-e to succeed with them in altering 
 the constitution by force. It is stated, " William Dreunan, President, 
 Arcliibald Hamilton Rowan, Secretary." This is a strong pre- 
 sumption that Mr. Rowan was acquainted with eveiy part of the paper ; 
 it professes upon the face of it that he was secretary of this society. 
 I shall come, by and by, to the question of publication ; if he pub- 
 lished it, there does arise a presumption that he knew what he 
 published : I go no farther with that observation. He says, " Citizen 
 soldiei's, you first took up arms to protect your country from foreign 
 enemies, and from domestic disturbances. For the same purposes it now 
 becomes necessary that you should resume them." Citizen soldiers, 
 you first took up arms, that is, in my judgment, you took them up 
 originally for these two purposes, it now becomes necessaiy you should 
 resume them for those purposes. " A proclamation has been issued in 
 England for embodying the militia, and one in Ireland for repressing 
 seditious associations. In consequence of both these proclamations, 
 it is reasonable to apprehend danger from abx'oad and danger at home." 
 The printed paper has been proved and read ; it says — "For whence 
 bat from apprehended danger, are those menacing preparations for war 
 drawn through the sti'eets of this capital, {inuendo, menacing the city 
 of Dublin) or whence if not to create that internal commotion which 
 was not found, to shake that credit which was not affected, to blast 
 that Volunteer honour which was hitherto inviolate." In my opinion 
 these words fall directly within one of those heads I have stated, as 
 rendering odious to the king's subjects the proclamation as insin- 
 cere and hypoci'itical, as creating internal commotions, which it 
 intended to restrain, and that embarrassment, which was not 
 found ; that it went further to the ruin of the country, shaking 
 the credit which was not affected, and blasting the Volunteer 
 honour which was hitherto inviolate ; as if it was said to be 
 blasted by the executive government. This was, in my mind, a charge 
 of having created disorder not before existing, of shaking the credit of 
 the country contrary to the duty of government ; and blasting that 
 Volunteer honour, which until this instrument appeared never was 
 violated. It is charging them, in my opinion, as insidiously as the 
 meanest mind can conceive, with perilling in a most vital part, the peace 
 and the credit of the country. Whether it was calculated to inflame 
 the minds of the subjects, will be for your consideration, on your oaths. 
 It says, " These were rumours and suggestions which agitated our old 
 men, our women, and children." What is that ? Why, this is all an 
 imposition of government, they wanted to frighten you by a bugbear. 
 " Whatever be the motive, or from whatever quarter it arises, 
 alarm has arisen ; and you. Volunteers of Ireland, are tlierefore 
 summoned to arms at the instance of government, as well as by the 
 responsibility attached to your character, and the permanent obligations 
 of your institution." Here was another im])utation upon government; 
 
 I 
 
114 TRIAL OF 
 
 they have raised apprehensions and summoned these persons to take 
 up arms. It goes on and says, " We will not at this day quote 
 authorities for the right of using arms ; but we will cry aloud even 
 amidst the storm raised by the witchcraft of a proclamation." " We 
 will cry aloud in the storm." Where or how was it raised ? It says, 
 " By the witchcraft of a proclamation." Here was an imputation 
 charged upon the proclamations of government, as raising a storm in 
 the country. It says, " To your formation was owing the peace and 
 protection of this island, to your relaxation has been owing its relapse 
 into impotence and insignificance ;" that is, when you were in arms 
 this island was protected and in peace, and appeared to be of 
 consideration ; to your relaxation has been owing its impotence and 
 insignificance, therefore it can only be raised again into importance 
 by your taking up arms. If that is the impression of this paragraph, 
 you will consider whether this is a libel upon the government or not. 
 It was a publication not only to the people of this kingdom, but to all 
 the enemies of this nation, saying that this country was in a state of 
 impotence and insignificance. It goes on and says, " That to your 
 renovation must be owing its future freedom and its pi'esent tran- 
 quillity. You are therefore summoned to arms, in order to preserve 
 your country in that guarded quiet, which may secure it from external 
 hostility, and to maintain that internal regimen throughout the land, 
 which superseding a notorious police or a suspected militia, may 
 preserve the blessings of peace by a vigilant preparation for war." It 
 is impossible in a work of this kind, were it twice as libellous as it is, 
 if it could be so, that it should not be mixed with some pi'ofessions, 
 some parts better than others ; it must profess something to be received. 
 But it complains of a police and a militia that is suspected. It says, 
 if you do not supersede a police and militia, you cannot preserve the 
 blessings of peace. I say, therefore, in my opinion, no woi'ds can be 
 more inflammatory than these are. You are charging the police as an 
 evil sort of an establishment ; it is called a " notorious police," and 
 the militia as consisting of persons proper to be suspected, not to be 
 confided in. It says, " You must preserve the blessings of peace by 
 a vigilant preparation for war. Citizen Soldiers, to arms ! take up 
 the shield of freedom and the pledges of peace." TVHiat does that 
 say ? Your arms only are the shield of freedom and pledges of peace ; 
 therefore take up arms. " Peace the motive and end of your virtuous 
 institution. War, an occasional duty, ought never to be made 
 an occupation. Every man should become a soldier in defence of his 
 rights." Was it necessary to call them together ; if their rights were 
 not attacked, why invite them to collect themselves to defend that 
 right ? It says, " No man ought to continue a soldier for oflfending the 
 rights of others. The sacrifice of life in the service of our country 
 is a duty much too honourable to be entrusted to mercenaries." They 
 assume, or endeavour to assume, the power of the sword, and 
 degrading the king's forces from that power with which they are 
 entrusted, it says, the duty we suggest is too honourable for mercena- 
 ries : Is not this saying, do not trust to the military, and at that time 
 when by public authority it was declared that the country was 
 in danger. The Volunteers, in that paper, were called upon to stand 
 to their arms. Every expression of solicitation and stimulation is 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 115 
 
 used. The Volunteers were called upon to resume their arms ; the 
 nation was impotent and insignificant without it. Citizens to arms ! 
 you are summoned to arms : take up arms in spite of a notorious 
 police and a suspected militia, and in spite of two proclamations. 
 You are to do your duty to preserve good order in your vicinage, in 
 spite of a police and fencible militia, for they resist peace, and 
 you are to do your duty in spite of those constituted authorities. 
 " It is only by the military array of men in whom they confide, whom 
 they have been accustomed to revere as guardians of domestic peace, 
 the protectors of their liberties and lives, that the present agitation 
 of the people can be stilled, that tumult and licentiousness can be 
 repressed, obedience secui'ed to existing law, and a calm confidence 
 diffused through the public mind, in the speedy resurrection of a free 
 constitution, of liberty and of equality — words which we use for an 
 opportunity of repelling calumny." That is, it is only by a military 
 array of men you can have a Free Constitution ; that is as much as to 
 say, the people of Ireland have not a Free Constitution. Wliether that 
 be the meaning of the paper, as charged in the information, will be 
 for your consideration. The words Liberty and Equality ai'e 
 introduced for an opportunity, say they, of repelling calumny ! 
 Where did it come from ? Why did the Society find it necessary to 
 repel it ? How did they repel it ? By the words Liberty and Equality, 
 which they think proper to explain in this way. " By liberty we 
 never understood unlimited freedom, nor by equality, the levelling of 
 property or the destruction of subordination. This is a calumny 
 invented by that faction, or that gang, which misrepresents the king 
 to the people, and the people to the king ; traduces one half of the 
 nation to cajole the other, and by keeping up distrust and division, 
 wishes to continue the proud arbitrators of the fortune and fate of 
 Ireland." Here, he says, a Faction or Gang misrepresents the king 
 to the people. Is not this an aspersion, endeavouring to render the 
 governing power odious ? What is this gang which he says misre- 
 presents the king to the people ? I leave you to determine. Why is 
 the misrepresentation ? The paper insinuates for the purposes of 
 power which they abuse. " Liberty is the exercise of all our rights, 
 natural and political, secured to us and our posterity by a real 
 representation of the people ; and equality is the extension of the 
 constituent to the fullest dimensions of the constitution, of the elective 
 franchise to the whole body of the people, to the end that government, 
 which is collective power, may be guided by collective will." These 
 are terms, gentlemen, which yovx may probably understand, though 
 they are conveyed in an unascertained and declamatory stile. Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, at the time that the qualification of a voter to 
 give his suffrage to a candidate for a seat in parliament was originally 
 ascertained, forty shillings was equivalent then, as it is calculated, to 
 forty pounds of our present currency ; fi'om the time of Henry I. to 
 Queen Anne, the value of money had advanced in a ratio of one to 
 twelve ; fi'om that time to this it has been as one to twenty ; so that 
 a man then having an estate of twenty shillings a year was equal to 
 a man's having an estate of twenty pound of our present money. 
 The elective franchise never was in the whole body of the people in 
 
116 TRIAL OF 
 
 Great Britain or Ireland.* It says, " That legislation may originate 
 from public reason, keep pace with public improvement, and terminate 
 in public liappiness — If our constitution be imperfect, nothing but 
 a reform in representation will rectify its abuses." In figurative 
 abstracted expressions it is not easy to ascertain the meaning ; although 
 you have an impression of the object. This may be a very innocent 
 proposition ; but to me it may be a veiy wicked one, when ap])lied to 
 be obtained in the manner here pointed out : it says, " nothing but a 
 Reform will rectify its abuses — nothing but a Reform will perpetuate 
 its blessings ;" and then it goes on and says, " We now address you 
 as Citizens," &c. Not a word of subjects from beginning to end — 
 that is a word driven out of fashion, at least in this publication — 
 *' Seduction made them soldiers, but nature made them men." What 
 Iiad this charge to the soldiers to do with a parliamentary reform ? I 
 quarrel not with the composition, it is not my duty, but in my mind 
 here is a direct charge upon the military, that they were imposed 
 upon, that seduction had made them soldiers. The sword is put into 
 the hands of the sovereign, he is vested with it by the constitution, 
 and yet this paper says, it was made an instrument of seduction. 
 " We address you without any authority, save that of reason, and if 
 we obtain the coincidence of public opinion, it is neither by force nor 
 stratagem, for we have no power to terrify, no artifice to cajole, no 
 fund to seduce — here we sit without mace or beadle, neither a mys- 
 tery, nor a craft, nor a corporation." 
 
 Here they acknowledge they had no proper authority to call the 
 people to arms, which they assume to do by that publication ; they 
 avow that this society did make no corporate body or legal authority. 
 They add, " In four words lies all our power, UNIVERSAL 
 EMANCIPATION and REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE. 
 Yet we are confident that on the pivot of this principle, a convention, 
 still less a society, less still a single man, will be able first to move 
 and then to raise the world." I rest here a little to consider what 
 idea this writer must have of the power of the paper, when a single 
 man will be able first to move and then to raise the world ; one of the 
 charges is, that this paper intended to stir the people to arms, it is an 
 admission here, a profession, a vaunt, that the society, nay less, a 
 single man, may move and then raise the world ; the expression is 
 not one kingdom, but to raise the world. If any thing like it has 
 happened, it is a miserable consideration. " We therefore wish for 
 Catholic emancipation without any modification, but still we consider 
 this necessary enfranchisement as merely the portal to the temple of 
 national freedom; wide as this entrance is — wide enovigh to admit 
 three millions, it is narrow, when compared to the capacity and com- 
 prehension of our beloved principle, which takes in every individual 
 of the Irish nation." It is but a portal to freedom : what, unqualified 
 emancipation! It is for you to consider what the beloved principle 
 is. Emancipating three millions is opening a portal — what portal? 
 one which takes in every individual of the Irish nation — where? 
 into power, into the elective franchise; it embraces all that think, 
 and feels for all that suffer. " The Catholic cause is subordinate to 
 our cause, and included in it, for as United Irishmen, we adhere to 
 
 * Vide Proline Brc\ . Pari. red. p. 187. & 2 Whitclock p. 90. contra. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMLLTON KOWAN. 117 
 
 no sect but to society, to no creed but Christianity, to no party but 
 tlje whole people. In the sincerity of our souls do we desire 
 Catholic emancipation : but were it obtained to-morrow, to-morrow 
 would we go on, as we do to-day, in the pursuit of that reform 
 which would still be wanting to ratify their liberties as well as our 
 own." You, Roman Catholics, emancipated to-morrow, will not stop 
 lis, we will go on, and unless you go on with us, it will not be 
 sufficient to establish yovn' liberty. " For both these purposes, it 
 appears necessary that provincial conventions should assemble prepa- 
 ratory to the convention of the Protestant people. The delegates of 
 the Catholic body are not justified in communicating with individuals 
 or even bodies of inferior authority, and therefore an assembly 
 of a similar nature and organization is necessaiy to establish an 
 intercourse of sentiment, an uniformity of conduct, an united cause 
 and an united nation. If a convention on the one part does not soon 
 follow, and is not soon connected with that on the other, the common 
 cause will split into the partial interest ; the people will relax into 
 inattention and inertness, the union of affection and exertion will 
 dissolve, and too probably some local insurrection, instigated by the 
 malignity of our common enemy, may commit the character and 
 risque the tranquillity of the island, which can be obviated only by 
 the influence of an assembly arising from, assimilated with people, 
 and whose spirit may be, as it were, knit with the soul of the nation : 
 unless the sense of the Protestant people be, on their part, as fairly 
 collected and as judiciously directed, unless individual exertion 
 consolidates into collective strength, vmless the pai'ticles unite into 
 mass, we may perhaps serve some person, or some party for a little, 
 but the public not at all ; the nation is neither insolent nor rebellious 
 nor seditious ; Avhile it knows its rights it is unwilling to manifest its 
 powers ; it would rather supplicate administration to anticipate 
 I'evolution by a well-timed reform, and to save their country in 
 mercy to themselves." 
 
 Gentlemen, this last paragraph is a menace ; for if the proposal 
 made is not accepted, a revolution is threatened. The paper in 
 question proceeds in the following w^ords : "The 15th of February 
 approaches, a day ever memorable in the annals of this country as the 
 birth-day of New Ireland ; let parochial meetings be held as soon as 
 possible ; let each parish return delegates. Let the sense of Ulster 
 be again declared from Dungannon, on a day auspicious to union, 
 peace and freedom, and the spirit of the North will again become the 
 spirit of the nation. The civil assembly ought to claim the attention 
 of the military associations." The civil assembly was to be attended 
 by military forces ; was not the intention to alter the constitution ? 
 " We have addressed you, citizen soldiers, on this subject, from 
 a belief that your body, uniting conviction with zeal, and zeal with 
 activity, may have much influence over your countrymen, your 
 relations and friends." Armed citizens was the favourite object that 
 was to be gained ; it says, " We presume not at present to fill up the 
 plan or pre-occupy the mode of its execution, we have thought it our 
 duty to speak. Answer us by actions. You have taken time 
 for consideration. Fourteen long years are elapsed since tlie rise of 
 your associations." This part is very material, it says to the people. 
 
1 1 8 TRIAL OF 
 
 " take up your arms," and it says, " answer us by actions." "What are 
 the actions of men in arms ? Armed associations will support the 
 different meetings. We have spoken out to you : answer us with 
 your actions. " Fourteen long years are elapsed since the rise of your 
 associations; and in 1782 did you imagine that in 1792 this nation 
 would still remain uni'epresented ? How many nations, in this 
 interval, have gotten the start of Ireland?" How far Ireland has 
 been backward in the number of good subjects, have they asked ? 
 No. The question here is, how many nations have gotten the start of 
 Ireland? What is meant by this start? What nations are there, 
 that have in fourteen years advanced more than ourselves in happiness ? 
 None. What actions of other nations would that publication recom- 
 mend to Ireland to follow ? It concludes with this sentence ; " How 
 many of our countrymen have sunk into the grave ?" Gentlemen, I 
 have gone through the paper mentioned in the information, and made 
 such observations as I thought necessary. I do, as it is my duty, tell 
 you, that I think it deserves the appellations given to it by the 
 information. I take it to be a scandalous and seditious libel ; but that 
 is my opinion only. Gentlemen of the jury, it is you who are to 
 decide the question, whether you think it is a scandalous or seditious 
 libel. The verdict will be yours, and not mine. 
 
 Gentlemen, in order to support this prosecution, the first witness 
 that was produced is John Lyster ; he told you [here his lordship 
 stated the testimony of Lyster, as given upon his direct examination.] 
 On his cross-examination he gave an account of the manner in which 
 he communicated this matter to Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor ; 
 said he would communicate to him what he knew ; produced the 
 paper that was read in part by Mr. Rowan. Said he did not know 
 where Mr. Rowan stopt reading. Says he, the witness, did not 
 purchase his commission as ensign in the army ; got it through 
 the interest of Lady Hobart, his relation. The witness attested two 
 bonds, there was an issue directed to try whether those bonds were 
 genuine. Was asked whether he was examined as a Avitness at that 
 trial ; believes he was examined as a witness ; the issue was tried 
 before Mr. Justice Boyd ; there was an award of £200 out of £800. 
 Says Mr. Lambert filed a bill against him about a note of £147 
 which Peter Hamilton passed to witness. Attempts were made 
 to impeach the credit of this witness upon three or four gi'ovmds : 
 1st. He Avas a witness to the bonds which were alledged to have been 
 forged — an unfair ti'ansaction. 2d. That he got the note from a 
 person alledged to be insane. 3d. That he had got a commission. 
 4th. That it was not probable he made this memorandum. I can 
 only say, he has given a rational account of this business ; but it is 
 your duty to judge of his credit ; it is my duty to make observations, 
 which it is your duty to reject if they are not well founded. He says 
 he is an ensign in the 40th regiment. He got the commission 
 through the interest of a relation ; and it appears the arbitrators 
 did give his brother since, part of the demand, by which, if it 
 weighed a feather in the case, they thought the bond was not 
 a forgery. Says it was usual to take memorandums on getting papers 
 of this kind. »Says there was about 150 or 200 Volunteers in the 
 room. Was Lyster's evidence not satisfactory to you, he was the 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 119 
 
 only witness to this great part of the case. This observation has been 
 made: "What! 150 persons present, and not one of them comes 
 
 forward to attest the innocence of Mr. Rowan !"* * * 
 
 ******* ** 
 
 ********* 
 
 But the next witness does, in my apprehension, as far as he goes, 
 confirm every word said by Lyster. Morton says, he saw numbers 
 of persons in the room doing some business at the table. Saw Mr. 
 Tandy and Mr. Rowan in the room. The witness had seen them 
 before that day. He identified Mr. Rowan in court. He appeared 
 to take an active part in the business. Witness got admission into 
 the gallery. He saw a bundle of papers on the table, several were 
 distributed to the mob in the street, who called out for more. The 
 witness got a paper, which he gave to a person who said lie had lost 
 it. Witness said he heard part of a paper read, containing the words 
 " Citizen soldiers, to arms." If it stood upon this man's evidence, 
 here was not evidence of publication ; and if it rested upon him alone, 
 you should acquit the defendant ; but as corroborating the testimony 
 of Lyster, it is very material. If the counsel for the defendant 
 intended to discredit the witnesses for the prosecution, they have 
 failed. A gentleman from Galway, a Mr. Blake, was produced, who 
 says he now lives in Dublin, gave his evidence as to Lyster, which I 
 shall come to by-and-by. Morton's credit was not questioned. 
 Morton, on his cross-examination, said, he was an apprentice to a 
 gold-beater — believes the persons he saw at the room in Cope-street 
 were in the uniform of the old Volunteers — is sure he saw Mr. Rowan 
 there — some of the persons wore scarlet with different coloured facings 
 — witness said he could see from the gallery what was done at the 
 table. He gave the paper, the day he received it, to a person in the 
 house where the Dublin Journal is printed. The paper was then 
 read which I have stated to you, and you have heard so much of. 
 Here the prosecution Avas rested. On the part of the defendant was 
 produced Mr. Francis Blake, to show that John Lyster was a person 
 not to be credited upon his oath. Mi\ Blake w^as asked whether 
 Lyster was a man to be believed upon his oath ; he answered he could 
 not say he is not to be believed upon his oath ; but he w^ould hesitate. 
 The witness was produced to show that Lyster should .not be believed 
 upon his oath, but Blake said no such thing. In a question, whether 
 the oath of one man ought to be received, where another man swears 
 he ought not to be believed upon his oath ; then you would have one 
 man's oath against another. The credit of Lyster is not affected by 
 what Mr. Smith the second witness has said. The third witness to 
 this point was Mrs. Hatchell ; she said she knew John Lyster ; she 
 was asked whether he was to be believed upon his oath ? she said, 
 according to her opinion, he was not to be believed upon his oath ; 
 she said the witness, John, had prevailed on his brother to quit his 
 wife, and said he Avas married to another woman, which was not 
 truth — said she heard declarations from John's elder brother, and that 
 
 * The editor is here under a necessity of introducing an hiatus, the printer 
 having refused to print tiiis part according to the notes furnished to hiui by the 
 editor. (Original note by Mr. Rowan to his own Edition of this Trial.) 
 
120 TRIAL OF 
 
 was one of the reasons wliy she said the witness, John, ought not to 
 be believed upon his oath. In the usual course of evidence no proof 
 has been adduced to prove that the witness Lyster ought not to be 
 believed upon his oath. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, I think this is the evidence on both sides, 
 as correctly as I have been able to take it. As to the fact of publi- 
 cation, it is my duty to tell you, there is very strong evidence that 
 Mr. Rowan did publish that paper, and did publish it knowing what 
 he published ; and as to the other matter, whether it is a libel, I have 
 told you I thought the matter libellous — libellous in the extreme ; T 
 now tell you, that is my opinion. If you, upon the whole matter, 
 believe, upon your oaths, that Mr. Rowan published the paper, and 
 with the criminal intention stated in the information, and for the 
 purposes ascribed to him, you ought to find him guilty, for I think 
 the paper entitled to, and deserves the appellation annexed to it — it 
 is a seditious libel. If you believe he did not publish it ; if you 
 disbelieve the evidences which have been uncontradicted ; if you 
 believe he published it by mistake or ignorance, not meaning to 
 publish this paper, which might happen, but of which there is not a 
 tittle of evidence in this case, you will find him not guilty. I will 
 state this direction in other words ; if you fintl him guilty, it must be, 
 because you believe in your consciences he published it, and that you 
 believe the inuendoes are true ; meaning, as well as you understand 
 this paper, reading it separately or collectively together, that he 
 published it with a criminal intention ; that is, adopting its sense and 
 meaning. If you acquit him, it must be, because you do not believe 
 he published it, or that he did not mean to adopt its sense and 
 meaning. I must tell you, his thinking it not mischievous, is not a 
 reason why you should acquit him. His thinking he was doing right, 
 if you believe the intention of the paper was to raise forces to inti- 
 midate the legislature, which is the great object complained of, though 
 he was thinking he was right to accomplish his object by every means, 
 will not be an excuse ; that would lead to the acquittal of every felon 
 upon earth. If a man was accused of a felony, and he thought he 
 was doing a right thing to murder his neighbour, thinking he was 
 doing a right thing would be no excuse to him. If the defendant's 
 object was merely a reform in parliament, yet if he endeavoured by 
 foi'ce, or by illegal means, to obtain it, you ought to find him guilty. 
 I have stated the facts, and made such observations as occur to me to 
 be necessary — I have stated the point of crimination, and I now leave 
 to you to dispose of the question ; and have not the least doubt you 
 will do as becomes you. If I have been defective, I shall be corrected 
 by my brethern, whom you will hear with pleasure and information. 
 
 The honourable Mr. Justice Boyd. — Gentlemen of the Jury. My 
 Lord Clonmel has so fully stated the information, it is not necessary 
 for me to repeat it. With regard to his observations, I adopt them 
 every one in the same degree of latitude in which he delivered them : 
 I think the paper deserves the appellation in the information ; it is a 
 false, scandalous, and malicious libel. My Lord Clonmel mentioned 
 an act of parliament which was made upon its being thought the 
 judges went too far in former cases, it gives you poAver to decide on 
 questions of this kind, wlicthci- libel or not ; you are to give your 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 121 
 
 opinion on the whole of the matter, and therefore you are not bound 
 to find according to our direction. My opinion concurs with Loi'd 
 Clonuiel's, that the paper is a libel. If you, gentlemen of the jury, 
 are of a different opinion, you are not bound to go by the opinion of 
 the court, in point of law, in a case of libel. You have heard the 
 evidence, and the first question which arises is, whether there was 
 any publication of this paper by Mr. Rowan ? If you are of opinion 
 that Mr. Rowan did not publish the paper in question, you must 
 acquit him. If you think it is not a libel, even though he did publish 
 it, you ought to acquit him. If he published it by mistake or igno- 
 rantly, that is a ground for acquittal. But his own opinion of what 
 he thought right, even in obtaining the emancipation of the Catholics, 
 or a parliamentary reform by force of arms ; however laudable he 
 thought himself, the intention of the publication was a criminal one, 
 and in that case you ought to find him guilty. 
 
 The honourable Mr. Justice Downes. — Gentlemen of the Jury. 
 The few words I shall trouble you with, will be in concurrence with 
 what you have heard from the rest of the court. The fact of publi- 
 cation depends upon the evidence you have heard, and the degree of 
 credit you will give to the witness. I agree in the observations upon 
 Lyster's testimony, no degree of difficulty occurs in contradicting him, 
 if Avhat he said was false. If you do believe that Lyster deserves 
 credit, the publication of this paper is pi'oved to have been made, 
 industriously, by the defendant, knowing its contents ; and under 
 such circumstances as, I should not hesitate to say, adopted its con- 
 tents. If 3^ou believe it was published under these circumstances 
 which you have heard, it wall be for your consideration to determine, 
 whether it be a libel, and with what intent it was published ? I 
 concur in the observations upon its contents, and I am unable to read 
 it without being of opinion that the tendency of this paper is to 
 excite to arms the persons to whom it was addressed, and for the 
 purpose of making alterations in the government of this kingdom, as 
 charged in the introductory part of the information. If you believe 
 the account of the mode of publication given by Lyster, and believe 
 the defendant adopted this paper as his act, you are to look for the 
 intent upon the paper itself, and on which you are to decide. If you 
 believe that the general tendency of it was to excite tumult in the 
 country, and to call to arms any description of men, no doubt can be 
 entertained, that it is libellous, and it must be imputed to the defen- 
 dant, he having given no evidence of a contrary intention. To 
 attempt to effect by force any alteration in the constitution of the 
 country, or to overawe the legislature by force — any such act of 
 force would be high treason ; and to publish a paper to excite people 
 to do such an act, no man can doubt is a libel. If you do think such 
 was the tendency of the paper in question, you cannot hesitate to find 
 the defendant guilty. There was no evidence to shew the tendency 
 of the paper was of a contrary nature. The intentions of the pub- 
 lisher are deducible from the paper itself; if it was the purpose of 
 the publisher of the paper to attain an alteration in the state by force, 
 it was a criminal intention, however desirable the alteration might 
 be supposed to be, or whether the object sought for was in itself 
 right, or not. I will not trouble you any farther. I have given the 
 
122 TRIAL OF 
 
 case the best consideration I am able. You will decide upon it 
 according to your oaths, and I have no doubt the defendant will have 
 every justice in your hands. 
 
 The jury withdrew, taking with them the printed paper which had 
 been read in court, and in about ten minutes returned, and brought 
 in their verdict, 
 
 We find Archibald Hamilton Rowan— GUILTY. * 
 
 Lord Clonmel, — Do the counsel for the defendant desire four days 
 time to move in arrest of judgment? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN The only instructions I have from my client are to 
 
 disclaim any application of that kind : he does not wish to take 
 advantage of errors in the I'ecord, if any there be, but is now ready 
 to attend to receive what sentence the court may be pleased to pro- 
 nounce. 
 
 Lord CiiONMEL. — (After conferring with the otlier judges) We will 
 not pronounce judgement till four days. — Mr. Sheriff take care of 
 your prisoner. 
 
 The counsel for Mr. Rowan here objected, that he was not a 
 prisoner — he had not been in custody — he had not given bail upon 
 this information — he was bound in no recognizance — was served with 
 no process — he had appeared to the information by attorney ; — he 
 pleaded by attorney — the issue was tried after the manner of a civil 
 action, a word mei'ely of the record being read, and the defendant was 
 not given in charge to the jury as the practice is, where he appears in 
 custody. Mr. Rowan attended the trial, it is true, but the court had 
 no judicial cognizance of him ; the information could have been tried 
 in his absence — he attended as a common auditor, and the witness 
 being called upon to point him out at the desire of the bench, might have 
 been a satisfaction to them to see that the witnesses were speaking of 
 the same person, but it was altogether unprecedented in such cases as 
 the present. Mr. Rowan was ready for sentence — he claims no 
 indulgence — does not insist upon the ibur-day rule ; but if the court, 
 for their own accommodation, choose to defer the sentence for four 
 days, they have no legal authority for sending Mr. Rowan to prison, 
 until sentence pronounced, or the usual and accustomed process issued 
 against him. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — If the Attorney- General consents, I have no 
 objection. 
 
 The Attorney-General had left court, and the Solicitor for the 
 Crown remained silent. 
 
 Lord Clonmel The defendant is a convict, as such he is a prisoner 
 
 — the law must have its course. Adjourn the court. 
 
 Accordingly the court was adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Rowan was conveyed to the New prison, attended by both the 
 Sheriffs, and a formidable array of horse and foot guards. 
 
 * When this verdict was first brought in, there was a loud clap of approbation 
 commenced in the outer hall, it is presumed from a misconception that the jury 
 had acquitted the defendant ; for when the verdict was repeated, and the word 
 guilty, sufficiently stressed, the clap was changed into hootings, and hissings, and 
 groans, that lasted with very little remission, during the remainder of the sitting 
 of the court. 
 
ARCHIBALiD HAMILTON ROWAN. 123 
 
 Monday, February 3, 1794. 
 
 A habeas corpus, grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Matthew Dow- 
 ling, Mr. Rowan's solicitor, was granted to bring up John Coultry, 
 confined in Newgate for debt, to swear an affidavit ; Mr. Rowan was 
 also ordered up for the same purpose ; when their affidavits, together 
 with those of William Porter, John William Atkinson, and Francis 
 Clarke, wei'e sworn. 
 
 Mr. Recorder moved the court to set aside the verdict obtained on 
 Wednesday last and grant a new trial in this cause, pursuant to a 
 notice served on Mr. Attorney-General, and grounded on these 
 affidavits, the contents of which he set forth. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, having after some time come into court, 
 moved the court to appoint a day to have Mr. Rowan brought up for 
 judgment. 
 
 Lord Clonmel appointed to-morrow, and at the same time acquainted 
 the Attorney- General with the Recorder's motion, and the nature of 
 the affidavits. 
 
 The Attorney-General then desired to have them read ; which 
 they were as follows : 
 
 The affidavit of Porter stated that he (Porter) had a conversation 
 with George Perrin, one of the jurors in the case, on the Wednesday 
 previous to the trial, and that Perrin said that the country would 
 never have repose until Napper Tandy and Hamilton Rowan were 
 transported or hanged. Atkinson deposed in his affidavit to several 
 disparaging remarks made by George Perrin relating to the tx-averser, 
 and that he (George Perrin) on one occasion, previous to the trial, 
 had said that Rowan and several others (of the Volunteers) deserved 
 and ought to be hanged. The affidavit of Coultry charged Lyster 
 with personating his brother and swearing to the propeity in a horse 
 which had been seized for debt, and which Lyster made affidavit was 
 his, he swearing that he was George William Lyster, who in fact 
 was one of his brothei-s ; Clarke's affidavit stated that Lyster havino- 
 been summoned by him to the court of Conscience had sworn falsely 
 there, that he did not know and had never seen Clarke, the fact being 
 that Lyster had been during six years in the habit of frequenting 
 Clarke's shop, and had spoken with him a few days previous to 
 Lyster's making such oath. Mr. Rowan stated in his affidavit that 
 several persons whom he had not known before the trial would be 
 matei'ial witnesses to impeach the testimony of Lystex", that some 
 membex'S of the jury had, px-evious to the tx-ial, uttex-ed speeches dis- 
 appx'oviixg of the condixct of Mx-. Rowaxx ; axxd, further, that he had 
 xxo doubt, fx'om daily eixquix'ies made and then being made ixxto the 
 life, coxiduct, and cliaracter of Lystex-, that he would be eixabled to 
 px'ove him to be a nxaxx who ought not to be believed upon his oath. 
 After Mr. Rowaxi's affidavit had been x*ead, he was advised by counsel 
 to xnake axiother, axid was pex'mitted by the court. This fuxtlier 
 affidavit utterly denied the fact of publicatioxi sworn to by Lyster 
 and Morton ; stated that Mx-. Rowan did not previously know the 
 cix'cunxstances detailed ixx the affidavits of Clarke, Portex-, Coultxy, 
 and Atkinsoix, that Johxx Giffiii'd the Shex-iff, was a Government 
 Journalist, had an otlxce in Revenue, was prejudiced against Rowan, 
 and has endeavoxxx-ed to empannel jurox's prejudiced like himself. 
 
124 TRIAL OF 
 
 After it was read the court asked the Attorney- General, whether 
 he wished for time to have these affidavits answered ; to wliich he 
 having replied in the negative, the court ordered Mr. Rowan to be 
 brought up on the following day ; and adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, February 4, 1794. 
 
 Mr. Rkcorder said he was instructed that there were four new 
 affidavits, sworn to the same purpose as those read yesterday, to prove 
 that others of the jurors had used expressions of enmity against Mr. 
 Rowan before the trial, and prayed that they miglit be read. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General objected, for that yesterday was the last 
 day, in which any affidavits could be made, and now it was attempted to 
 bring others without any notice ; he was willing that this case should 
 meet the fairest and * fullest investigation, but would not consent that 
 the rules of court should be departed from on this, more than on any 
 other occasion. 
 
 Mr. Recorder. — I am very sensible that in ordinary civil cases, 
 where any motion is made to set aside a verdict, the party must apply 
 within four days, and lay a sufficient ground for the motion ; but 
 even then the court would sometimes indulge the party with another 
 day, to lay before it new materials, in advancement of justice.* The 
 intention of the traverser, or his counsel, was not to do anything by 
 surprise, or to bring these affidavits hastily forward, to prevent the 
 crown from answering them ; we are willing to give any reasonable 
 time for that purpose. But your lordships will consider the circum- 
 stances in which this traverser stands ; that he is in confinement and 
 not at liberty to search for evidence, or the necessary materials for 
 his defence ; not standing in the situation of a defendant in any civil 
 action, but in a situation which the law regards so far, as never to 
 impute laches to any man whilst he is in prison. If it is necessary, 
 I am instructed that affidavits can be made, that the matters, now 
 brought forward, were only discovered since the rising of the court 
 yesterday, and there is scarce an hour that further evidence does not 
 come forward, tending to show the truth and reality of the present 
 case. The information now offered to the court has been so lately 
 brought to light, that the agent has not had time to brief the affidavits ; 
 I have only been informed, on my way into court, of the purpose for 
 wliich they are brought forward, and am still ignorant of their contents ; 
 and as the justice of the case maybe advanced, and no inconvenience 
 can result from it, I trust your lordships will allow these affidavits 
 to be read, and the motion either to go forward now, or to wait till 
 the counsel for the crown shall have an opportunity of answering 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General. — The rank, character, or situation of any 
 man standing in this court accused of a crime, I conceive to be a 
 matter of perfect insignificance, when put in compction with the 
 settled rules of distributive justice. There are a certain number of 
 days given to move in arrest of judgment, or for new trial ; within 
 
 * For the rule in ci-imirial eases, see Rev?.'. Holt, 5 T. Rep. 436; Rex v. Hether- 
 ington, 5, Jurist, 529 ; R. l\ Scully, Al. & Nap. 262; Rex v. Teal. II, East, 307- 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 125 
 
 whicli the party is to lay before the court the ground upon which he 
 means to move : all then that is insisted upon is that this defendant 
 should be bound by the same rule that binds every man in the like 
 circumstances : for if a party should be at liberty from day to day to 
 bring forward new afhdavits, there never would be an end of any 
 prosecution.* Mr. Recorder's observation shows the good sense of 
 this rule ; he says new materials are pouring in every hour — I doubt 
 it not ; and that new atfidavits may come in to-night ; and the same 
 arguments used to-day will be used to-mon'ow. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — There was no objection made yesterday to the 
 reading of affidavits, which were made and sworn in the presence 
 of the court. Mr. Attorney- General has himself said that the 
 defendant was at liberty yesterday ; if so, he is equally within the 
 rule to-day, for this is only a continuation of the same motion : — this 
 is a question put, as it were, to the conscience of the court, viz. do your 
 lordships think that justice has been so done, that it ought not to be sent 
 to a new enquiry ; and shall any rule of practice be suffered to preclude 
 the light which should inform that conscience ? — It would be absurd 
 that no distinction should be made between ordinary and extraordinary 
 cases ; in small matters summary justice is enforced ; but in such a case 
 as this is (he would speak as guardedly as possible) the court will con- 
 sider that punishment is not inflicted vindictively, but for example and 
 prevention ; and that nothing gives so much force to the preventive effect 
 of sentences of courts of justice, as all the world being able to say, every 
 fair enquiry has been made, and the sentence has passed in consequence 
 of an impartial verdict. There is a way known to our law to set 
 verdicts aside, where there has been any abuse of justice ; any fault 
 in the returning officer, the jury, or the witnesses ; or any mistake in 
 the court : all applications and infonnation for this purpose have 
 been received with indulgence ; and upon the most cool enquiry it 
 has been found that the verdict, upon which the sentence was had, 
 must have satisfied the reasonable, fair, conscientious mind of any 
 man ; this it is which gives to the sentence of the law that good and 
 tranquillising effect, for which alone it is intended. 
 
 We ai-e now prepared to shew that more of these jurors have made 
 express declarations of malice, and shall it lie in the mouth of the 
 prosecutor to say, there is a rule which operates like a trap upon the 
 conscience of the court of King's Bench ; that after a certain moment 
 it becomes so helpless, that let what will arise it can do justice no 
 longer ? 
 
 I say the rules are the instruments, not the tyrants of the court ; 
 as to the point of practice it is conceived that trials at bar are not 
 within the four-day rule ; but I go upon a moi'e solid ground, and 
 appeal to this, that the court has a right to receive information, at any 
 time, in furtherance of justice ; if it were necessaiy to cite cases, 
 thex'e has been a very late one in this court, where it has exercised 
 the very same discretion. 
 
 After the verdict was brought in, not having the least idea that 
 there was any fact existing, which could impeach the verdict, the tra- 
 verser's counsel stated, that if it was the pleasure of the court, he 
 
 • R. V. Bnwditch, 2 Chittv's R. 278. 
 
126 
 
 TRIAL OF 
 
 should appear to receive sentence ; and let me observe that he did not 
 at that time conceive that he was in custody ; he was not called on to 
 appear; there was no order, and the only judicial knowledge the court 
 had of his being present, was that a witness turned to him to identify 
 him ; if then, instead of being at large, as he ought to have been, he 
 was put into prison, where he had not the same opportunity of procur- 
 ing evidence, however universally it might exist, can there be a 
 stronger circumstance to shew that he is peculiarly entitled to the 
 indulgence he seeks. 
 
 Mr, Fletcher, on the same side — When I see the temper of the 
 audience which surrounds me, I shall avoid touching upon public 
 topics with the same delicacy, which the gentleman who preceded me 
 has done. If justice is the object of this prosecution, why stand upon 
 such punctilious points of practice, and inter apices juris : in the case 
 alluded to, it was insisted that the four-day rule did apply to trials at 
 bar, but the court decided otherwise, and there is good reason for the 
 distinction ; in cases coming from the country this rule is necessary, 
 to prevent the one party from keeping the postea in his pocket, until 
 he could surprise the other at a time when he was not, perhaps, so 
 well prepared to impeach the verdict ; it is necessary, then, that there 
 should be a fixed time, that no advantage may be snatched ; but there 
 is no analogy to a case of this kind, which is entirely in the breast of 
 the court. 
 
 In the Dean of St, Asaph's case, a great prosecution instituted, like 
 this, to answer the ends of public peace, and public policy, the court 
 did exercise its wisdom upon the merits of the business before it ; the 
 rule was not adhered to, but the parties were let in after the four days 
 had expired. As to the objection which has been thrown out, that 
 if this matter is postponed we may come in to-morrow, and the next 
 day, and so on ; it is answered, that we will undertake, if it should 
 lie over till to-morrow, to rest satisfied, and seek for no more 
 materials. 
 
 This is merely a point of practice, and it strikes my mind as folly 
 to say, that so high a court as this has not its practice within its own 
 power. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice — On the day that Mr, Rowan was 
 convicted, we were called upon for judgment; but we conceived, that 
 even if it was not a matter of right upon adjudged cases, it was still 
 proper, that the defendant should have four days to question the ver- 
 dict, or move in arrest of judgment: Suppose, instead of that, we had 
 then pronounced judgment, all argument would have been concluded, 
 for it would have been absurd to say, that he should have been suffered, 
 after that, to unravel the proceedings ; then what has passed since ? 
 A motion has been made and entertained upon affidavits, stating facts, 
 of which the party has had information since that day ; I mention 
 this to shew that there has been no precipitancy in the court, nor 
 possible hardship in what it has done. Yesterday Mr. Rowan made 
 an affidavit, some others were also made ; Mr, Rowan desired to make 
 a further one, and the court waited till a late liour, till it was com- 
 posed and sworn ; tlie Attorney- General was then called upon, who 
 declined to answer these affidavits; the court then certainly concluded 
 it was to hear no more of tli(^ collecting of materials for this motion, 
 
ARCHISALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 127 
 
 but that it should go on and be argued like every other of the same 
 kind. 
 
 It is said the rule of court, with respect to moving for new trials, 
 does not extend to cases tried at bar, in the city of Dublin ; that 
 does not apply to this case, for the reason before mentioned, that 
 within four days judgment would be pronounced ; so that from the 
 nature of the thing, this motion must be made within four days. 
 
 See what consequences would follow, from the letting in affidavits 
 pending a motion of this kind ; there is not an argument to be used 
 by the counsel on either side, that would not lay the foundation for a 
 new affidavit, so that a motion would never have an end. 
 
 We are all of opinion, that it would introduce confusion into the 
 practice of the court and be a pernicious precedent, and that the 
 affidavits cannot be read. 
 
 [Here there took place some altercation upon the question of 
 practice, who should first go on ; the traverser's counsel insisting, that 
 the affidavits prima facie entitled them to their motion, and that the 
 usual practice of giving the last word to the crown did not extend to 
 a motion of this kind ; but the court, upon the authority of the King 
 against Home, desired the defendant's counsel to proceed in support 
 of the motion.] 
 
 Mr. Fletcher. — This is a prosecution highly interesting, not only to 
 that most respectable individual (for so I shall continue to call him, 
 notwithstanding the verdict), but who is the immediate object of it, 
 also to the community at large ; it is a great prosecution directed upon 
 solemn and deliberate grounds, to attain the ends of public peace and 
 public justice ; the court will scrutinise into a verdict that affixes the 
 guilt of a high misdemeanor on a character so respectable ; the only 
 end of such prosecutions must be to deter others from the commission 
 of similar crimes, and to satisfy the public mind, and to convince the 
 world that guilty practices do not go unpunished ; it therefore becomes 
 necessary, that such a verdict should be free from the shadow of 
 objection, otherwise so far from having the salutary effect proposed, 
 it might have a very different one ; men will scan the gi'ound upon 
 which such verdicts have been had ; points of practice, and objections 
 i7iter apices juris — amongst the quii'ks and pranks of the law — will then 
 vanish, and the public will stamp reprobation on a vei'dict obtained 
 under circumstances of suspicion and unfairness. 
 
 The affidavits, on which we ground our motion, are now to be taken 
 as true as the gospel, the verity of them cannot be shaken ; the 
 gentlemen concerned with the prosecution have been called on to 
 answer them, and have not done it ; these affidavits then furnish three 
 objections to the verdict. 
 
 1st. As to the person upon whose evidence alone (upon the face of 
 your loi'dships' notes) the verdict could be sustained, two or three 
 affidavits go pointedly to show that he is utterly destitute of credit. 
 
 2d. There is another class of affidavits impeaching one of the jurors 
 for deep malignity conceived against my client. 
 
 3d. There is that of the traverser himself, who swears that the 
 testimony of the witnesses was false, and further that he has reason 
 to believe that the person, who arrayed the pannel, did it through 
 favour, and purposely chose men liostile to him and to his principles. 
 
128 TRIAL OF 
 
 Now even if any one of these grounds taken separately, were not 
 sufficient to shake the verdict, it becomes a matter of high concern 
 to see whether the result of the whole does not, at the least, furnish 
 a doubt that justice has not been done ; if so, it brings it within the 
 great principle upon which alone new trials should be granted. It 
 cannot be expected that a case should be found, apposite in every 
 minute particular ; the present case has a good deal of novelty, and 
 I cannot find any accurately agreeing with it ; but you have the high 
 authority of that luminary of the law, Lord Mansfield, thus declaring 
 himself in the case of Bright and Enyon, 1 Bur. " If we have 
 reason to think that justice has not been done, we will send it to 
 another examination." It is upon such broad pinnciples that I go, 
 and if that was the opinion of his lordship, in a civil action, between 
 man and man, with how mvich greater reason should it be so in a 
 trial between the sovereign of the land and so respectable a citizen, 
 who is accused of violating the laws of that land, to which it was his 
 duty to be amenable. Will any man in his right reason say, that the 
 great broad liberal principle should not be applied a fortiori to a case 
 of this kind, where the liberty of the subject is at stake, with all that 
 he holds dear — where the public peace, and the opinion the world 
 may entertain of public justice, are involved. 
 
 Taking it then for granted, that this principle applies at least as 
 strongly to criminal cases, as to civil, there are abundance of autho- 
 rities in the books — [Here he apologised for not being better prepared, 
 having only got his brief on his way to court.] — In Bac. tit. New 
 Ti'ials, there is a case where new evidence was let in, and it is true, 
 there are in the same page, cases where it was refused ; what con- 
 clusion is to be drawn from this, but that every case of this nature 
 stands upon its own peculiar foundation, and is not to be strictly 
 governed by any decided case, because when it is not a question of 
 abstract law, but a consideration emanating: and flowinir from a 
 combination of circumstances, never the same in any two cases, it is 
 of all questions that can come before a court of common law, that 
 most peculiarly within its own sound judicial discretion. That can be 
 gathered from reporters, differing in attention and ability, and in some 
 broad principles of general smalogy. Wherever there is any strong 
 leading feature in the case, it must be judged of according to its own 
 tendency and effect ; it is apparently from the oscitancy of the 
 reporters, from their being unacquainted with the facts, and for want 
 of more correct and particular notes, that we find so much seeming 
 contradiction, otherwise we should find the opinions of the judges 
 nearly the same in all similar cases, but varying with the peculiar 
 circumstances of each particular case ; as in the present, the verdict 
 certainly would not be set aside, unless it appeared that the new 
 evidence came to the parties' knowledge since the trial. 
 
 But there is a circumstance which, in my opinion, pointedly dis- 
 tinguishes this from all other cases, viz., that the new evidence is 
 applicable to the credit of the principal witness, upon whose testimony 
 the verdict must have been found, and not to any substantive matter, 
 making a particular ingredient in the case. Nor is it a new substan- 
 tive defence. P^or the court has wisely said, we will not set aside 
 verdicts on account of evidence, which might rc^asonably have come 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 129 
 
 to the knowledge of the party before ; for then, whenever tlie point 
 upon which he rested proved insufficient, he Avould next shift his 
 ground, and try some new sort of defence. 
 
 Having often searched for cases of this kind, I can say, upon my 
 recollection, that there is none like the present to be found. Your 
 lordships then have no guide but your own discretion, and your own 
 notes to recur to, where you will see in what point of view this 
 gentleman's evidence appeared. 
 
 At the trial, he admitted that two bonds had been set up by his 
 younger brother against his elder, Which he was called to prove, as a 
 subscribing witness. He admitted that the genuineness of these bonds 
 had been the subject-matter of suits in courts of justice; that both his 
 father, in his Itfe-time, and since his death his eldest brother, had 
 impeached the authenticity of these bonds, to which he had signed his 
 name as a witness. He admits an issue out of Chancery to try their 
 authenticity : but they went down, and were the subject-matter of a 
 trial; but that some compromise being mentioned, a juror was with- 
 drawn, and the matter submitted to referees, who gave only £200 
 instead of £800, which was the value of the bonds. He was asked 
 whether he was examined at the trial, to prove the validity of these 
 bonds. His answer was, I cannot charge my memory with these facts ; 
 a pretty extraordinary answer from one who, in other respects, has 
 been so accurate. Since the commencement of this business, he has 
 got a commission by the good offices of a lady, who was his relation, 
 and before that, he had no business nor profession. 
 
 Thus did the testimony of this witness, who alone attempted to 
 bring the publication home to the traverser, appear extremely suspi- 
 cious, even upon his own examination. It will appear upon your 
 Lordship's notes, that a gentleman from the same neighbourhood, was 
 afterwards asked : Is such a person to be credited upon his oath ? He 
 answered, it was a very hard matter to say ; but made use of the 
 words, " I might hesitate." Another was examined. What did he 
 say ? " It is a very hard question — I know but little more than what 
 happened on the trial, where he was examined. I would, for my own 
 part, give him very little credit." But being pressed again, he said 
 he did not think himself warranted to say, he was not to 'be ci*edited, 
 from any particular knowledge of his OAvn. A very respectable 
 witness, of the other sex, was then called, who said she would not 
 credit him upon his oath. She was cross-examined in a manner 
 which plainly showed that the conductors of the prosecution were 
 1 aware that the character and credit of the witness was to be impeached, 
 I and by whom it was to be impeached, and yet have been able to bring 
 forward nothing to support it. This lady was asked, if there was any 
 1 particular infidelity which she had to complain of in the witness ? She 
 answered, that he had a brother who was married to her daughter, 
 whom he had endeavoured to seduce from his wife. This, however, 
 not proving sufficient at the trial to discredit the witness, I trust we 
 shall now be allowed to bring forward the new matter, which has 
 since come to our knowledge, in corroboration, explanation, and illus- 
 tration of what passed there. 
 
 The hair-dresser charges the witness with direct perjury. He states 
 that he knew him, and dressed his hair for a length of time, and sued 
 
 K 
 
 ll 
 
130 TRIAL OF 
 
 him for the debt thereby incurred, in the Court of Conscience, where 
 the other, on his oath, denied that he had ever seen him, or that he 
 ever knew his name, although the hair-dresser swears to a conversation 
 that passed between them that day on Essex-bridge ; there has been time 
 to answer that affidavit, it remains, however, uncontradicted ; therefore 
 I am entitled to take it as true, and it ought to have as much weight 
 as that of the most dignified person in the state. It is the same thing 
 as if this witness had been called upon the table, and gone down 
 without cross-examination, and then where would have been the 
 evidence to support the publication ? 
 
 There is also another witness who tells a story about a horse cause, 
 when Lyster made an affidavit, and therein perjured himself, by per- 
 sonating and swearing in the name of his brother. 
 
 It is true, at the trial, the jury would have been judges of the credit 
 of the witnesses, but your lordships would not have passed over the 
 testimony of these two men, and if you had then stated, that there was 
 not a single witness but himself, to give any legal proof of publication, 
 it is for your lordships to judge, whether the jury would have found 
 the verdict they did ; and it is enough for me, if I can even raise a 
 doubt, to use Lord Mansfield's words, in Bright v. Enyon, whether 
 justice has been done. 
 
 But it does not stand upon the ground alone of the impeachment 
 of the witness ; there are two other affidavits impeaching the conduct 
 of one of the j urors. Perhaps it may be argued from public con- 
 venience, that when the party has not been fortunate enough to find 
 evidence of this kind before the trial, upon which to challenge the 
 array or the particular j urors, it is better that the individual should 
 abide his misfortune, than tliat confusion and irregularity should be 
 introduced into the jurisprudence of the country ; but I trust your 
 lordships will make that consideration bend to the greater question — 
 has justice been done? 
 
 What is judicial discretion?* It is the sovmd application of 
 judicial knowledge and good judgment to the peculiar circumstances 
 of each individual case ; it is the investigation of every minute 
 circumstance in a proceeding, to which sound sense and liberal 
 understanding can be applied. 
 
 But you have also the affidavits of that respectable man, of whom 
 the voice of the kingdom of Ireland will say, that he would not sully 
 his unspotted honor by using any unworthy artifice for the purpose of 
 evading any punishment however great. 
 
 This alone ought not to shake the verdict ; but will any man attempt 
 to say, that an affidavit of that kind, which has been admitted, and 
 has been read, and must obtain the belief of every man in and out of 
 court, will not have some weight to induce your lordships to suspect 
 that justice has not been done. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher then recapitulated the four grounds of the motion. 
 
 1st. New evidence not discovered till after the trial. 
 
 2d. New evidence to impeach that witness without whom (had he 
 been out of the way) there could have been no verdict of conviction. 
 
 3d. Evidence to impeach the jury. 
 
 • See Thompson's Case as to "Judicial Discretion;" 8 Howell's, St., Tr., p. 56. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 131 
 
 4th. The evidence of the traverser as well to the witnesses as the 
 sheriif. 
 
 And concluded, that it would be more becoming the officers of the 
 crown to say — we will not have such a verdict as this to go abroad 
 and be scrutinised in every country, where the English language 
 is read. If we cannot have a conviction consistent with justice and 
 with decency, we will have none. 
 
 Mr. Recorder, on the same side, followed Mr. Fletcher, putting the 
 same arguments in a striking and vai'ied point of view ; he observed, 
 that by setting aside this verdict and sending the cause back again to 
 receive a solemn, serious, and deliberate investigation, from a fair jury 
 of the country, returned by a returning officer whom the traverser 
 has no reason to distrust, there could not follow the smallest mischief, 
 and then, if upon fair evidence laid before the court on one side and 
 the other, he should happen to be convicted, that conviction would 
 have the effect which was intended ; but if this verdict was to stand 
 after the evidence which had appeared upon the trial, and after 
 the lights which had been thrown upon it since, there is not a person 
 present in the court, and believing that testimony false, that would 
 not feel sorrow, to see the judgment of a couii; of justice so founded. 
 
 If this gentleman had been indicted in the ordinary way, for a 
 misdemeanor, he would have had an opportunity of knowing the party 
 prosecuting, and the specific charge made against him. But when an 
 information is filed ex officio, it is the practice of the officers of the 
 crown to keep the information they receive in their pocket for their 
 own justification, and the defendant is not authorised to call upon the 
 crown for a copy of the examinations sworn. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice. — When this was mentioned before, 
 it occurred to me that there had been an examination sworn before a 
 magistrate, and he was not prevented from applying for it. 
 
 Here Mr. Rowan appealed to Mr. Justice Downes, whether he had 
 not, when before him, requested to know who the perjured villain 
 was that could have sworn against him, and whether, for that purpose, 
 he had not been inclined to refuse the offer of bail, choosing rather to 
 go to prison, that he might know his accuser and prosecute him, (for 
 he had been refused a copy of the examinations) and said, that had he 
 gone to gaol then, as he was inclined, he would have been, without 
 doubt, acquitted, when the former sheriffs were in office, and when 
 there was not the same selection of jurors. 
 
 Downes, Justice — Admitted that the defendant had stated nothing 
 but what passed, and that he had got no information from him respect- 
 ing the prosecutor. 
 
 Mr. Recorder. — The person prosecuted, ex officio, knows nothing 
 more than what appears upon the infoi'mation filed, which gives him 
 not the smallest intimation of the witness who is to prosecute liim. 
 
 He then made some pointed observations upon the testimony 
 of Lyster, who swore that there were one or two hundred people 
 walking up and down, having no seats ; and yet in the midst of 
 so much confusion, he was able, from a distant gallery, to distinguish 
 that gentleman's voice, which did not appear very loud, nor very 
 shrill, nor very remarkably articulate, in reading a paper which 
 he presumes to swear was the very paper which is the subject of tliis 
 
132 TRIAL OF 
 
 prosecution ; nor could he remember whether he had been examined 
 some time within three years, upon so important a question as a 
 forgery imputed by one of his brothers to another, and in which 
 he was himself involved. 
 
 But even if he could be supposed an honest man, his testimony was 
 bad, as, to say the best, his memory and apprehensions must have 
 been very defective. 
 
 If those circumstances of discredit had not appeared upon the trial 
 it might have been improper to admit them now ; but in the 
 present situation of things, it would be a favour to the witness, if 
 he thinks he has been slandered, to give him an opportunity of 
 shewing, upon a new trial, that he is not perjured ; and as it was 
 said to be an easy matter for the defendant to bring a third person 
 out of this crowded and promiscuous assembly to contradict him, so 
 it cannot be difficult for him to bring some individual out of a private 
 gallery to support him. 
 
 The evidence of Morton was most palpably false, for he swore that 
 his uncle Giffiird, to his belief, had not any thing to say to the conduct 
 of the Dublin Journal, nor could he say anything of the relationship 
 that subsisted between his cousin Ryan and the sheriff, who was their 
 common uncle. 
 
 And he concluded by observing, respecting the traverser, that at 
 all events it would not convict him in the opinion of unprejudiced 
 and moderate men, to have gone further in such circumstances than 
 moderate man would go ; that the traverser, whose affidavit scarcely 
 any man in the community would doubt, had sworn that the evidence 
 of Lyster was false, and that the jury were prejudiced, and returned 
 by a person adverse and hostile to him ; and that the public could 
 not but feel horror at a sentence pronounced upon such a foundation. 
 
 He protested solemnly, that feeling for the dignity and character 
 of the administration of justice in this country, he was more inte- 
 rested in the event of the present motion, than in that of any other 
 in which he was ever concerned. The King had not in his dominions 
 a subject more warmly attached to the constitution in church and 
 state than he ; but he was, at the same time, a friend to the civil 
 and religious liberties of the people. The man who goes too far in 
 doing what he thinks may tend to secure these, may be censured by 
 moderate men, but he will not, therefore, cease to be esteemed by 
 moderate men. Mr. Rowan may, perhaps, in some instances, have 
 gone too far on this subject ; but his conduct has always been known 
 to originate in the best and purest motives, and there was not in 
 society a man more respected, nay, admired, than he. It was, there- 
 fore, essential in the highest degree, that a verdict, by which such a 
 man was subjected to public and exemplary punishment, should be 
 above all exception. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN, on the same side. — It was an early idea, that a verdict 
 in a criminal case could not be set aside, inconsulto rege, but the law 
 had stood otherwise without a doubt, to impeach its principle for the 
 last two reigns. 
 
 Common sense would say, that the discretion of the court shoidd go 
 at least as far in criminal as in civil cases, and very often to go no 
 further would be to stop far short of what was right, as in those great 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 133 
 
 questions where the prosecution may be considered either as an 
 attempt to extinguish liberty, or as a necessary measure for the pur- 
 pose of repressing the virulence of public licentiousness and dangerous 
 faction ; where there can be no altei-native between guilt or martyr- 
 dom, where the party prosecuted must either be considered as a 
 culprit sinking beneath the punishment of his own crimes, or a 
 victim sacrificed to the vices of others. But when it clearly appears 
 that the party has fallen a prey to a persecuting combination, there 
 remains but one melancholy question, how far did that combination 
 reach ? 
 
 There have been two cases lately decided in this very court, the 
 King V. Pentland, where the motion was made and refused, and 
 the King v. Bowen, where it was granted ; both of which shew, 
 that captious sophistry, and technical pedantry, had here, as well as 
 in England, given way to liberal and rational inquiry ; and that the 
 court would not now, in their discretion, refuse a motion of this kind, 
 unless they could, at the same time, lay their hands upon their hearts, 
 and say, they believed in their consciences that justice had been done \ 
 such was the manly language of one of their lordships (Mr. Justice 
 Downes) ; and such the opinion of the court on a former occasion. 
 
 He then cited 7 Modern 57. as referred to in Bacon tit. Trial, to 
 shew that where there was good ground of challenge to a jiu'or, not 
 known at the trial, it was sufficient cause for setting aside the verdict. 
 
 In England they have a particular act of pai'liameut, entitling the 
 party to strike a special jury to try the fact, and then he has time 
 between the striking and the trial, to question the propriety of that 
 jury ; here my client had no previous information till the instant of 
 trial, who his jurors are to be. 
 
 There are certain indulgences granted at times, perhaps by the 
 connivance of humanity, which men, who are not entitled to demand 
 them in an open court, obtain nevertheless by sidelong means, and 
 perhaps the little breach which aifords that light to the mind of the 
 man accused, is a circumstance which the court would feel pain, even 
 if called upon, to say, should in all cases be prevented ; but to over- 
 turn principles and authorities, for the purpose of oppressing the 
 subject, is what this court will never do. 
 
 The first of the affidavits I shall consider, is that of the traverser. 
 I do not recollect whether it states the sheriff, in avowed terms, to be 
 an emissary or a hireling agent of the Castle, therefore do not state 
 it from the affidavit ; but he swears, that he does believe that he did 
 labour to bring into the box a jury full of prejudices, and of the 
 blackest impressions ; instead of having, as they ought, fair and 
 impartial minds, and souls like white paper. 
 
 This sheriff now stands in com-t, he might have denied it if he would ; 
 he had an opportunity of answering it ; but he has left it an undenied 
 assertion — he was not certainly obliged to answer it, for no man 
 is bound to convict himself. But there is a part of that charge which 
 amounts, at least, to this, " Your heart was poisoned against me, and 
 you collected those to be my judges, who, if they could not be under 
 the dominion of bad dispositions, might be at least the dupes of good." 
 The most favourable thing that can be said is this, "you sought 
 to bring against me honest prejudices, but you brought against me 
 
134 TRIAL OF 
 
 wicked ones." The very general charge, that he sought for persons, 
 who he knew were most likely to bring prejudices with them into the 
 juiy box, is a part of the affidavit, that it was incumbent on him 
 to answer if he could. 
 
 I do not contend, that what is charged in the affidavit, would have 
 been a ground of principal challenge to the ai'ray ; but hold it to be 
 the better opinion, that a challenge to the array for favour, does well 
 lie in the mouth of the defendant. 
 
 The ancient notion was, you shall not challenge the array for 
 favour where the king is a party ; the king only can challenge 
 for favour, for the principle was, that every man ought to be favour- 
 able to the crown, but thank God, the advancement of legal knowledge 
 and the growing understanding of the age, has dissipated such 
 illiberal and mischievous conceptions. 
 
 But I am putting too much stress upon such technical, discarded, 
 and antiquated scruples. The true question has been already stated 
 from the authority of Mr. Justice Downes, and the question is, Has 
 justice been done ? 
 
 It is a matter, upon which scarce any understanding would 
 condescend to hesitate, whether a man had been fairly tried, whose 
 triors had been collected together by an avowed enemy, whose 
 conduct had been such, as to leave no doubt that he had purposely 
 brought prejudiced men into the box. 
 
 In every country, where freedom obtains, there must subsist parties. 
 In this country and in Great Britain, I trust there never will be 
 a time, wlien there shall not be men found zealous for the actual 
 government of the day. So, on the other hand, I trust, there will 
 never be a time, when there will not be found men zealous and 
 enthusiastic in the cause of popular freedom and of the public rights. 
 If, therefore, a person in public office suffi3rs his own prejudices, 
 however honestly anxious he may be for a prosecution carried on by 
 those to Avhom he is attached, to influence him so far as to choose men 
 to his knowledge, devoted to the principles he espouses, it is an error 
 which a high court of judicature, seeking to do right and justice, will 
 not fail to correct. 
 
 A sheriff, in such a case, might not have perceived the partiality of 
 his conduct, because he was surveying it through the medium of 
 prejudice and habitual corruption. But it is impossible to think that 
 this sheriff meant to be impartial, it is an interpretation more 
 favourable than his conduct will allow of; if he deserves any credit 
 at all, it is in not answering the charge made against him : At 
 the same time, that, by not answering it, he has left unimpeached the 
 credit of the charge itself. 
 
 [Here the sheriff tendei-ed some form of an affidavit, which the 
 court refused to have sworn or read, for the same reason that those, 
 sworn and tendered by the defendant's counsel, had been before 
 refused. Mr. Curran, however, consented to its being sworn and 
 read ; but the Attoi*ney-General declined it, being unacquainted with 
 the contents, and uninstructed as to its tendency ; it therefore was 
 not sworn.] 
 
 Mr. CuRBAN — Is this then the way to meet a fair application to the 
 court, to see whether justice has been done between the subject and 
 
AKCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 135 
 
 the crown. I oifer it again, let the affidavit be read. And let me 
 remind the court, that the great reason for sending a cause back to a 
 jury, is, that new light may be shed upon it ; and how must your 
 lordships feel, when you see that indulgence granted to the conscience 
 of the juiy, denied to the coui't? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I am concerned that any lawyer should 
 make a proposition in the iBanner Mr. Curran has done ; he proposes 
 to have an affidavit read, provided we consent that others, w^hich the 
 court have already refused, should be now read,* I did not hear 
 it offered ; but is it to be presumed I will consent to have an affidavit 
 read, about which I know nothing ? Yesterday, without any commu- 
 nication with a human being, I did say, that I conceived it unnecessary 
 to answer any of the affidavits, thinking that they were not sufficient 
 to ground the application made to the court. And it is presumed I 
 am so mad as to consent to the reading of affidavits, which I have not 
 seen? 
 
 [Here some altercation took place, and Loi'd Clonmel, Chief- 
 Justice, interposed, saying, that the counsel had certainly a right to 
 argue it upon the ground, that the sheriff was biassed, and did return 
 a jury prejudiced against the traverser.] 
 
 Mr. Curran was then proceeding to observe upon the expression of 
 one of the jury, sworn to in another affidavit, "That there would be 
 no safety in the country, until the defendant w^as either hanged 
 or banished." When it was asked by the court, whether the time 
 of its coming to the knowledge of the traverser, that the sheriff 
 was biassed, was stated in his affidavit ? 
 
 Mr. Curran answered, he was in prison, and could not have the 
 attendance of those counsel, whose assistance he had in court, and 
 besides, from the natitre of the circumstances, it w^as impossible he 
 could have been sufficiently apprised of its consequences, for he saw 
 not that pannel till the day of the trial, when he could not have had 
 time to make any inquiry into the characters, dispositions, or con- 
 nections of the jury. Mr. Curran then reverted to his argument on 
 the expression of the juror. 
 
 If triors had been appointed to determine the issue, favourable or 
 not, what would have been their finding? Could they say upon their 
 oaths, that he was not unfavourable to that party, against whom he 
 could make such a declaration ? 
 
 Favour is not cause of principal challenge, which if put upon a 
 pleading, w^ould conclude the party. Favour is that which makes the 
 man, in vulgar parlance, unfit to try the question. And as to the 
 time these facts came to his knowledge, he has sworn that he was 
 utterly ignorant of them at the time of his coming into court to take 
 his trial. 
 
 I will not glance at the character of any absent noble pei'son, high 
 in office, but let it be remembered, that it is a government prosecu- 
 tion, and that the witness has, from a low and handicap situation, 
 scraped himself into preferment, perhaps, for I will put the best con- 
 
 * It may not be improper to observe, that Mr. Attorney-General mistook 
 Mr. Curran's proposal, which was an unqualified offer to have Mr. Giftard's 
 affidavit read. 
 
136 TRIAL, OF 
 
 struction upon it, by offering himself as a man honestly anxious for 
 the welfare of his country ; in short, it is too obvious to require any 
 comment, what the nature of the whole transaction has been, that 
 he had got his commission as a compensation, pro labore impen- 
 dendo, and came afterwards into court to pay down the stipulated 
 purchase. 
 
 Had this then been an unbiassed juiy, was there not something in 
 all these circumstances, that might have afforded more deliberation, 
 than that of one minute per man, for only so long was the jury out ; 
 and had this been a fair witness, would he have lain down under a 
 charge, which if true, ought not only to damn this verdict, but his 
 character for ever ? What would a corps of brother officers think of 
 a person charged, upon oath, with the commission of two wilful per- 
 juries, and that chai'ge remaining undenied ? Here is an undenied 
 charge, in point of fact, and although I do not call upon the court to 
 say, that this is a guilty and abominable person, yet surely the sus- 
 picion is strongly so, and must be considered. This was at least a 
 verdict, where the evidence went to the jury under slighter blemishes 
 than it will if my client has the advantage of another trial, for then 
 he Avill put out of the power of man to doubt that this witness has 
 been perjured. This witness, who has had notice, both here and at 
 the trial, of the aspersions on his chai-acter, yet has not called 
 a human being to say that he entertained a contrary opinion of him. 
 
 AYas he known any where ? Did he crawl unobserved to the castle ? 
 Was it without the aid or knowledge of any body, that that gaudy 
 plumage grew on him, in which he appeared in court ? If he was 
 known for any tiling else than wliat he is stated to be, it was, upon 
 that day, almost a physical impossibility, in a court-house, which 
 almost contained the country, not to have found some person, to give 
 some sort of testimony respecting his general character. For though 
 no man is bound to be ready at all times to answer particular charges, 
 yet every man is supposed to come with his public attestation of com- 
 mon and general probity. But he has left that character, upon the 
 merits of which my client is convicted, unsupported, even by his own 
 poor corporal swearing. You are called upon, then, to say, whether 
 upon the evidence of a being of this kind, such a man as that is to be 
 convicted, and sentenced to punishment, in a country where humanity 
 is the leading feature, even of the criminal law. 
 
 He then observed upon the second witness. — A man coming to 
 support the credit of another collaterally, is himself particularly 
 pledged ; then what was his testimony ? He did not know whether 
 Mr. Giffard was concerned in the newspaper ! And now you have 
 the silence of Giffard himself, in not answering Mr. Rowan's affidavit 
 to contradict that. And next, he did not know whether his own 
 cousin-german was the relation of their common uncle ! I call 
 upon you, my lords, in the name of sacred justice, and your country, 
 to declare whether the melancholy scenes and murderous plots of the 
 Meal-tub and tlie Rye-house, are to be acted over again. And 
 whether every Titus Gates that can be found, is to be called into your 
 courts, as the common vouchee of base and perjured accusation. 
 
 He then proceeded to another ground, namely, that the direction of 
 the court was not, as he conceived, agreeable to the law of Ireland. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 137 
 
 The defence of my client (he added) was rested upon this, that there 
 was no evidence of the fact of publication, upon the incredibility of 
 the fact, and the circumstances of discredit in the character of the 
 witness ; yet the court made this observation : " gentlemen, it scarcely 
 lies in the mouth of Mr. Rowan to build a defence upon objections of 
 this kind to the chai'acters of witnesses, because the fact was public ; 
 there were many there ; the room was crowded below ; the gallery was 
 crowded above ; and the publicity of the fact enabled him to produce a 
 number of witnesses to falsify the assertion of the prosecutor, if in fact 
 it could be falsified!" Is that the principle of the criminal law? Is it a 
 part of the British law that the fate of the accused shall abide, not the 
 positive establishment of guilt by the prosecutor, but the negative proof 
 of innocence by himself? Why has it been said in foolish old books, that 
 the law supposes the innocence of every man till the contrary is proved ? 
 How has it happened that that language has been admired for its 
 humanity, and not laughed at for its absurdity, in which the prayers 
 of the court are addressed to Heaven for the safe deliverance of the 
 man accused ? How comes it that so much public time is wasted in 
 going into evidence of guilt, if the bare accusation of a man did call 
 upon him to go into evidence of his innocence ? The foi-ce of the 
 observation is this, Mr. Rowan impeaches the credit of a witness, 
 who has sworn that he saw him present, and doing certain acts at a 
 certain meeting ; but it is asked has he substantiated that discredit, 
 by calling all the persons, who were present, to prove his absence 
 from that meeting, which is only stated to have existed, by a witness 
 whom he alleges to have perjured himself. I call upon the example 
 of judicial character; upon the faith of that high office, which is 
 never so dignified as when it sees its errors and corrects them, to say, 
 that the court was for a moment led away, so as to argue from the 
 most seductive of all sophisms, that of the petitio principii. 
 
 See what meaning is to be gathered from such words ; we say the 
 whole that this man has sworn is a consumate lie ; shew it to be so, 
 says the court, by admitting a part of it to be true. It is a false 
 swearing ; it is a conspiracy of two witnesses against this defendant ; 
 well then it lies upon him to rebut their testimony, by proving a 
 great deal of it to be true ! Is conjecture then, in criminal cases, to 
 stand in the place of truth and demonstration ? Why were not some 
 of those (I will strip the case of the honour of names which I 
 respect) — but why were not some of those, who knew that these 
 two persons were to be brought forward and that there were to 
 be objections to their credit — if, as it is stated, it happened in 
 the presence of a public crowd, rushing in from motives of curiosity, 
 why were not numbers called on to establish that fact? On 
 the contrary, the court have said to this effect : Mr. Rowan, you 
 say you were not there ; produce any of those persons with whom 
 you were there, to swear you were not there ! You say it was a 
 peijury ; if so, produce the people that he has perjured himself in 
 swearing to have been there ! But as to your own being there you 
 can easily shew the contrary of that, by producing some man that 
 saw you there ! You say you were not there ? Yes. There were 
 one hundred and fifty persons there ; now produce any one of those 
 to swear they saw you there ! 
 
138 TRIAL, OF 
 
 It is impossible for the human mind to suppose a case, in which 
 infatuation must have prevailed in a more progressive degree, than 
 when a jury are thus, in fact, directed to receive no refutation, nor 
 proof of the perjury of the witness, but only of his truth. We will 
 permit you to deny the charge by establishing the fact : we will 
 permit you to prove that they swore falsely to your being there, by 
 producing another witness to prove to a certainty that you were there. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice — The reasoning of the court was 
 strong upon that point ; this is a transaction stated by the witness to 
 have happened in open day, in a croAvded assembly in the capital, 
 amidst a nvimber of persons dressed in the uniform of Hamilton 
 Rowan. There has been nothing suddenly brought forward to sur- 
 prise the traverser ; yet what has he done, did he offer as in the 
 common course to prove an alibi ? It is stated to be at such a day ; 
 the witness swears at such an hour — the place is sworn to have been 
 full of people, of Mr. Rowan's friends : but if there was even a 
 partial assembly, it would be easy still to produce some one of those 
 persons who were present to say, that the fact did not happen which 
 has been sworn to, or if you say Mr. Rowan was not there, it is easier 
 still to prove it by shewing where he was ; as thus : I breakfasted 
 with him, I dined with him, I supped with him, he was with me, he 
 was not at Pardon's ; disprove that assertion by proving an affirma- 
 tion inconsistent with it. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I beg leave to remind the court of what fell from it. 
 " He may call" (said the court) " any of those persons, he has not 
 produced one of them ;" upon this, I think, a most material point does 
 hang. " He might have called them, for they were all of his own 
 party." 
 
 Lord CiiONMEL — That is, if there were such persons there ; or if 
 there was no meeting at all he might have proved that. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN There was no such idea put to the jury, as whether 
 
 there was a meeting or not : it was said they were all of his party, 
 he might have produced them, and the non-production of them was a 
 " volume of evidence" upon that point. No refinement can avoid 
 this conclusion, that even as your lordship now states the charge, the 
 fate of the man must depend upon proving the negative. 
 
 Until the credit of the witness was established he could not be 
 called upon to bring any contrary evidence. What does the duty of 
 every counsel dictate to him ; if the case is not made out by his 
 adversary or prosecutor ? Let it rest ; the court is bound to tell the 
 jury so, and the jury are boinid to find him not guilty. It is a most 
 unshaken maxim, that nemo tenetur prodere se ipsum. And it would 
 indeed be a very inquisitorial exercise of power, to call upon a man 
 to run the risque of confirming the charge, under the penalty of 
 being convicted by nil dicit. Surely at the criminal side of this 
 court, as yet, there has been no such judgment pronounced. It 
 is only when the party stands mute of malice, that such ex- 
 tremes can be resorted to. I never before heard an intimation 
 from any judge to a jury, that bad evidence liable to any 
 and every exception ought to receive a sanction from the silence 
 of the party. The substance of the chai'ge was neither more 
 nor less than this ; that the falsehood of the evidence shall receive 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 139 
 
 support and credit from the silence of the man accused. With anxiety 
 for the honour and religion of the law, I demand it of you, must not 
 the jury have understood that this silence was evidence to go to 
 them ; is the meaning contained in the expression " a volume of 
 evidence," only insinuation ! I do not know where any man would he 
 false. I do not know what any man coukl do to screen himself from 
 persecution ; I know not how he could be sure, even when he was at 
 his prayers before the throne of Heaven, that he was not passing 
 that moment of his life, on which he was to be charged with the 
 commission of some crime, to be expiated to society by the forfeiture 
 of his liberty or of his life. I do not know what shall become of 
 the subject, if a jury ai'e to be told that the silence of the man 
 charged is a " volume of evidence," that he is guilty of the crime ; 
 where is it written ? I know there is a place where vulgar frenzy 
 cries out, that the public instrument must be drenched in blood ; 
 where defence is gagged, and the devoted wretch must perish. But 
 even there the victim of such tyranny is not made to fill, by voluntary 
 silence, the defects of his accusation, for his tongue is tied, and 
 therefore no advantage is taken of him by construction ; it cannot 
 be there said that his not speaking is a volume of evidence to prove 
 his guilt. 
 
 But to avoid all misunderstanding, see what is the force of my 
 objection ; is it that the charge of the court cannot receive a prac- 
 ticable interpretation, that may not terrify men's minds with ideas 
 such as I have presented ? No — I am saying no such thing, I have 
 lived too long and observed too much not to know, that every word 
 in a phrase is one of the feet upon which it runs, and how the 
 shortening or lengthening of one of those feet, will alter the progress 
 or direction of its motion. I am not arguing that the charge of the 
 court cannot by any possibility be reconciled to the principles of law ; 
 I am agitating a greater question ; I am putting it to the conscience 
 of the court, whether a jury may not have probably collected the 
 same meaning fi-om it, which I have affixed to it, and whether there 
 ought not to have been a volume of explanation, to do away the 
 fatal consequences of such mistake. 
 
 On what sort of a case am I now speaking ? on one of that kind, 
 which it is kno^vn has been beating the public heart for many months; 
 which, from a single being in society, has scarcely received a cool or 
 tranquil examination. I am making that sort of application, which 
 the expansion of liberal reason and the decay of technical bigotry 
 have made a favoured application. 
 
 In earlier times it might have been thought sacrilege to have 
 meddled with a verdict once pronounced ; since that the true prin- 
 ciples of justice have been better understood ; so that now, the whole 
 wisdom of the whole court will have an opportunity of looking over 
 that verdict, and setting right the mistake which has occasioned it. 
 
 Mr. Curran made other observations, either to corroborate his own, 
 or to answer the opposite counsel ; of which it is impossible to give 
 an exact detail ; and concluded thus : You are standing on the scanty 
 isthmus that divides the great ocean of duration ; on one side of the 
 past, on the other of the future ; a ground, that while you yet hear 
 me, is washed from beneath our feet. Let me remind you, my lord, 
 
140 TRIAL OF 
 
 while your determination is yet in your power, dum versatur adhuc 
 intra penetralia Vestce, that on that ocean of future you must set your 
 judgment afloat. And future ages will assume the same authority, 
 which you have assumed ; posterity feel the same emotions which 
 you have felt, when your little hearts have beaten, and your infant 
 eyes have overflowed, at reading the sad history of the sufferings of 
 a Russel or a Sidney. 
 
 [The conclusion of Mr. Curran's speech was marked by another 
 burst of applause, similar to those which accompanied his former 
 exertions in this cause.] 
 
 Wednesday, February 5, 1794. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General, for the ci-own My Lords, it is my busi- 
 ness to offer such arguments as occur to me, to resist what has been 
 advanced in favour of Mr. Rowan, upon this motion to set aside the 
 verdict and grant a new trial. It is to me, my lords, a great happi- 
 ness, that it has arrived at this stage, when the subject will be 
 examined by the rules of legal reasoning, without an appeal to the 
 passions of men, or any attempt to influence the argument by topics 
 deduced from extrinsic matter. I should be sorry when I return to 
 my own house, that passion should so far make me forget my reason. 
 It is the duty of every man, whether prosecutor or advocate for the 
 prosecuted, to promote the ends of justice, and obtain decisions upon 
 argument, and argument alone. It is not the duty of counsel to 
 determine the weight of argument ; they are to offer the best argu- 
 ments they can ; when they pass that, they pass the bounds of duty. 
 
 This, my lords, is said to be a verdict against evidence, because 
 the credit of the principal witness was such, as that he deserved no 
 credit, and that now, if the verdict be set aside, new evidence will 
 be offered, since come to the knowledge of the party, further to shew 
 that the witness did not deserve credit. Another ground is this, that 
 the sheriff, who returned the jury, had a prejudice against the 
 accused, and laboured to procure a pannel prejudicial against Mr. 
 Kowan. Another ground is, that one of the jurors had expressed 
 himself in a certain way, shewing he had an ill opinion of Mr. Rowan 
 upon some subject or other. Such, my lords, are the grounds spe- 
 cifled in the notice. A further objection was made from the bar, of 
 which no notice was given, namely, that one of the judges had mis- 
 directed the jury. K there be any weight in it, the party by strict 
 form can derive no advantage from it — but I do not confine myself 
 to form ; it is my desire that this matter should be fairly inquired 
 into according to the rules of law ; therefore I will observe upon that, 
 and make such answer to it as occurs to me, first calling upon your 
 lordships and the gentlemen in this court, for beyond that I desire 
 no attention, to give me an impartial hearing. I appeal to those only 
 who have knowledge of law and the rules of cool reason ; the rest is 
 matter of indifference. My lords, this information was filed a year 
 since against Mr. Rowan ; he was arrested upon a previous infor- 
 mation which was returned to the Crown-office in Hilary Term, 1793, 
 a noli prosequi was entered upon that, by reason of a mistake in 
 cojjying one of the words, so that if brought to trial, he must have 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 141 
 
 been acquitted without entering into the merits. Another information 
 was filed ; that was pleaded to, and immediately an application was 
 made to have him tried in Michaelmas Term. The court conceived 
 that, consistent with the discharge of general duty, it was impossible 
 to have him ti'ied then, and this term was appointed. The pannel 
 was returned to the office in the usual manner ; I have a right to say 
 so, because there is no suggestion to the contrary ; and it Avas open 
 to any man who pleased to look at it. On Wednesday se'nnight the 
 record came to be tried. The jury were called at ten o'clock ; they 
 were called a second time, a third time, and a fourth time ; and it 
 was not till near twelve o'clock that the jury were sworn. All that 
 time there was no challenge taken to the array. No application was 
 previously made, no suggestion filed to have the venire directed to 
 any other officer than the gentleman who returned the pannel. But 
 when the jurors were called to the book, several were challenged 
 and a pretty general question was put to several, I do not say to all 
 of them, to declare whether they had delivered any opinion upon the 
 
 case. To that question I beg attention from every impartial man 
 
 they were permitted to give answers, though I rely upon it, that by 
 law, in a criminal case, the party had no right to put such a question. 
 So that after an hour and half s deliberation, the party knowing who 
 were to be called, such as were thovight proper to be questioned, were 
 examined and permitted to answer. But the fairness with which this 
 prosecution was intendetl to be conducted is manifested by another 
 circumstance. A juror of the name of Dickson was actually sworn, 
 and afterwards he said he had given an opinion — it was desired that 
 he might be discharged. I instantly gave my consent. Mr. Curran 
 desired not my consent, but that I should move it myself ; I did 
 move it, because I thought it was right to have him discharged. The 
 jury were then sworn and the merits were gone into. Two witnesses 
 were produced, one swearing to the actual fact of publishing the very 
 paper in the record ; another, who though he did not swear to the 
 very paper, yet did give such evidence as, if he was worthy of 
 credit, must give every reasonable man conviction, that it was the 
 very same libel. Three witnesses were produced and examined to 
 the credit of Lystei*, the witness for the crown ; one did not say he 
 was unworthy of credit, but that he would hesitate ; another was not 
 much inclined to give him belief ; and it is insisted that such evidence 
 was direct and positive to take away his credit, and therefore your 
 lordships should set aside this verdict. The cross-examination by 
 the counsel for Mr. Rowan throughout, directly and in terms, ad- 
 mitted that there was a meeting that day at Cope-street, that Mr. 
 Rowan was there, and that the Volunteers were there assembled ; the 
 whole cross-examination went to that fact ; the dress and uniform of 
 the old Volunteers, every fact was insisted upon, and it was not until 
 yesterday, in a kind of joke, that the contrary was insisted upon. 
 Mr. Rowan's affidavit does not deny the meeting. Away, therefore, 
 with the childish observation, that a man could not be called from a 
 meeting which did not appear to exist. 
 
 I will now come to the merits of the case upon the objections made. 
 There was nothing omitted which could be said for Mr. Rowan : it 
 is not fit for me to say that anything was said which ought not to 
 
142 TRIAL OF 
 
 have been said. But, my lords, something was said with regard to 
 the right of courts to set aside verdicts in criminal cases, not capital : 
 no man disputed the right, or questioned it. Mr. Curran went into 
 the history of that branch of the law and the doctrine of setting aside 
 verdicts rege inconsulto ; how it was with regard to ancient times, 
 I am not satisfied ; but sure I am, and so I hope it will remain, that 
 this court will have a right in favour of the defendant, and in his 
 favour only, to set aside a verdict against him. But the exercise of 
 that great power, touching the trial by jury, must be applied according 
 to the known rules of law. Mr. Curran stated that an exact instance 
 was not to be found in the books, and from the hurry, I suppose, in 
 which he had considered the subject, he fell into the observation that 
 the practice is of so modern a date that many jjrecedents could not 
 be found : he confined it to the two last reigns ; but, my lords, the 
 reports in William Ill's time are full of such applications ; the 
 practice prevailed in the reign of Charles II. how much earlier I cannot 
 say — there are an infinity of cases upon the subject, and he was right 
 when he said there was no such case as this ; and before your lordships 
 make a precedent of this, I am sure you will give it all the attention 
 it deserves. I repeat the observation, that the consequence of this 
 determination to the public and the administration of criminal justice, 
 is of the last importance ; and that, however right it is, that Mr. 
 Rowan should seek redress by these means, and that every possible 
 exertion should be made in favour of a man standing a culprit at 
 your bar ; yet, my lords, the consideration of that man, or any other, 
 let him be who he may, dwindles to a thing of no value, when com- 
 pared to the general justice of the country. There can be no 
 distinction here ; and here alone there is equality among subjects, 
 between tlie liighest man in the state, and the men who shout in the 
 hall at the names of Titus Gates* and Algernon Sidney ,| The case, 
 my lords, comes then to this, whether upon the afl[idavits which have 
 been made you should set aside this verdict ? They say these affi- 
 davits are to be taken as true — I say they are not : they Avere made 
 and produced in court in my absence. I was called — I knew no more 
 of them than the man in Westminster-hall. I heard them read, and 
 it did strike me, that they were of such a nature, that I ought not to 
 give an answer to them ; I therefore did not consent to a Rule unless 
 cause, but was I'eady to meet the counsel at the moment. It is to be 
 taken as true that such affidavits are made ; that Mr. Rowan can find 
 two witnesses swearing to those facts which have been mentioned ; 
 but it cannot be taken as true that those alleged facts are true ; it is 
 not for your lordships to say they are true or false ; nor if witnesses 
 were found to say that what has been stated respecting Perrin was 
 false, could you determine that ? but whether you send it back to see 
 whether a jury would give them credit or not, that is what you are 
 to determine ; you are to send it back to let in the same species of 
 evidence which has been already addviced without success. As to 
 Mr. Rowan's affidavit, he swears to something he heard, and something 
 
 * See Oates's Trial ; 10th Howell's St. Tr. ; and the trials connected with the 
 Popish Plots, 6 and 7 Howell's St. Tr. 
 
 t Sidney's Case, 9 Howell's St. Tr. p. 817. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 143 
 
 he believes — that must be taken as true ; that is, that he heard 
 something and that he believes it — if that were a ground for a new 
 trial, verdict may be had after verdict. Something has been spread 
 abroad, that your minds might be influenced by something without 
 doors — a thing impossible. Let the cry be what it may by the sedi- 
 tious and the turbulent, the whole will be thought of rightly on a 
 future day. What has been said cannot influence you, who will 
 determine according to the rules of law. It is desii'ed that you will 
 set aside this verdict, that evidence may be given to show Lyster is 
 not worthy of your credit. Gentlemen have argued this case, cer- 
 tainly of the first talents and ingenuity, some of them have had as much 
 experience in these matters as any gentleman who has the honour 
 of wearing a bar gown ; but I must say some little things fell from 
 them, which were rather extraordinary ; one gentleman said he 
 had only got his bi'ief the night before ; another said he had got his 
 on his way to court ; but they knew the affidavits were to be made, 
 they heard them read the day before ; something was said of a case 
 which had M. S. opposite to it in the margin. I believe there are 
 not many gentlemen who could recollect cases in the books cited 
 as from manuscript cases, and quote them as such from memory. 
 I have used great diligence upon the subject, and agree with Mr. 
 Curran, there is not one to be found. You are desired to set aside 
 the verdict, because the witness was not to be credited. Who made 
 you judges of that ? Are you the guardians of the lives, the liberties 
 and the properties of the people ? Which of you determines the 
 credit of the witnesses ? I have sat at my lamp the most of the 
 night and have found nothing like this. But I will, for a moment, 
 suppose what I do not admit, that it might be a ground for setting 
 aside the verdict : bring it to the test of reason, bring it to the 
 bar of sense where it should be tried. You are to set aside a 
 verdict, to let in evidence to the credit of a witness, when his credit 
 was impeached ; witnesses were examined to his credit, and so 
 strong say they was the evidence against him, that it ought to 
 have destroyed his credit. The case was made, witnesses were ex- 
 amined, and the whole was left to the jury. For, my lords, it is 
 a sad mistake Avhich has been sent abroad, that because one witness 
 says another is not to be believed, that therefore, Avhat . the first says 
 is true. Are the jury to give up all the circumstances ? Their 
 own observation to the opinion of another man perhaps as much 
 prejudiced as any? But here the matter was examined ; they 
 were prepared with evidence to the history of this man's life, 
 and after a verdict is had upon that, some men are picked up in 
 the streets to give some evidence, that is, that they do not believe 
 the witness, to eke out a ground for setting aside the verdict, in 
 a case where the objection has been already made and already 
 tried. Here incidentally let me observe upon another part of the case. 
 The verdict is against evidence, because the witnesses were not to be 
 believed : there is no man so young at the bar as not to see the 
 futility of such an argument : a man may have discredited himself 
 upon various occasions, and yet may give such testimony, accom- 
 panied with other circumstances, as shall entitle him to belief, though 
 
144 TRIAL OV 
 
 a thousand should oppose him.* " My Good Lord Primate of Armagh 
 do you know Mr. Lyster r" " I do, I have known him concerned in 
 many transactions of a base nature, he is not to be believed." What ? 
 if that was sworn to by that saint upon earth, shall the positive 
 swearing discredit the testimony though it be accompanied with 
 cii'cumstances which speak its truth ? Can that be law ? I hope not, 
 for it is not reason. There are cases which say a verdict shall not be 
 set aside, though an incompetent witness has been examined, who was 
 not known to be incompetent at the time. That is a stronger case 
 than the present, and applies to the ground of objection with respect 
 to the jury. Turner v. Pearte, 1 Durnf., and East., 717. Wright v. 
 Littler. 3 Bur. 1244.| Here I must trespass upon your lordships time 
 to take notice of another observation. It is insisted that you ought the 
 rather to let him in, because this was an information filed ex officio by 
 the Attorney-General, by which he was deprived of an opi)ortunity 
 of knowing the witness against him, and consequently that though in 
 ordinary cases a new trial ought not to be granted upon that ground, yet 
 here it ought. The gentleman who made this observation, was here 
 again a little hurried, for if he had reflected one moment, he would 
 see that the cases are precisely the same. The party in an indictment 
 has no right to see the examinations till trial, and sometimes not even 
 then. In an information he has no right to see them. So that 
 whether it be an information or an indictment, he is alike forbid to 
 see the examination. If he be prosecuted by indictment, the examina- 
 tion will be returned to the crown-office. If by information, the 
 examinations are put into the same crown-office on the first day 
 of the term. It was said that in the case of an indictment, what was 
 sworn could be known. All that could appear would be that some of 
 the grand jury might foi'get their oaths and disclose the secrets of the 
 prosecution, though they are especially sworn not to mention what 
 appears upon the examinations.^ This observation was made without 
 thought, therefore, and could not have been made for any good 
 purpose with respect to this motion ; it was made for nothing but to 
 impress the people with an idea that there has been severity or 
 oppression in this case, not allowable, and that the subject has been 
 put under difficulties, not occurring in the ordinary course of justice. 
 But upon a cool enquiry it will be found that the manner of proceed- 
 ing makes no difference in the case. If there be any way by which 
 the informations in the crown-office can be got at (I hope there 
 is not) he might have made use of that ; but Mr. Rowan was apprised ; 
 
 * As to what shall be deemed sufficient to derogate from the credit of a witness. 
 See Gates Trial, Howell 10, p. 1185; Canning's Case, Howell 19, pages 434 and 
 609; Murphy's Case, Howell 19, p. 719; and the ease of Catherine Nairn and 
 Patrick Ogilvie, Howell 19, p. 1268. 
 
 f Lister v. Mundell, 1 Bos and Pull, 429. In this case the court said that 
 " though unusual to grant a new trial on evidence contradicting the testimony on 
 which the verdict had been obtained, discovered subsequent to the trial, yet as the 
 very fact on which these witnesses had formed themselves were falsified by 
 the affidavits produced, they thought it afforded sufficient ground for a new trial." 
 
 J See the grand jury oath in Shaftesbury's case, Howell 8, 759 ; and the 
 extract from Burnet in the note on tliat case ; Ibid. 772, note ; case of the 
 Regicides, Howell 5, 972, note ; Raynard's case, Howell, 14, p. 477. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTt)X ROWAN. 145 
 
 lie came here with witnesses to trace facts happening at various times ; 
 he put his defence on that. Mr. Lyster's name was inserted in the 
 papers, and it was notorious for many months that he was the man. 
 But I disclaim that, your lordships have no right to know it, but you 
 know that Mr. Rowan came prepared with witnesses against him. 
 Another observation occurs. I will suppose, what I never will 
 admit till a solemn decision is had, that the objection made on account 
 of the want of credit would be a good ground for setting aside 
 the verdict, even after that credit had been examined to, or provided 
 no witness was found to come forward, yet you cannot entertain this 
 motion, for the knowledge of the existence of the evidence since the 
 trial is not sworn to. Mr. Rowan has made an affidavit that he did 
 not know it ; that alRdavit is to be taken as true — I believe he did 
 not. But he appeared by attorney, he defended by attorney, and it 
 is not sworn even to his belief, nor has his attorney sworn, nor 
 is there a syllable to tell you that those concerned for him were not 
 apprized of the fact. If these affidavits be admitted, there is nothing 
 to be done but conceal everything from the party, to keep back that 
 which may eventually serve the motion for a new trial, in case of any 
 thing against him. I feel that if this were an ordinary case, the bare 
 statement of the fact would drive the motion out of court ; the fact 
 has been enquired into by the jury ; notwithstanding what has been 
 said of the witness, he may have told the truth, and it is impossible it 
 should be otherwise. 
 
 The other objection is that one of the jurors did not stand indifferent ; 
 a ground of challenge which was not taken, and not having been 
 taken, the verdict shall be set aside and the party have a new trial. 
 The statute law has directed that in treason the party shall have 
 a copy of the pannel a certain number of days ; in no other case has 
 the party such a right, he is to take his challenge as the party comes 
 to the book ; that is the law of the land, that has been the simple law 
 under which ovir ancestors lived happy for ages, by which juries have 
 been chosen and formed, who have for ages protected everything dear 
 to Bx'itons and Irishmen ; and now, for the first time, I will be bold 
 to say, in any criminal or civil case, the verdict is to be set aside 
 because there lay a challenge to a juror, not known to the party at 
 the time of the verdict. I will suppose that there was a principal 
 cause of challenge to this man; no instance of such a case can be 
 produced where that was a ground for a new trial ; there is no 
 necessity to examine further into the circumstances ; there is no 
 cause of challenge now stated — What is it? There was an illumi- 
 nation in Dublin last August, when the juror and Atkinson fell into 
 conversation of and concerning — What ? the libel calling the citizens 
 to arms? No such thing — But an illumination takes place for the 
 capture of a town, they fall into a conversation about the Volunteers 
 in general, in which the juror said, the country could not prosper 
 unless Hamilton Rowan and Napper Tandy were hanged or trans- 
 ported ; not a syllable respecting the matter in hand — Not one word of 
 this matter. Would that be a cause of challenge to a juror? Most 
 undoubtedly not — and the man who used the expression, supj^osing 
 he did use it, gave no cause of challenge, and now, though the eleven 
 others agreed in that verdict, you are to send it back to a new trial — 
 
 1, 
 
146 TRIAL OF 
 
 For what? to have two triors sworn to ascertain whether Mr. Perrin 
 was a person to be challenged or not. The juror gave an opinion of 
 different men upon a political subject. What man is there who has 
 not given an opinion upon such a subject ? If there be, he is cold 
 to the interests of his country. But does it apply, that the man using 
 such expressions is not competent to meet a question of facts upon 
 evidence before him, though the party may be concerned in a par- 
 ticular measure not agreeing with his opinion. I may think the 
 conduct of a man dangerovis ; I may speak of the consequences of 
 his conduct as I think. But does it follow that such a man passing 
 a verdict upon his oath upon the examination of witnesses to a 
 particular fact, is therefore to be unfavourable to the person of whom 
 he had entertained the opinion ? Was there a single allusion to the 
 matter in question? It is not a cause of challenge to a man, that he 
 has delivered an opinion upon the very subject; he must have done 
 it through malice and with an improper view ; and the reason is, that 
 an honest man, may deliver an opinion upon what appears before 
 him, concerning which, when examined, he may have a different 
 opinion ; even upon the subject itself, it must be clearly shewn, that 
 the opinion was unfair or malicious, 2 Salk. 589-* But see what is 
 desired ; suppose it a cause of challenge, suppose it a principal cause 
 of challenge, then, my lords, I submit, that the verdict should not be 
 set aside ; because, by law the challenge must be taken, if to the 
 array, before a juror is sworn ; if to the polls, it must be as each man 
 comes to the book. — So very strong is it, that after one juror is sworn, 
 the law will not allow a challenge to the array ; and yet where would 
 be the difficulty? but such was the simplicity of our ancient law, 
 that it would not allow it, Hob. 235.^ And now, my lords, after the 
 party has taken all the advantages which he could take, asking 
 questions he had no right to ask, putting aside a juror actually sworn, 
 after having the advantage of every thing which he could desire ; 
 you, my lords, and the people, (for they are appealed to upon a 
 judicial trial !) have been told, that this trial was carried on by cruel 
 and unjust means, and you are desired to set aside this verdict, upon 
 matters, suggested in these atfidavits, respecting a juror, which was 
 no cause of challenge, upon a supposed conversation, as it seems to 
 me, touching the Volunteers, probably over a bowl of punch, and not 
 about the subject of any trial. 
 
 I now come to the third objection, that the sheriff has been partial : 
 Mr. Rowan swears, as to his belief, that the sheriff has an otfice under 
 government — is a militia officer, and conductor of a paper, commonly 
 
 * There is no such doctrine in Salkeld. It is presumed the reference is to 
 Hawkins. " It hath been allowed a good cause of challenge, on the part of the 
 prisoner, that the juror hath a claim to the forfeiture, which shall be caused by 
 the party's attainder, or conviction ; or that he hath declared his opinion beforehand 
 that the party is guilty, or will be hanged, or the like. Yet it hath been adjudged, 
 that if it shall appear that the juror made such declaration from his knowledge 
 of the cause, and not of any ill will to the party, it is no cause of challenge;" 2 
 Hawkins 378, 8th Ed. ; but see Cooke's case 13 Howell's St. Tr. p. 338. 
 
 f Vicars v. Langham, Hobart's R. 235, 5th Ed. The words in the report are, 
 *' And note, that in this case there were none sworn before the challenge, but only 
 iinpannelled. But if the principal pannel do once appear full, then the challenge 
 must be taken to the pannel before any be sworn, or else it conies too late." 
 
ARCHIBALT) HAMILTON ROWAN. 147 
 
 called a government newspaper — that the shei*iff is prejudiced against 
 him — and that the pannel was returned by Mr. Giffard, or his sub- 
 sheriiF, and that he laboui-ed to return a pannel which he either knew 
 or believed to be prejudiced against Mr. Rowan. If the affidavit has 
 any meaning, it means this, that there lay a challenge to the array, 
 for that the sheriflf was partial, and procured a jury for the purpose 
 of convicting Mr. Rowan. He is not pleased to inform your lordships 
 when he heard of these facts, or when he first formed his belief. 
 This was not omitted from want of recollection in himself, or those 
 who advised him ; because, in his affidavit touching the evidence, he 
 takes care to tell you, that he did not hear of it till after the trial ; 
 so that it does not appear that Mr. Rowan was not apprized of this 
 when the jury came into the box — when the venire issued — when the 
 trial at bar was moved for in Michaelmas term, or when he put in 
 his plea — look at the situation in which your lordships stand — look 
 at what precedent you are called upon to make — ^you let the man take 
 his trial, with an objection in his possession that may set aside all the 
 proceedings, and he declines to make it — the party is to be tried by a 
 jury — he submits to the jury, for he made no challenge, he is found 
 guilty, and now he says, I had a cause of challenge, I took my chance — ■ 
 send me to another trial, that I may make it. My lords, I would 
 almost ask, is this decent ? the law protects every man, gives him a 
 right to have a fair jury, the law points him out the way, and he is 
 not to overbound those limits, to do that which has not been done 
 since the days of our Saxon ancestors. He knew these facts, that 
 Giffiird was sheriflf, that he was an officer in the militia, that he had 
 a place in the revenue — what had he to do ? Mr. Rowan had able 
 counsel, men of the first talents and information — his remedy was 
 easy and without delay or expense — why not come in here and sug- 
 gest the facts ? If he had, the venire would have gone to the other 
 sheriff, and Giffard could not have meddled. But mayhap the other 
 sheriff is partial — suggest that then, and if the objection be well 
 founded, the venire will go to the coroner. If the objection would 
 not be sufficient for that purpose, it cannot be sufficient for this pur- 
 pose ; but it is said he was not aware of this suggestion ; I will not 
 impute it to the counsel — Mr. Rowan must have been aware of it 
 when they came into the box — why not challenge the array ? He 
 forgot to do that, till one of them was sworn ; then why not challenge 
 for favour ? Where are these men who have told him these stories ? 
 Why do they not make affidavits ? Why does he take a chance for 
 a verdict, knowing these facts ? Having taken his chance, he now 
 calls upon you to set aside the verdict upon that. Make that example, 
 my lords, and you overset the criminal law, that which is the guar- 
 dian of our lives and properties, and you make it depend upon the 
 art, design, and knavish conduct of those concerned. The objection 
 is founded upon the conduct of the sheriff; that conduct was known 
 previous to the trial, therefore I rely upon it, that this verdict ought 
 not to be set aside ; and if it be, it will be an example big with dan- 
 gerous consequences. It has been said, Mr. Giffard did not answer 
 the affidavits, and therefore they must be taken as true — Mr. Rowan 
 believes what he has sworn, but are the facts true still ? No. He 
 mijjlit have produced persons to prove the facts — Giffard has not 
 
148 TRIAL OF 
 
 answered the affidavits, it was offered to let him answer ; but you 
 must put that out of the case ; whether he be ready to answer them 
 or not, I do not know, and I do not care. I at once said to the 
 gentlemen, I meet you on your own ground — Giffard could not make 
 an affidavit in this case, he may make one extra-judicially if he 
 pleases. 
 
 I come now to the other objection, which they had no right to 
 make — the misdirection of the judge: the eloquent gentleman applied 
 it as pleasantly as any serious subject could be applied ; the whole 
 was sophistry or joke. He imputed this to one of your lordships, 
 that the jury were to find against Mr. Rowan, because he did not 
 shew that the facts did not happen, where so many persons were 
 present. Your lordships best know what the observations you made 
 were. The trial stood thus, witnesses wei-e examined for the prose- 
 cution — witnesses were examined to discredit these, which is always 
 matter for the jury : there was clear evidence of the guilt of Mr. 
 Rowan, if they believed the witnesses ; but witnesses were produced 
 to discredit the first. The jury were to consider how far the opinions 
 of those persons were to have weight, and every circumstance was to 
 be taken into consideration. It was taken as true, that there was a 
 meeting, that Mr. Rowan was present at the meeting, and the ques- 
 tion was, whether he published such a paper there ? If there was 
 such a meeting, and he was there, it must occur to every person, that 
 if he wanted to discredit the witnesses, it could be best done by 
 shewing that he did not publish the paper. It was a judicial inquiry 
 into a question of fact, and it was a proper observation, suggesting 
 itself to the mind of any honest judge, to say, you are to consider, 
 here there was a meeting ; if you believe that there is not a witness 
 produced from this number to contradict the evidence, it was a 
 natural observation, but no direction was given to the jury ; your 
 lordships gave your opinion upon the libel, whether right or wrong is 
 not the enquiry : there are few reasonable men, who have read or 
 shall hereafter read that paper, who will not feel that it was the most 
 dangerous and seditious libel, pviblished at the time it was, that ever 
 came from the press. But your lordships told the jury, that notwith- 
 standing what you said, they were to form their own opinion ; I do 
 not rely upon the want of notice, but upon a full and fair discussion, 
 let this case be decided as the law admits. One topic more remains, 
 my lords, I should never touch upon it, if so much had not been said 
 about it, more than ever was known to pass from the lips of counsel 
 — I speak of Mr. Rowan's own affidavit, and the credit to be given 
 to it. I am not to speak of the credit given to any man, it is not my 
 province ; but it is the first time I ever heard, that a man swearing 
 to his own innocence should affect the determination of a judge in a 
 criminal case. A great press was made upon this : we were told — I 
 know not what — and what if I did know, I choose not to repeat — of 
 the consequences that might attend a belief of this gentleman's affi- 
 davit : I am not apprehensive of any consequences from it : the public 
 mind is tranquil upon subjects, and whatever tumult or noise is made 
 by the little mob behind me, or any where else, for a few hours, or a 
 few days, the leai*ned and the good will see, that the case has been 
 determined upon the known rules of law, and that justice has been 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON HO WAN. 149 
 
 administered to this gentleman, as to every other. But the fact is not 
 as it has been insinuated ; he has not sworn to his innocence ; he has 
 not sworn, that if the verdict be set aside, he has a good cause of 
 defence. He swears generally, that the testimony of the witnesses is 
 not true ; not a syllable Avith regard to his innocence. I desire to 
 infer nothing from this ; but I desire that nothing may be inferred 
 from what he has sworn, to what he has not SAVorn. It is said, he is 
 a gentleman of great worth, I know him not, I dare say he is ; if he 
 be, it may furnish some deduction, that there was something which he 
 could not deny ; I desire not to press it furtliei", that affidavit can have 
 no weight in the disposal of this case, and I feel sensible, that the 
 time will come, Avhen it can have no eifect upon the people. But be 
 their opinion what it may, be the consequence w^hat it may — Fiat 
 justitia — ruat ccelum. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General, same side My lords, I was in hopes it 
 
 wo\ild not be necessary for me to address you. This is the sixth day 
 that this subject has taken up the time of the court, it is impossible 
 not to feel it as trespassing much upon your time. The subject has 
 been magnified into consequences not necessarily belonging to it ; 
 you have heard this case with dignified patience and \\\i\\ dignified 
 attention, with an exemplary degree of temper, not disturbed by the 
 efforts of unbridled eloquence. It is impossible to escape your lord- 
 ship's wisdom, that by the late act of parliament there was a latitude 
 given to the jury upon the subject of libels. The learned gentleman 
 who laboured this argument, went into an investigation of the facts 
 very briefly. He, in an argument of three hours or more, a few days 
 ago, scarcely took up ten minutes in the investigation of facts ; he 
 has fastened the fact of publication " round the neck of his client ;" 
 that publication was a calling to arms to introduce a reform in the 
 representation of the people, and an emancipation of the Catholics. 
 He said the present publication was the " honest effusion of a manly 
 mind." Instead of disclaiming the publication, the learned counsel 
 has made a " wreath of it to decorate the brows of his client." This 
 motion is to set aside the verdict. In 3 Wils. 45. Swaine v. Hall 
 Lord Chief Justice Wilmot said " there Avas a contrariety of evidence 
 on both sides ; and although I am still of opinion that the weight 
 of evidence was Avith the plaintiff, yet I disclaim any poAver to 
 control this verdict of the jury, Avho are the legal constitutional 
 j udges of the fact." 
 
 My lords, I forbear to folloAV the learned counsel for the defendant 
 through the vast variety of matter Avhich he has introduced upon the 
 occasion of the trial, with a degree of boldness and freedom, that Avas 
 very unusual to my ear, scarcely admissible in any assembly, the 
 most popular knoAvn to the country. There was another circum- 
 stance, I beg to put to your lordship's mind ; in the progress of the 
 cross-examinations, it appeared, that at the meeting in Cope-street, 
 there was a new species of men, under the cloak of old Volunteers, 
 with neAv devices and new badges of sedition, as a harp divested oi 
 the royal croAvn.* It was most industriously jjointed out, that they 
 
 * No such fact appeared, or was asserted, on the direct or cross-examination 
 of anv of the witnesses. 
 
150 TRIAL OF 
 
 were the antient Volunteers. The witness said the men were 
 dressed in scarlet turned up with blue, yellow, &c. Here was a 
 declaration of the fact, that there was a meeting : give me leave to 
 ask, was that fact capable of disproof, namely, was there a meeting 
 of Volunteers in Cope-street ? Did that fact rest on the testimony 
 of an incredible witness ? The fact happened thirteen months ago ; 
 there was full opportunity to collect materials, to disprove what was 
 sworn to, with regard to that meeting. Was it not competent to Mr. 
 Rowan to discredit the man if his evidence was untrue, to prove 
 there was not a meeting on the 16th December, 1792, of Volunteers 
 at Pardon's ? That no man appeared there with side arms, or did 
 wear those badges of sedition. Was it capable of disproof? Not 
 one of the 150 persons have been brought to disprove the evidence of 
 Lyster, that there was such a meeting. There is not an affidavit to 
 prove the innocency of the party accused, that he did not publish the 
 paper in question. My lords, is this a case in which your lordships 
 can say, you are dissatisfied with the verdict ? Or that case in which 
 the court can say, that justice has not been done? It was said, that 
 it will do no harm to send this case back to another investigation ; 
 but, my lords, can you send it back, without deciding upon the credit 
 of witnesses, vv^hicli it is the province of the jury to decide upon ? 
 Give me leave to observe, upon the concurring evidence of Morton ; 
 he does not go to the collateral part of the case, he goes to the very 
 principal part, namely, the publication of the paper ; he was able to 
 repeat part of the paper (which he said was read) by memory, viz., 
 " Citizen soldiers, to arms." 
 
 This verdict is sought to be set aside, in order to give the defendant 
 an opportunity of being able to find more witnesses against the credit 
 of Lyster, when he has already ransacked the province of Connaught 
 for evidence. 
 
 If you do set aside the verdict, upon the ground of these affidavits, 
 you do not give Lyster an opportunity of vindicating his character, 
 which has been depreciated on the present occasion. 
 
 This verdict is sought to be set aside upon the ground of the chal- 
 lenge to the jury. I am bold to say, there is not a single authority in 
 the law books to shew where a verdict has been set aside for matter 
 of challenge. If the juror was competent at the time, you will not 
 set the verdict aside for challenge to the jury. There are authorities 
 which do say, that a challenge for competency is not a ground for 
 granting a new trial.* 
 
 As to the objection, that the sheriff was partial ; a sheriff is the 
 returning officer intrusted by law ; if Mr. Rowan had suggested the 
 objection at the time, before any of the jurors was sworn, no doubt 
 your lordships would have postponed the trial, or issued a venire 
 to the coroner ; on this ground therefore this motion cannot be 
 supported. 
 
 Much has been said about the liberty of the press ; the best mode to 
 preserve the freedom of the press, is to curb its licentiousness. The 
 most popular character that ever existed in England, Lord Camden, 
 on the decision of a case mentioned in the 11th volume of the State 
 
 * Complete Jui^man, p. 262, et seq ; chapter ou new trials. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON UOWAN. 151 
 
 Trials 1 1 22, gave his opinion on the dangerous consequences of libels ; 
 he said, that they excited discontent against the government, and 
 tended to destroy the liberty of the press by its licentiousness, 
 and said tliat the worst government was better than no government 
 at all.* 
 
 It has been a fortunate event for this country, that this matter has 
 been brought to trial. If, in consequence of the summons to arms by 
 the publication of this paper, the people in arms had by force overawed 
 the government ; if the people in arms had proceeded to act, the 
 gentleman who now stands at the bar for publishing a libel and charged 
 to be a misdemeanour, would be accused of high treason against the 
 state ; if there had been one act of foi'ce committed, by the clamorous 
 rabble, who shouted yesterday at your bar, in consequence of this 
 summons to arms, it would fasten the crime of high treason upon this 
 gentleman. It has been a most fortunate circumstance, that a pro- 
 clamation did issue, it quelled this paper trumpet of sedition. The 
 gentleman at the bar, in every other department of life, is an honour- 
 able, a good, and a virtuous citizen, the friend of his country ; but he 
 is a mistaken zealot in point of politics ; a mad philanthropist. 
 
 The new scheme of searching for a Utopia, a nation perfect in 
 every respect, has driven millions to their graves ; in that country 
 which has, in the language of the paper in question, got the start of 
 us. 
 
 I do rejoice that this trial was had, for it has saved that individual 
 character, of whom most men speak good things, and I am one of 
 those, who have the honour of knowing him ; but to let him go on 
 uncontrolled, might be dangerous to himself, he might pull down the 
 building upon himself — he lives to look at the image of his king before 
 him. He has had the most patient trial I ever knew in the annals of 
 this country. 
 
 Mr. Frankland, same side. — Every observation, every case, and 
 every principle of law, has been so very fully stated by Mr. Attorney- 
 General, that I feel it necessary to compress what I have to say, into 
 the narrowest compass ; and after so much has been said by the 
 learned gentleman who spoke last, I shall be very brief. The avowed 
 personal regards for the gentleman at the bar, which the learned 
 counsel have for him, have called forth the most splendid display of 
 talents that has been known ; but I consider this case merely as a case 
 between the king and a common traverser ; if this motive had not 
 called forth the exertion of the eminent abilities of the learned 
 counsel, this motion ought to have been decided in ten minvites. 
 
 Mr. Rowan now applies to the discretion of this court upon many 
 affidavits, in none of which he has stated one substantive case to make 
 upon a new trial. He has made two affidavits himself, in neither of 
 
 * The words of Lord Camden (in the case of Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell 
 S. T. 1074,) are — " All civilized governments have punished calumny with severity 
 and with reason ; for these compositions debauch the manners of the people; they 
 excite a spirit of inobedience, and enervate the authority of government ; they 
 provoke and excite the passions of the people against their rulers, and the rulers 
 oftentimes against the people. When licentiousness is tolerated, liberty is in the 
 utmost danger ; because tyranny, bad as it is, is better than anarchy ; and the 
 worst of governments is better than no government at all." 
 
152 TKIAL OF 
 
 which he has stated, that he is not guihy of the crime charged. Upon 
 these affidavits have you ground to say, first, that this verdict is con- 
 trary to justice ? • That the verdict was found upon false evidence, not 
 deserving any credit ? 
 
 1 will admit that there is an analogy in principle, between criminal 
 and civil cases ; but I Avill be bold to say, there is not a case in the 
 books, considering the cii'cnmstances that arise in this case, where an 
 application has been made for a new trial. There is no case where a 
 new trial has been granted, merely because the witness produced had 
 spoken falsely. However, supposing it was a ground for an application, 
 then look to the circumstances attending this case. You cannot forget 
 that the traverser and his counsel came prepared to impeach the 
 character of Lyster. The jury, it must be presumed, have weighed the 
 evidence ; they found a verdict. Do you now send back this case to 
 a new trial, because the person who has sworn that Mr. Rowan did 
 publish the paper at such a meeting in Cope-street, has sworn false ? 
 
 In cases of this kind, your lordships will look with eagles' eyes. 
 The court will never set aside a verdict on the gi-ound, that a witness 
 produced has sworn false. This Lyster should be indicted for perjury, 
 and then these two men may bring forward the circumstances ; but it 
 Avould be absui'd to set aside the verdict against Mr. Rowan upon the 
 affidavits of those two persons, who have sworn that Lyster perjured 
 himself on some other particular transactions. In every application 
 for a new trial, upon the allegation that evidence has been discovered 
 which was not known antecedent to the trial ; an affidavit of not 
 only the party himself, but also of his attorney is required. Now, 
 give me leave to ask, why these grounds are stated upon this affidavit 
 of Mr. Rowan himself, and not of Mr. Dowling, his attorney upon 
 record ? If you should grant a new trial, when this necessary ingre- 
 dient, the affidavit of his attorney, has not been complied with, would 
 not every attorney in the hall, the instant he was employed to defend 
 a client charging him with a misdemeanor, say to him, do you listen 
 to no one ; do not enquire about your defence ; I shall shut the 
 mouth of every man to you upon the subject, and go to trial, and give 
 yourself a chance of a verdict of acquittal ; if you should hapj)en to 
 be acquitted, it is well, but if the verdict should be against you, 
 then apply to the court to set aside that verdict, upon the ground of 
 facts which I now tell you of, and which you can swear has come to 
 your knowledge since the trial. Let it not be understood that I mean 
 to apply that there was such a scheme between the present parties. 
 No ; but I am adducing a case to the court. I would not have it 
 imagined that I impute any thing in the case I have supposed, to the 
 present defendant ; he is a man of honour ; but courts will decide 
 upon established general rules, applicable to the case of every man. 
 
 The notice in this case is very generally shaped : Is he to be granted 
 a new trial upon the ground stated by these affidavits ? Nothing can 
 be more clear than that the defendant had a knowledge that Lyster 
 was to be produced against him. Lyster was examined, and Avit- 
 nesses were examined to discredit him. AVill it be contended that 
 there was not evidence for the jury to weigh and deliberate upon? 
 The verdict of the jury shews they did decide on Lystei''s evidence. 
 To say, therefore, that this is a verdict against evidence, is utterly 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 153 
 
 untenable : it is not a verdict against evidence ; it conies then to this, 
 is it a vei'dict against the weight of evidence ; will your lordships 
 establish such a rule as this ? You never will interpose Avith the 
 province of the jury ; the court will not say it was a verdict against 
 the weight of evidence, the whole of the evidence did go to the jury, 
 and upon that evidence the jury were competent to decide. 
 
 As to the second ground, that some of the jury were prejudiced 
 against, and at enmity with the traverser : Upon that ground I was 
 told, that Mr. Curran laid down the position from a case in 5th Bacon 
 which referred to 7tli Modern, 57. where a challenge for favour is a 
 good cause of setting aside a verdict. Supposing the case to be in 
 ])oint, yet in the present case the facts set forth in these affidavits 
 would not constitute a good challenge to the poll, or to the array. 
 This appears from the triors oath in Co. Lit. to determine whether 
 you are bound to look to the words of this affidavit ; supposing, but 
 not admitting, that the juryman did use the words mentioned six 
 months before the trial ; before he was sworn, it was not a good cause 
 of challenge to the poll. Suppose that six months ago, the words 
 used by a juryman were these, " Mr. Rowan has committed murder," 
 when the juror came to be sworn on the trial four days ago, on a 
 charge for a misdemeanor, the juror might say, my mind is now dis- 
 abused, I was under an error when I did speak the words mentioned, 
 but I never made any declarations upon the matter in issue. The 
 trior's oath is, "to enquire whether the juror stands indiffiirent as to 
 the matter in issue between the parties." Give me leave to say, that 
 by the principles of law, the court will never send a cause back to be 
 tried on account of the words spoken, as charged in this affidavit, 
 unless the words spoken were such as in law would be a good legal 
 challenge to favour. 
 
 The objection made to the sheriff, as returning officer, is for parti- 
 ality. I was astonished when the traverser and the counsel came 
 forward on a motion to set aside the verdict, because the defendant 
 knew a fact, without stating when he came to the knowledge of that 
 fact, which would be considered as a good legal challenge to the array. 
 Is it because a man is proprietor of a ncAvspaper, has a place in the 
 revenue, and holds a commission in the militia, and he returns the 
 jury — is that a good cause of challenge to the array ? But, if it has 
 any weight, when did Mr. Rowan came to the knowledge of these 
 facts ? Mr. Rowan could have made his objections before the trial ; 
 he had a knowledge of these facts, he knew that Mr. Gitfard was 
 proprietor of a newspaper called a government newspaper, had a place 
 in the reveniie, and held a commission in the militia. He could then, 
 by an affidavit, have applied to the court, stating that he could not 
 have a fair trial. Your lordships would no doubt have postponed the 
 trial. I do not find in the notice, any mention made relative to any 
 misdirection in the judge. The court was unanimous, the whole 
 matter was left to the jury, who were told that they were to judge of 
 the credit they would give to the witness. Mr. Rowan's being at the 
 meeting was a fact admitted ; for on the cross-examination of Lyster 
 it was pressed by the counsel, that the meeting consisted of the old 
 Volunteers, that their uniform was scarlet with different coloured 
 facings. The fact of Mr. Rowan being at that meeting was proved 
 
154 TRIAL OF 
 
 by Morton, and he said he heard part of the paper read, as " Citizen 
 Soldiers, to arms !" There were near 200 persons at that meeting ; 
 that was the fact capable of disproof; if so, there has not been a 
 single person produced to disprove it ; that is as a volume of evidence 
 of the truth. I must say I rejoice at hearing this voluntary eulogium 
 on his private character. That has nothing to do with applying to 
 your discretion to set aside the verdict, which twelve men on their 
 oaths have found. This motion ought not to have taken up ten 
 minutes of your lordships time. I think there is no ground to set 
 aside the verdict. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant, same side. — My lords, unless your lordships 
 please, I have no desire to speak on this motion. 
 
 Court. — As you please — use your own discretion. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant. — My lords, I am counsel on the part 
 of the Crown. This case is totally diiferent from any case in the 
 books. It is unnecessary to go into the detail of the evidence on 
 which your lordships have, in fact, given your opinion. This is a 
 motion made to set aside the verdict, where no evidence on the part of 
 the defendant was adduced, but merely to discredit the witness 
 produced on the part of the prosecution. They ask you to step out of 
 your proper sphere, to judge of the credit of the witnesses, which is 
 the province of the jury only to do. Where evidence has been 
 adduced on both sides, the court may give their opinion to the jury, 
 whex'e the weight of evidence lies, but the jury are to determine as to 
 the evidence and the credit they will give it. I should apprehend 
 there would be a clamour against the court, if your lordships were to 
 step off the bench into the jury box ; because the court has nothing 
 to say to the credit of the witnesses. Were you to set aside this verdict, it 
 would be taking away the opinion which twelve men on their oaths 
 have formed, and which opinion the jury were bound by the law 
 of the land to entertain. Therefore, on the ground of the verdict 
 being contrary to evidence, or to the weight of evidence, in a 
 case where there was no evidence on one side, there is not a man of 
 common understanding that cannot say there is no ground for 
 this motion. 
 
 It is said, that a juror was prejudiced against the traverser. If 
 there was any contrariety of evidence, if there was any point on 
 which that prejudice was to operate, if there was any scruple of 
 evidence on one side, and prejudice was to give way to that scruple, 
 there might be some weight in the objection, but here there was 
 nothing to exercise his prejudice upon ; there is therefore nothing in 
 this objection as a ground to set the verdict aside. If five hundred 
 witnesses had come forward to say, that Lyster is not to be believed 
 upon his oath, it is not for the court to determine, but solely for 
 the consideration of the jurors. The jury must determine whether 
 Lyster was deserving of ci-edit, or not ; even if this objection 
 had more weight than it has, the door is shut upon it, as against 
 the traverser. The whole of the case went to the jury, and by their 
 verdict it appears, that they did give credit to what was said by 
 Lyster. An issue was directed to try the validity of a deed, 
 and a witness swore to the execution of the bond at a certain time 
 and place. Before the trial, the defendant in the action gave notice, 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 155 
 
 he would impeach the credit of the witness, because he was abroad at 
 the time of the alleged attestation to the deed. The case went 
 to trial ; there was a verdict on the evidence intended to be impeached. 
 The party applied for a new trial, on affidavit, that the person was at 
 a different place when the deed was alleged to have been executed. 
 The court said they would not entertain the motion ; he ought to have 
 come prepared at the trial ; we will not now give you an opportunity 
 of bringing on your witnesses at a new trial.* 
 
 With respect to the incredibility of Lyster, three witnesses were 
 examined, and now your lordships are called upon to have an 
 examination of Clarke, who appears to have been the hair-dresser of 
 Lyster, and to let in the evidence of Mr. Coultry that Lyster does not 
 deserve credit, after the examination of three witnesses to that point 
 at the trial. With respect to the public principles and character of 
 witnesses, are they to be again enquired into, after they had gone 
 through the fiery ordeal of a cross-examination ? The court would 
 not permit it, after the witness had gone from the table. As to 
 the general character of Lyster, it could not be gone into: evidence 
 did not go to the point that he did deserve credit or not. An objection 
 is made on account of the declaration of the juror ; it was not a 
 declaration of any opinion as to the matter in issue between the 
 parties ; such declarations therefore, could not be the ground of a 
 challenge to the juror. 2 Hawkins 589. 
 
 If there be objections to a juror for partiality, it would be a ground 
 of challenge, if accompanied with some particular instances of malice. 
 The law makes ill-will in a juror necessary to suppoi't the cause of 
 challenge. 
 
 The charge against the sheriff is that he did Lmpannel persons 
 prejudiced, and at enmity against the defendant; but no particular 
 prejudice is mentioned in the affidavit : Mr. Rowan does state 
 he heard, and believes, that Mr. Giffard is conductor of a newspaper, 
 called a government newspaper, &c. It is not said that Giffard's 
 labours were successful, so as to have a single person on the jury who 
 was unfairly prejudiced against defendant. Mr. Rowan has not sworn 
 that the pannel was absolutely composed of persons pi^ejudiced against 
 him, and such were chosen by the contrivance of Mr. Giffard ; this 
 was in the nature of a challenge to the array made partially, through 
 the misconduct of the returning officer. 
 
 As to the incompetency, it is no ground to set aside the verdict; 
 judge Grose says, " as to the question of competency of witnesses 
 after trial, on a motion for a new trial, we are bound to reject such 
 testimony now ;" though a decision of competency peculiarly belongs 
 to the court. 1 Durnford and East's Reports, TTT.f 
 
 Locke says, that where a transaction is done in open day, where 
 there is a possibility of contradicting it, not contradicting it is 
 
 * Richards v. Symes, 2 Atk. 319. 
 
 f Justice Grose's words are, " As to the competency of the witnesses it is not 
 contended that in point of law we are bound to reject their testimony now;" 
 which do not appear to support the portion laid down by the Attorney-General ; 
 Turner v. Pcarte, I. T. R., 720. 
 
156 TRIAL OF 
 
 an admission of the fact. The observations mentioned will have 
 a conclusive effect upon the mind of every man that hears me.* 
 Adjourned to Friday, February the 7th, 1794. 
 
 Friday, February 7, 1794. 
 
 This day the coui't proceeded to deliver their opinions, seriatim. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice. — This is a motion made on behalf 
 of the traverser, Archibald Hamilton Rowan, founded on a notice 
 dated the third of February instant ; and it is to set aside the verdict 
 had against him in this cause : first, as being contrary to the justice of 
 the case ; as founded upon false evidence, and upon testimony not 
 deserving of any credit. The second ground is, that some of the jury, 
 who found the verdict, were prejudiced and at enmity with the 
 traverser, and had declared that opinion before they were sworn upon 
 the jury. The third gi'ound is, because the sheriff who arrayed the 
 pannel was prejudiced against the defendant, and did array the pannel 
 so as to have him tried by an unfair jury. 
 
 The motion is stated to be founded upon six affidavits, (of which I 
 have copies, as have my brothers), stated to have been filed in this 
 cause on the tliird of February, stating the nature of the case, and the 
 reasons to be offered. The motion was called on that day and ordered 
 to stand for the next day, when another ground of objection was made 
 in the argument of the motion, or suggested by counsel, founded upon 
 an observation stated from his memory, and unsupported by any oath ; 
 which he argued from, as if used by me in my charge to the jury ; 
 which I shall take notice of in its proper place. The affidavits to the 
 first point in the notice, for I have endeavoured to class them so as to 
 make them intelligible to every person ; the affidavits, I say, to the 
 credit of Lyster, are three : 
 
 1 St. Clarke, the peruke-maker, who is of opinion that Lyster is not 
 to be credited, as he believes, because in a suit in the Court of Con- 
 science he, Lystei', perjured himself, by denying any acquaintance 
 with him. The next is Coultry, a gentleman, who is of the same 
 opinion, because, he says, Lyster perjured himself respecting a horse, 
 and made a false affidavit in the name of his brother, whom he per- 
 sonated. Mr. Rowan, in one of his affidavits, for he has made two, 
 also swears to the same points, that he believes, if these two persons 
 had attended at the trial and been examined, this witness, Lyster, 
 would have been totally discredited. That he swears is his belief, and 
 I dare say, that impression is made upon his mind. And he adds 
 further, that from what he and his friends are daily hearing, he has no 
 doubt of proving fully, that Lyster is deserving of no credit on his 
 oath. These are to the first point. Touching the second point in the 
 notice, that is, the partiality or prejudice of the jury, or some of them, 
 William Atkinson, a watch-maker, has made an affidavit, stating that 
 in August last, on an occasion of some illumination, he had a conver- 
 
 * It was impossible for the Editor to have obtained any correct note of the 
 aff^unients of the Solicitor-General or the Prime- Serjeant. Their arguments 
 appear to have been reported with great inaccuracy, and, as they at present stand, 
 are Terv loose and inconclusive. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 157 
 
 satioii with Mr. Perrin, one of the jurors, respecting the Vohmteers ; 
 and that, Avith respect to the body in general, he spoke with acrimo- 
 nious language ; but particularly with respect to Hamilton Rowan ; 
 that he and Napper Tandy deserved to be hanged, or the country 
 would never prospei', or to that effect ; and Mr. Porter swears that, 
 since the commencement of this prosecution, and before the trial, 
 Mr. Pen-in made use of some other expressions of the same sort ; and 
 Mr. Rowan swears, that he believes that some of the jurors did, pre- 
 vious to this trial, use expressions tending to asperse him, therefoi'e 
 they were heated against him, and had impressions in their minds 
 unfavourable to him. 
 
 With respect to the third point in the notice, Mr. Rowan swears he 
 heard and believes that Sheriff Giflfard, by whom, or by whose under- 
 sheriff, the panel has been arrayed, is the conductor of a paper gene- 
 rally understood to be a government paper ; that he has a lucrative 
 office in the revenue, and is an officer in the Dublin militia ; and that 
 he is sti'ongly prejudiced against him, and did labour to have such a 
 panel arrayed, of such men as he knew Avere unfairly prejudiced 
 against him. These are the affidavits touching the three grounds stated 
 in the traverser's notice. And as to the general merits, Mr. Rowan 
 further states, that he was present during the ti'ial, and that he heard 
 the evidence given by Lyster and Morton, charging him with having 
 read, distributed and published the paper in Pai'don's school, and he 
 swears that said testimony is utterly false. This he positively swears 
 to ; but he does not, however, deny any of the particular facts 
 alledged in the information against him ; as to that he is silent, and 
 he undertakes to contradict no fact sworn in the evidence against him, 
 but that which I have mentioned. 
 
 Thus stand the affidavits upon which this motion is grounded. It 
 may not be amiss to give a short history of this case, so far as we have 
 judicial knowledge of it, in order to throw light upon the situation in 
 which Mr. Rowan stood when his trial came on. He was arrested in 
 consequence of the publication in question, above a year ago, and gave 
 bail to that arrest, before Hilary, 1793, viz., on the 20th of December, 
 1792, (I believe I am not mistaken, but it is not very material), and 
 the first information, ex officio, for that is not the one on Avliich he has 
 been tried, was filed, Hilary, 1793 ; and now I speak of what passed 
 in this court. On the sixth of May last, near nine months before his 
 trial, in Easter Term, Avhich ended the thirteenth of May, Mr. Emmet 
 moved to vacate his recognizance : Mr. Attorney-General consented. 
 Mr. Rowan and his bail appeared in court, and it was vacated, as he 
 was ready to be tried upon that information : next was a motion on his 
 behalf, by the Recorder of the city of Dublin, to appoint a day for his trial 
 in the term following ; that motion was made in Trinity Term, but the 
 Attorney- General applied to the court stating, that he had discovered an 
 error in the information, and entered a noli prosequi ; accordingly no 
 trial was appointed. A new infoi'mation was filed, and in Michaelmas 
 Term, several weeks after the city sheriffs were chosen, a trial at bar was 
 moved for, and a day appointed in this present Term (the 29th January). 
 On the 11th of November last the Attorney-General moved to amend 
 the information, by striking out one of the inuendos. The Recorder 
 appeared on behalf of Mr. Rowan, and said he was instructed not to 
 
158 TRIAL OF 
 
 oppose it. On the 29tli of January the trial was called on, and no 
 challenge having been taken either to the array, or to the polls, either 
 principal, or to the favoui-, the juiy were sworn, and tried the cause. 
 There were questions put to some of the jury touching theu- opinions, 
 whether they had declared them or not, upon the matter in issue : 
 one of them having said, after he was sworn, that he had given some 
 opinion, he was withdrawn by consent; nor was it objected to by the 
 crown lawyers ; and these questions, which are said in the books to 
 tend to reproach, were asked, and not objected to. 
 
 I must here invert the order of the points, to make it more clear, 
 by following the order of time. The first objection then, is that stated 
 by Mr. Rowan's affidavit to the sheriff's pannel. He swears that 
 Giffard, by whom, or by whose sub-sheriff, the pannel was arrayed, 
 is conductor of a newspaper, generally considered a government paper ; 
 that he has a lucrative office in the revenue, and is in the militia ; and 
 he believes he laboured to have such a pannel arrayed, as were pre- 
 judiced against him. This I shall first consider in point of law, and 
 then of hardship, as addressed to the discretion of the court. First 
 then, would it have been a cause of challenge upon a demurrer ? 
 Clearly not ; there is nothing certain nor ascertained in it ; is it in 
 law, a ground of challenge, that a man conducts, what is considered, 
 a government newspaper ? What is a government newspaper in legal 
 estimation ? A chimera of the brain. Is it meant to be insinuated 
 that government, or the crown, to use a more proper expression, was 
 at war with Mr. Rowan, or that any thing done, on the part of govern- 
 ment, was to be injurious to him? I hope not; nor that any thing 
 he did is to be injurious to government ; I trust not. I put it the 
 other way : suppose it had been objected, on the other side, that a 
 juror had pul)lished a paper called Mr. Rowan's paper, or the Free- 
 man's Journal, or any paper of that kind ; would it be an objection 
 that conld have any weight ? Undoubtedly not ; no denomination of 
 subjects, under that general name, can furnish an objection even to 
 the prosecution. 
 
 Then again it is stated that he held an office under government, 
 and was in the militia. If this were to be a disqualification, then 
 mark the consequence : every sheriff in the thirty-two comities of 
 Ireland at large, would be disqualified to return a pannel : which 
 amounts to this absurdity, that the very grant which qualifies, by law, 
 every sheriff to make returns, does ipso facto disqualify him, because 
 the office of sherifi" is under the crown : and if holding an office under 
 the ci'own disqualify a man, it involves this palpable absurdity, that 
 the very grant, which makes him, disqualifies him from acting. But 
 it is still weaker with respect to the sheriff of Dublin, for that sheriff 
 is not appointed immediately by the crown, but by election : however 
 I have exposed this objection : upon the other ground I put it, that 
 it would be absurd that the very office should be a direct disqualifica- 
 tion, from the fulfilling of the most important duty of it. But then 
 Mr. Rowan believes him to be prejudiced against him, and that he 
 laboured to return a prejudiced pannel. Would his belief be evidence 
 of favour ? Surely not ; but the laAv, not grounded on Aveak sus- 
 picions, disregards such conjectures, and rejects the surmises of 
 interested parties. Our law, also, appoints a proper time, when even 
 
AKCHinAIvD HAMILTON ROWAN. 159 
 
 legal objections can only be received. The time for challenging the 
 array, is before any of the jury are sworn, and for challenging the 
 polls, when they come to the book ; but if the party accused takes his 
 chance with the juiy, he afterwards comes too late to object to them ; 
 such is the language of the law, and the manifest principle of justice. 
 But to take it upon the point of hardship, which has been insisted 
 upon, there appears to be none ; he had three months' notice, and 
 near two terms had elapsed, during which time he never expressed 
 any discontent against the sheriff, nor suggested to the court, by affi- 
 davit or otherwise, that the sheriff was partial, or adverse to him. He 
 and his attorney must both have known that this man was sheriff, and 
 yet never applied to have the trial postponed, or the process directed 
 to any other officer ; and even in his affidavit, marie since the trial, 
 which is unsupported by any other, he does not state that this cause 
 of complaint came to his knowledge subsequent to the trial ; indeed 
 the reason of his belief speaks the contrary, namely his being the 
 conductor of, what is called, a government paper, an officer in the 
 militia, and in the revenue ; which facts, it is presumable, he could 
 not have been a stranger to at the time of the trial. 
 
 Next comes that objection to the juror Perrin, in answer to which, 
 what I have already said, respecting time, that the challenge should 
 have been made before the j uror was sworn, and if a challenge had 
 been made, there is not enough in the affidavit, even supposing the 
 facts true, to support it.* It is not sworn that he made any declara- 
 tion respecting the matter in issue, nor in malice, to the defendant. 
 2 Hawk. P. C. 578, 8th Ed. The trior's oath illustrates and is applicable, 
 it is to try, whether the jurors are indifferent upon the matter 
 in issue ; but I still resort to what I said before, the objection 
 now comes too late. A third objection goes to vitiate the verdict as 
 unjust, founded upon false, or uncreditable testimony. This is a 
 question of great extent, and of great consequence to the admin- 
 istration of criminal law ; the object desired is, to be let in, it is said, 
 to impeach further by new witnesses, the credit of persons, already 
 attempted to be discredited on the trial. If that were yielded to, no 
 verdicts for misdemeanours against the traverser could stand, as long 
 as a man could be found to swear that the witness did not deserve 
 credit. It would be a direct and general invitation to such perjury 
 as could not be punished by an indictment, and would tend to with- 
 hold a part of that evidence by which the witness on the first trial 
 might be impeached, and hold out an invitation to persons to offer 
 themselves after the trial, to discredit the witnesses with safety, 
 perhaps profit to themselves. It would wound the constitution deeply, 
 by transfering the jurisdiction of the jury to the court, and would 
 totally overturn the trial by jury. It is admitted by the defendant's 
 counsel, that no case has been found to authorise it, and the case 
 cited 7 Mod. 57. has been searched for, and cannot be foiuid; I have 
 found a case in page 54, which, so far as it goes, is against him ; it 
 would be strange and unjust if it could, but there are other cases, 
 
 * In the case of Lady Herbert v. Shaw, 11 Mod. 119. it is said by the court "if 
 a party have cause of challenge and know of it time enough before the trial, if he 
 do not challenge he shall not have a new trial ; contra, if he has not had timely 
 notice of it." 
 
160 TRIAL OF 
 
 which go much more strongly against him, where it has been attempted 
 to set aside the verdict where the witness has been incompetent, of 
 which the coui't, and not the jury, are by law the judges. Hyan and 
 Ballan cited 7 Mod. 54, referred to 5 Bacon, was the case of a non- 
 sviit, and the court refused to set it aside, although the deed, upon 
 which the defendant relied, was sworn to be a forgery ; and Turner 
 and Pearte 1 Term Rep. 717. is much stronger than this, against 
 what is applied for. An application was made for a new trial upon 
 affidavit, that five of the witnesses pi'oduced by the party, who 
 obtained a verdict, were incompetent, and ought not to be examined 
 at all ; there is an affidavit in answer, that the party who called these 
 witnesses did not know that there was any objection to them. Ashurst, 
 J. said they came too late after trial. Now their evidence was to be 
 considered as a nullity, that they never should have been examined at 
 all ; not what credit they deserved, whether more or less, which the 
 jury are judges of, not the court. And in that case, where the 
 matter was of law within the power of the judges, whether competent 
 or not, though it was sworn that five of them were interested, and 
 incompetent of course, yet the court would not hear the objection 
 because it came too late, and Mr. Justice Buller, a very great lawyer, 
 says " there has been no instance of this court's granting a new trial, 
 on an allegation, that some of the witnesses examined were interested, 
 and I should be very sorry to make the first precedent." There 
 never yet has been a case in which the party has been permitted after 
 trial to avail himself of any objection which was not made at the time 
 of the examination. Mr. Justice Grose, in the same case, says, " In 
 the first place it does not clearly appear, that the plaintiffs did not 
 know of the objection at the time of the trial. It is sworn very 
 loosely ; and if they knew of it, at that time, that would be a decisive 
 reason for refusing to allow it now." And now I shall apply this 
 opinion, in this case, to the last objection made by counsel, as well as 
 to what I have already said ; but there it was said by Mr. Justice 
 Grose, that the objection to the witness might be an ingredient if the 
 party applying had merits. In 2 Term Rep. 113 in the case of 
 Vernon and others, the assignees of Tyler v. Hankey, the court would 
 not grant a new trial, to let the party into a defence, of which he was 
 apprized at the first trial. I have cited these cases to shew, that even 
 in case of incompetency, where the witness ought not to be permitted 
 to stand upon the table, or open his lips — there after trial, the court 
 would not set aside a verdict upon that ground. But see what Mr. 
 Rowan's affidavit is, even if it could be listened to as to his own 
 innocence ; he says, he heard the evidence of Lyster and Morton, 
 chai-ging him with having read, distributed and published the paper 
 in the information, in Cope-street, at Pardon's fencing school, and 
 positively swears, that their testimony was utterly false. Now first, 
 I say, that no trial or verdict was ever set aside, in a case like this, 
 upon such an affidavit. It is at best the oath of the party to his own 
 innocence ; but it is not so much ; hei'e he does not deny the facts, 
 not one of them ; and let me take the words " utterly false" in every 
 sense they convey ; if he means false in every thing, then he has 
 surely made an affidavit stating that he has heard the evidence of 
 Lyster and Morton, charging him with having read, distributed and 
 
ARCttlBALT) HAMILTON ROWAN. l6l 
 
 published the paper, that, he says, is utterly false. To use the ex- 
 pression of one of the judges in that case I cited, it is a great deal 
 too loose ; the party sAvearing for himself does not even contradict 
 Lyster ; he does not contradict any one of these facts specially. I 
 will ask, could he be found guilty of perjury, upon such loose 
 swearing, supposing it to be false ? I should think not. But it is 
 material to another part, that this is the only pai't of their testimony 
 which he has contradicted, and he might, when he undertook to 
 contradict any of the facts, have contradicted the whole, or any other 
 pai-t, as far as the truth would justify him, at least upon heai'say or 
 belief ; he has not done that. 
 
 But it is urged fi'om the bar, upon a point not stated in the notice, 
 but from the recollection of one of the counsel, unto which no affidavit 
 refers, that I assumed to the jury the fact of a meeting, at Cope-street, 
 of 150 men, at which Mr. Rowan was present, which he has not 
 contradicted ; upon that I have built a strong inference of guilt, 
 upon the presumption arising from their silence. Here I will state, 
 as accurately as I can, Avhat I did say ; what I did not say, which has 
 been imputed to me ; in which I have the concurrence of my brethi-en 
 as to their recollection. I told the jury, and meant to have told them, 
 as far as my recollection serves me, that the observation made by one 
 of the prosecutor's counsel, indeed by two of them, first Mr. Attorney- 
 General, and afterwards Mr. Prime- Sergeant, struck me, as obvious 
 and strong, viz. that the defendant did not contradict by a single 
 witness, any one fact sworn to against him ; I then stated some of 
 the leading facts sworn to, those facts as I thought easiest to be con- 
 tradicted, and those facts which brought with them, if they were true, 
 the means of defence ; for example, that there was a meeting in open 
 day at a public fencing school, where from one to two hundred per- 
 sons, many of them in Volunteer unifomis, were sworn to have been 
 present; this fact, I told them, was sworn to by two witnesses, and if 
 the jury believed there was a meeting of the kind and number_sworn 
 to, it was to my mind a volume of evidence ; I say so still, that the 
 defendant did not produce any of the persons to contradict any of 
 these facts, or prove that he did not read, publish or disperse the libel in 
 question. He has now made an affidavit, and see the power of per- 
 verting fancy ; Gentlemen argue for an hour upon affidavits, because 
 the facts sworn to are not contradicted, and they insist upon these 
 uncontradicted facts as truths ; these six affidavits, say their counsel, 
 are strong and uncontradicted, and therefore the facts in them must 
 be assumed ; but on the other hand, Mr. Rowan has made an affidavit, 
 and he has not to this hour, ventured to contradict all the facts 
 proved against him on the trial ; and shall we not be at liberty in our 
 turn, to assume upon this motion that he cannot contradict them. He 
 swears he heard the evidence ; he has not ventured to contradict any 
 of those facts ; he has not sworn that there was not a meeting of so 
 many persons, nor any thing of that nature. 
 
 Now I will state what the evidence was ; Lyster swore, that on 
 the 16th December, 1792, he was at Pardon's fencing-school, in 
 Cope-street, in the city of Dublin ; that there was from one to two 
 hundred persons present in scarlet uniforms : that Napper Tandy, 
 Hamilton Rowan, and others, were sitting at a table : the witness 
 
 M 
 
162 TRIAL OF 
 
 went in from curiosity, and he was told by Mr. Rowan, to tlie best of 
 his knowledge, that no man in coloni'ed clothes could be admitted 
 there. He does not contradict that conversation with this man — that 
 there was a gallery, to which he might go ; that is not contradicted — 
 that Hamilton Rowan was very busy, and walked about with papers 
 in his hand ; these facts, let it be remembered too, that he swore upon 
 belief and vague recollection to the best of his knowledge. I told 
 the jury this was not evidence, and should be rejected; but he does 
 not now contradict any of those facts ; then he goes to the publication. 
 So it was with respect to Morton, what did I tell the jury ? after 
 stating the act of parliament which declares, if not gives, a power to 
 the jury, to tind upon the wliole matter, which I told them they had 
 a right to do ; that the credit of the witnesses was with them, and 
 not with me ; that they were to find, upon the whole matter in issue, 
 and that they were the judges of the fact, and the intention. Did I 
 assume any fact ? No ; that fact, as well as every other, was to be 
 determined upon belief or disbelief of the witnesses. Such may not 
 have been my identical words, but such must have been my manifest 
 meaning, and the court approved of what I said. And I say now 
 with certainty, I never said to the jury, that the defendant's silence 
 upon those facts, was to supply any defect in the prosecutor's 
 evidence ; I disclaim it. I did not assume the fact, nor did I mean 
 or direct that the jury should take it for granted, that there was any 
 meeting whatsoever. 
 
 These facts were sworn to, like the others, by two witnesses, 
 except the fact of publication, which was the criminal fact, and 
 which was sworn to by one witness only, and so I stated to the jury, 
 that Lyster whose credit was attacked, if they did not believe, I told 
 them they ought to acquit. I then left the whole of the facts and 
 credit of the v/itnesses and the intention of the paper (if they believed 
 the defendant published it) to the jury, who were, I told them, to 
 determine upon the whole matter. 
 
 But suppose the fact otherwise, and as favourable to the defendant 
 as his counsel Avished to have it taken, it cannot avail upon this 
 motion either in law, or justice, or fact, or legal discretion ; first it 
 makes no part of the notice ; next it should have been objected to 
 below. It was the duty of the gentleman who urged it now, and he 
 was not remiss, to have taken notice of it at tlie time ; thirdly, it 
 falls under the general rule that any objection which could have 
 been made below, and contradicted or refuted by evidence, cannot 
 afterwards be taken advantage of. It might have been instantly 
 answered, qualified, contradicted, or adhered to ; but in truth, the 
 general course of the defence rejected all ideas of disproof; it was to 
 justify that paper; and standing upon that ground, it scorned to 
 deny the publication ; I take that for granted ; for no attempt was made 
 to contradict a single fact sworn to by one or other of those wit- 
 nesses. But, upon this motion, how is it to affect our discretion ? 
 Does it appear now that any of those facts are contradicted ? 
 What are we then to judge of? Is it that manifest injustice has 
 been done, which is the principle that governs motions for new 
 trials ? Is there any thing like a new substantive defence set up, 
 which has not been made Ijefoi-e ? Is it said by any of the persons 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 163 
 
 who liave made affidavits here, or by the traverser himself, that he 
 can by witnesses contradict these facts ? Not a word of any snch 
 thing ; and if we are to draw tlie same inference from the silence of 
 the affidavits, which was drawn from not answering them in the argu- 
 ments of the case ; see how it stands, what he has not contradicted 
 he has admitted — but I have no occasion for that. This motion is 
 addressed to the discretion of the court ; that is to the court bound 
 by the curb of legal discretion, for we cannot indulge our feelings be 
 they what they may, and legal discretion is as well ascertained as any 
 express point of law. Adjudications are evidence — we are obliged to 
 follow these, as evidence of what the law is. It is said there is an ana- 
 logy respecting the granting of new trials, between cases of misde- 
 meanors and civil cases, and yet, in order to determine this motion, 
 as defendant's counsel desire, we must abandon that very ground of 
 analogy : the great principle is that, and that alone, which is recognized 
 in Bright and Enyon 1 Bur. 390, alluded to and adopted in many 
 others, from the cases in Styles (448, 462, 466,) to this hour — Has sub- 
 stantial justice been done ? Has the party who requires a new trial been 
 manifestly injured ? Upon what ground is it we are to presume an 
 injury done to the traverser? He has had fourteen months to prepare 
 himself. In trials for their lives, men have often not more than one, and 
 very seldom more than six months ; he had fourteen — they, though 
 confined and in prison, are supposed to have time to defend themselves 
 in felonies of death — here the party at large, complains, invites, pro- 
 vokes the trial. Has he been surprised ? Has he wanted the aid of 
 counsel ? Has he been unattended with friends and foUowei's ? 
 Look at the history of the trial. What new defence has he alledged ? 
 has he, even himself, contradicted the facts charged against him? No; 
 from what then are we to infer, that injustice has been done to him ? 
 It was said that whether by right or by courtesy, by indulgence, or 
 connivance, persons in his situation find a way to the matter charged 
 against them. See how that stands : there may be very good and 
 sufficient and proper I'easons, not to disclose the name of the party 
 swearing the information ; to protect him from violence or corruption 
 of the pai'ty sworn against. How is this case ? The very thing 
 which most deserves to be concealed, was made known to him and his 
 agent ; for the person, that is to swear against him, is disclosed to 
 them, they trace him to the place of his birth, they enquire into his 
 family and connections, they follow him through his private bargains 
 and engagements, they become acquainted Avith his indiscreet, and 
 perhaps immoral conduct ; shall we presume, that this man, whose 
 name was then at the foot of the examination, was unknown to him ? 
 Where are we to look for that substantial justice, by v/hich he can 
 protect himself on another trial ? I find it no where ; I find it not 
 in the principle of the criminal law ; I find it not in adjudged cases ; 
 I find it not in the sovnid discretion of the court ; he has had 
 every possible indulgence ; he has had every latitude of defence 
 by justification (at the least as far as it would go) by insinua- 
 tion, by address ; and I trust, in this free country, I am not 
 mistaken when I suffer counsel to go as large, and take, as wide a 
 range, as decent language will admit, to convey every sentiment 
 which may assist his client : can we say the merits are not tried ? Is 
 
164 TRIAL OF 
 
 it said the merits are in his favour ? But see, as I said before, how 
 perverting imagination can change the most common maxim : is it 
 alledged that the juror, who is complained of, exerted himself to in- 
 fluence the others ? that this was a case of a struggle amongst the 
 jury? O! Xo ; but the case was so clear, that there was not a minute 
 a man in the deliberation. Then where there is not a struggle, and it is 
 not said that he did act partially, or work upon the other eleven, or that 
 by his unjust means, the verdict was obtained; yet we are desired to 
 step out of our way — to go unconstitutionally into the jury box, and 
 say, that they should not have given credit to the witnesses, where the 
 constitution gives them a power to decide. I am therefore, clearly of 
 opinion, that the verdict cannot, upon any principal of law or justice, 
 be disturbed.* 
 
 Mr. Justice Boyd This is an application to set aside a verdict 
 
 upon an information. My Lord Clonmel has stated the affidavits so 
 much at large, that it is not necessary for me to take up much time. 
 The counsel in the argument rested the case ; 
 
 1st. Upon the declaration of a juror against Mi'. Rowan. 
 
 2nd. Upon the partiality of the sheritF. 
 
 3rd. The incredibility of Lyster the witness, and 
 
 Lastly, the misdirection of the court. 
 
 As to the declaration of the juror, there are two affidavits, which 
 state it, but it was upon a common subject ; it had no relation what- 
 ever to the matter in issue ; it does not appear that this declaration 
 was malicious, and the authority in Hawkins establishes that a decla- 
 ration to prevent a man from being a juror, must be pertinent to the 
 matter in issue, and malicious. Tlie declaration of Perrin, in my 
 opinion, if laid before the court in proper time, was not a ground of 
 cliallenge in point of law ; and I must conclude it now comes too 
 late ; it was an objection merely to the favour ; it is a matter in Pais, 
 to be determined by triors appointed ; and here the court are desired 
 to assume the province of a jury and try it here. But I think it now 
 comes too late. In this case it does not appear, that justice has not 
 been done, which is the true ground of setting aside verdicts. It is 
 no where suggested, that the misconduct of this juror was the cause, 
 by which the verdict was obtained. The shortness of the time that 
 the jury were withdrawn, is a sti'ong ground to presume, they were 
 not persuaded by him. 
 
 2dly. As to the ch'irge of partiality in the sheriff, Mr. RoAvan in 
 his affidavit speaks only as to belief; he does not charge it positively. 
 The same observation I have already mentioned, goes to this point ; 
 there was not a challenge taken to the array, on the ground of parti- 
 ality in the returning officer. This being an application to the 
 discretion of the court to set aside the verdict, the question is, has 
 justice not been done ? The charge is general upon belief; and yet 
 the affidavit does not say, that the sheriff did pi-ocure a partial jury, 
 or that he could procure it ; and in this case, as in every other, the 
 not making objections at the trial, is a strong ground to prevent the 
 
 Rex. V Mawbey G. T. R. 638 ; Vernon v Hankey 2. T. R. 113 ; 2 Salk 647, 653 ; 
 Bull N. Pnus327; Sayev Rep 27 : 1 T R 717; Chitty's Criminal Law 636; 
 
 tlowlet V Crntehelev 5 Taunt 277- 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON KOWAN. 165 
 
 court from interfering, especially where the traverser, in no part of 
 his affidavit, swears he is not guilty ; or has a good cause of defence 
 to make upon a new trial, which, in my opinion, are two material 
 grounds, in granting new trials. As to the incredibility of Lyster's 
 evidence, I must observe that evidence was ofiered at the trial, which 
 shews to demonstration, that the defendant was prepared ; he pro- 
 duced three witnesses against Lyster, for lie did produce Blake, Smith 
 and Hatchell, their evidence and Lyster's, and Morton's, all went up to 
 the jury ; the jury have found their verdict ; and this application is 
 made to the discretion of the court, to set that verdict aside and to 
 grant a new trial, to let in further evidence in support of that, which 
 the jury did not credit, that is, of the witnesses, who charge that 
 Lyster ought not to be believed on his oath. There is no instance in 
 the books to be met with to warrant such a proceeding. There are 
 instances, where a court has refused to set aside a verdict, on the 
 ground of incompetency of the witnesses on the former trial, because 
 the defendant had taken a chance of a verdict in his favour. Sup- 
 pose a new trial granted, what would be the consequence ? Lyster 
 would be examined before another jury; with the suspicion of the 
 court of King's Bench falling upon him, that he was an incredible 
 Avitness. 
 
 As to the misdirection of the j udge ; I attended to every word, as 
 I always do to what falls from his lordship ; I recollect the substance 
 of the charge, it had my entire approbation, it was, that the defendant 
 did not contradict, by a single witness, any one fact charged against 
 him. His lordship stated several of the facts, which he thought 
 might be disproved, if not true ; the meeting was at noon day, in a 
 public room, and 150 persons present, in uniform ; the evidence of 
 Lyster was confirmed by Morton, but Morton had not the paper, but 
 heard the expression, " citizen soldiers, to arms." On the whole the 
 evidence went to the jury, but there was only one witness to the fact 
 of publication. If the jury believed there was any meeting of the 
 kind and number that was so mentioned, the defendant did not pro- 
 duce a witness to contradict one of the facts so alledged. His lordship 
 did not say, that the defendant's silence was to supply the defects in 
 the prosecutor's evidence. All the facts were left to the jury by the 
 court, and each of us made such observations as occurred to him. By 
 the verdict the jury, it appears, did give credit to the witnesses, and 
 did believe there was a meeting. The description given of the meet- 
 ing was, that there were 150 persons present. These were strong 
 circumstances to go to the jury. If you believe there was a meeting, 
 not one of those persons has been brought forwai'd to contradict these 
 assertions. I know of no judicial determination of any case similar 
 to the present. In this case, the traverser does not swear he is not 
 guilty. If this was a civil case, here is not ground for a good demurrer. 
 On the whole, I concur with Lord Clonmel, that this verdict ought 
 not to be impeached. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — This is an application, to set aside a verdict 
 of guilty in a criminal case, on several affidavits. I hope that it will 
 be recollected, that the affidavits have been read without opposition 
 from the counsel for the crown, and that the court have not given 
 any opinion whether after a verdict of guilty in a criminal case, the 
 
166 TRIAL OF 
 
 defendant has a right to have such affidavits read, as have been pro- 
 duced in this case ; but as they have been read, I shall examine the 
 grounds of the motion, which is founded on them. 
 
 1st. The verdict is sought to be set aside (according to the notice) 
 on this ground, that it is contrary to justice, founded on false testi- 
 mony not deserving any credit ; those are the words of the notice. 
 
 This is a direct appeal from the jury to the court, in a matter solely 
 within the pi'ovince of the jury; the court cannot decide on the truth 
 or falsehood of evidence, and yet we are desired to set aside this ver- 
 dict on the ground, that the evidence was false, and that the jury 
 ought not to have believed the witnesses. 
 
 No fact sworn to by either of the witnesses for the crown, on the 
 trial, was then contradicted by evidence, no new witness is discovered, 
 who can, in case of a new trial, contradict any fact sworn by either 
 of those witnesses. 
 
 The truth of their testimony as given on the trial, is even now con- 
 tradicted only by the affidavit of the defendant ; the covn-t can make 
 no distinction betAveen defendants, and no instance is, or I believe can 
 be shewn, where the oath of a person found guilty, contradicting the 
 witnesses examined against him on the trial, has been allowed to 
 shake the verdict that convicted him ; and if it should be suffered to 
 do so, I believe few convictions would stand. 
 
 But it is said, that if the verdict should be set aside, new light 
 will be let in upon the case by the evidence disclosed in these 
 affidavits. 
 
 But what is the new light that is suggested ; not upon the merits 
 of the case ; it is not alledged that any new ground of defence is 
 discovei-ed ; no affidavit of any of the new witnesses says one word 
 of the matter in issue in the cause, and the defendant himself does 
 not in his affidavit state, that if the verdict shall be set aside, he can 
 at a future trial, produce any evidence, as to the fact with which he 
 is charged. 
 
 But it is said, that new light can be thrown upon the defect of 
 credit in Lyster, the principal witness for the crown. 
 
 Not by shewing that any fact he swore Avas false, the best mode of 
 discrediting a witness ; it is not suggested that the defendant can 
 produce any evidence to that effect. 
 
 But, two witnesses can be produced, who will swear, that they 
 think he ought not to be believed, and to let in these opinions, we are 
 desired to set aside the verdict. 
 
 I say, to let in these opinions, for the particular facts of perjury, 
 which they state, could not be suffered to be proved at the trial. 
 
 And I think it is at least doubtful, whether if they had appeared 
 on the trial, which has been had, they could (from any thing appearing 
 on their affidavits) have given any evidence at all ; for neither of 
 them speaks as to Lyster's general character ; whether that be such 
 as not to deserve credit in a court of justice, and it is with respect to 
 his general character only, that a witness can be prepared to defend 
 himself, and not against the opinion of an individual. 
 
 But if it Avei-e admitted, that a verdict might be set aside, where 
 a party is surprised by the production of a suspicious witness, who 
 he had no reason to suppose would be examined against him ; yet 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 167 
 
 this is not that case ; here it is evident, that there was no such sur- 
 prise ; the defendant knew before trial, that Lyster was his prose- 
 cutor, he was prepared at the ti-ial to impeach his credit ; he examined 
 three witnesses for that purpose, the jury have weighed and decided 
 upon that credit ; and can we say, after the credit of this witness has 
 been examined by4he jury, that particular facts, sworn by him, in 
 some of which he was corroborated by another witness, and contra- 
 dicted by none, ought not to be believed, because persons come forward 
 and state that they would not give him credit on his oath ; it would, 
 in my apprehension, be a most mischievous decision, if the court were 
 to do so. And I know not how any verdict could ever stand, if it 
 were sufficient ground to set it aside, tliat new witnesses come and 
 tell us, that the former witnesses ought not to be believed. 
 
 My lord has cited cases on this point, which I need not take up 
 time in again going over. 
 
 As to the declarations sworn to have been made by a juror — 
 
 Mr. Curran cited a case, which cannot be found in the book referred 
 to ; but supposing it has been decided, that a cause of challenge not 
 known at the trial, is sufficient to set aside a verdict, I cannot feel, 
 that mere general declarations, though severe ones, relative to the 
 defendant's political conduct, made long before the trial, upon a con- 
 versation, no way concerning the matter in issue, would have been 
 sufficient cause for a challenge. I cannot think that such general 
 declarations could form any ground of challenge, for if they wovdd, 
 suppose a rebellion in the country, no loyal subject could be a juror 
 on the trial of any of the principal persons concerned in it. 
 
 As to the objection grounded on the conduct of the sheriff, it is 
 enough to say, that no particular act of partiality is stated, and that 
 his having endeavoured to procure a prejudiced jiiry is stated, only 
 on belief — no act of the sheriff is stated, upon which that belief is 
 founded ; nor whether it was formed before the trial or not ; and if 
 the defendant had appi'ehended that the sheriff would misconduct 
 himself, he ought to have taken the proper steps to have the jury pro- 
 cess directed to another officer, which could easily have been done, if 
 sufficient grounds existed. 
 
 These objections — to the Avitnesses, the juror and the sheriff, are all 
 tlie grounds, upon wliicli the verdict is impeached by the notice served 
 on the part of the defendant ; and, in my mind, it would be a severe 
 and dangerous injury to the trial by jury, if we were to disturb this 
 verdict on any or all of those grounds. 
 
 But an objection is taken to my lord's charge to the jury, and it is 
 contended, that there has been a misdirection ; that an illegal charge 
 has been given, and that, on that account, the verdict ought to be set 
 aside. 
 
 When that charge was given to the juiy, I thought it a clear, able, 
 fair and lea:al charo;e — I think so still. 
 
 I attended to it minvitely ; as it was my duty to do ; if I had per- 
 ceived any assumption of any fact, any observation in my opinion 
 unwarranted by law ; I should have pointed it out to his lordship on 
 the spot ; and from the manner, in Avhich my humble assistance has 
 been at all times received by him, 1 am confident that I should have 
 liad liis thanks for so doing. 
 
168 TKIA-L OF 
 
 I saw no reason to object to any part of the charge when it was 
 delivered, and I expressly concurred in it. 
 
 When, upon the recollection of counsel, without affidavit, of the 
 Avords of the charge, my lord was stated to have used expressions to 
 the jury, which conveyed to them — absolutely that there was a meet- 
 ing of a great number of persons — I had no recollection of the fact of 
 a meeting having been assumed in the charge. 
 
 And when it was contended, at the bar, that it was put to the jury 
 in words amounting to this position or effect, that the silence of the 
 defendant would establish a charge, or supply evidence not fully 
 proving the case, I must say, that the impression made on my mind, 
 by the charge, excited no such idea. I conceived the charge to have left 
 the fact of the existence of a meeting, and the other facts of the case, 
 faiidy to the jury, upon the evidence given by the prosecutor's wit- 
 nesses, without assuming the truth of any of those facts, but leaving 
 the credit of the witnesses to the jury. I requested his lordship to 
 give me, in writing, his charge, as to this part of the case, according 
 to his recollection of it, and he gave it to me as stated by him to-day — 
 and the substance and effect of it corresponded with my own recollec- 
 tion. As to the observation objected to, that the silence of the 
 defendant was strong evidence, which was the meaning conveyed by 
 the words, a volume of evidence : I think the observation justifiable, 
 prefaced, as it is by my lord stated to have been, and from whose 
 statement I must take it, in this manner — "if the jury should believe 
 there was a meeting of the kind and number sworn to by the two 
 witnesses, the not producing any person who was at that meeting to 
 contradict any of the particular facts, sworn by them, or to prove that 
 he did not publish the libel in the manner sworn." Is this a violation 
 of the maxim, that no man is bound to accuse himself? Does this 
 amount to the position, that the silence of the defendant will prove a 
 charge ? It will not ; it would be monstrous if it were so held. If 
 no charge is px'oved, he may be for ever silent ; but where one wit- 
 ness has fully proved the fact of publication, if believed ; where he 
 stated that fact, attended with a number of circumstances, easy to be 
 contradicted if false ; where many of those circumstances are cor- 
 roborated by the evidence of another witness, who swore he was at 
 such a meeting as, Lyster described. Is it not a fair observation in 
 a judge to say, (where no manner of evidence to contradict any of 
 those facts is given) that if the jury believe that there was such a 
 meeting as sworn, the silence of the defendant is strong evidence — 
 strong evidence that the facts which are sworn to have passed at that 
 meeting, and which might, if false, be readily contradicted — were 
 truly sworn. 
 
 If no case is made out in evidence, by the prosecutor, the defendant 
 may be safely silent, and the jury ought to be told by the judge, that 
 no case is proved ; but if a case is sworn to, and fully by the prose- 
 cutoi-, if the defendant chooses to be silent, as to the facts, and to rest 
 on the discredit of the witnesses against him, he runs the risk of their 
 being believed ; and if the account they give is such, and circum- 
 stances sworn to by them, strike the jury to be such, as that they 
 might be easily ansAvered and contj;adieted if false, then if no answer 
 is given, the jury may be well warranted to belieAe them ; and a 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 169 
 
 charge of a judge, fully and strongly putting such case before the 
 jury, and with such an observation, would not in my mind be repre- 
 hensible. 
 
 Suppose the only witness in a case of felony, should be an approver, 
 a witness whose credit is reduced to the lowest point of degradation ; 
 he may state such circumstances, as from the facility of contradicting 
 them, may force ci'edit from a jury, and would it be unjust or illegal 
 for the court to observe, that where the facts sworn to, were easy to 
 be contradicted if false, it was a strong circumstance against the 
 prisoner, that he had produced no evidence to contradict them ; that 
 such conduct furnished evidence to strengthen the credit of the 
 witness. 
 
 This objection was made for the first time, when the motion came 
 on to be argued ; it is not stated in the notice that there was any 
 misdirection ; from whence it might be conjectured, that it had not 
 struck the counsel, then, that there was any ground in the charge, on 
 which the verdict could be attacked ; two very able counsel spoke to 
 the motion for the defendant, without touching upon any objection to 
 the charge. 
 
 And the learned gentleman, who took the objection, had immediately 
 after the verdict came in, infoi'med the court, that his client would 
 (if the court thought fit) then receive the sentence of the court. It is 
 hard to imagine, that if that counsel, the only one who attacked the 
 charge, then thought that there was a misdirection in the court, which 
 would have intitled his client to set aside the verdict ; it is hard, I 
 say, to imagine that he would have informed the court, that his client 
 was willing to appear, and receive judgment, which, if the court had 
 then pronounced, he must know, would have shut his mouth for ever 
 from taking any advantage of any misdirection of the court, if any 
 had existed. 
 
 I think there has been no misdirection, and therefore, and because 
 I think the other grounds stated, are insufficient to set aside the 
 verdict, I think the motion mvist be refused. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — My lords, it is my duty to apply to 
 the court to pronounce sentence upon the traverser. 
 
 Mr. Justice Boyd. — Archibald Hamilton Rowan, you have been 
 found guilty, by a jury of your country, of publishing a false, wicked, 
 and seditious libel, of and concerning the government and constitution 
 of this kingdom, with an intent to excite and diffuse among the 
 subjects, discontents, jealousies, and suspicions of the king and his 
 government ; to raise dangerous seditions and tumults ; to throw 
 the government of this country into scandal and disgrace ; to 
 excite the people to make alterations in the government, and to 
 overawe and to intimidate the legislature by an armed force. 
 This charge was exhibited in an information filed against you 
 by his Majesty's Attorney- General, and the whole matter was, as 
 it ought to be, left to the jury, who have found, first, that the 
 instrument set forth is a libel ; secondly, that you did publish it ; 
 thirdly, that you published it with the intentions stated in the infor- 
 mation. The libel is contained in a printed paper, intitled, " An 
 Address from the Society of United Irishmen at Dublin, to the Vo- 
 lunteers of Ireland." This publication followed and animadverted 
 
170 TRIAIi OF 
 
 upon a proclamation published by order of the lord lieutenant and 
 council, to which you have attributed an intention to create internal 
 commotion, to shake the public credit, and to blast the Volunteer 
 honour. This proclamation has had the sanction of both houses of 
 parliament. At this period, and it is upon the records of parliament, 
 the great body of the Roman Catholics were seeking relief ; they 
 presented dutiful addresses, stating they were anxious to be liberated 
 from restraints they laboured under ; but you addressed them to take 
 up arms, and by force to obtain their measures ; they were palpably 
 to be made a dupe to your designs, because you say you will proceed 
 to the accomplishment of your beloved principles — UNIVERSAL 
 EMANCIPATION and REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE. 
 Seduction, calumny, and terror, are the means by which you intend 
 to effect them. The Volunteers are to become instruments in your 
 hands, and despairing to seduce the army, you calumniate them with 
 the opprobrious epithet of mei'cenaries. You say seduction made 
 them soldiers, but nature made them men. You stigmatise the legal 
 establishments for the preservation of order, as a notorious police, and 
 the militia, the pride and the strength of the kingdom, are to be looked 
 upon as suspicious. You called upon the people to arm — all are sum- 
 moned to arms to introduce a wild system of anarchy, such as now 
 involves France in the horrors of civil war, and deluges the country 
 with blood. It is happy for you, and those who were to have been 
 your instruments, that they did not obey you. It is happy for you 
 that this insidious summons to arms was not observed, if it had, and 
 the people with force of arms had attempted to make alterations in 
 the constitution of this countiy, every man concerned would have 
 been guilty of High Treason. 
 
 The sentence of the court is — 
 
 Mr. Hamilton Rowan. — My lords, I am perfectly sensible of the 
 forbearance of the court in this trial, and particularly during the 
 arrangement of a long affidavit ; I hope therefore that I shall be 
 allowed a few words, either in mitigation, or in whatever other cha- 
 racter I may have a right to address the court, before they pronounce 
 their sentence. (Mr. Justice Boyd desired Mr. Hamilton Rowan to 
 proceed.) I need not apologise, my lords, for any little errors I may 
 fall into, for I am known to be a man milearned in the forms of these 
 courts, but I shall as plainly, and as shortly as I can, state every thing 
 as it struck my ear and understanding. My lord, if I understood 
 I'ightly, the three heads under which this matter has been argued 
 are, the evidence, the jury, and the sheriff; I did hope that the 
 objections taken to these, by my counsel, would have set aside the 
 verdict. 
 
 There are some parts concerning the evidence, in which the court, 
 as well as the prosecutor, seem to have been mistaken. They have 
 taken it for gi'anted, that I knew the person who was to be bi'ought 
 to give evidence against me ; and it was asserted by the bench, that 
 I had ransacked Connaught for evidence against the character of 
 Lyster. I do not know what impression this might have made upon 
 some of the jury; it was indeed corrected at the time, but it was not 
 sufficiently done away ; it is plain it was not, for Mr. Solicitor- Ge- 
 neral who was present the whole time, whose duty it is, and whose 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 171 
 
 inclination he declared it to be, to listen with attention and deference 
 to every thing which fell from the bench, has since repeated the same 
 assertion. I certainly did suspect, that the person who has now been 
 brought forward, was the man who liad lodged the informations 
 against me ; but I hoped that my trial had been postponed by the 
 prosecutor, from a knowledge of his character, and a wish to procure 
 more credible testimony, as to the fact of the distribution. I had cer- 
 tainly every reason to suppose this had been the case, as I knew that 
 several of my friends, men who belong to the old Volunteer corps, 
 and who probably were at that meeting, if there were any such 
 assembly, had been summoned on this trial by the prosecutor. They 
 attended in the court, but were never called upon. Perhaps I am 
 wrong to mention this, but had they been called upon, I know the 
 charge exhibited against me by Mr. Lyster w^ould have fallen to the 
 ground ; I had been certain of an acquittal. 
 
 As to the jury, my lord, I can conceive some of them to have been 
 very honourable men, and yet prejudiced, much prejudiced ; I did 
 not conceive however, that any man would have gone into that box, 
 taking an oath to try me impartially, yet having publicly declared an 
 enmity against me. It was certainly very ingenious in one of the 
 crown lawyers to suppose, that the jurors who used those expressions, 
 might have thought at that time, that I had been guilty of murder, 
 or some heinous crime, and had been disabused before the trial came 
 on, but, without recurring to my general character, that suggestion, 
 in my opinion, falls to the ground, for the conversation was on the 
 subject of the Volunteers ; and it is for an address to the Volunteers 
 that I am now prosecuted ; I certainly did wish for a revival of the 
 Volunteers, and I did attempt it ; I thought they had already done 
 honor to the nation, that they had been acknowledged honourable by 
 the legislature ; this I did attempt, if this be a crime. It has been 
 said by one of my prosecutors, that it was not with the jurors, but 
 with their verdict that I was discontented ; I ask, what was my con- 
 duct when the verdict was delivered in ? Did that prove a mere 
 discontent against the verdict ? No. I thought it a severe one, 
 unfounded in evidence, but I called for the sentence of the court ; I 
 was ready to abide by that sentence ; and it was not until my return 
 to Newgate, when I found my prison doors cro"ivded with utter 
 strangers to me, each recapitulating instances of declared partiality in 
 the jurors, and further acts of infamy in the evidence, that I had 
 thouohts of setting aside their verdict. 
 
 As to the sheriff, and the circumstance of my not having made some 
 application to the court prior to my affidavit of the day before yesterday, 
 and the question of, when I became acquainted with his partiality, the 
 fact is, that it was with the utmost reluctance I now stood forward, to 
 accuse a man of what must, in my opinion, render him infamous. I 
 well knew that in every public act of my life since I came to this 
 country, trifling as they were, I had been calumniated by him ; but 
 that was in his province of editor ; he is now become the representative 
 of the executive power — is he not ? I thought the station he now 
 holds, would give him some pride, instil some spark of honour into 
 him, and that, relinquishing that conduct and those proceedings which 
 were calculated to procure a sale for his journal, in some corners of 
 
172 TRIAL, OF 
 
 the city, he would consider himself bound to return a jury which 
 should be unsuspected. Was it likely that he did not know of these 
 declarations of the jurors ? It is not probable. Before the recog- 
 nizances were given up, while I was out on bail, the death of a near 
 relation obliged me to go to England, where my attendance was 
 necessary for the arrangement of my private affairs ; I returned how- 
 ever at great inconvenience, and some pecuniary loss, to attend this 
 court ; yet, during my absence, I was branded by this man as a fugitive ; 
 and here permit me to observe, that your lordship, in your recapitula- 
 tion of the events of this trial, omitted to mention the motion made for 
 me by my friend, Mr. Blennerhasset, that the examinations against me 
 should be forthwith returned : Day after day I had attended the court ; 
 the little enquiry I could make, informed me that no such examination 
 had gone up to the grand jury, I believe it was on the last day of the 
 term, or it was not motion day, or something of that kind, and there 
 was no order of the court made. It had been suggested to me by some 
 of my friends, when notice for this trial was served upon me, that I 
 ought to attempt to put it otf ; but what would have been the conse- 
 quence ? Your lordship has said, that I had called for, that I had 
 provoked this trial, that I had complained it was not brought forward ; 
 it is true, I did call for, I did provoke this trial ; I have complained 
 that it was not brought forward. I wished to be brought to trial, but 
 I did wish also to be tried by an impartial jury, summoned by an 
 impartial man ; such I thought the sherili'of that time* to be, although 
 I was not one of his acquaintance. The very words your lordship 
 used, show why I did not put off my trial. What would then have 
 been said by that Journal, which is perpetually stigmatizing my conduct 
 and vilifying my private character ? It would have repeated, what 
 was said in another country, that I was " an infamous wretch, who had 
 fled from the punishment that awaited me." f But still those friends 
 urged me to put oil" this trial : The sheriff is your enemy — Xo — I 
 have called for trial, I will trust to his oath of office : though as editor 
 of a newspaper, he has acted thus, yet when bound by oath " to return 
 pannels of persons able and sufficient, and not suspected or procured, 
 and to do justice impartially," (these ai'e merely the words of the oath 
 of a county sheriff,) I hoped he would rise superior to his editorial 
 capacity, and act with justice. Nay, even in my first affidavit, I did 
 not throw out this imputation. As to the sub-sheriff, I know him not, 
 but I am informed that the sheriff himself I'eturned the whole pannel 
 upon this occasion ; contrary to the usiuil custom, as I am informed : 
 Why this was so, I know not ; I cannot dive into the breast of any 
 man : God forbid I should be capable of diving into his. My lord, 
 perhaps what I am going to observe may be improper, but I once 
 thought that, intention constituted guilt ; I thought I heard from the 
 bench, that my intention did not signify. 
 
 Lord Clonmel You have said nothing improper yet. Sir : go 
 
 on, you do not seem to recollect the idea perfectly. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton Rowan. — It was not from your lordship. 
 
 * Henry Hutton, Esq. 
 
 t Vide the liOrd Advocate's speech on Mr. Muir's trial, printed by Robertson, 
 "dinburgli. 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 173 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes Certainly it is an opinion no judge could 
 
 hold. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton Rowan I have been mistaken then, it was some- 
 thing like it, it struck me so. As to the paper it has been said to come 
 from a Society of United Irishmen. One of my witnesses was asked 
 was he an United Irishman ? I have heard much of United Irishmen, 
 much calumny here and elsewhere ; I avow myself to be one, my name 
 has appeared to several of their publications, I glory in the name. On 
 entering that society I took a test, by which I am bound to seek for 
 the emancipation of every class of my fellow-citizens, and to pi'ocure, 
 by spreading information, (for that is the only mode a few men 
 assembled in Back-lane can adopt) a reform in the representation of 
 the people* : a reform, the necessity of which has been allowed even 
 in parliament. These are our objects, objects which I am bound to 
 pursue to their completion. As to the paper, I honour the head that 
 conceived it, and I love the hand that penned it. Much stress has 
 been laid upon the words UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION and 
 REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE; it may be owing to a 
 want of logical precision in me, but I do not consider these words as 
 carrying the meaning which has been imputed to them. I did imagine 
 that the British constitution was a representative legislature, that 
 the people were represented by the house of commons : that the 
 lords represented the territory, the property ; and that the king 
 represented the power of the state, the united force, the power of the 
 whole, placed in his hands for the benefit of the whole. As a person, 
 as a man, I know nothing of the king ; I can know nothing of him, 
 except as wielding the force of the nation, to be exercised for the 
 benefit of the nation ;| and if ever that force should be misapplied or 
 abused, it then remains for the people to decide in what hands it 
 ought to be placed.:|: 
 
 I really feel myself in an awkward situation, thus declaring my 
 sentiments, seeing intentions different from those both of the author 
 and myself are fixed upon that paper, for the distribution of which I 
 am persecuted. From my situation, however, having an independent 
 fortune, easy in my cii'cumstances, and with a large family, insurrec- 
 
 * It being the interest as well as the intention of the people to have a fair and 
 equal representation, whoever brings it nearest to that, is an undoubted friend to 
 and establisher of the government, and cannot miss the consent and approbation of 
 the community. .^Zoc^e on Government, sec. 158. 
 
 f But yet it is to be observed, that although oaths of allegiance and fealty are 
 taken to him (the king), it is not to him, as supreme legislator, but as supreme 
 executor of the law, made by a joint power of him with others ; allegiance being 
 nothing but an obedience according to law, which, when he violates, he has no 
 right to obedience, nor can claim it otherwise than as ihe public person vested with 
 the power of the law, and so is to be considei-ed as the image, phantom, or reprC' 
 sentative of the commonwealth, acted by the will of society, declared in its laws ; 
 and then he has no will, no power but that of the law. But when he quits this 
 representation, this public will, and acts by his own private will, he degrades him- 
 self, and is but a single private person, without power, and without will, that has 
 any right to obedience ; the members owing no obedience but to the public will of 
 the society. — Locke on Government, sec. 131. 
 
 J When king Charles's deluded brother attempted to enslave the nation, he found 
 it was beyond his power : The people both could and did resist him ; and in con- 
 sequence of such resistance, obliged him to quit his enterprize and his throne 
 together. — Blarhfttmie, Public Wronf/s, b. 4, c. 33, f. 5. 
 
174 TRIAL OF 
 
 tion of any sort would surely be the last thing I could wish for. I ask 
 no favour, but I submit myself to the clemency and the justice of the 
 court, and I trust that whatever may be their sentence, I shall bear it 
 with becoming fortitude. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — I have conferred with my brethren upon what 
 has fallen from you, confessedly in mitigation and with that view. 
 There are two facts you seem to insist upon as new. If it made for 
 you, that Mr. Hasset made the motion you state, I willingly adopt it. 
 If I had known it in giving the histoiy of this case, I should not have 
 omitted that or anyting else done in this court. You mentioned that 
 the informations should have been returned, they were i^eturned into 
 the crown office. 
 
 Mr. RowAiv My Lord, I meant they were not returned to the 
 
 grand jury. 
 
 Lord CiiONMEL. — The proceeding was not by way of Bill of Indict- 
 ment, therefore what you desire could not have been adopted. The 
 proceedings here were by information ex-qfficio, and when the infor- 
 mations were lodged' in the crown office, which I am instructed to say, 
 was the first day of Hilary Term, 1793, the first day the court sat 
 afterwards, the information was filed and the other proceedings had. 
 There is nothing else that has not been touched upon. As to the 
 meaning of the libel, I owe justice to every man, and here and every 
 where I have said, that no inference can be drawn from any construc- 
 tion in your favour that was omitted. I think I will be justified in 
 saying, that you were well and ably defended by your counsel. 
 Nothing has fallen from you that affected the minds of the covirt in 
 mitigation, to change the judgment which we have thought proper 
 should be pronounced upon you. I shall not adopt any idea, or suffer any 
 idea to arise in my mind, from what you last let faU from you, to 
 in<;'rease that punishment. The judgment of this court will therefore 
 be pronounced, as is the practice in Westminster Hall, by the second 
 judge of the court. It shall be pronounced by my bi'Other Boyd. 
 
 Mr. Justice Boyd — The sentence of the court is — That you, 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, do pay to his Majesty a fine of Five 
 Hundred Pounds, and be imprisoned for two years, to be computed 
 from the 29th of January, 1794, and until that fine be paid ; and to 
 find security for your good behaviour for seven years, yourself in the 
 sum of Two Thousand Pounds, and two sureties in One Thousand 
 Pounds each. 
 
 The following illustrative dialogue is found in the Autobiography 
 of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, edited by Dr. Drummond, p. 207 : 
 
 " I had not been long imprisoned when the following conversation took 
 place between Lord Clonmel and Mr. Byrne, printer, on his advertis- 
 ing my trial for publication, in 1793. I should remark, that he gave 
 me the conversation in his own hand-writing : — 
 
 Lord Clonmel, — " Your servant, Mr. Byrne ; I perceive you have 
 advertised Mr. Rowan's trial." 
 
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON ROWAN. 175 
 
 Byrne. — " The advertisement, my Lord, is Mr. Rowan's ; he has 
 selected me as his publisher, which I think an honour, and I hope it 
 will be pi-ofitable." 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — " Take care. Sir, what you do ; I give you this 
 caution ; for if there are any reflections on the judges of the land, by 
 the eternal G — I will lay you by the heels !" 
 
 Byrne " I have many thanks to return your Lordship for your 
 
 caution ; I have many opportunities of going to Newgate, but I have 
 never been ambitious of that honour, and I hope in this case to stand 
 in the same way. Your Lordship knows I have but one principle in 
 trade, which is to make money of it, and that if there be two publica- 
 tions giving different features to the trial I would publish both. 
 There is a trial published by M'Kenzie." 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — " I did not know that ; but say what you may on 
 the subject, if you print or publish what may inflame the mob, it 
 behoves the judges of the land to notice it; and I tell you, by the 
 eternal G- — , if you publish or mis-state my expressions, I will lay you 
 by the heels ! One of Mr. Rowan's advocates set out with an inflam- 
 matory speech, mis-stating what I said, and stating what I did not 
 say. I immediately denied it, and appealed to the court and the 
 gentlemen in it, and they all contradicted him as well as myself. 
 These speeches were made for the mob, to mislead and inflame them, 
 which I feel my duty to curb. If the publication is intended to abuse 
 me, I don't value it ; I have been so long in the habit of receiving 
 abuse, that it will avail little ; but I caution you how you publish it ; 
 for if I find anything reflecting on or mis-stating me, I will take care 
 of you." 
 
 Byrne " I should hope Mr. Rowan has too much honour to have 
 
 anything mis-stated or inserted in his trial that would involve his 
 publisher." 
 
 Lord Clonmel — " Wliat ! is Mr. Rowan preparing his own trial ?" 
 
 Byrne " He is, my Lord." 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — " Oho ! oho ! that is a different thing. That 
 gentleman would not have been better used by me, standing in the 
 situation he did, if he was one of the princes of the blood." 
 
 Byrne. — " My Lord, Mr. Rowan being his own printer, you know 
 he will publish his own trial ; I stand only as his publisher." 
 
 Lord Clonmel " Even as his publisher, I will take care of you ; 
 
 and I have no objection of this being known." 
 
 Byrne " I return your Lordship many thanks." 
 
/ 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON, 
 
 The following notice of the Rev. William Jackson, from Walker's 
 Hibernian Magazine, (May, 1795), is very meagre and unsatisfactory. 
 It is, however, from contemporary authority, and contains probably as 
 much as we now require to know of a man, who played so rash and 
 unsuccessful a game in the politics of our country. Rash and 
 unsuccessful, however, as his conduct was, his mission to Ireland was 
 very important in one point of view. It indicated the quarter from 
 which Irish disaffection might hope for aid and encouragement ; and 
 though he was not the first who came to Ireland to tender French 
 assistance, his were the first offers of which the people of Ireland 
 became aware, through the events of his singular and most tragic 
 trial. 
 
 " This unfortunate man having been convicted by a jury of his 
 countrymen, of an offence of so unpardonable a nature as high treason, 
 would, most undoubtedly, have suffered the sentence which the law 
 pronounces on so henious a crime, had it not been for the sudden and 
 premature manner of his dissolution ; upon the true cause of which 
 doubts have arisen, even in the minds of medical men. His melancholy 
 catastrophe, and the crime for which he was found guilty having been 
 so uncommon in this country, (no person having been indicted for it 
 for upwards of a century), have justly drawn the attention of the 
 community, in a very ample degree, on this wretched and unfortunate 
 man. Our desire to gratify the curiosity of the public, has induced 
 us to procure such information respecting his origin, and progress 
 through life, as we thought would be acceptable, and which we shall 
 now lay before them. 
 
 " The family of this man was very respectable in this country. His 
 father was many years a proctor, and officiated in the prerogative 
 court in Dublin, and maintained a most excellent character. His 
 mother was the daughter of Colonel Gore, of the county Sligo. He 
 was the youngest of four sons, the eldest of whom was Dr. Richard 
 Jackson, an eminent civilian, vicar-general to the late archbishop of 
 Cashel, and an intimate friend of those respectable characters, 
 the late Dr. Ratcliffe, and the Right Hon. Philip Tisdall. At an early 
 age he was sent to the University of Oxford, where he made a rapid 
 proficiency in all branches of scientific and classical knowledge, and 
 
178 MEMOIR OF 
 
 here he commenced a friendship with the Harvey family, which 
 remained unbroken for a long period of time. Having entered into 
 the service of the church, the Earl of Bristol took him into his house 
 as his private chaplain, with a handsome salary annexed ; his circum- 
 stances about this time having become much straitened. 
 
 " On the appointment of the Earl of Bristol to the Lord Lieutenancy 
 of this kingdom, a prospect seemed to dawn on Mr. Jackson, which 
 promised to make his future situation in life independent. The Earl 
 sent him here as his private secretary, with a recommendation to the 
 Hon. Barry Maxwell, now Earl of Faniham, in whose house he resided 
 for six months, universally loved and admired for his amiable and 
 prepossessing qualities, his rectitude of conduct, and pleasing conver- 
 sation. Unfortunately for him, however, his lordship resigned the 
 viceroyalty without once visiting the seat of his government, and 
 Jackson, whom if his lordship came into Ireland, would undoubtedly 
 have been promoted to a bishopric, and might probably be now, not 
 lying in his gi'ave convicted of high treason, but presiding, a dignified 
 ornament to the Established Church of this kingdom, returned to 
 England to his former humble station of private chaplain to his 
 patron. 
 
 " He was now obliged to look to his own acquirements and literary 
 abilities, to enable him to indulge in those luxuries which he had been 
 used to, and could not now do without, he accordingly commenced a 
 party writer against the then ministry. His pamphlets acquired a 
 great deal of celebrity in the political world, and even introduced him 
 to the notice of the late Earl of Chatham, who promised to provide 
 for him ; but it unluckily happened that it was Jackson's fate to meet 
 with nothing but promises from the great, that always turned out 
 abortive to him. 
 
 " He pursued this line of conduct for a number of years in London 
 well known as an author by the name of Parson Jackson, but without 
 ever rising in his circumstances above mediocrity, although it might 
 have been expected from the connexions he had with the family of 
 the noble Earl already mentioned, and, through that connexion, with 
 the Duchess of Kingston, he might have acquired a permanency for 
 the remainder of his life. 
 
 " This celebrated lady last mentioned, was very much attached to 
 Mr. Jackson, and made him her confidant and secretary during her 
 remarkable trial, in the House of Lords of England, for bigamy. He 
 wrote the famous letters that were published in the newspapers in her 
 contest with that Aristophanes of his age, the late Samuel Foote. 
 
 " To enter into a detail of the many vicissitudes of life he went 
 through in the course of his literary labours, would exceed the bounds 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 179 
 
 we are necessarily prescribed to; we shall, therefore, not trespass 
 further on the reader's patience, but refer to the trial, and conclude, 
 by giving some particulars of the manner of his death, and the circum- 
 stances attending it. 
 
 " On the 30th of April, being brought up to court to receive 
 j udgment, his counsel moved an arrest of it, grounded on some infor- 
 mality in the indictment, and also some other trifling matters, which, 
 however, after being replied to by the Attorney- General, the court 
 did not seem to think of moment sufficient to countenance this motion. 
 During the course of the different opinions being delivered, the prisoner 
 appeared to be extremely ill, and verging to a state of total insensibility, 
 and upon Lord Clonmel's proceeding to pronounce judgment, he was 
 entirely so ; his lordship then gave orders that he should be brought 
 back to prison until further orders. However, in the course of a few 
 minutes more he was reported to be dead. His body Avas not I'emoved 
 from its position in the dock until the next morning, when an inquisi- 
 tion was held on it ; and the body being opened by Surgeons Hume 
 and Adrien, the jury brought in their verdict, that ' his death was 
 occasioned by some acrid and mortal matter taken into the stomach ; 
 but how, or by whom administered, they did not know.' " 
 
 The account of Mr. Jackson is more full in Curran's Life, by his 
 Son ; and it is peculiarly interesting from the fact stated by Dr. Madden, 
 in his Lives of the United Irishmen, that it was the casual perusal of 
 a critique on this Avork, in the Edinburgh Review, that induced Lord 
 Holland to prepare and introduce a bill for a change in the law of 
 treason as applicable to this country. Previous to this act, the 1st and 
 2nd Geo. IV., c. 24, it was held by the judges in Ireland, that one 
 Avitness was sufficient to convict, in this country, of high treason. The 
 very salutary protection of a second Avitness, Avas extended by Lord 
 Holland's act. The folloAving is the account giA-en of Mr. Jackson's 
 trial by the biographer of Curran : — 
 
 " The next state trial of importance in Avhich Mr. Curran Avas engaged 
 Avas that of Mr. William .lackson, a case of Avhich some of the attend- 
 ing circumstances AAere in a high degree singular and affecting. 
 
 " Mr. Jackson was a clergyman of the Established Church ; he Avas 
 a native of Ireland, but he had for several years resided out of that 
 country. He spent a part of his life in the family of the noted 
 Duchess of Kingston, and is said to have been the person who con- 
 ducted that lady's controA'ersy with the celebrated Foote.* At the 
 
 * Foote, at the close of his letter to her Grace, observes : " Pray, madam, is not 
 -n the name of your female confidential secretary ?" and afterwards, " That 
 
 you may never want the benefit of clergy in every emergency, is the wish of 
 
 Yours," &c. 
 
1 80 MEMOIR OF 
 
 period of the Frencli Revolution lie passed over to Paris, where he 
 formed political connexions with the constituted authorities. From 
 France he returned to London, in 1794, for the purpose of procuring 
 information as to the practicability of an invasion of England, and was 
 thence to proceed to Ireland on a similar mission. Upon his arrival 
 in London, he renewed an intimacy with a person named Cockayne, 
 who had formerly been his friend and confidential attorney. The 
 extent of his communications, in the first instance, to Cockayne, did 
 not exactly appear ; the latter, however, was prevailed upon to write 
 the directions of several of Jackson's letters, containing treasonable 
 matters, to his correspondents abroad : but in a little time, either 
 suspecting or repenting that he had been furnishing evidence of treason 
 ao-ainst himself, he revealed to the British minister, Mr. Pitt, all that 
 he knew or conjectured relative to Jackson's objects. By the desire 
 of Mr. Pitt, Cockayne accompanied Jackson to Ireland, to watch and 
 defeat his designs ; and as soon as the evidence of his treason was 
 mature, announced himself as a witness for the crown. Mr. Jackson was 
 accordingly arrested, and committed to stand his trial for high treason. 
 " Mr. Jackson was committed to prison in April, 1794, but his 
 trial was delayed, by successive adjournments, till the same month in 
 the following year. In the interval, he wrote and published a refuta- 
 tion of Paine's Age of Reason, probably in the hope that it might be 
 accepted as an atonement.* He was convicted, and brought up for 
 judgment on the 30th of April, 1795. 
 
 • Examples of honourable conduct, no matter by whom displayed, are heard with 
 pleasure by every friend to human nature. Of such, a very rare instance was 
 given by this gentleman during his imprisonment. For the whole of that period 
 he was treated with every possible indulgence ; a fact so creditable to the Irish 
 government, that it would be unjust to suppress it. Among the other acts of 
 lenity extended to him, was a permission to enjoy the society of his friends. A 
 short time before his trial, one of these remained with him to a late hour of the 
 uight : when he was about to depart, Mr. Jackson accompanied him as far as the 
 place where the gaoler usually waited upon such occasions, until all his prisoners' 
 visitors should have retired. They found the gaoler in a profound sleep, and the 
 keys of the prison lying beside him. " Poor fellow !" said Mr. Jackson, taking up 
 the keys, " let us not disturb him ; I have already been too troublesome to him in 
 this way." He proceeded with his friend to the outer door of the prison, which he 
 opened. Here the facility of escaping naturally struck him, — he became deeply 
 agitated ; but after a moment's pause, " / could do it," said he. " but what would 
 be the consequences to you, and to the poor fellow who has been so kind to me ? 
 No! let me rather meet my fate." He said no more, but locking the prison door 
 again, returned to his apartment. It should be added, that the gentleman, out of 
 consideration for whom such an opportunity was sacrificed, gave a proof upon this 
 occasion that he deserved it. He was fully aware of the legal consequences of 
 aiding in the escape of a prisoner committed under a charge of high treason, and 
 felt that, in the present instance, it would have been utterly impossible for him to 
 disprove the circumstantial evidence that would have appeared against him ; yet 
 he never uttered a syllable to dissuade his unfortunate friend. He, however, con- 
 sidered the temptation to be so irresistible, that, expecting to find the prisoner, 
 upon farther refiection, availing himself of it, he remained all night outside the 
 prison door, with the intention, if Mr. Jackson should escape, of instantly flying 
 from Ireland, 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 181 
 
 " It is at this stage of tlie proceedings that the case of Jackson 
 becomes terribly peculiar. Never, perhaps, did a British covut of 
 justice exhibit a spectacle of such appalling interest as was witnessed 
 by the King's Bench of Ireland upon the day that this unfortunate 
 gentleman was summoned to hear his fate pronounced. He had a day 
 or two before made some allusions to the subject of suicide. In a 
 conversation with his counsel in the prison, he had observed to them, 
 that his food was always cut in pieces before it was brought to him, 
 the gaoler not venturing to trust him with a knife or fork. This 
 precaution he ridiculed, and observed, ' that the man Avho feared not 
 death, could never w^ant the means of dying, and that as long as his 
 head was within reach of the prison- wall, he could prevent his body's 
 being suspended to scare the community.' At the moment, they 
 regarded this as a mere casual ebullition, and did not give it much 
 attention. 
 
 " On the morning of the 30th of April, as one of these gentlemen was 
 proceeding to com-t, he met in the streets a person warmly attached 
 to the government of the day. The circumstance is trivial, but it 
 marks the party spirit that prevailed, and the manner in w^hich it was 
 sometimes expressed : ' I have (said he) just seen your client, Jackson, 
 pass by on his way to the King's Bench to receive sentence of death. 
 I always said he was a coward, and I find I was not mistaken ; his 
 fears have made him sick — as the coach drove by, I observed him, 
 with his head out of the window, vomiting violently.' The other 
 hurried on to the coui't, w^here he found his client supporting himself 
 against the dock. His frame w-as in a state of violent perturbation, 
 but his mind was still collected. He beckoned to his counsel to 
 approach him, and making an effort to squeeze him with his damp 
 and nerveless hand, uttered in a whisper, and with a smile of mournful 
 triumph, the dying words of Pierre, 
 
 " We have deceived the senate." 
 
 " The prisoner's counsel having detected what they conceived to be 
 a legal informality in the proceedings, intended to make a motion in 
 arrest of his judgment ; but it would have been irregular to do so 
 until the counsel for the crown, who had not yet appeared, should first 
 pray the judgment of the coiirt upon him. During this interval, the 
 violence of the prisoner's indisposition momentarily increased, and the 
 chief-justice, Lord Clonmel, was speaking of remanding him, when 
 the attorney-general came in, and called upon the court to pronounce 
 judgment upon him. Accordingly, 'the Rev. "William Jackson was 
 set forward,' and presented a spectacle equally shocking and affecting. 
 His body was in a state of profuse perspiration ; when his hat was 
 
182 MEMOIR OF 
 
 removed, a dense steam was seen to ascend from his head and temples ; 
 minute and irreguhir movements of convulsion were passing to and 
 fro upon his countenance ; his eyes were nearly closed, and, when at 
 intervals they opened, discovered by the glare of death upon them, 
 that the hour of dissolution Avas at hand. When called on to stand 
 up before the court, he collected the remnant of his force to hold 
 himself erect ; but the attempt was tottering and imperfect : he stood 
 rocking from side to side, with his arms, in the attitude of firmness, 
 crossed over his breast, and his countenance strained by a last proud 
 effort, into an expression of elaborate composure. In this condition 
 he faced all the anger of the offended law, and the more confoiuiding 
 gaze of the assembled crowd. The clerk of the crown now ordered 
 him to hold up his right hand. The dying man disentangled it from 
 the other, and held it up, but it instantly dropped again. Such was 
 his state, when, in the solemn simplicity of the language of the law, 
 he was asked, ' What he had now to say, why judgment of death and 
 execution thei-eon should not be awarded against him, according to 
 law ?' Upon this Mr. Curran rose, and addressed some arguments to 
 the court in arrest of judgment. A legal discussion of considerable 
 length ensued. The condition of Mr. Jackson was all this while 
 becoming worse. Mr. Curran proposed that he should be remanded, 
 as he was in a state of body that rendered any communication between 
 him and his counsel impracticable : Lord Clonmel thought, it lenity 
 to the prisoner, to dispose of the question as speedily as possible. 
 The windows of the court were thrown open to relieve him, and the 
 discussion was renewed ; but the fatal group of death-tokens were 
 now collecting fast around him ; he was evidently in the final agony. 
 At length, while Mr. Ponsonby, who followed Mr. Curran, was urging 
 further reasons for arresting the judgment, their client sunk in the 
 dock." 
 
 It was found to be impossible to pronounce the sentence of death 
 on the unfortunate gentleman. He had taken poison, and his voluntary 
 act anticipated the operation of justice. Mr. Curran proceeds to 
 comment upon the law as it Avas then expounded by the bench. He 
 says, that the trial, as a matter of legal and constitutional interest, 
 " established a precedent of the most vital (Englishmen would say, 
 of the most fatal) importance to a community having any pretensions 
 to freedom. Against the authority of Coke, and the reasoning of 
 Blackstone, and against the positive reprobation of the principle by the 
 English legislature, it was solemnly decided in Jackson's case, that in 
 Ireland one witness was sufficient to convict a 2>risoner upon the charge 
 of high treason — 'that the breath which cannot even taint the 
 character of a man in England, shall in Ireland blow him from the 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 183 
 
 earth.'* This decision has ever since been recognized and acted upon, 
 to the admiration of that class of politicians (and they have abounded 
 in Ireland) who contend, that in every malady of the state, blood 
 should be plentifully drawn ; and to the honest indignation of men of 
 equal capacity and integrity, who consider that, without reason or 
 necessity, it establishes an odious distinction, involving in it a disdain 
 of what Englishmen boast as a precious privilege, alluring accusations 
 upon the subject, and conferring security and omnipotence upon the 
 informer. 
 
 " It is a little singular to observe, in the state trials that followed, 
 the effects of such a law, and to what a class of witnesses it familiarized 
 the Irish courts of justice. From the event it would appear, that there 
 was as much of prophecy, as of constitutional zeal, in Mr. Curran's 
 efforts to prevent its establishment, and afterwards to produce its 
 repeal. To say nothing but of a few of those cases in which he acted 
 as counsel, the fate of Jackson, M'Cann, Byrne, Bond, the Sheareses, 
 Finney, rested almost entirely on the credibility of a single witness. 
 AU of these, except the last, were convicted ; and that they were 
 involved in the projects for which they were tried and suffered, is now 
 a matter of historical notoriety. Few, it is hoped, will maintain the 
 dangerous principle, that the subject shoidd have the inducement of 
 impunity to conspire against the state — such a doctrine would bring 
 instant ruin upon any society ; but every friend to constitutional law 
 will distinguish between the evidence that precedes a conviction and 
 that which follows ; he will remember that the forms of trial, and the 
 legality of evidence, have not been established for the solitary purpose 
 of punishing the guilty ; that their most precious use is for the security 
 of innocence ; and that, if foi*e- judging the real offender, we too hastily 
 deprive him of a single privilege of defence, we establish a perilous 
 rule that survives the occasion and extends beyond it, and of which 
 those who never offended may hereafter be the victims. If the trials 
 of the individuals just named be considered with a reference to this 
 view, they will be found to contain matter of important reflection. 
 We may not feel justified in lamenting their personal fate — in giving 
 to their memories ' the traitorous humanity and the rebel teai',' yet we 
 cannot but be shocked at the characters of the persons by whose 
 evidence they were carried off. These were, all of them, men of 
 blighted reputation. It was not merely that they had been accomplices 
 in the crimes which they came to denounce ; and that, finding the 
 speculation dangerous and unprofitable, they endeavoured to retrieve 
 their credit and circumstances, by setting up as ' loyal apostates.' 
 
 * Mr. Curran's defence of Jackson. 
 
184 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Deeper far was, if not their legal offence, their moral depravity. 
 Dreadful were the confessions of guilt, dishonour, and irreligion, 
 extorted from these wretches. If their direct examination produced a 
 list of the prisoners' crimes, as regularly did their cross-examination 
 elicit a darker catalogue of their own. In the progress of their career 
 from participation to discovery, all the tender charities of life were 
 abused — every sacred tie rent asunder. The agent, by the semblance 
 of fidelity, extracted the secret of his client and his friend, and betrayed 
 him !* The spy resorted to the habitation of his victim, and, while 
 sharing his hospitality, and fondling his children, was meditating his 
 ruin.f Here was to be seen the wild atheist, who had gloried in 
 his incredulity, enjoying a lucid interval of faith, to stamp a legal 
 value on his oathj — there the dishonest dealer, the acknowledged 
 perjurer, the future murderer.§" 
 
 The remarks of the Edinburgh Review are forcible and just, and 
 had the good fortune of giving rise to a new and safer system. On 
 reading the Edinburgh Review, Lord Holland felt the inequality and 
 injustice of the law, and, with his characteristic promptitude, intro- 
 duced a bill to extend the provisions of the 7th Wm. III., c. 3, to 
 Ireland. 
 
 " This case, however, is chiefly remarkable for having settled the 
 point, that in Ireland a man may be convicted of treason on the 
 testimony of a single witness. When the English statutes, requiring 
 two, were adopted in that country, those declaratory clauses were 
 omitted ; and the question came therefore to be, whether, on the old 
 common law, two witnesses had not always been necessary for such a 
 conviction. Lord Coke had given a clear opinion in the affirmative ; 
 but Foster and Hawkins thought differentl}- . There had been no trial 
 for treason in Ireland for upwards of a century ; and the point had 
 
 * Jackson's Trial. 
 
 t Jackson's Trial and the Trial of the Sheareses. A few days before Cockayne 
 had openly announced himself as an informer, he was invited to accompany Jackson 
 to dine with a friend of the latter. After dinner, as soon as the wine liad suffi- 
 ciently circulated, Jackson, according to a previous suggestion from Cockayne, 
 began to sound the political dispositions of the company, and particularly addressed 
 himself to a gentleman of rank who sat beside him, and who, there has been subse- 
 quent reason to believe, was deeply involved in the politics of the time. During the 
 conversation, Cockayne appeared to have fallen asleep ; but, in the midst of it, the 
 master of the house was called out by his servant, who informed him, that he had 
 observed something very singular in Mr. Jackson's friend — " he has his hand," 
 said the servant, " over his face, and pretends to be asleep ; but when I was in the 
 room just now, I could perceive the glistening of his eye through his fingers." The 
 gentleman returned to his guests ; and, whispering to him who was conversing 
 with Jackson to be cautious in his language, probably prevented some avowal 
 which might eventually have cost him his life. ITpon such trivial accidents do the 
 fates of men depend in agitated times ! 
 
 J Trial of (he Sheareses. 
 
 § Finney's Trial ; and other State Trials of 1798. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 185 
 
 never before occurred. It was determined, as we have already stated, 
 in conformity with the more recent authorities ; though nothing can 
 be more revolting than such an anomaly in the constitutional law of 
 tAvo united kingdoms — and nothing more disgusting than the scenes 
 to which this decision speedily gave rise in the least fortunate of the 
 two. The principle, it is manifest, cannot possibly be right in both : 
 and the English prisoner must either have too many privileges, or the 
 Irish too few. Nor is it possible to listen to the suggestion, that, from 
 the state of society in Ireland, it was necessary to give the Crown this 
 additional security : — For the same disordered or depraved state of 
 morality which renders treason probable, is still more likely to produce 
 false accusations ; and whoever will read the state trials, either in 
 England or Ireland, will find that treason and perjury have always 
 been contemporary crimes, and that the dangers of the crown and of 
 the subject have uniformly been reciprocal." 
 
 Jackson's funeral was well attended by numbers of the United 
 Irishmen. Barrington says, " he had a splendid funeral, and, to the 
 astonishment of Dublin, it was attended by several members of parlia- 
 ment, and barristers ! A Mr. Tighe, Counsellor Richard Guiness, 
 (Sir Jonah might have added the two Sheareses, also members of the 
 profession), were amongst them." It is unnecessary to remark, that 
 Barrington was too consistent a patriot to be of the number of those 
 who, as was said in the House of Commons,* " paid the honours of 
 treason" to the unfortunate Jackson. 
 
 He is buried in the churchyard of St. Michan's, where also are 
 interred the remains of Oliver Bond, and of Henry and John Sheares. 
 
 * Debates of the Irish House of Commons, June, 1 795. 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IN IRELAND, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON, 
 
 ON AN INDICTMENT 
 
 CHAEGING HIM ¥ITH HIGH TREASON. 
 
 34 AND 35 GEO. III. A.D. 1794, 1795. 
 
 K I N G'S BENCH, 
 
 Monday, June 2, 1794. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally, on the pai't of the Rev. William Jackson, a prisoner 
 in his Majesty's goal of Newgate, moved the court, that Mr. Keane, 
 the prisoner's agent, might have access to the prisoner, for the purpose 
 of receiving instructions to prepare for his defence. Mr. Jackson was 
 committed upon the 28th of April, 1794, by virtue of a. warrant from 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice of the King's Bench, upon a charge of 
 High Treason ; Mr. Keane was refused access to Mr. Jackson, who 
 was denied the use of pen, ink and paper, as Mr. Keane swears he is 
 informed and believes. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I have no objection that every reason- 
 able access should be had to the prisoner ; but care must he taken 
 that no improper use be made of it. The constant practice here and 
 in England is to admit of access at reasonable times ; but persons are 
 not to go in or come out without being searched, if necessary, so as 
 that no opportunity be given of conveying instruments that might 
 assist an escape, and also that no communications may be had with 
 the King's enemies, that being the charge against the prisoner, that 
 he communicated with the King's enemies for the purpose of levying 
 war against this kingdom. 
 
 The counsel for the prisoner being satisfied with this declaration of 
 Mr. Attorney- General, took nothing by the motion. 
 
188 TRIAL OF 
 
 Monday, 30th June, 1794. 
 
 A bill of indictment having been preferred against the Rev. William 
 Jackson, before the Term Grand Jury for the city of Dublin, and they 
 having returned it a true bill, Mr. Jackson was this day brought to 
 the bar of the King's Bench, and having prayed that counsel might 
 be assigned him, he was desired by the Court to name his counsel ; he 
 named John Philpot Curran, and Geoi'ge Ponsonby, Esquires., two of 
 his Majesty's counsel, who were assigned by the Court to be counsel 
 for the prisoner. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — William Jackson, hold up your right hand. 
 
 Mr. Jackson accordingly held up his right hand and was arraigned 
 upon the following indictment. 
 County of the city of \ " The jurors for our Lord the King upon their 
 
 Dublin, to wit. J oath present, that an open and public war on 
 the third day of April, in the thirty-fourth year of the reign of our 
 Lord George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, 
 and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and soforth, and long before, 
 and ever since, hitherto by land and by sea, was, and yet is carried on 
 and prosecuted by the persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France against our most serene, illustrious, and excellent Prince, our 
 said Lord the now King ; and that William Jackson, late of the parish 
 of St. Andrew, in the city of Dublin, and county of the said city, 
 clei'k, a subject of our said Lord the King, of his kingdom of Ireland, 
 well knowing the premises, but not having the fear of God in his heart, 
 nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, and being moved and seduced 
 by the instigation of the devil, as a false traitor against our said Lord 
 the now King, his supreme, true, lawful and undoubted Lord, the 
 cordial love and true and due obedience, which every true and dutiful 
 subject of our said present Sovereign Lord the King towards him our 
 said Lord the King should bear, wholly withdrawing, and contriving, 
 and with all his strength intending the peace and common tranquillity 
 of this kingdom of Ireland to disquiet, molest, and disturb, and the 
 government of our said present Sovereign Lord the King of this 
 kingdom of Ireland to change, subvei't and alter, and our said Lord 
 the King from the royal state, title, honour, power, imperial crown, 
 and government of this his kingdom of Ireland to depose and deprive, 
 and our said Lord the present King to death and final destruction to 
 bring and put, he the said William Jackson, on the said third day of 
 April, in the said thirty-fourth year of the reign of our said Lord the 
 King, and on divers other days and times, as well before as after that 
 day, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid, and county of the said city, with force and arms fiilsely, 
 wickedly and traitorously, did compass, imagine and intend the said 
 Lord the King, then and there his supreme, true and lawful Lord, of 
 and from the royal state, crown, title, power and government of this 
 his realm of Ii-eland, to depose and wholly deprive, and the same Lord 
 the King to kill and bring and put to death : And that to fulfil, 
 perfect and bring to effect his most evil and wicked treason, and 
 treasonable imaginations and compassings aforesaid, he the said 
 William Jackson as such false traitor as aforesaid, during the said war 
 between our said Lord the King, and the said persons exercising the 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 189 
 
 powers of government in France, to wit, on the third day of April in 
 the thii'ty-fourth year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, 
 in the city and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, with force and 
 arms, falsely, maliciously and traitorously did come to and land in 
 this kingdom of Ireland, that is to say, at Dublin aforesaid, for the 
 purpose of procuring and obtaining information and accounts of, and 
 concerning the situations and dispositions of the subjects of our said 
 Lord the King of his kingdom of Ireland, and of sending and causing 
 to be sent such information and accounts to the said persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, and being enemies of our said 
 Lord the King as aforesaid, with intent to aid and assist the said 
 enemies of our said Lord the King, against our said Lord the King in 
 the war aforesaid : And that afterwards and during the said war 
 between the said Lord the King and the said persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France, to wit, on the twenty-first day of 
 April in the said thirty-fourth year of the reign of our said Lord the 
 King, and on divers other days, as well before as after that day, 
 with force and arms, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city 
 and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said William Jackson, 
 as such false traitor as aforesaid, in further prosecution of his treason 
 and treasonable purposes aforesaid, did, with divers other false traitors, 
 w^hose names are to the said jurors unknown, falsely, wickedly 
 and traitorously meet, propose, consult, conspire, confederate and agree 
 to raise, levy and make insurrection, rebellion and war within this 
 kingdom of Ireland, against our said Lord the King, and to cause, 
 procure, and incite the said persons exercising the powers of govern- 
 ment in France, being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, 
 to invade this kingdom of Ii'eland with ships and armed men, and to 
 carry on the said war against the said Lord the King, within this 
 kingdom of Ireland. And that during the said war between our 
 said Lord the King and the said persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France, to wit, on the said tv/enty-first day of April, in 
 the thirty-fourth year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, 
 in the city and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said 
 "William Jackson, as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further 
 prosecution of his ti-eason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with 
 force and arms, falsely, wickedly and traitorously did incite, exhort 
 and counsel, and as far as in him lay, endeavour to move and persuade 
 one Theobald Wolfe Tone to travel and go into parts beyond the seas 
 to represent to the said persons exercising the powers of government 
 in France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, 
 that divers subjects of our said Lord the King of his kingdom of Ire- 
 land were dissatisfied with the government of our said Lord the Kino- 
 of his kingdom of Ireland, and to incite, move, and persuade the said 
 persons exercising the powers of government in France, and being 
 enemies of our said Lord the King to invade the kingdom of Leland, 
 and to raise and make war therein against our said Lord the Kinff, 
 and that dm-ing the said war between the said Lord the King and the 
 said persons exercising the powers of government in France to wit, 
 on the same day and year last aforesaid, and on divers other days as 
 well before as after the said last mentioned day, at the parish of St. 
 Andrew aforesaid, in tlie city and county of the city of Dublin afore- 
 
190 TRIAL. OF 
 
 said, tlie said William Jackson as sucli false traitor as aforesaid, in 
 further prosecution of his treason and treasonable purposes, with force 
 and anus, falsely, wickedly and traitorously did consult, combine, 
 conspire, confederate and agree with divers other persons whose names 
 are to the said jurors unknown, to procure and provide a person to 
 travel and go into parts beyond the seas to represent to the said persons 
 exercising the powers of government in France and being enemies of 
 our said Lord the King as aforesaid, that divers subjects of our said 
 Lord the King of his Kingdom of L'eland were dissatisfied with the 
 government of our said Lord the King of his kingdom of Ireland, and 
 to incite, move and pex'suade the said persons exercising the powers 
 of government in France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King 
 to invade this kingdom of Ireland, and to raise and make war therein 
 against our said Lord the King : And that during the said war between 
 our said Lord the King and the persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France to Avit on the same day and year last aforesaid, 
 and on divers other days as well before the said last mentioned day as 
 after, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city and county of 
 the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said William Jackson as such false 
 ti'aitor as aforesaid, in further prosecution of his ti'eason and treason- 
 able purposes aforesaid, with force and arms, falsely, wickedly and 
 traitorously did meet, consult, combine, conspire, confederate and 
 agree with divers other persons whose names are to the said jurors 
 unknown ; that some person should be sent into France to notify and 
 reveal to the said persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, then and yet enemies of our said Lord the King, the state, 
 circumstances, and condition of this his kingdom of Ireland ; and the 
 dispositions and inclinations of our said Lord the King's subjects 
 therein, and to treat and negociate with, and to incite, stir up and 
 encourage the said persons exei'cising the powers of government in 
 France, then and yet enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid to 
 invade this kingdom of Ireland, and to change, alter and subvert the 
 govei'nment of our said Lord the King of his said kingdom of Ireland. 
 And that during the said war between our said Lord the King and 
 the said persons exercising the powers of government in France to 
 wit, on the said twenty-first day of April in the thirty-fourth year 
 aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city and 
 county of the city of Dublin aforesaid ; he the said William Jackson 
 as such false traitor as afoi'esaid in prosecution of his said treason and 
 treasonable purposes aforesaid, with force and arms, falsely, wickedly, 
 and traitorously did compose and write, and cause to be composed and 
 written, a certain letter to be sent to one William Stone in London, in 
 the kingdom of Great Britain ; and in and by the said letter the said Wm. 
 Jackson, falsely, wickedly, and traitorously did direct and instruct the 
 said William Stone, to reveal and disclose to the said persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, and to the people in France, 
 then and yet enemies of our said present Lord the King, a scheme and 
 intention of the said William Jackson and other false traitors to our 
 said Lord the King, to send a person from this kingdom of Ireland to 
 satisfy and convince the said persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France so being enemies of our said Lord the King as 
 aforesaid, of divers of his said Majesty's subjects in Ireland being 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. IQl 
 
 ready to aid and assist the said enemies of our said Lord the King, and 
 to treat and negociate with the said persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France, then and yet enemies of our said Lord the 
 King for an invasion of the said kingdom of Ireland, but that 
 the private affairs of the person intended to be sent woukl not permit 
 him to go, and therefore he the said William Jackson would send a 
 statement of the situation and disposition of the inhabitants of 
 the said kingdom of Ireland, drawn up by a certain person to the 
 jui'ors unknown in order to be sent and delivered to the said persons 
 exercising the powers of government in France then and yet enemies 
 of our said Lord the King : And that during the said war between 
 our said Lord the King and the said persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France to wit, on the twenty-fourth day of April in 
 the thirty-fourth year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, 
 in the city and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said 
 William Jackson as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further 
 prosecution of his treason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with 
 force and arms, falsely, maliciously, and traitorously did compose and 
 write and cause to be composed and written, a certain other letter to 
 be sent to the said William Stone in London, in the Kingdom of 
 Great Britain, requesting the said William Stone to cause and procure 
 to be notified and declared to a certain person then being in foreign 
 parts beyond the seas, but whose name is to the said jurors unknown, 
 that a statement of the situation and dispositions of divers of the 
 subjects of our said Lord the King of his kingdom of Ireland, would 
 be forthwith sent by him the said William Jackson to be communicated 
 to the said persons exei'cising the powers of government in France, 
 and being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, to convince 
 them of the readiness of such last mentioned subjects of our said 
 Lord the King, to aid and assist the said enemies of our said Lord the 
 King in an invasion of this kingdom of Ireland : And that during the 
 said Avar between our said Lord the King and the said persons 
 exercising the powers of government in France, to Avit, on the same 
 day and year last aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew, aforesaid, 
 in the city and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said 
 William Jackson as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further 
 prosecution of his treason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with 
 force and arms, falsely, Avickedly and traitorously delivered and 
 caused and procured to be delivered the said letters into the office of 
 the post at Dublin, aforesaid, to be from the said office conveyed and 
 delivered to the said William Stone : And that during the said 
 war between our said Lord the King and the said persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, to wit, on the same day and 
 year last aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew, aforesaid, in the city 
 and county of the city of Dublin, aforesaid, the said William Jackson 
 as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further prosecution of 
 his treason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with force and arms, 
 falsely, maliciously and traitorously did compose and Avrite and cause 
 and procure to be composed and written a certain other letter to be 
 sent to Benjamin Beresford, in foreign parts beyond the seas, 
 requesting the said Benjamin Beresford to infoi'm a certain other 
 person then also living in foreign parts beyond the seas, but whose 
 
192 TKIAL OF 
 
 name is to tlie said jurors unknoAvn, that an account of the situation j 
 and dispositions of divers of the subjects of our said Lord the King of 
 his kingdom of Ireland, was sent for the said last mentioned person 
 unknown to be communicated to the said persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France and being enemies of our said Lord 
 the King as aforesaid : And that afterwards and during the said war 
 between our said Lord the King and the said persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, to wit, on the same day and 
 year last aforesaid at the pai'isli of St. Andrew, aforesaid, in the city 
 and county of the city of Dublin, aforesaid, the said William Jackson 
 as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further prosecution of his 
 treason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with force and arms, 
 falsely, wickedly and traitorously delivered and caused and procured 
 to be delivered the said last mentioned letter into the said office of the 
 post at Dublin, aforesaid, to be from the said office conveyed and 
 delivered to the said Benjamin Beresford : and that during the said 
 war between our said Lord the King and the said persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, to wit, on the same day and 
 year last aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andi'ew, aforesaid, in the city 
 and county of the city of Dublin, aforesaid, the said William Jackson 
 as such false traitor as aforesaid and in further prosecution of 
 his treason and treasonable purposes aforesaid, with force and arms, 
 falsely, maliciously, and traitorously did compose and write and 
 cause and procure to be composed and written divers accounts and 
 instructions in writing to publish and declare to the said persons 
 exercising the powers of government in France, and being ene- 
 mies of our said Lord the King for the purpose of inciting 
 the said persons to invade this kingdom of Ireland, and to 
 raise and make war therein against our said Lord the King, divers 
 matters and things of and concerning the people of this kingdom of 
 Ireland, and amongst other things that the Dissenters were steady 
 republicans, devoted to liberty, and through all the stages of the 
 French revolution had been enthusiastically attached to it, that the 
 peasantry of Ireland manifested a degree of discontent by various 
 insurrections, that there was no where a higher spirit of aristocracy 
 than in all the privileged orders, the clergy and the gentry of Ii-eland 
 down to the very lowest, to countervail which there appeared a spirit 
 rising in the people which never existed before but which was spread- 
 ing most rapidly as appeared by the Defenders as they were called 
 and other insurgents, that in Ireland the name of England and her 
 power was universally odious, save with those who had an interest in 
 maintaining it, a body however only formidable by property and situ- 
 ation, but which the first convulsion would level in the dust, that on 
 the contrary the great bulk of the people (meaning the people of 
 Ireland,) would be ready to throw off the yoke (meaning the govern- 
 ment of our said Lord the King in that country) if they saw any 
 force sufficiently strong to resort to for defence till arrangements 
 could be made, that the government of Ireland Avas only to be looked 
 upon as a government of force, that the moment a superior force 
 appeared, it would tumble at once, as being founded neither in the 
 interests nor in the affections of the people ; that there seemed little 
 doubt but an i)ivasion (meaning an invasion of Ireland, by the said 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 193 
 
 enemies of our said Lord the King) in sufficient force, would be sup- 
 ported by tlie people (meaning the people of Ireland) that there Avas 
 scarcely any army in the country (meaning in Ireland) and that the 
 militia, (meaning the militia of Ireland) would to a moral certainty 
 refuse to act if they should see such a force as they could look to for 
 support : And also that the said William Jackson as such false traitor 
 as aforesaid, during the said war between our said Lord the King 
 and the said persons exercising the powers of government in France 
 to wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, at the parish of Saint 
 Andrew aforesaid, in the city and county of the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid in further prosecution of his treason and treasonable pur- 
 poses aforesaid with force and arms did falsely, wickedly and traitor- 
 ously compose and write, and cause and procure to be composed and 
 Avritten divers other accounts and instructions in writing of and con- 
 cerning the people of this kingdom of Ireland to incite, move and 
 persuade the said persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King as afoi'esaid, 
 to invade this kingdom of Ireland and to raise and make war therein 
 against our said Lord the King, all which said accounts and instruc- 
 tions in writing herein before mentioned to have been written and 
 composed, and caused and procured to be written and composed by 
 the said William Jackson, he the said William Jackson as such false 
 traitor as aforesaid, and in further prosecution of his treason and 
 treasonable purposes aforesaid, afterwards and during the said war 
 between our said Lord the King and the said persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France, to wit, on the same day and year 
 last aforesaid at the parish of St. Andrew aibresaid in the city and 
 county of the city of Dublin aforesaid with force and arms falsely, 
 wickedly and traitorously delivered and caused and procured to be 
 delivered into the said office of the post at Dublin aforesaid, to be 
 from thence conveyed into foreign parts beyond the seas, and 
 there, to wit, in foreign parts beyond the seas to be delivei'ed to 
 certain pei'sons on the behalf and for the use of the said persons ex- 
 ercising the powers of government in France and being enemies of 
 our said Lord the King as aforesaid, for the information, encourage- 
 ment and assistance of the said persons exercising the powers of govern- 
 ment in France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King as afore- 
 said : And that during the said war between our said Lord the King 
 and the said persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 to wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, 
 in the city and county of the city of Dublin, the said Wm. Jackson 
 as such false traitor as aforesaid, and in further prosecution of his ti'ea- 
 son and treasonable purposes aforesaid with force and arms falsely, 
 wickedly and traitorously delivered and caused and procured to be de- 
 livered into the said office of the post at Dublin aforesaid, to be from 
 thence conveyed into foreign parts beyond the seas and delivered to the 
 said persons exei'cising the powers of government in France, and being 
 enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, for the purpose of in- 
 citing the said persons to invade the kingdom of Ireland and to raise 
 and make war therein against our said Lord the King, divers other 
 accounts and instructions in writing of and concerning the people of 
 this kingdom of Ireland, whereof he the said William Jackson then 
 
 o 
 
194 TRIAL OF 
 
 and there well knew the contents, pui-porting and containing therein 
 amongst other things that the Dissenters were steady republicans 
 devoted to liberty, and through all the stages of the French revolu- 
 tion had been enthusiastically attached to it; that the peasantry of 
 Ireland manifested a degree of discontent by various insurrections, 
 that there was no where a higher spirit of aristocracy than in 
 all the privileged orders, the clergy and the gentry of Ireland down 
 to the very lowest, to countervail which there appeared a spirit rising 
 in people which never existed before, but which was spreading most 
 rapidly as appeared by the Defenders, as they were called, and other 
 insurgents ; that in Ireland the name of England and her power was 
 universally odious, save with those who had an interest in maintain- 
 irig it ; a body however only formidable from situation and property, 
 but which the first convulsion would level in the dust ; that on the 
 contrary, the great bulk of the people (meaning the people of Ire- 
 land) would be ready to throw oif the yoke, if they saw any force 
 sufficiently strong to resort to for defence till arrangements could be 
 made ; that the government of Ireland was only to be looked upon 
 as a government of force : that the moment a superior force appeared, 
 it would tumble at once as being founded neither in the interests nor 
 in the afiections of the people ; that there seemed little doubt but an 
 invasion (meaning an invasion of Ireland by the said enemies of our 
 said Lord the King) in sufficient force, would be supported by the 
 people, (meaning the people of Ireland,) that there was scai'cely any 
 army in the country (meaning in Ireland,) and that the militia 
 (meaning the militia of Ireland,) would to a moral certainty refuse 
 to act if they should see such a force as they could look to for sup- 
 port : And also that the said William Jackson as such false traitor as 
 aforesaid during the said war between our said Lord the King and 
 the said persons exercising the powers of government in France, to 
 wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, at the parish of St. 
 Andrew aforesaid, in the city and county of the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid in fui'ther prosecution of his treason and treasonable pur- 
 poses aforesaid, with force and arms, falsely, wickedly and traitor- 
 ously delivered into the said office of the post at Dublin aforesaid, to 
 be from thence carried into foreign parts beyond the seas, and 
 delivered to the said persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, 
 divers other accounts and instructions in writing, of and concerning 
 the people of this kingdom of L'eland, whereof he the said William 
 Jackson then and there well knew the contents, to incite, move and 
 persuade the said persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, and being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, 
 to invade this kingdom of Ireland, and to raise and make Avar therein, 
 against our said Lord the King, against the duty of the allegiance of 
 him the said William Jackson, against the peace of our said Lord 
 the King, his crown and dignity, and contrary to the form of the 
 statute in such case made and provided. 
 
 And the said jurors for our said Sovereign Lord the King, upon 
 their oath, further present ; that an open and public Avar on the said 
 third day of April, in the thirty-fourth year of the reign of our said 
 Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 195 
 
 Britain, Fi-ance and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, 
 and long before and ever since, hitherto by land and by sea was and 
 yet is carried on and prosecuted by the said pei-sons, exercising the 
 powers of government in France, against our most serene, illustrious 
 and excellent Prince, our said Lord the now King ; and that the said 
 William Jackson, a subject of our said Lord the King of his kingdom 
 of Ireland, well knowing the premises, not having the fear of God in 
 his heart, nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, but being moved 
 and seduced by the instigation of the devil ; as a false traitor against 
 our most serene, illustrious and excellent Prince, George the Third, 
 now King of Ireland, and so forth ; and contriving and with all his 
 strength intending the peace and common tranquillity of this kingdom 
 of Ireland to disquiet, molest, and disturb, and the government of our 
 said present Sovereign Lord the King of this kingdom of Ireland, to 
 change, subvert and alter ; he the said William Jackson, during the 
 war aforesaid, to wit on the said third day of April, in the thirty- 
 fourth year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times, as well 
 befoi-e as after that day, with force and arms at the said parish of St. 
 Andrew in the city of Dublin aforesaid, and county of the said city, 
 unlawfully and traitorously was adhering to, and aiding and comfort- 
 ing the said persons, exercising the powers of government in France, 
 and then being enemies of our said present Sovereign Lord the King 
 as aforesaid ; that in the prosecution, performance and execution of 
 the said traitoi'ous adhering of the said William Jackson to the said 
 persons exercising the powers of government in France then being 
 enemies of our said Lord the present King afterwards and dui'ing the 
 said war between our said Lord the King and the said persons exer- 
 cising the powers of government in France, to wit, on the said third 
 day of April, in the thirty-fourth year aforesaid, at the parish of St. 
 Andrew aforesaid, in the city and the county of the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid, he the said William Jackson as such false traitor as afore- 
 said with force and arms falsely, maliciously and traitorously did come 
 to and land in this kingdom of Ireland that is to say at Dublin afore- 
 said, for the purpose of procuring and obtaining information and 
 accounts of and concerning the situation and disposition of the sub- 
 jects of our said Lord the King of his kingdom of Ireland, and of 
 sending and causing to be sent such information and accounts to the 
 said persons exercising the powers of government in France and 
 being enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, with an intent 
 to aid and assist the said enemies of our said Lord the Kinor ag-ainst 
 our said Lord the King in the war aforesaid." 
 
 [The indictment then proceeds to enumerate the same overt acts 
 mentioned in support of the first charge.] 
 
 Clerk of the Crown How say you, William Jackson, are you 
 
 guilty of the treason whereof you stand indicted, and arraigned or 
 not ? 
 
 Mr. Jackson Not guilty. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown — Culprit, how will you be tried ? 
 
 Mr. Jackson By God and my country. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown God send you a good deliverance- 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I am now humbly to move your Lord- 
 
196 TRIAL OF 
 
 ships, that a day may be appointed for the trial of the prisoner. If 
 the prisoner be not ready for his trial this term, I have no objection 
 to its being postponed until the next term. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN I have been assigned by the court as counsel for 
 
 the prisoner. It is rather the duty of my client in his present situa- 
 tion, to wait until he is apprized of what the inclination of the court 
 may be, before he expresses his wish upon the subject. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief- Justice. — Undoubtedly the first duty 
 of this court is to dispose of the crown business, which may come 
 before it. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — If my client is to imderstand that the inclination 
 of the court is to appoint a day for the trial in this term, it will be 
 necessary for me to address a word or two to the court. I make no 
 difficulty of saying in this case, that being concerned as counsel for a 
 man in a perilous situation, I cannot think of wasting any claim he 
 may have to indulgence. It is better he should submit to any order 
 made by the court, than urge any application from himself. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief- Justice. — I do not exactly see the object of 
 this address. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I mean to enquire whether the court wish to try 
 the prisoner this term. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief- Justice. — The coui't have no wish about it. 
 Their first duty is to go through the business. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I will put an end to this, I move to 
 appoint the first return day in the next term for the trial. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice. — The prisoner is in a country where 
 he will have every possible advantage to prepare for his trial. 
 
 Friday, the 7th of November, being appointed for his trial, he was 
 remanded to Newgate without any objection. 
 
 Friday, 7th November. 1794. 
 
 The Court having sat, Mr. Jackson was put to the bar, and the 
 Sheriff" of the city of Dublin was ordered to return his venire, which 
 he did, and the Clerk of the Crown called it over. 
 
 Mr, CuRRAN. — This trial was appointed for this day. It is more 
 becoming, not to wait to see whether the counsel for the crown will 
 say anything as to putting off" the trial, but to state how my client is 
 circumstanced. He has been in goal for many months. He was 
 arraigned last term, when he pleaded, and the court were pleased to 
 appoint this day for his trial. All the interval he has employed in 
 the most deliberate preparations for his defence. Though a native 
 of this country, his life has been spent out of it. He sent his wife to 
 England to attend upon such witnesses as he thought necessary for 
 the trial. She spent part of the summer in England where an agent 
 was employed, and Mr. Jackson himself sent another upon the same 
 business. These circumstances are ready to be proved by afiidavit. 
 Mrs. Jackson remained in England some time, and came back to 
 prepare for the necessary attendance. Some property, which was the 
 joint property of both, has been sold for about one-tenth of its value, 
 to defray the expense of bringing over witnesses, who cannot be 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 197 
 
 compelled to attend by any process of this court, and therefore their 
 demands must be complied with.* 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice. — The object of your application is, 
 that the prisoner is not ready for his trial. 
 
 Mr. CuBRAN. — It is : the application could not be made before, 
 because the court did not sit, and the pi'isoner had expected that the 
 witnesses would arrive. A considerable sum of money was paid to 
 defray their expenses, and certain matters of record are to be brought 
 upon a security of £500 for their being returned. Mr. Nailor, an 
 English agent, has them in his possession, and he was expected here 
 by this time. He is a material witness, and his arrival with the 
 others was expected : — they are not yet ai'rived. There appeared a 
 paragraph in the English newspapers, that this trial was put off to 
 the 21st instant. Mr. Jackson states that his witnesses might be led 
 into error by this publication, which was made without any conni- 
 vance, or privity of his. There is another circumstance : In the last 
 Term, the court assigned the prisoner two counsel ; Mr. Ponsonby 
 was one of them ; he is in England ; his arrival was expected by this 
 time : he is not yet arrived, and the consequence is, that Mr. Jackson 
 will be deprived of the aid of one of his counsel. As to the compara- 
 tive aid of others, it is unnecessary to compute it : the court will feel 
 the weight of the circumstance I have mentioned. The prisoner 
 swears he cannot with safety to his life go to trial without his witnesses ; 
 he has done everything to procure their attendance, and does expect 
 them and his counsel upon any future day to which the court shall 
 think proper to postpone the trial. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief- Justice. — Li this term ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — He instructs me to speak with the utmost candour. 
 His wish is to be tried ; he means no artificial delay whatever. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice — If this affidavit be not sworn, let 
 it be sworn now ; when it is, let it be read. 
 
 Three affidavits were then sworn ; one by the prisoner, a second by 
 his wife, a third by his agent, setting forth the endeavours which had 
 been used to procure the attendance of witnesses, as stated by Mr. 
 Curran. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice "What time do you desire ? 
 
 Mr. Curran. — He would wish to have the trial this term if pos- 
 sible to avoid expense. The witnesses may be on their way, and if a 
 day be appointed, it is possible they may not be here on that day. 
 Mr. Jackson feels the necessary respect for the court ; but he would 
 rather wish to postpone the trial until the next term, than have any 
 day named in this, lest thei'e might be a disappointment, in which 
 case, it would be impossible to name another day in the same term, 
 as there would not be time for the jury process. But I will leave it 
 entirely to the court, I press no day. It is the prisoner's wish to be 
 tried, if he can be ready ; if the witnesses arrive, it is the Avish of his 
 heart to be tried. 
 
 * By the 45 Geo. III. c. 92, s. 3 — Service of subpoena on a witness in one part 
 of the United Kingdom, to give evidence in a criminal prosecution, is as effectual 
 as if the witness had been served with the subpoena in that part of the United 
 Kingdom where he is required to appear, 1 Starkie Law of Evidence, 83 ; but his 
 reasonable e.xpenses must be tendered to him. 
 
198 TRIAL OF 
 
 Ml*. Jackson — My Lords, the impression I would wish to leave 
 on this court is, that notwithstanding four months might appear suf- 
 ficient for preparation, yet with the utmost exertion, I have not been 
 prepared. Ten days after my trial was postponed, I put matters in 
 arrangement ; every exertion was used to bring over the witnesses 
 and documents ; notices were served upon certain persons in England 
 to produce certain documents, or correspondences relative to my con- 
 duct : — These have not been brought over, and the agent in England 
 has been so grossly imposed upon, from the idea that the trial was 
 put off, that he wrote to my wife that he would not come over, until 
 he heard from me. Why this paragraph was put into the papers in 
 England, and copied into the papers in this town, I cannot say. I 
 never felt a gi-eater disappointment in my life than in not being tried 
 this day. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — On the part of the crown it is my 
 duty to yield to every thing, consistent with the administration of 
 justice, not only that the subject may have justice administered to 
 him, but that all mankind may see it is administered fairly. An affi- 
 davit has been read, stating some circumstances material to the point. 
 Others have been read, which cannot have any influence whatever. 
 I say this, that they may not weigh with the public mind. It is idle 
 to say that paragraphs in the papers of England or Ireland can have 
 any weight ; they might be put in by persons, knowing nothing of 
 the matter, which might be the present case ; it is impossible any 
 agent could be so ignorant as to be deceived by it. Another circum- 
 stance is the absence of Mr. Ponsonby. The bar of Ireland furnishes 
 able men fully adequate to conduct a trial of this kind : — There are 
 men as able as Mr. Ponsonby, and when I say that, I mean to pay 
 no small compliment to him. The prisoner swears that some docu- 
 ments are necessary to be had, and that witnesses are to be brought 
 over: — Under such circumstances, I should not think myself justi- 
 fiable in resisting the application ; therefore I submit to the court 
 with deference, that the rule should be to postpone the trial ; and 
 that there may be no ground for an application of this kind in future, 
 I submit, that it would be best to postpone the trial to the next term, 
 that the witnesses, both for the crown and the prisoner may attend, 
 and have full notice of the time when they are to attend. As to 
 postponing the trial to a day in this term, and then to have it post- 
 poned again, if the witnesses do not attend, it may be done, but it is 
 not regular to make an order upon a contingency of that kind. The 
 first Monday in the next term will be a proper day. I do not find, 
 that the prisoner complains, but the world should know, that he is 
 treated with all the indulgence, a man in his unfortunate situation 
 can be. He was indicted as soon as possible, and he was brought up 
 for trial at a time that the witnesses for the crown were ready ; he 
 then applied to postpone his trial. 
 
 Mr. Jackson — My Lords, may I be admitted to say a word or 
 two ? Entirely contrary to what has been complained of by several 
 in my situation in England, I will thus observe, and testify in the 
 face of this court, and the world at large, that for a man in my situa- 
 tion, it is impossible to be treated with more tenderness, humanity, 
 and attention, tlian I have experienced. Whether the complaints in 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 199 
 
 England be well founded, or not, the treatment I have met with is 
 not surprising, because it only proves, what every one knows, that 
 humanity is the characteristic of Ireland. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief Justice. — In this case it is unnecessary to 
 know what passes in England, a country as famed for justice, and 
 other great qualifications, as any other country : Justice is there 
 administered in such a manner as to exalt it above the other countries 
 of the earth. It is our duty to administer justice in such a way as to 
 give satisfaction to all parties. I am glad to see, that the prisoner 
 thinks he is well treated. The court has been entirely passive upon 
 the subject, forming the rule upon the consent on both sides. At 
 present there appears to be nothing materially different between the 
 gentlemen concerned on both sides. It will be better to appoint a 
 cei'tain day ; it may lessen the expense to the prisoner, to give ample 
 and full time to be fairly prepared for the trial of his life, that he 
 may not want any evidence that the blessings of this constitution can 
 furnish him with — that he may come furnished Avith every possible 
 defence that time and abilities can supply on the one hand ; on the 
 other, judges are to see, that the punishment of flagitious crimes be 
 not trifled with, but that the law may be administered with calmness 
 and vigour. These are my sentiments, and from the opinion I have 
 of my brethren, are their sentiments. To apply them to the present 
 occasion there is no question to debate upon this application. The 
 most probable way to have an effectual trial will be to appoint the 
 first Monday in the next term. Be it so. 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — My Lords, I have been six months confined in a 
 single room. If I might be permitted occasionally, and that very 
 seldom indeed, with the keeper of the prison, to walk in the yard 
 early in the morning, I would be glad of it. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief-Justice. — The court cannot meddle with 
 that. If you complain of oppression, we will interfere. 
 
 The prisoner was then remanded. 
 
 Monday, January 26th, 1795. 
 
 The prisoner was this day put to the bar, and the- Clerk of the 
 Crown asked him, was he ready for his trial. He said he was. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My Lords, I am on the part of the 
 Crown to move the court to postpone the trial in this case to some 
 day within the term, in such time as may give an opportunity to issue 
 a venire with the usual return of fifteen days, which can be upon the 
 10th of Februaiy next. The ground of my application is this, that 
 one of the witnesses is absent and cannot attend this day.* I have 
 an affidavit in my hand, sworn by Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, 
 stating, that he used the utmost diligence to bring over the witnesses 
 from England, all of whom, except two, reside in London, and they 
 aU attended last term, when at the prisoner's desire the trial was post- 
 poned. Mr. Kemmis states by his affidavit, that John Cockayne, a 
 witness, without whose testimony the justice of the case cannot be 
 attained, did write a letter from London, stating that he was in an ill 
 
 • Rex V. Jones, 8 East. 31. Rex r. D'Eon, 3 Burr. 1513. 1 Bl. 510. 
 
200 TRIAL OF 
 
 state of liealth, but would set out on the next day, attended by Mi*. 
 Mounsey, another witness : Mr. Kemmis also states that he received 
 another letter from C. Mounsey, dated Holyhead, January 24th inst., 
 mentioning that he and Mr. Cockayne had arrived there, but that the 
 severity of the weather, and the quantity of snow upon the roads 
 prevented them from using more expedition ; that Mr. Cockayne was 
 in an ill state of health, that he consulted a surgeon, who advised 
 him not to set out for Dublin. Mr. Kemmis swears that he received 
 these letters by post, that he believes them to be genuine, and the 
 contents of them to be true. Under these circumstances, it cannot 
 be disputed that the trial must be postponed, it will be for the gentle- 
 men concerned for the prisoner to say, whether they would have any 
 thing added to the rule. 
 
 Here the affidavit was read, and it appeared to contain the facts 
 stated by Mr. Attorney- General. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN, for the prisoner. — It is submitted to the court, that 
 this affidavit does not lay any ground to warrant your lordships in 
 postponing this trial. There is one fact stated, which Mr. Kemmis 
 does not recollect precisely : he was mistaken in saying, that the trial 
 was put off upon the arraignment, at the instance of the prisoner. 
 The arraignment was too late in Trinity Term to bring on the trial. 
 In the last term, the trial was postponed at the instance and upon the 
 motion of the prisoner, and in consequence of that, it comes on now, 
 unless it be the pleasure of the court to postpone it further. This 
 man has been lying in gaol since the middle of April last, and it is 
 not a matter of course for the crown to postpone a trial, where the 
 party has remained so long in prison, and is ready for his trial. K it 
 were, there would be a way of exterminating almost any man in the 
 community, with more certainty than could follow any trial, because 
 trial and conviction can extend only to guilt, but that kind of silent 
 extermination may fall upon the innocent. To postpone the trial at 
 the present time, there ought to be proper verified matters of fact 
 laid before the court. If that rule be a true one, it is impossible to 
 postpone the trial upon this affidavit, because it does not state any 
 verified matter of fact : there is no circumstance stated but upon the 
 belief of Mr. Kemmis. There is no affidavit by the meanest process- 
 server, that he made any request personally, or that Cockayne made 
 any promise to attend. A letter has been spoken of: is there any 
 affidavit of any man, that says he knows the handwriting of Cockayne, 
 and knows this letter to be his handwriting ? Mr. Kemmis says he 
 received this letter. Does he know the handwriting ? No : he believes 
 it is Cockayne's letter. Does he say why he believes it ? Does he 
 state that the letter promises he would attend at any other time ? 
 Not a word. It states that he is sick. But there ought to be esta- 
 blished facts laid before the court. Let the gentlemen concerned for 
 the crown make the motion as a matter of course, because they do 
 not wish to go on with the trial, finding it is either impracticable, or 
 nugatory ; or let them lay some satisfactory matter for the purpose. 
 I submit that there is nothing to intitle them to the order now sought 
 for. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY on the same side — My Lords, I humbly submit, 
 that this affidavit docs not state sufficient matter to intitle the crown 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 201 
 
 to put off the trial. The affidavit should state specifically that the 
 person, on account of whose absence the trial cannot go on, was a 
 material witness. The affidavit does not state that positively ; Mr. 
 Kemniis only says, he believes, and he used these extraordinary words, 
 " that the justice of the case cannot be attained without this witness." 
 — What does Mr. Kemmis call the justice of the case ? — Hanging my 
 client without the verdict of a jury, or the sentence of your Lord- 
 ships. The affidavit does not state positively, that the witness was 
 material for the prosecution ; neither does it state that his attendance 
 is expected, or that there is reasonable ground to believe he will 
 attend at any future day. There is no instance, even in a civil case, 
 where a trial is put off, unless the party swears positively that the 
 witness is material, and that there was reasonable gTound to expect 
 his attendance. The letter mentioned in the affidavit does not state, 
 that the witness will come ; the certificate of the surgeon does not 
 state, that the indisposition will permit the witness to attend at a 
 future day, nor does the Crown Solicitor say he has reason to think 
 the witness will attend. Therefore the ingredients, which are thought 
 material in civil cases, are wanting in this case. How much more 
 material are they in a case of ti^eason, and Avhere the party has lain 
 nine months in gaol ? — This is a mere imposition upon the simplicity 
 of the Ci'owu Solicitor. 
 
 Mr. Prime Serjeant in reply for the crown. — As it strikes me, 
 this affidavit is more full and pregnant with circumstances to lead the 
 discretion of the court than any I remember. The first position is, 
 that John Cockayne is a material witness, as he believes for the 
 crown. How is it possible for any man to swear to more than 
 belief in such a case ? it is impossible to conjecture. But if there 
 be any doubt uj^on the materiality of his evidence, your lordships 
 have before you, that which will satisfy you whether it be material 
 or not. Upon looking into the informations, you can form a 
 conclusion whether this man's testimony be material or not, at 
 least to put the prisoner upon trial; — the jury will determine 
 whether it be sufficient for conviction. The next position is, 
 that the justice of the case cannot be attained without the examina- 
 tion of Cockayne, as deponent believes. Look then to the same 
 document, and see whether the examination of Cockayne be not 
 essentially necessaiy to the j ustice of the case. The next fact stated 
 is, that this trial was postponed in Trinity term ; it is not pretended 
 that it was postponed at the desire of the crown, nor will I say it 
 was at the desire of the prisoner. It was with the concurrence of 
 the prisoner's counsel ; all the witnesses for the crown attended at 
 that time. So it rested until November ; then an application was 
 made on the part of the prisoner to postpone the trial. The counsel 
 for the crown did not resist the application, that the prisoner might 
 have an oppoitunity of vindicating his character upon a fair trial. 
 The trial being appointed for this day, the Crown Solicitor states, 
 that on the 17th of January inst. he received a letter, which he 
 believes to be genuine, from Mr. Cockayne, stating that he would 
 set out the next day from London for Ireland to give evidence upon 
 this trial. Then the Solicitor states that he received a letter on 
 Saturday, the 24th inst. from Mr. Mounsey, who accompanied 
 
202 TRIAL OF 
 
 Cockayne to Holyhead, where the Solicitor swears he believes Cock- 
 ayne now is. The letter mentions, that Cockayne had come so far in 
 prosecution of his intention : the letter contains the certificate of the 
 surgeon enclosed, as to his state of health. It is said, there is no 
 affidavit of any process being served. Where a party has given in- 
 formations, and is bound to prosecute, it is not thought necessary to 
 serve any process to compel his appearance, because he has entered 
 into a recognizance to appear. If there had been no recognizance 
 and the witness lived in Ireland, process might be necessary ; but I 
 do not know the effect of any process served upon a witness in 
 England to attend in Ireland : I give no opinion how far such a pro- 
 cess would be obligatory ; but where a party is bound by matter of 
 record, it would be absurd to call upon him by process. The Solicitor 
 for the crown says he has used his best endeavours and diligence to 
 have the prisoner tried with all possible expedition. This application 
 is made only in consequence of the absence of Cockayne ; if the 
 trial be postponed, the Solicitor states he is in hopes Cockayne will 
 attend : — What hopes can be more reasonable where the party has 
 come so far as Holyhead ? If the Solicitor for the crown had stated 
 his belief without any reason for it, could it be so strong as where 
 he has assigned his reasons ? — He swears the witnesses are at Holy- 
 head, as he believes, and that the letters are genuine. If these 
 matters be not sufficient to postpone the ti'ial, I am much mistaken ; 
 I have mistaken the discretion of judges. 
 
 Lord Clonmei., Chief Justice. — It is impossible to go on with 
 the trial this day. The rule is made with the concurrence of my 
 brethren. This is an application to postpone the trial to the 10th of 
 next month — a day in this term — and see upon what ground it is 
 made. It has been very truly said (and I shall ever hold it as my 
 opinion, and have done so for twenty years ; the first time I took it 
 up was upon consideration with Chief Justice Paterson, when the 
 question was considered by a variety of persons in the case of the 
 White-boys) that it never was of course, and it ought not to be of 
 course to postpone a trial on the part of a prosecutor, and one reason 
 was this, if the prosecutor's witnesses die, what they have said is 
 not lost, having given examinations before; if the prisoner's wit- 
 nesses die, he is undone ; and therefore it is not to be considered as 
 a matter of course ; but the rule in those cases must be governed by 
 circumstances. See what the circumstances here are : — The trial 
 was first put off, not as against the prisoner, but to accommodate 
 him : — at that time, Cockayne, who has sworn material informations, 
 attended ; the Solicitor for the crown swears more, that he believes 
 Cockayne to be a material witness ; he attended as such ; he resides 
 in another country ; he came over, and entered into a recognizance, 
 in consequence of the informations he had given. In Michaelmas 
 Term, the trial was postponed upon application of the prisoner ; — 
 upon what ground? — that he wanted a material witness — that cir- 
 cumstances prevented his having his evidence — that he was not pre- 
 pared Now, there is an affidavit made, stating circumstances — 
 
 what circumstances ? That Cockayne, and Mounsey, two witnesses, 
 to prove their sincerity of intention in coming to attend the trial, set 
 out from London, and are at Holyhead ; and though the certificate 
 

 THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 203 
 
 of the surgeon might be stronger, if made upon oath, yet from the 
 letter sworn by the crown Solicitor to be genuine, the attendance of 
 the witnesses is expected, if the trial be postponed to the latter 
 end of the term ; therefore to hurry on a trial, so serious to the 
 prisoner, and the public, could have the appearance of levity. K 
 the prisoner be not guilty, he will have an opportunity of clearing 
 himself fully ; if he be guilty, we should not defeat justice ; where 
 the crown was ready twice to prosecute, we ought now to postpone 
 it. Let the trial be postponed to the 10th of February. 
 
 Mr. PoNsoNBY, for the prisoner. — K the trial be postponed, the 
 prisoner wishes it may be postponed to the next term. A material 
 witness, who attends for him, is an attorney of the courts at West- 
 minster, and he cannot stay here during the whole term. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, Chief Justice — I think we must yield to the 
 prisoner's application. There is no assurance given to us, positively, 
 that on the 10th of next month there will be a trial, or that the 
 crown can be ready, nor can the circumstances justify such assertion, 
 the absence of the witness being occasioned by sickness. Then it 
 comes to this, the crown is not ready, and it is not stated positively 
 when the prosecutor will be ready. A witness for the prisoner says 
 that it is indispensably necessary for him to attend at Westminster, 
 and that an absence from the court there during an entire term, will 
 be at the hazard of ruin to himself and his clients — What is to be 
 done ? It comes to a question of convenience, which is a serious one 
 to individuals, but we cannot balance the expence. We must post- 
 pone the trial until next term. 
 
 The trial was accordingly postponed to the second day of Easter 
 Term, and the prisoner was remanded to Newgate. 
 
K I N G'S BENCH, 
 
 Thursday, AprU 23d, 1795 
 
 COURT. 
 
 Right Hon. the Earl of Clonmel, Chief- Justice, 
 
 *Hon. Mr. Justice Downes, 
 
 Hon. Ml*. Justice Chamberlaine. 
 
 COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN. 
 
 Mr. Frankeand, and 
 Mr. Trench. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-Generax, 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant, 
 Mr. Soeicitor-General, 
 
 Agent — Thomas Kemmis, Esq. Crown Solicitor 
 
 COUNSEL assigned TO THE PRISONER. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN, and Mr. Ponsonby. 
 
 ASSISTANT COUNSEL. 
 
 Mr. Burton, and 
 Mr. Sampson. 
 
 Mr. R. Guinness, 
 Mr. M'Nally, 
 Mr. Emmett, 
 
 Agent — Edward Crookshank Keane, Esq. 
 
 The prisoner being put to the bar, 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — William Jackson, are you ready for your 
 trial ? 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — Yes. 
 
 The Sheriff of the city of Dublin was then ordered to return his 
 pannel, which he did, and it being called over, fifty-one attended. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — William Jackson, those good men whom 
 you have last heard called, and whom you now see in the box, are to 
 be sworn upon the trial of your life. If you have any cause of chal- 
 lenge to them or either of them, you must challenge them as they 
 come to the book, and befoi'e they are sworn, otherwise you will be 
 too late : you may challenge twenty peremptorily, and as many more 
 as you can show cause for. Prisoner and prosecutor look to your 
 challenges. 
 
 Sir Francis Hutchinson, Bart. — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 John Claudius Beresford, Esq. — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 John Exshaw, Alderman — Sworn. 
 
 Frederick Trench, Esq — Challenged peremptorily by the prisoner. 
 
 John Pentland, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 Richard Cranfield, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 William Humfrey, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 * Hon. Mr. Justice Boytl, was prevented from attending by indisposition. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 205 
 
 Robert Asliworth, Esq. — Cliallengecl peremptorily by the prisoner. 
 
 Thomas Kinsley, merchant — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 George Cowen, merchant Objected to by tr^. -prisoner, as having 
 
 expressed an opinion npon the subject of the trial'. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Establish your challenge. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — There is no intention of taking any captious objec- 
 tion ; but if this gentleman has declared any sentiment upon the 
 subject of the trial 
 
 Mr. Cowen. — I have not expressed any opinion upon the subject 
 of the trial, nor do I know any thing of it. 
 
 He was then sworn without any further objection. 
 
 Samuel Middleton, merchant — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 Stuckey Simon, Esq — Sworn. 
 
 Robert Walker, merchant Challenged peremptorily by the 
 
 prisoner. 
 
 John Oldham, merchant — Objected to by the Crown, but the 
 objection being withdrawn, he was sworn. 
 
 James Donovan, merchant. — Sworn. 
 
 Alexander Clarke, merchant Put by on the part of the Crown. 
 
 David Weir, merchant. — Challenged peremptorily by the prisoner. 
 
 John Ward, the elder, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 Mark Bloxham, merchant. — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 John Murray, merchant — Ditto. 
 
 John Minchin, merchant. — Ditto. 
 
 William Castles HoUister, merchant — Put by on the part of the 
 Crown. 
 
 John Campbell, merchant. — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 Alan Foster, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 John Crosthwaite, merchant — Challenged peremptorily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 John Smith, merchant. — Sworn. 
 
 William Edmondston, merchant Put by on the part of the Crown. 
 
 Benjamin Simpson, merchant — Challenged peremptoi'ily by the 
 prisoner. 
 
 James Davis, merchant — Ditto. 
 Charles Henry Sirr, Esq — Ditto. 
 
 Thomas White, merchant — Put by on the part of the Crown. 
 
 Hugh Cochran, merchant Challenged peremptorily by the prisoner. 
 
 Lewis Hodgson, merchant — Sworn. 
 
 THE JURY. 
 
 John Exshaw, John Oldham, 
 
 John Pentland, James Donavan, 
 
 Richard Cranfield, John Ward, the elder, 
 
 William Humfrey, Alan Foster, 
 
 George Cowen, John Smith, 
 
 Stuckey Simon, Lewis Hodgson, 
 
 The prisoner was then given in charge to the jury by the Clerk of 
 the Crown, who read the whole indictment. 
 
206 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Trench opened the pleadings. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My Lords, and gentlemen of the jury, 
 In this case the Rev. "William Jackson, the prisoner at the bar, a clergy- 
 man of the church of Ii'eland, and a native of this kingdom, stands 
 charged with high treason. He is charged with two species of that 
 crime ; one, the compassing and imagining of the death of the King ; 
 the other, that of adhering to the King's enemies, namely, to the 
 persons executing the powers of government in France, with whom 
 the King was at war. The court will inform you, gentlemen of the 
 jury, that this indictment is grounded on the stat. of 25 Ed. 3. by 
 which to imagine, compass, and design the death of the King is 
 declared to be high treason. In this single instance, a crime intended, 
 though not committed, is made by our law punishable with death ; on 
 account of the interest which the subjects have in the life of their 
 chief magistrate the King, to compass his death is guarded in this 
 peculiar way. The peace and happiness of society depend on the 
 preservation of his life. But at the same time that the law has thus 
 wisely guarded the person of the King from violence, it has taken 
 care that those who shall be charged with this crime, shall not be 
 easily or lightly found guilty of it. The law has therefore made it 
 necessary that the criminal intention shall be manifested by an overt 
 act, an act openly done and plainly proved, by which the intention 
 of the party to commit that horrid crime shall be made clear and 
 manifest. On this species of treason I am also to observe to you, 
 that to constitute it, it is not necessary to shew that the party accused 
 had an intention actually to put the King to death, or that that was 
 the immediate object. The compassing of the King's death does not 
 import that the person charged intended to put the King to death ; 
 but if he intended to commit any act leading directly or in its con- 
 sequences to the death of the King, it is settled law that such is to be 
 considered as a compassing of his death. As for instance, to conspire 
 to dethrone the King ; — for as history and experience shew, to dethrone 
 the King leads to his death. So, a conspiring or design to imprison the 
 King. The distance between the prison of a King and his grave is 
 small indeed. Therefore to support the charge of the first species of 
 treason, viz. compassing the death of the King, fourteen overt acts 
 are stated in the indictment. If any one of those be proved, and it 
 be such as to show an intention of compassing the King's death, you 
 will find the prisoner guilty of that charge. I will not take up your 
 time and that of the Court in enumerating particularly all the several 
 overt acts. I will however mention those that appear to me most 
 important. It is charged that the prisoner consulted with several 
 other persons to induce the governing powers in France to invade 
 this kingdom for the purpose of dethroning the King ; the consultation 
 of the prisoner with others on the means of effecting such a purpose 
 is an act whence you may collect the preconceived intention of 
 compassing the death of the King ; another act charged is, that the 
 prisoner procured a statement of the situation of Ireland to be drawn 
 up and put into the post office to be sent to France to the ruling 
 powers there, to induce them to invade this kingdom, and thereby 
 dethrone the King. Another act charged is, that the prisoner with 
 divers others endeavoured to persuade a person named to go to France, 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 207 
 
 and give intelligence to the ruling powers there, to induce them to 
 invade Ireland, in order to dethrone the King and overturn his 
 government. Another overt act laid in the indictment, is his endea- 
 vouring to persuade another person to go with the same view to 
 France. It is likewise laid as an overt act, that he came into this 
 kingdom for the purpose of exciting a rebellion to dethrone the King. 
 Other overt acts are laid in sending several letters to different persons 
 to induce France to invade this kingdom. Now if, as I said before, 
 any one of those facts be proved, the intention of procuring an 
 invasion will be established, whence it follows by a necessaiy induction 
 of law that the prisoner is guilty of the crime of compassing the 
 King's death. 
 
 The other species of treason charged against the prisoner at the 
 bar is that of adhei'ing to the King's enemies. The nature of this 
 species is fully and clearly expressed in the very terms of "adhering 
 to the King's enemies." But overt acts must be laid of that also, and 
 in the indictment the same fourteen overt acts are laid as applicable 
 to support this charge as are laid to support the former. It needs no 
 argument to satisfy you, gentlemen of the jury, that if a man endea- 
 vours to persuade the King's enemies to invade his dominions, and 
 sends intelligence to them for the purpose of furthering such an 
 attempt, that such a man adheres to the enemies of the King. — Such 
 are the crimes charged against the prisoner at the bar. Whether he 
 be guilty of both or either of them, it will be for you to determine. 
 You are now about to discharge a sacred and an awful duty. You 
 have on the one hand to discharge your duty to your King and to 
 your country. You are to take care that if the party be really guilty, 
 he be found guilty, to the end that men may be deterred from com- 
 mitting crimes of the last magnitude — crimes tending to destroy the 
 peace and security of society — to wrest from us all that can make 
 life valuable. — On the other hand you have a duty not less sacred, 
 that of protecting the innocent. However horrid the crime be in its 
 nature, you should not permit yourselves to be hurried away by your 
 feelings or your passions lightly to find the accused guilty. The 
 more dreadful the crime, the more circumspect and deliberate 
 ought the jury to be. These observations, I am sure, are not neces- 
 sary to be made to the jury to which I have the honour of addressing 
 myself. I make them rather as a discharge of my public duty, than 
 as feeling them necessary for your instruction. 
 
 Having thus stated, as simply and clearly as I am capable, the 
 nature of the crime, it now becomes my province to lay before you 
 the facts which I am instructed will appear in evidence before you. 
 In doing this it will be my duty to state these facts with the utmost 
 plainness, without giving them any colour whatsoever to induce you 
 to lean against the prisoner. I state the facts merely that you may 
 more clearly and readily comprehend the evidence as it will be offered 
 to you. The case itself is plain and simple. It is not a species of 
 treason which is to be collected from doubtful facts or doubtful evi- 
 dence, or to be collected by inference from a multiplicity of compli- 
 cated circumstances, but rests on very simple evidence indeed. 
 
 The prisoner at the bar is a native of this country. He had early 
 in life gone to reside in London, where he continued for a number of 
 
208 TRIAL OF 
 
 years, but sometime since, the exact period I am not informed of, he 
 went to reside in France. He was there for a considerable time after 
 the Revolution took place. In oi-der that you may understand the 
 meaning of some papers that will be laid in evidence before you, it 
 will be necessary to state the connections and circumstances of several 
 persons, whose names will frequently occur in the course of the trial. 
 In the years 1793 and 1794 there was resident in Paris a gentleman 
 of the name of John Holdford Stone, by birth an Englishman, and 
 engaged in trade in the city of Paris. There was connected with him, 
 whether as assistant or partner I do not exactly know, another gen- 
 tleman named Benjamin Beresford, who is married to the sister of 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, Esq., formerly of this country. J. H. 
 Stone has a brother named William, who in 1 793, and in the begin- 
 ning of 1794 was resident in London, and sometimes at a small villa 
 called Oldford, in the neighbourhood of London. He is in the coal 
 trade, and is, or Avas at the time of which I am speaking, in partner- 
 ship in a company whose firm is Lawrence and Co., resident in 
 Rutland Place, near Blackfriars Bridge, London. Towards the end 
 of 1793, or beginning of 1794, the prisoner was sent from Paris by 
 the then ruling powers, to London, for the purpose of learning the 
 state of the kingdom of Great Britain, and the disposition of its inha- 
 bitants, and how far it would be practicable to invade that country 
 with success ; and further, if he should not find a probability of 
 success in the designs entertained of invading that country, he should 
 pass into Ireland on the like mission. He accordingly set out from 
 Paris, accredited by John H. Stone to his brother William Stone in 
 London, who had been by letter previously informed of the intention 
 of sending this gentleman into Great Britain. He was also supplied 
 with some letters ; we cannot take upon us to say how many, or if 
 more than two, but of two we are possessed — one dii-ected to Mr. 
 Home Tooke, the other to a Doctor Crawford, of this kingdom. Mr. 
 Jackson arrived in London in January or February, 1794, having 
 passed through Hamburgh, and landed at Hull. It appears, that 
 immediately on his arrival he waited on Mr. William Stone, by whom 
 he was kindly received, and with whom he had a confidential inter- 
 course. While he remained in London he endeavoured to procure as 
 accurate a State of England as he could, I mean with respect to the 
 disposition of the people to aid the French if they should make an 
 invasion, and to re(!eive from them the embrace of fraternity. Mr. 
 Jackson found means to procure a state of that country in the respect 
 I mentioned, to be drawn for his information, as appears by a person 
 of some consideration, and the information which he received, I 
 believe and trust, was well founded. He learned that the people of 
 England were not willing to receive the French, and that if they 
 should come, they would find ninety-nine in one hundred zea- 
 lous to rise in arms against them. During his stay in London Mr. 
 Jackson carried on his correspondence with France through Mr. W 
 Stone. On his arrival in London he renewed an acquaintance which 
 he formerly had with Mr. John Cockayne, an attorney of eminence 
 residing in Lyon's Inn ; — he procured this gentleman to direct several 
 letters for him to foreign countries, saying, that having contracted 
 debts during his former residence in England, he did not wish his 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 209 
 
 hand- writing should be seen, least it might be discovered that he was 
 in England. Mr. Cockayne, without knowing the nature of those 
 letters, did direct them. There is every reason to apprehend that 
 those letters contained a communication of his transactions in discharge 
 of that treasonable duty on which he had been sent. Not finding that 
 he was likely to succeed in Great Britain, he was desirous to make 
 an experiment in this his native country. During the time of his 
 stay in London he passed by the name of Jackson, his own proper 
 name, assuming however the character of an American merchant. 
 He communicated to Mr, William Stone his intention of coming to 
 Ireland, and desired to have a correspondence with him, and that he 
 Mr. Stone should transmit his foreign letters. With this view he 
 furnished Stone with a paper which will be proved to be in his own 
 hand-writing, explaining the manner in which he would have such 
 foreign letters transmitted to his foreign correspondents. This paper 
 will deserve your particular attention, because it will serve clearly to 
 connect many of the circumstances that will be proved, and to confirm 
 and support the other evidence that will be offered. [Here Mr. 
 Attorney- General read the paper of directions.] At the time that 
 this paper was delivered, the prisoner informed William Stone that he 
 should write to him not by his own name, but by that of Thomas 
 Popkins. While this proceeding was going forward, the treasonable 
 object and view of the prisoner was darkly intimated to Mr. Cockayne. 
 He felt, as I believe every gentleman, every man of common sense 
 must have felt in the like circumstances. It immediately occurred to 
 him that the letters which he had dii'ected were treasonable, that they 
 had passed through the Post-office, and were exposed to detection. He 
 stood astonished and appalled at his situation. There was apparent 
 evidence of ti-eason against himself. Added to his feelings for his own 
 personal safety, he felt the danger the state was exposed to. He deter- 
 mined to prevent the danger impending on himself and his countiy, 
 and he disclosed to government the whole of what he knew or 
 suspected. Government, thus aware of the dangerous practices that 
 were on foot, did, as was their duty, determine to counteract the 
 schemes of Mr. Jackson, and to bring to justice if possible, the 
 perpetrators of such horrid crimes. Mr. Cockayne at the desire of 
 Mr. Pitt consented to accompany Jackson in order to render abortive 
 his wicked purposes. Towards the end of March, Mr. Jackson set 
 out for Dublin, accompanied by Mr. Cockayne. They arrived the 1 st 
 April 1794 : on their arrival they lodged at a house called Hyde's 
 Coffee-house, at the corner of Palace-row, and it appears that Mr. 
 Jackson in a day or two after his arrival made an acquaintance or 
 renewed an old one with a gentleman of the name of Leonard M'Nally. 
 Mr. M'Nally merely no doubt from that hospitality in which Irishmen 
 are never deficient, invites the two strangers to dine with him, and as 
 a man of manners always does, he selected an agreeable company to 
 meet them. Mr. Simon Butler and a Mr. Lewins were among others 
 present at this entertainment ; the conversation was naturally turned, 
 by the gentleman who had come on this kind mission, to the state of 
 the country. Much talk there was about the discontented state of 
 this kingdom, anxiously did he inquire how far the people would be 
 willing to rise, if there should be an invasion by the French. I only 
 
 p 
 
210 TRIAL OF 
 
 mean to say that such was the turn of the conversation introduced by 
 Mr. Jackson. I mean not to charge any man who has not an oppor- 
 tunity of defending liimself. Opinions on the subject were delivered 
 by the host and his guests. Mr. Butler held that though there were 
 some discontents in various parts of the country, yet that the gene- 
 rality of the people having property and education were loyal and had 
 a considerable influence over their tenantry, and that the invaders 
 would be foiled in the attempt. Other gentlemen entertained different 
 opinions. During this conversation something was said of Mr. A. H. 
 Rowan, then in prison in Newgate for publishing a seditious libel. 
 Mr. Jackson imagining that Mr. Rowan could give him full information 
 on the subject he had so much at heart, expressed a desire to be 
 introduced to his acquaintance. Some difficulty there was both with 
 the friends of Mr. Rowan and others, as to the authority of Mr. 
 Jackson to treat at all, on the part of the French government. Mr. 
 Lewins however undertook to introduce the prisoner to Mr. Rowan ; 
 and in order to accredit this embassador from France, Jacksan 
 delivered the letters which he brought from Paris to Mr. Tooke and 
 Dr. Crawford, for he had not thought proper to deliver Tooke's 
 letter ; why that was not done I am not informed. These letters 
 were not sealed, and the pi'isoner knew the contents of them. That 
 he did know their contents is demonstrable ; if he had not read them 
 he would not have sent them to Mr. Rowan to establish his credit 
 with that gentleman. A meeting on the credit of these letters is had 
 between Mr. Rowan and the prisoner. What passed at their first 
 interview I am not able to inform you ; but at it he received the 
 letters from Mr. Rowan which he had sent by Lewins, and about 
 which he had expressed gi'eat uneasiness during the time they remained 
 out of his custody. Another meeting appears to have been appointed 
 between them. Mr. Jackson was invited to breakfast at Mr. Rowan's 
 apartment in Newgate to meet a third person — Mr. Cockayne accom- 
 panied Mr. Jackson — this was about the '25th of April. Jackson Avas 
 to meet a third person there to concert the means of sending an able 
 and trusty negociator to the French government, by whom, as he 
 expressed it in one of his letters, more could be done in a short time 
 than by a thousand letters. The meeting took place, the persons 
 present Avere Jackson, Rowan, Cockayne, and Mr. Theobald Wolfe 
 Tone. The object of the meeting was to prevail on Tone to go to 
 France with the view of communicating to the Ruling PoAvers, the 
 Avillingness of this country to rise and overset the government, and 
 to point out the best means of effecting a descent on this kingdom. 
 It was thought that nothing could more effectually tend to attain 
 the object that these conspirators had in vicAV, than to send a man 
 of sense and ability accredited by a person, in their estimation of 
 such high consequence as Mr. RoAvan, to Paris, there to con\'erse 
 with the French Ministry, and persuade them of the practicability of 
 their scheme. At this meeting a paper Avas produced and read, and 
 which will be laid before you, draAvn up at the desire of Jackson, 
 and importing to be a statement of the disposition of the people of Ire- 
 land ; then it was proposed to send Mr. Tone to France — Jackson 
 endeavoured to persuade him to go — Tone made several objections ; he 
 had a Avife and three children — a debt was due to him, part of a 
 
THE BEV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 211 
 
 reward for something which he had done for the Catholics — this debt 
 would be lost if he should go to France. Rowan encouraged him to 
 go, assuring him his wife and children should be attended to and 
 protected. Tone hesitated — he expressed apprehensions of the recep- 
 tion he should meet at Paris, and of the reward he might receive — ■ 
 he even had fears that he might never return to Ireland — Jackson 
 encourages him, anxiously endeavours to remove his fears and excite 
 his hopes ; something he hinted that the Catholic debt would be 
 made good ; he assured the hesitating Tone that the French were a 
 noble and generous people, that he might depend on being treated 
 with the utmost liberality, at the same time admitting that he had 
 not authority to oiFer a specific sum.* Mr. Tone at this time was 
 under the necessity of going to the assizes of Drogheda, and after his 
 return he at a second meeting of the same persons altogether declined 
 to undertake the journey to Paris. Another able negociator must be 
 provided. A Dr. Reynolds presented himself to the mind of Rowan 
 as a fit person, and a meeting is had at which the Doctor is present. 
 The Doctor is applied to. He is at first willing to go, but on a little 
 reflection he thinks the expedition rather hazardous. He recollects 
 that he understands not one word of the French language nor of the 
 manners of those countries through which he was to pass. However 
 the eloquence of Mr. Rowan was exerted, Reynolds yields to his per- 
 suasion, the route was settled, but again the Doctor reflects, hesitates 
 and at length determines not to hazard the undertaking. While these 
 consultations were going forward, Jackson was employed in making 
 communications to his correspondents and principals in France, of 
 what he was doing here and how far he was likely to attain the 
 object of his wishes. I have stated that he arrived the 1st April. 
 Previous to that, government here being informed by the British 
 Minister of his object, the Irish government did, as they ought, take 
 every possible precaution to come to a knowledge of all the proceed- 
 ings of this emissary, and with this view, being apprised through Mr. 
 Cockayne of the addresses of Jackson's foreign correspondents abroad, 
 gave orders to the post-office, as by law they are warranted, and by 
 their duty bound to do, to open letters of so dangerous a tendency. 
 Mr. Jackson soon after his arrival in Dublin, on the 5th April wrote 
 
 * No prosecutor could be more humane than Arthur Wolfe, nor less anxious to 
 state anything too strongly against accused parties, and therefore the statement 
 in this place with regard to Tone must be considered an unintentional error. It 
 certainly is not quite correct. Tone thus mentions the circumstance — " 1 then 
 took an opportunity (on the difficulty of a proper person being found to go to 
 France being stated, and it being mentioned that no one was in all respects so fit 
 as myself) to recapitulate pretty nearly what I said in all the preceding conver- 
 sations on the general state of the country ; and I then added, that with regard 
 to my going to France, I was a man of no fortune ; that my sole dependence was 
 on my profession ; that I had a wife and three children, whom I dearly loved, 
 solely depending on me for support ; that I could not go and leave them totally 
 unprovided for, and trusting to the mercy of Providence for existence ; and 
 that consequently with regard to me, the going to France was a thing totally 
 impossible. They all agreed that what I said was reasonable, but there was no 
 offer of money or pecuniary assistance of any kind held out to induce me to change 
 my determination ; a circumstance I mention merely because I understand it is 
 believed that some such was made." — Tone's Life, 1 vol., p. 119. American 
 Edition. 
 
212 
 
 TKIAL OF 
 
 to Mr. W. Stone of Oldford, announcing to him his arrival in Ireland, 
 apologizing for not writing sooner, telling him he found many kind 
 friends, and desiring him not to make any use of the addresses he had 
 left him, the price and nature of the articles being (as the letter 
 expresses it) entirely changed. You will perceive that terms are 
 made use of strangely and enigmatically, expressions of trade are 
 employed where no trade was, but in truth significant of the political 
 objects on which Jackson was employed. Here you will see by the 
 context what the meaning of the writer was. About this time a new 
 revolution had taken place in Paris. Danton had been assassinated 
 by the opposite party, and this is the change in the articles to which 
 the letter alludes; and this letter is signed Thomas Popkins. To 
 this letter Stone wrote an answer dated 11th Api-il in which he 
 acknowledges the receipt of it. Jackson wrote a letter dated 24th 
 April to Mr. Beresford at Paris, and procui-ed Cockayne to copy it. 
 This also is signed Thomas Popkins. In it he says, " you are re- 
 quested to see Madget directly, and inform him that this evening the 
 opinions of two eminent counsel are sent to him ;" throughout making 
 use of legal terms, as if he was conducting some law suit. Madget, 
 in this letter, means the marine minister of France. The estate 
 mentioned in the letter is the kingdom of Ireland. There is a Nota 
 Bene at the end of the letter which is nothing to the purpose only as 
 it serves to add further authenticity to the letter. Another letter 
 will be laid before you which sets out with the date of 21st April 
 but which was not closed till 24th April. It is to William Stone and 
 in the prisoner's hand-writing, but the superscription is of Cockayne's 
 writing. He says " I am glad the patterns (meaning letters formerly 
 sent to this Stone) have reached the persons." The outrider men- 
 tioned in this letter means the post-oiRce. In the former letter the 
 opinion to be sent was that of counsel, in a matter of law, in this 
 the opinion is that of a manufacturer in a matter of trade, and yet 
 both letters speak of the same opinion, and the opinion means the 
 state of Ireland Avhich I have before mentioned. Mr. Nicholas in 
 this letter is used to denote the war minister of France, and in some 
 of the letters perhaps signifies France itself. It is plain that the 
 matter which the statement mentioned in this letter was to contain 
 was of the same nature with the paper drawn up in England, for it 
 refers to it and this was neither a law case nor an opinion on trade, 
 but a political discussion. You will perceive how little able this man 
 was, as I believe any man Avould be, to carry on a subterfuge of this 
 kind with success. He confounds the terms he uses, he mixes and 
 confuses characters and things, and he shews manifestly that he was 
 anything but Avhat he pretended to be. In this he says that he should 
 set out for Cork in a few days. Upon the same day Jackson put into 
 the post-oflice two copies of that State of Ireland called in his letter 
 a state of the case, and which has been four times read to you from 
 the record. I am not at present precisely informed, nor is it indeed 
 material in whose writing those copies are. One of these copies he 
 directed to go by Hamburgh, the other by Amsterdam. One of them 
 is in a cover mai-ked with a large cross on the outside exactly corres- 
 ponding with the instructions given to William Stone, put, as I am 
 instructed, on the paper by the prisoner himself. This is enclosed in 
 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 213 
 
 another covei* directed to Monsieur Dandebuscaille, at Amsterdam, 
 and tlien another cover encloses all, directed to Messrs. Texier, 
 Angely and Massac, at Amsterdam. All the superscriptions are by 
 Cockayne, and on the inside of the first cover are written these words, 
 " remember me to Laignelot and family," also in Cockayne's hand- 
 writing but dictated to him, as the superscriptions were, by the 
 prisoner. I shall not take up your time in reading this paper. It is 
 sufficient for me to state that it is a manifest disclosure to the enemy 
 of the supposed state of this country, inviting them to land on its 
 coasts and pointing out what was fit and necessary to be done by 
 them to effect that design. This evidence applies to both charges, 
 that of compassing the King's death and that of adhering to his 
 enemies, and is an overt act of each treason. The other copy of this 
 paper is enclosed in a cover marked without with a large cross, and 
 that is enclosed in a cover to Monsieur Chapeaurouge, at Hamburgh, 
 and in the first cover are written " remember me to Laignelot and all 
 friends." The cover is directed and these words written by Cockayne, 
 by Jackson's direction and in his presence. These superscriptions 
 you will observe, and it demands attention, accord precisely with the 
 addresses left with AVilliam Stone by Jackson when he left London. 
 The papers were put into the post-office, and there they were by 
 order of government intercepted. I have omitted to mention that 
 William Stone signed his letters to Jackson, W. Enots, which is 
 Stone reversed, a circumstance of much weight. Do innocent mer- 
 chants engaged in an ordinary mercantile ti'ansaction use assumed 
 names ? Why, if no treason in the correspondence, does Jackson 
 write himself Popkins and Stone reverse his name ? Mr. Jackson on 
 28th of April was arrested by a warrant fi'om my Lord Chief- Justice 
 on a charge of high treason. He intended on that day to have set 
 out for Cork, as he had mentioned in one of his letters to Mr. Stone. 
 The objects of his journey to Cork were first to examine the state of 
 the country, and next to procure some person to supply provisions 
 for the ruling powers in France. He was in bed at the moment of his 
 arrest, and by the bed side stood a table on which were several papers. 
 These papers were seized, and they will be laid before you, for we 
 wish you to be possessed of every circumstance that can elucidate the 
 subject ; among these was found the letter from Stone to Jackson and 
 also the letter from J. H. Stone in Paris to Tooke, speaking in the 
 sti'ongest terms of the intention of the French to invade this country. 
 There was also found a note from Rowan respecting the disappoint- 
 ment he received from the non-attendance of a third person at one 
 of their meetings, and a note fi'om Tone excusing hunself from his 
 attending. I shall not go more minutely into the nature of the 
 evidence at present. It will appear to you gentlemen of the Jury, 
 that the prisoner came from France to prociu-e intelligence to be 
 ! conveyed to the enemy, and that he did while here use his utmost 
 ' exertions to invite and excite the enemy to invade this country. 
 When you shall weigh and put together the circumstances that will 
 be proved, and compare the whole scope of the evidence, you cannot 
 be at a loss to determine what the object of this man's mission was, 
 and perhaps the dark nature of some of these papers will carry a 
 demonstration more striking than plainer terms. Thus gentlemen, I 
 
214 TRIAL OF 
 
 have stated the great outlines of this case, having no other view than 
 to render the evidence as it shall be offered, more intelligible. I have 
 studiously avoided all colouring and everything that can inflame the 
 passions. I have in acting thus, I hope discharged the duty I owe at 
 once to my King, my country and the prisoner at the bar, and I now 
 leave the matter on the whole of the evidence to you, being perfectly 
 convinced, gentlemen, that it is your inclination as it is your duty 
 to investigate the charge with the most minute attention, and that 
 you will bring in a verdict founded solely on the evidence, at once 
 remembering the duty that is due to the society in which we live, 
 and to the prisoner upon whose life you are shortly to pronoimce that 
 verdict. 
 
 The Attorney-General sat down, but rose to say that he ought 
 to have mentioned that Stone of Oldford was ai'rested in London soon 
 after the arrest of Jackson here, and that Jackson's letter of the 5 th 
 of April, and the paper of addresses was found among Stone's papers 
 in his house at Oldford.* 
 
 John Cockayne, examined by the Attorney-General. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How long have you known him? A. Ten years and upwards. 
 
 Q. Do you know where has his residence been for the last four 
 years? A. I believe in France. 
 
 Q. Your belief is not evidence ; did you ever hear him say where 
 he had resided ? A. I have heai'd him say that he had resided in 
 France latterly. I have missed him from England two or three years. 
 
 Lord Clonmel Can you ascertain from information given by the 
 
 prisoner, how long he had lived in France ? A. I cannot say ; I 
 know he went from England upon the Duchess of Kingston's 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General — When did he return last to England? 
 A. I cannot tell the very day he returned to England, but it was 
 some time in January or February, 1794. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you after his return where he had been ? A. He 
 said he had been in France. 
 
 Q. Did he say, whence he had come ? A. From France. 
 
 Q. How long did he remain in England on that occasion ? A. I 
 should think about two months, rather under than over. 
 
 Q. In what part of England do you reside ? A. I reside in Lyon's 
 Inn. 
 
 Q. Your profession ? A. An attorney. 
 
 Q. In what part of England did the prisoner reside ? A. He had 
 lodgings at the Buffaloe Tavern, Bloomsbury-square. 
 
 Q. Had you any intercourse with him during that time ? A. Con- 
 stant. 
 
 Q. Had you any reason to know upon what business or object he 
 was engaged during the time of his remaining in London, or what 
 brought him from Fi'ance ? A. I cannot particularly mark any period 
 to give a precise answer to that question ; if you point out any period 
 of time, I may answer you. 
 
 * Slone was tried for high treason and acquitted 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 215 
 
 Q. Did he employ you to do any business for him ? A. I did 
 something for him in his private, his mercantile aiFairs. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) What do you mean by his private affairs ? 
 A. I mean money matters ; in the capacity of a friend and an 
 attorney. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General When did he leave London ? A. The 
 
 latter-end of March, 1794, I think. 
 
 Q. Who accompanied him ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. How did you travel ? A. We came together, I think in the 
 mail-coach. 
 
 Q. Whither were you going ? A. We were destined for Dublin. 
 
 Q. Now Sir, what was your inducement to accompany the pri- 
 soner ? A. My inducement was to counteract any scheme or plan 
 that he had in agitation, as I thought that he had when I left Eng- 
 land, of providing France with necessaries and articles, which were 
 prohibited from being exported thither from this country. 
 
 Q. What reason had you to suppose he had such a scheme ? A. 
 Conversations which I had with him in England. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) What do you mean by prohibited articles ? 
 A. I do not know that I can specify what articles are or are not 
 prohibited, not having looked into the act, but I understand it to mean 
 provisions. 
 
 Q. How do yovi understand that? A. By conversations I had 
 with the prisoner. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Will you mention what those conver- 
 sations were that you have spoken of? A. I should find great 
 difficulty in answering you as to any one conversation ; I cannot 
 answer you with precision as to any one of them. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Mention the general purport of them. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — With great deference, I conceive that evidence of 
 this kind is not admissible — for a witness to state to the Court what 
 he supposes to be the genei'al purport of a number of conversations, 
 not one of which he declares he can state with any kind of precision. 
 I conceive that if a man is to be affected by anything that he says, 
 the Court and the Jury are to know what he says ; but this kind of 
 inference is not legal evidence, nor can any man be affected by a 
 general conclusion formed by a witness from conversations which the 
 witness does not pretend to state. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General This is new doctrine to me — the wit- 
 ness is going to say what was the general purport of the prisoner's 
 design-^(to the witness) you say you came from London accompanying 
 Mr. Jackson, to prevent, if you could, the intention you apprehended 
 he had of sending prohibited articles to France — did you collect that 
 intention from conversations you had with him ? A. I did. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — Well, since this evidence is pressed, I must call on 
 the Court to decide. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — He has not yet gone too far ; I think he says 
 that he understood it from conversations with the prisoner, none of 
 which he can pai'ticularly state : this is evidence, but it goes to his 
 credit. 
 
 Attorney-General — When did Mr. Jackson arrive in Dublin ? 
 A. I believe on the 2d or 3d of April. 
 
216 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Where did you lodge ? A. In Dame-street, at Hyde's coffee- 
 house. 
 
 Q. Were you invited to dinner anywhere shortly after your arrival ? 
 A. Yes, to Counsellor M'Nally's. 
 
 Q. Do you remember who the company were there ? A. A Mr. 
 Simon Butler, and / think a Mr. Lewins. 
 
 Q. Now ai-e you sure whether Mr. Lewins was there or not? 
 A. I am not certain whether he dined, but I am sure he was there in 
 the course of the day — / think. 
 
 Q. Did you see Lewins there that day ? A. If it was not that day 
 I saw him there, I did not see him there at all ; but / think I saw 
 him there. 
 
 Lord Clonmell,. — Recollect yourself — Did you see a man of the 
 name of Lewins there or not ? Come to that point. A. / think I 
 did, but I cannot positively swear ; but I saw him several times. 
 
 Q. Is Lewins a man of any profession ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Attorney- General. — Who else was there ? A. I do not recol- 
 lect any others. 
 
 Q. What, did you go alone ? A. No ; Mr. Jackson was there. 
 
 Q. Did he make any particular enquiries that day ; what was the 
 scope of the conversation ? A. The scope of the conversation was 
 general ; the common conversation at dinner ; it entered on politics 
 at last. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the particular conversation ? A. It is very 
 hard for me to answer with the precision with which I ought on oath 
 the particular conversations which took place among a set of men 
 who were, perhaps, drinking. I have not a veiy retentive memory. 
 
 Q. You say it turned on politics — what politics ? A. The general 
 politics of the day, and also the politics relative to the Irish nation. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect what passed relative to the Irish nation ? or 
 any part of that conversation as coming from the prisoner ? A. I 
 should have great difficulty in stating the precise words that Mr. 
 Jackson said, or Mr. M'Nally said, or Mr. Lewins said, or Mr Butler 
 said, for I cannot say what one said and what another ; but if it is 
 put to me to the best of my recollection what Mr. Jackson said, I will 
 answer. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY — I object to that evidence ; the distinction that I 
 make is this ; the witness cannot say that to the best of his recollection 
 Mr. Jackson said so and so ; he must swear that he did substantially 
 say so, and then he may speak to the best of his recollection what the 
 words were. 
 
 Attorney-General. — Can you recollect the substance and pur- 
 port of what Jackson said at that meeting ? A. I don't think that I 
 can answer that question. 
 
 Q. Do you say that you can't tell the purport of what 'Mi: Jackson 
 said at that meeting ? A. I cannot say precisely. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect the purport and substance of what Jackson 
 said ? A. Not of what Mr. Jackson in particvxlar said : I might 
 recollect the general purport of the conversation ; but I shall then 
 be in the opinion of the Court how far it affects the prisoner ; for I 
 cannot swear what ]\Ir. M'Nally said or what Mr. Lewins said or what 
 Mr. Butler said, they were all engaged in the conversation. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 217 
 
 Q. You said the conversation touched on the politics of the Irish 
 nation ; what politics ? 
 
 Mr. PoNsoNBY — I beg the witness may understand from the Court 
 that he must speak positively from his present recollection of the 
 subject of the conversation of the company, and that the prisoner 
 joined in the substance of such conversation, because otherwise it was 
 not the conversation of the prisoner. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — I feel it as you state it — either he must say what 
 it was substantially, or that there was a conversation substantially to 
 this amount. 
 
 Attorney-General, — You have said Jackson joined in the 
 conversation — in what respect did the conversation relate to Irish 
 politics ? A. I believe it went to the dissatisfaction of some part of 
 the kingdom with some measures. I am not of this country, my Lords, 
 and know but little of its politics — I have never troubled myself 
 about them, till this business brought me among them — I am afraid 
 I shall be found but a bad repeater of them. 
 
 Q. What dissatisfactions ? — recollect what further passed. A. It 
 
 went to the dissatisfaction of some part of the kingdom, and (a 
 
 pause). I cannot recollect at this moment — my spirits are so agitated 
 at this moment that I cannot recollect — I am very sorry to detain the 
 Court — I have really lost every idea of where I was. 
 
 Q. Were any other politics talked of? A. I don't believe there 
 were any. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any further conversation about politics ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN — I object to that question ; the witness has already 
 said there was no further conversation on the subject — the witness is 
 produced on the part of the Crown ; the answer to the question is 
 simple ; either he recollects or he does not ; but it is not usual to 
 assist his recollection by summing up what had gone before. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — I see not the • difference on what side he was 
 produced ; if you rely on the summing up of what he said before, 
 stand upon that. 
 
 Attorney-General — Do you recollect any conversation between 
 Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lewins at anv time ? A. At any time ? 
 Yes. . ^ 
 
 Q. Where and when ? A. At Hyde's coffee-house. 
 
 Q. In what chamber ? A. I believe in that where I slept. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect what that conversation was ? A. That was 
 as to Mr. Lewins asking Mr. Jackson for some written documents or 
 authorities, that he might produce them to Mr. Rowan, in order that 
 Mr. Rowan might with confidence talk to Mr. Jackson. 
 
 Q. Who is the Mr. Rowan you speak of? A. Mr. Hamilton 
 Rowan, I think they called him. 
 
 Q. AVhei-e was he at that time ? A. In Newgate. 
 
 Q. Can you tell whether Mr. Lewins and Mr. Jackson had any 
 conversation respecting Mr. Rowan before ? A. Cannot say to that. 
 
 Q. Did you not say that Mr. Lewins came to ask Jackson had he 
 any written document that he might produce to Rowan to convince 
 him he might talk with confidence ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. What answer did Jackson give to that request ? A. I believe 
 he gave him some paper. 
 
218 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did you see whether he gave any ? A. I cannot swear that I 
 saw him deliver the papers into his hand. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson tell you whether he had delivered them ? A. He 
 did tell me that he had delivered some papers to Lewins, and that he 
 wished he had them again. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you why he wished to have them again ? A. He 
 said he would not trust them with Lewins if he had them back. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you what those papers were ? A. He did not. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he ever got them back ? A. I believe 
 he did. 
 
 Q. Did he ever tell you whether he did or not ? A. Not directly 
 in those words. 
 
 Q. In what words then ? A. I can only say I believe he did get 
 them back again, but I cannot swear that Mr. Jackson said " Mr. 
 Lewins has given me these papers." I have eveiy reason to believe 
 that he did get them back. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect how soon after your arrival this conversation 
 was ? A. Can you tell me the date of our arrival ? 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General. — I am not to tell you anything. 
 
 Witness. — We arrived on the second or third, and I should suppose 
 it was four or five days after, but I can't speak positive. 
 
 Q. Had Jackson any interview with Rowan ? A. He had, 
 
 Q. When had he the first? A. Do you ask me in point of 
 date ? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — If you recollect how soon after the 
 conversation with Lewins ? 
 
 A. I believe a day or two after the conversation with Lewins ? 
 
 Q. You believe! A. I may have hurried myself in saying 
 
 believe ; I know that he had an interview. 
 
 Q. Were you present ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Had he none previous to that that you were present at ? A. I 
 believe he had ; if that be not evidence, I cannot say more. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson say he had an interview ? A. He told me he had 
 seen Mr. Rowan. 
 
 Q. That was before you were present ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. And either a day or two after Lewins called for the papers ? 
 A. It was. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson tell you what passed between him and Rowan at 
 that interview, or any part of it ? A. He told me he was much 
 satisfied with Mr. Rowan ; that his manners were very much those 
 of a gentleman. I recollect nothing more. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson tell you whether he was to see Rowan again or 
 not ? A. He said he was. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you when that meeting was to be, and what the 
 object of it was ? A. I don't think he said what it was — yes — he 
 said it was to breakfast. 
 
 Q. He did not tell you the object ? A. No, I think not. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you who was to be there ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did he go ? A. Yes, he went there certainly. 
 
 Q. How do you know ? A. I went with him. 
 
 Q. How soon was this after the first meeting ? A. AVithin the 
 compass of three or four days, or a week, certainly. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 219 
 
 Q. Was there any other person with Rowan Avhen you were there ? 
 
 A. I really believe — I can't speak positive, and I'll tell you why 
 
 there were two or three meetings, and I can't tell at which — there 
 was a relative of Mr. Rowan, I think his father or fathei--in-law. 
 
 Q. Did that relative continue during the whole time you were 
 there ? A. No ; he went away. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whether there was anybody else ? A. I 
 think Mr. Tone was there, I cannot positively swear. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what was the subject of the conversation 
 there ? A. It was on politics. 
 
 Q. What politics ? A. Irish aiFairs. 
 
 Q. In what respect ? A. A great deal was said about the United 
 Irishmen of which Mr. Rowan was a member ; some pamphlets were 
 read, and some other matters talked of between them — and there was a 
 conversation about the dissatisfaction of the people in some part of 
 the kingdom. 
 
 Q. Were you present at a meeting with Jackson and Row^an when 
 Tone was present ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Did you know, previous to going, who was to be there ? A. I 
 now begin to recollect, but I am not positively certain, Jackson said 
 Tone was to be there. 
 
 Q. Did you meet any person there ? A. I met Mr. Tone there. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Was that the first meeting or the second ? A. I 
 am not sure ; but at some meeting I met Mr. Tone there. 
 
 Q. Can you tell for what purpose Jackson went to meet Tone there, 
 or for what purpose he was there ? A. Mr. Jackson did not tell me 
 for what purpose he was to be there. 
 
 Q. Was there any other person present but Tone, Rowan, Jackson 
 and you ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Can you tell what was the purport of the conversation ? A. I 
 shall be very little able to complete an answer to that question, 
 because I did not particularly wish to make myself master of that 
 conversation in toto. 
 
 Q. Be pleased to inform the court what you do recollect of that 
 conversation. A. There was some paper produced, it was in the 
 hands of Tone and it was read by him and Rowan. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — Read aloud ? A. Not so loud that I could 
 understand it. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Did you see that paper again at any 
 time ? A. I had it once. 
 
 Q. Would you know it again ? A. I made no mark on it. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I did not ask you that. 
 
 Witness — If I were to see it I would make you an answer whether 
 I would know it or not ; before that I cannot give an answer. 
 
 Q. You read it ? A. No ; never. 
 
 Q. What conversation passed at the meeting where Tone was ? I 
 don't ask you the particular words. A. The conversation among the 
 three was the forming a plan, or talking of a plan, to send somebody 
 to France. 
 
 Q. Was any particular person mentioned to go on that errand ? 
 A. Mr. Tone was asked to go. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — What — to go ? A. To go. 
 
220 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General For what purpose was he to go ? A. 
 
 As I understood 
 
 Q. Did you understand from the conversation for what pui'pose 
 Tone was to go to France ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN It is impossible to sustain the question that is put, 
 
 in law — did he understand — it is not a legal question, and for one 
 reason as good as a thousand that it would be impossible to indict a 
 witness for perjury upon such testimony. 
 
 The Court You need not go further into the objection. (To 
 
 the witness.) Did you hear the conversation ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you understand it ? A. Yes, in part. 
 
 Q. How do you mean in part ? A. They were at one corner of 
 the room, and I in another with a book in my hand, and I did not 
 hear enough to state what they said. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General Do you know for what purpose Tone 
 
 was to go to France ? A. I cannot say, but from my own conjecture. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson ever tell you for what purpose Tone was to go ? 
 A. Never directly so ; but from what I understood and from 
 general conversations, I am well satisfied what the purpose was in 
 my own mind 
 
 Q. (The Court.) What did he say ? A. I cannot repeat it. 
 
 Q. What was the substantial import ? A. The substantial import 
 was that he was to go to France with a paper as I understand — those 
 papers I never saw. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Tone agree to go ? A. At one time he said he would, 
 at another time he receded ; he gave his reasons for agreeing to go 
 and for receding. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN Was Mr. Jackson present? A. At the reasons 
 
 that he first gave, Mr. Jackson was not present.- 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Where was it ? A. At Newgate. 
 
 Q. Had you a meeting with Tone and Rowan when Jackson was 
 not present ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Tone give any reasons for going or not 
 going when Jackson was present ? A, Yes Sir. 
 
 Q. Where was that ? A. At Newgate. 
 
 Q. Who was present ? A. Mr. Rowan, Mr. Tone and I. 
 
 Q. Was Jackson present ? A. I think he was. [This evidence 
 was objected to.] 
 
 Q. Were you at Rowan's lodgings at Newgate at any other 
 meeting than those you have mentioned ? A. How many have I 
 mentioned ? 
 
 Q. Did you ever see any other person besides Tone at Rowan's 
 lodgings in Newgate ? A. Yes, I saw Dr. Reynolds. 
 
 Q. Was Tone present at either of them ? A. Once he was. 
 
 Q. How often ? A. Once if not twice. 
 
 Q. Did you see him there more than once ? A. I think twice — 
 'tis a year ago, and I have had tliat on my mind since, that has 
 shattered my memory very much. 
 
 Q. Was Jackson i)resent at either of those meetings that Reynolds 
 was at ? A. I don't know how to swear positively — I think he was. 
 
 Q. Did you go alone to the meeting ? A. I can't tell — I was 
 alone more than once at Mr. Rowan's. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 221 
 
 Q. I ask you did you go alone to the meeting at which Dr. 
 Reynolds was present ? A. If I could have answered that question, 
 I would have saved you the trouble of repeating it. 
 
 Q. What conversation passed between Rowan, Reynolds and Tone 
 when you saw them together ? 
 
 [Counsel for the prisoner objected to this question, Jackson not 
 being proved to have been present.] 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with Jackson respecting Dr. 
 Reynolds ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. What was the substance of it ? A. The substance of it was, 
 as to his being a proper or an improper jDcrson to go to France. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) What did Jackson say on that subject ? A. 
 Mr. Jackson said he did not so much approve of him as of Mr. 
 Tone. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Did he tell you why ? A. I cannot 
 answer that he told me why — the reason why, I thought, I am con- 
 vinced 
 
 Q. Did Jackson tell you on what errand Reynolds was to have 
 gone ? A. The same of Tone's. 
 
 Q. What was that ? A. To carry some paper to France. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) How do you know ? A. Because the paper, 
 whatever it was, was drawn in Newgate while I was there. 
 
 Q. Do you know this from your own knowledge, or did Jackson 
 tell you ? A. I cannot say that he told me so in hcec verba. 
 
 Q. Can you tell substantially what you heard from the prisoner ? 
 A. In substance, it was, that he was to go to France with some 
 instructions to the French. It is veiy difficult to repeat conversations 
 with accuracy ; I have heard this in many alternate conversations 
 Avith Jackson, with Tone, with Reynolds and with Rowan. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — My client is to be affected by no conversation that 
 is not sworn to have been in his presence ; the witness says there 
 were some conversations at which he was not present, and therefore 
 it is necessary the witness should swear positively that Jackson was 
 present, when any thing respecting those instructions passed. 
 
 Witness Originally Tone was to have gone, but he left Dublin 
 
 abruptly without saying whether he would or would not go, and then 
 Mr. Rowan applied to Dr. Reynolds, I believe. If I am not point 
 blank in my answers, you will let me tell why I am not so, for I would 
 not leave the Court under the impression that I would wilfully con- 
 ceal any thing. 
 
 Q. Then Jackson told you that Reynolds was to go to France and 
 take a paper ; did you learn from him in conversation what that paper 
 was ? A. So many conversations we have had, that it draws me into 
 a maze which of them I shall think of. I was many Aveeks in com- 
 pany Avith the prisoner, and the subject was talked of repeatedly. I 
 cannot tell the precise words. 
 
 Q. You mistake me, I asked you of conversations in general 
 between you and Jackson. Did he ever tell you for what purpose 
 Reynolds was to be sent to France ? A. To take some written 
 paper with him, to the French Convention I believe ; I cannot say 
 positively. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson tell you at any time or in any conversation for 
 
222 TRIAL OF 
 
 what purpose Reynolds was to go ? A. I don't know how to answer, 
 there are so many answers to be given this question. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Did you draw any inference from these convei'- 
 sations for what purpose he was to be sent ? 
 
 Mr. CuRUAN. — I beg your lordship's pardon ; but the witness will 
 conceive that he has a right to give his own opinion in answer to that 
 question. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Did you understand unequivocally from those 
 conversations what he was to be sent for — did Jackson ever tell you 
 for what purpose, or to whom Reynolds or Tone were to go ? A. 
 They were to go to France. I cannot tell in what words to put my 
 answer — I cannot say to whom they were to go ; if I was to say one 
 person I might be wrong, for it was my own understanding of it. I 
 understood from general conversations constantly had, that they wei'e 
 to go with some papers to France. I cannot repeat Jackson's words, 
 my own words will be my understanding of his woi'ds. 
 
 Attorney- General. — The witness said he had already heard so 
 in alternate conversations with Jackson, Tone, &c. 
 
 Witness I adhere to that still. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — " With instructions for the French" — for what 
 purpose ? A. I shall there catch up what I said befoi-e — I under- 
 stood they were to have written instructions for the French, but what 
 they were I don't know. 
 
 Attorney-General. — To what part of France was the mes- 
 senger to go ? A. I understood they were to go to Paris. 
 
 Q. From whom did you understand that ? A. From them all. 
 
 Q. Did either Tone or Reynolds receive any encouragement to go ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q, Either Tone or Reynolds in your presence ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. By the prisoner and Rowan. 
 
 Q. What were the encouragements that Jackson held out to Tone ? 
 A. That he would find the French a generous and, I think, a brave 
 people — a generous people. 
 
 Q. Was there any thing in the conversation that led Jackson to 
 say that ? A. WTiat brought that speech from Jackson I presume, 
 was owing to the difficulties that Tone raised to his going. 
 
 Q. What were they ? A. A wife and family. 
 
 Q. Were there any others mentioned ? A. The loss of oppor- 
 tunities which might very likely arise from his remaining in this 
 kingdom. 
 
 Q. Did Jackson give Reynolds encouragement to go, or use any 
 persuasions ? A. Not much — ^lie did not like him ; he would rather 
 have had Tone. 
 
 Q. Do you know the hand-writing of the prisoner ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether he had correspondence while here with 
 persons out of this kingdom ? A. I do not know what letters he 
 wrote. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I did not ask you — did he write 
 lettei's ? A. I believe — I know — I remember his writing one. 
 
 Q. Was it in his own name, or under another signature ? A. I 
 cannot tell. 
 
 [Here the witness proved Mr. Jackson's hand- writing to the super- 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 223 
 
 scription of a letter, dated 5th of Api'il, 1794, and directed to Mr. 
 Stone. He also proved a second paper, (the paper of addresses 
 marked No. 2,) and a third in his (the witness's) hand- writing, dated 
 the 24th of April, 1794, and directed to Benjamin Beresford.] 
 
 Q. On what occasion did you write that lettei', or by whose direc- 
 tions ? A. By the prisoner's directions. 
 
 Q. "Was it your own composition or a copy. A. It was a copy. 
 
 Q. From what ? (a long pause.) A. From a letter in the 
 
 hand- writing of the prisoner. 
 
 Q. Who gave you that letter? A. The prisoner. 
 
 Q. Did you take a just copy ? A. I believe so. 
 
 Q. Whose hand-writing is the superscription ? A. Mine. 
 
 Q. What was done with it when you copied it ? A. It was con- 
 veyed to the Post-office. 
 
 Q. Who sealed it? A. The seal is so much defaced that I cannot say. 
 
 Q. At what time of the day did you get it to copy ? A. I believe 
 in the morning. 
 
 Q. And did you sit down immediately to copy it, or did you make 
 any other use of it ? A. I don't know whether I sent another copy of it. 
 
 Q. That is not the question — did you shew it to any person ? 
 A. If I shewed it to any body it was to Mr. Sackville Hamilton. 
 
 Q. Did you shew it to him ? A. I really believe so. 
 
 Q. Did you shew him any letter ? A.I think I carried the original 
 of that very letter to him — I verily believe I did : If I should swear 
 positively, and that it turns out otherwise, you will say that I have 
 said wrong. 
 
 Q. Then can you recollect that you carried any letter to Mr. 
 Hamilton ? A. I do recollect. 
 
 Q. Are you sure of that ? A. I am. 
 
 Q. Did you carry any other letter ? A. No, and for that reason 
 I think this was the letter. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) In whose hand-writing was the letter you 
 carried Mr. Hamilton ? A. In the prisoner's. 
 
 Q. Did you get the letter back ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did he deliver it immediately, or did you go again for it ? 
 A. I went again for it. 
 
 Q. What became of the original afterwards ? A. The prisoner 
 got it. 
 
 Q. Do you know what Mr. Hamilton did with the letter you 
 •shewed him ? A. He took a press copy of it — I think I was in the 
 room when he took it. 
 
 Q. Did you see him take a press copy of any letter ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Of what ? A. Of the original of this letter. 
 
 Q. Now did you bring the original of that letter to any body 
 before you returned it to the prisoner? A. I carried it back from 
 Mr. Hamilton to the prisoner, and did not shew it to any person in 
 the mean time. 
 
 Q. "WTio put the copy into the Post-office ? A. I don't know — it 
 w^as written in the presence of the prisoner, and sent to the Post- 
 office. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) By whose directions ? A. By the directions 
 of the prisoner. 
 
224 TRIAL OF 
 
 [A letter marked B. No. 4, dated 21st and 24th April, 1794, 
 
 produced.] 
 
 Q. Ill whose hand- writing is the superscription ? A. My own. 
 
 Q. By whose directions did you write it ? A. By the pi'isoner's. 
 
 Q. Was it put into the Post-office ? A. I do not know, and it is 
 necessary I should explain ; there were several letters sent by the 
 servants of the coffee-house, and some were put in by myself, and I 
 cannot tell which were which. 
 
 Q. Did you pvxt in any letters by the prisoner's directions ? A. 
 All that I put in were by his directions, but I cannot identify them. 
 
 [A letter marked C. No. 5, produced.] 
 
 Q. Whose hand-writing is the direction ? A. Mine. 
 
 Q. By whose directions did you superscribe that? . A. By the 
 prisoners. 
 
 Q. Look on that which is inside, was the cover sealed up when you 
 got it, or did you see the paper with the cross on it which is enclosed ? 
 A. I never saw it before ; do not understand me to say that I knew 
 that enclosure was within the cover I directed. 
 
 Q. Look at that second cover — whose hand- writing is that ? A. My 
 hand-writing. 
 
 [A letter marked D. No. 6, produced.] 
 
 Witness. — The superscription of the first outer cover is my hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Q. By whose directions ? A. By the prisoner's. 
 
 Q. Look on the second cover — whose is the superscription ? 
 A. Mine. 
 
 Q. Whose is the writing within ? — " Remember me to Laignelot 
 and family ?" A. Mine. 
 
 Q. By whose directions did you write them ? A. By the pri- 
 soner's. 
 
 Q. Then the first must have been open when you wrote them ? 
 A. It was. 
 
 Q. Were these done both on the same day or not ? A. I know I 
 did direct four or five on the same day, but I am not certain whether 
 I wrote these or not. 
 
 Q. Did the prisoner ever prevent you from going to the post-office 
 with letters ? A. No. 
 
 [The paper marked C. No 5, was produced again, and the writing 
 in the inside cover the witness acknowledged to be his hand- writing.] 
 
 Q. Did you see any letter directed to Home Tooke ? A. I did. 
 
 [A letter directed to Home Tooke produced.] 
 
 Q. Did you read it ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Would you know it again ? A. I would — [here the letter was 
 produced to the witness,] I believe that is the same. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY Are you sure it is the same ? A. It is very hard 
 
 to swear it is the same, but I verily believe it is the same. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. You have known the prisoner many years ? A. Yes. 
 Q. He is a clergyman ? A. Yes. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 225 
 
 Q. An Englishman ? A. I don't know ; I believe he is a native 
 of Ireland. I have always thought him an Irishman. 
 
 Q. You don't recollect whether Lewins was present at the first 
 meeting you were at ? A. I am not certain now. 
 
 Q. You have known Mr. M'Nally when he practised at the English 
 bar? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And so had Mr. Jackson ? Yes. 
 
 Q. He was counsel at Lord Hood's election, and you knew him 
 there, did you not ? A. I believe I saw him on the hustings there, 
 three or four times. 
 
 Q. It was in consequence of this acquaintance that he asked you to 
 dinner ? A. I do not know what his motive was. 
 
 Q. You had business to transact here ? A. I had several things 
 to transact here. 
 
 Q. And you applied to Mr. M'Nally ? A. Yes; he has done 
 some business for me. 
 
 Q. Must you not think that your recollection is very untenacious 
 as to what happened a year ago, when yeu cannot recollect whether 
 Lewins was at that meeting ? A. I cannot say positively, but I 
 verily believe he was. 
 
 Q. You said your memory had been somewhat shattered ? A. It 
 has been so, by this transaction. 
 
 Q. You have not stated how ? A. It grieves my mind more than 
 I can describe, to see that gentleman in that situation : It has made 
 much impression on me of late. 
 
 Q. Had you any feelings about yourself ? A. I ought to have had 
 them ; I have had a great deal of luieasiness. 
 
 Q. As to personal danger ? A. Yes — I more than once thought 
 my own person in danger.* 
 
 Q. Do you consider it out of danger now ? A. I think so. 
 
 Q. But are you sure, or is it only a general notion — what makes 
 you think so ? A. I do not see any one to offend me. 
 
 Q. To offend you ! Is there no particular fact on which you build 
 a good notion of your security ? A. No — I do not see any danger in 
 the country now ; it is not in that state I expected ; it is quite quiet 
 now, and therefore I was not afraid of coming. 
 
 Q. Now, did you conceive that the danger I alluded to was from 
 any disturbance in the country ? A. I did suppose so. 
 
 Q. Then you did not think that I alluded to any personal matter 
 of your own ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did nothing pass in your mind to lead you to think that I 
 glanced at it ? A. No — I feel no such thing. 
 
 Q. Do you not know at this moment that you were considered an 
 accomplice in this business ? A. I considered myself so, more than 
 the officers of the crown did. 
 
 Q. Do you not come forward to-day from a pure love of justice? 
 A. I come forward with very great reluctance. I am under a very 
 heavy recognizance, which I cannot possibly get over ; and it grieves 
 me to appear against a man with whom I have been so intimate. 
 
 Q. Did you always freely declare the evidence you would give on 
 this subject when you were interrogated ? A. I do not know with 
 
 * The Defenders intended to have murdered Cockayne. See Trial of Leary, post. 
 
 Q 
 
226 TRIAL OF 
 
 whom I have communicated in this particular way. "Whenever any 
 one asked me a question about it, I gave such answer as at the time 
 occurred to me to be right. 
 
 Q. What ! were you never examined before ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At the Castle. 
 
 Q. Did you state your evidence there freely and voluntarily? 
 A. Not so voluntarily, very likely, as might have been wished. I 
 gave the evidence, and signed the examinations which Lord Clonmel 
 prepared from my words. 
 
 Q. Did you do that voluntarily ? A. There was no force used ; I 
 wished not to do it. 
 
 Q. Was there no menace — no threat made use of? A. I believe 
 I hesitated about signing it as much as I could ; I believe Lord 
 Clonmel said I ought to recollect that I was in their power, as to 
 committing me, if I refused to sign it. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Recollect yourself. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Do — recollect yourself — and state what was said to 
 you touching the power of committing you. A. I hesitated in signing 
 the examination at first, which after I had been sworn by the Privy 
 Counsel, Lord Clonmel was so good as to modify once or twice, in 
 the way I proposed : still I hesitated, on the principle that I was 
 apprehensive I was an accomplice — I was pressed again and again — 
 I evaded signing it, and I believe Lord Clonmel's patience was in 
 some degree wearied by my delay, and he said, I think, " don't you 
 know that you are in our power." 
 
 Q. What — did you conceive the danger that you were threatened 
 with was, that you might be charged yourself with the crime ? A. I 
 thought so, and I think the Attorney- General did express his opinion 
 that I was not chargeable with it. 
 
 Q. You signed the examination there ? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Where then ? A. At Lord Clonmel's house. 
 
 Lord Clonmel Did you sign your examination the day you gave 
 
 it in ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How long had you to consider of it before it was signed ? A. I 
 had two or three days to consider it. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Another thing is of public consequence to be 
 known. Recollect yourself. When you talked of being in anybody's 
 power, was it for not signing the examination, or being threatened as 
 an accomplice if you did not sign ? A. For not signing the examina- 
 tion — and I have much thanks to express to your lordship for your 
 humanity in that business. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — You say you followed Jackson to Ireland in order 
 to counteract any schemes that he might have relative to sending 
 provisions ? A. I did ; I thought it my duty as a good subject, as 
 having taken the oaths of allegiance three times to the king ; and 
 that was my first reason for applying to government in England on 
 the subject. 
 
 Q. So your sole reason for undertaking this business was your 
 having taken the oaths of allegiance ? A. That was my sole reason 
 for my first application to government in England. 
 
 Q. To whom did you apply ? A. To Mr. Pitt. 
 
 Q. Jackson was your client at that time ? A. And had been so 
 for many years. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 227 
 
 Q. And your old friend ? A. And my old friend. 
 
 Q. Added to the duty of your allegiance, was there not some idea 
 of benefit to yourself? A. None. 
 
 Q. No expectation ? A. I did not exjDect anything, nor do I expect 
 anything. 
 
 Q. There was no promise made of any ? A. None by Mr. Pitt or 
 any person, except what I shall now state : what passed between me 
 and Mr. Pitt I feel it my duty to state if I am at liberty. I applied 
 to Mr. Pitt by letter, and acquainted him that there was in England 
 this Mr. Jackson, who had come here, I believed 
 
 Q. Sir, I was asking you about a reward. A. There was none 
 but this — when I stated the circumstances to Mr. Pitt, I mentioned 
 likewise that Mr. Jackson owed me a considerable sum of money on 
 the balance of an account : that if I interfered and should be a sufferer 
 thereby, I should think it hard as to that sum, which Jackson owed 
 me. 
 
 (By the Court.) To what amount was he your debtor ? A. About 
 £300. 
 
 Q. You mentioned that in your letter to Mr. Pitt ? A. No ; in a 
 conversation. 
 
 Q. The amount I mean. A. Yes; Mr. Pitt, I believe, made 
 answer — " You must not be a loser." 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN — What was the sum you told Mr. Pitt that he owed 
 you ? A. About £300. 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath was that the sum you mentioned ? A. I 
 think so ; the sum due to me Avas between £250 and £300. 
 
 Q. Did you never tell anybody that you named £600 to Mr. Pitt 
 as the debt ? A. Never to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. So you then came over to Ireland with Jackson ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You did not understand that you were to be paid this debt, in 
 case you survived Jackson as a loyal subject ? A. By no means as 
 you put it. 
 
 _ Q. Yet that was a very likely way to put it out of danger. A. I 
 did not think Mr. Jackson would ever be in the situation he is, or 
 that I would ever be brought here as an evidence. 
 
 Q. You are a practising Attorney in England ? A. Y''es. 
 
 Q- You expected no reward for your interfering in this matter ? 
 A. I expected to be paid my expenses in coming over here, as I 
 would be paid in any other matter whatever. 
 
 Q. So your evidence is, that you thought your old friend and client 
 was going to do wrong, and you left your ordinary business in England 
 to come here, to be a spy upon him for the ordinary expenses of any 
 other witness ? A. Yes, Sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever obtain a pardon ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Of Avhat ? A. Of all treasons and misprisions of treasons 
 committed in Ireland. 
 
 Q. Did you ever get a pardon for any treasons committed in 
 England? A. No. 
 
 Q. Were you originally a professional man ? A. I never followed 
 any other business. 
 
 Q. Did your pardon go to any conviction for perjury ? A. No ; I 
 believe not — I forgot, or I would have put it in my pocket. 
 
228 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Were you evei" tried for perjury? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Perjury in what ? A. In an affidavit that I swore. 
 
 (By the Court.) — When were you tried? A. In the year 1793. 
 
 Q. Now, by virtue of the oath you have taken, did you ever tell 
 anybody that that affidavit was in fact false ? A. I must apply to 
 the Court, whether I ought to answer that question ? 
 
 Q. The question is this, you have been indicted and tried for 
 perjury — now I ask, by virtue of your oath, did you confess since the 
 trial, that you were guilty of that offence. 
 
 (By the Court.) — You were acquitted ? A. Yes, and I hope 
 honourably. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Is that your name ? — (shews a paper.) A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You say you hope you were acquitted honourably ? A. I do 
 say so, and I hope I was. 
 
 Q. Now, I ask you, by virtue of your oath did you mention to any 
 person that that affidavit was in fact false ? A. I do not know how 
 to answer that (a laugh) it is not laughing matter — I do not know 
 how to answer it ! 
 
 Q. Why do you not know ? A. I have been acquitted on that 
 affidavit, and as honourably as any man could be. 
 
 Q. Did you say it was false ? A. My Lords, I think it will be 
 right for me to state some of the particulars of that indictment. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Let him answer my question. 
 
 Lord Clonmel I think he has a right to open the way for his 
 
 answer by any explanations — Take your course. Sir. 
 
 Witness. — The indictment for perjury against me was, because I 
 swore that I attended at the Prothonotary's otHce in the Temple from 
 one hour to another, it was in an action brought by an attorney of the 
 name of Fletcher against a client of mine ; he could not support the 
 action, and there was a summons to tax the costs ; there was some 
 dispute as to my charge for attendance. I swore — I liad attended at 
 the Prothonotary's office from six till seven on some business ; the 
 business was done in fact on the next day that my attendance was 
 made ; and the perjury was neither wilful nor corrupt ; it was that I 
 could not prove my attendance the complete hour — but the Court on 
 hearing that explanation, and seeing that I could gain nothing by it, 
 directed my acquittal, and the jury acquitted. There is a gentleman 
 of high lionour come here from England to vindicate me, and I hope 
 the Court will hear him. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Do you know Mr. Nailor ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell him that the affidavit was false in fact ? 
 A. I have already stated to the Court how far it was not true. I 
 incautiously swore that I attended an hour. I could not prove the 
 attendance for the whole hour — the business being done the next day, 
 as completely as if the attendance had taken place, and being no 
 advantage to me, or disadvantage to anybody else, I was acquitted. 
 
 Q. I ask you again, did you tell Nailor that the affidavit was not I 
 true ? A. I dare say I did, so far as I say now : I always admitted it, 
 and though I might have made two fatal objections to the indictment, I 
 would not suffijr )ny counsel to take advantage of them, because I was 
 resolved to be acquitted or found guilty on the merits ; there was a ■ 
 judgment stated, and they did not produce it ; Mr. Garrow, Avho was j 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 229 
 
 my counsel, immediately said it was fatal, and so Mr. Mainwaring, 
 the chairman said, but I would not take advantage of it. 
 
 Q. Had you ever any promise of reward from Mr. Pitt ? A. None, 
 but what I mentioned. 
 
 Q. Did you state to any one that you had ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you state to Mr. Nailor that you had ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you tell Nailor that you had told Mr. Pitt your debt was 
 £600 ? A. No, I would scorn it. 
 
 Q. You would scorn either to come, or to stay on any pecuniary 
 motive ? A. I would — and I call this the severest day to my feelings 
 that I ever saw. 
 
 Q. As to that debt of Jackson's — did you think he was likely to 
 pay it ? A. I did. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Had you any quarrel with the attorney, who 
 prosecuted that indictment ? A. No, he ran away a little afterwards 
 with one of the witnesses. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Do you know of any of the letters you put into the 
 office ? A. If you call for any one letter, I may answer you. 
 
 Q. Some of the letters you put into the office had one or two 
 envelopes ; did you know their contents ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor the person to whom they were addressed ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you know that there were any orders at the Post-office to 
 intercept those letters ? A. I do not know, but I believe there were 
 orders to intercept any letters that should be written by Jackson. 
 
 Lord Clonmel How soon did you hear of that ? A. As soon 
 
 as I came here. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — You knew that before you delivered any letters into 
 the Post-office ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you know it before you delivered that letter marked D. ? 
 A. I do not know that I did deliver that letter. 
 
 Q. Any that you did delivei-, you knew would be intercepted? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And as a good subject you put them in with intention that they 
 should be intercepted ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Then you did not put them in with any design that they should 
 go abroad at all ? A. I don't know what became of them afterwards. 
 
 Q. But you intended they should not go abroad ? • A. I do not 
 know how the Post-office disposed of them, I do not know that I had 
 made up my mind at all — I knew they would be intercepted — I could 
 not do it with that intention. 
 
 Q. Then you did not intend that they should go abroad to the 
 king's enemies ? A. Certainly no — I took care to prevent it as much 
 as possible. 
 
 Q. Nor that any encouragement should be given to the King's 
 enemies ? A. Certainly not. 
 
 Q. Nor that information should be given to the enemy? A. 
 Certainly not. 
 
 Q. Nor that war should be levied against the King in this kingdom ? 
 A. Certainly not. 
 
 Q. You said that you went sometimes to Mr. Kowan by yourself? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Why by yourself ? A. By the direction of Mr. Jackson. 
 
230 TRIAL OF 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Did Jackson know his letters were to be intei'- 
 cepted ? A. No. I believe not. 
 
 (Bj one of the Jury). "Was your sole business in coming to Ireland 
 to counteract the designs of Jackson ? A. I had some business of 
 my own to transact in Ireland, but that was my sole reason in accom- 
 panying Jackson. 
 
 Juror. — How comes it then that you have given so veiy poor an 
 account of him and of the different transactions ? A. I have given 
 the best account I could. I gave government as much information 
 as I could with regard to intercepting the letters, and did not expect 
 to be examined as a witness. 
 
 Sackville Hamilton Examined by the Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. "Were you in any office under government in 1794 ? A. I was 
 Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for the civil department in 
 the beginning of that year. I am not now in any public situation. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mr. Cockayne ? A. Yes. He brought me a 
 letter of introduction from Mr. Nepean the Lender Secretary in 
 England. 
 
 Q. Did he speak to you about any letters ? A. On the 25th April, 
 the day after the letters were intercepted, he asked me if they had 
 been intercepted. 
 
 Q. Did he shew you any paper ? A. He showed me a paper 
 purporting to be an original letter. 
 
 Q. Wlien he gave you that paper, what did you do with it ? A. I 
 took a press copy of it from a rolling-press which lay in the room. 
 
 Q. Have you tliat press copy ? A. Yes. It is not legible through- 
 out. 
 
 Here Mr. Curran objected that no part of the paper could be read, 
 it not being legible throughout, which point was conceded. 
 
 Isaac de Joncourt Examined by the Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. In what employment are you ? A. In the Post-office. 
 
 Q. Have you access to the letters in the office ? A. I have. 
 
 Q. What is yoiu' department there ? I am Deputy- Comptroller. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see that paper No. 3 ? A. Yes, I found it in 
 the office the night of 24th April. 
 
 Q. Wliat induced you to take notice of it ? A. I was ordered to 
 have attention to letters of that address. 
 
 (By the Court.) You found it in the usual place where letters are 
 deposited that are intended to be conveyed ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Your orders were from government ? A. They were. 
 
 Q. What were your directions ? A. To open all letters directed 
 to Mr. Benjamin Beresford. I had also orders to open several others. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see that paper No. 4 ? A. Yes. It is directed 
 to Lawrence and Co. 
 
 Q. Had you orders to open letters to that address ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. "Was there any enclosvire in it ? A. There was this directed 
 to Mr. Stone. I also stopped this letter (No. 5,) directed to Texier 
 Angely and Massac, at Amsterdam. There is an enclosure in that 
 to Monsieur Daudebuscaille and Co. No. 6, directed to Monsieur 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 231 
 
 Chapearouge, at Hamburgh. There is a sealed enclosure in it with 
 a cross on the back of it. 
 
 Q. Where did you find these letters ? A. I found them sealed in 
 the ordinary course in the same office. 
 
 Q. Did you find them aU on the same day ? A. Yes ; on the 
 24th April. 
 
 Q. What did you with them ? A.I gave them to Mr. Hamilton. 
 
 [Here the Clerk of the Crown read the papers marked A. and B. 
 
 as follows : — ] 
 
 (A) 
 A Monsieur Beresford chez. Bourcard and Co. Basle, Switzerland. 
 
 I Dublin, 24th April, 1794. 
 
 Sir, 
 You are requested to see 'Mr. Madgett directly, and inform him 
 that this evening two papers containing the opinion of the first counsel 
 in this kingdom relative to his family lawsuit are sent off to him by 
 the post. Mr. Madgett's friend has been wholly occupied since his 
 arrival here in obtaining those opinions, attending different consulta- 
 tions and collecting what is now sent as a real case in point. Your 
 brother-in-law with whom the friend of I^li*. Madgett here had fre- 
 quent conferences, approves the opinions as containing the opinions 
 of all good and honest lawyers on the subject. IMadgett may therefore 
 proceed for the recovery of his family fortune by hostile or pacific 
 means as he and his friends think proper. 
 
 I am, Sii', 
 
 Your humble Servant, 
 
 THOMAS POPKINS. 
 
 N.B. — Your brother-in-law has written to your wife in order to 
 find out the sex of your child. I am told that it is a veiy fine boy, 
 the picture of his father, sound in every part except the brain. 
 
 (B) 
 
 Messrs. Lawrence and Co. at their Coal "Wharf, Rutland Place, near 
 
 Blackfriars Bridge, London, enclosing a letter directed to IMr. 
 
 Stone. 
 
 Dublin, 21st April, 1794. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Yesterday your letters were delivered to me, I am glad to find 
 that the patterns I sent have reached the persons for whom they were 
 intended ; as from the silence of the parties I concluded that the 
 outriders had neglected the delivery of them. I do not see anything 
 in the late change of fashions which alters my opinion of the stability 
 of the new institution, particularly as the principal persons who 
 superintend it, I never have been able to detect in the slightest 
 deviation from the line of consistency. The rest have at all times 
 been suspected of sinister motives and tergiversation. 
 
 The state of manufactures in England which your friend drew out, 
 and which you so obligingly gave, is very just, as far as it related to 
 England ; but the principles of the people, with regard to trade, their 
 
232 TRIAL OF 
 
 opinion as to a change, to be brought about by industxy and co-oper- 
 ating exertion are so totally different, as to throw all comparison out 
 of the question. I am promised by a very eminent and sensible 
 manufacturer a statement of the manufacturing branches here which 
 will gratify you. 
 
 I shall obey the instructions of your sister-in-law, by not writing 
 to her, which does not however preclude me from requesting, that 
 when you write you will remember me in the most affectionate manner 
 to her and Mr. Nicholas. Let them know whei*e I am, and that I am 
 doing everything in my power to serve Mr. Nicholas, and give him 
 satisfaction in bringing his affairs to the issue he wishes. His friends 
 here have it in agitation to send a person, on whom his family and he 
 can depend, to him with copies of such covenants and leases, as will 
 shew the readiness of his sister-in-law here to come immediately to 
 terms with him ; and I shall advise a junction of interest, rather than 
 a tedious Chancery suit. I wish you would copy this part of my 
 letter and send it to him ; a few days will decide whether the person 
 goes or not ; if he should, he will go from me and the family here 
 with full power to treat with Mr. Nicholas, finally settle the terms, 
 and thus put an end to enmity and litigation. I am sure the medium 
 of a third person is all that is wanting to bring the parties perfectly 
 to accord. The sister-in-law is admirably disposed to a reconciliation. 
 I hope this will be effected, as one interview is better than a thousand 
 letters. If the person should go, Mr. Nicholas must receive him as 
 he deserves, and treat him as he will merit. I had written the above 
 during the negociation with a person to go to Mr. Nicholas. He has, 
 this morning the 24th of April, decided that his private affairs will 
 not permit him. I shall therefore send a statement of the family 
 expectations and situation here drawn up by as eminent a pleader as 
 the gentleman who composed the paper in England. 
 
 I shall set out for Cork in a day or two, from which place you shall 
 hear from me ; and should you receive any intelligence from or oi 
 our friends, I intreat you to communicate it to me under cover to 
 John Cockayne, Esq., to be left at the Post-office, Cork. I wish you 
 would write the first post day to your sister-in-law, and desire her to 
 inform Mr. Nicholas, that to-morrow I send off two letters for him 
 from his friends here, containing opinions thoroughly considered and 
 well digested by the first counsel here ; as such he may shew them, 
 and the family may act accordingly. As my time has been wholly 
 employed in collecting them, and as they come from the first and most 
 enlightened sources, let your sister-in-law desire Mr. Nicholas to look 
 out for them as matters of consequence : they contain the i*eal state 
 of the case. 
 
 I sincerely wish you happiness, and that of your family, and am 
 truly, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 THOMAS POPKINS. 
 
 Do not fail to communicate to Mr. Nicholas by the means of your 
 sister-in-law what I have written. 
 
 Thomas M'Lean — Examined by Mr. Frankland. 
 Q. What is your business ? A. I am one of his Majesty's messengers. 
 
THK KEV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 233 
 
 Q. Where do you reside ? A. In London. 
 
 [A paper was then produced to him.] 
 
 Q. Did you find that anywhere ? A. Yes, in the possession of 
 William .Stone, of Oldford in Middlesex. 
 
 Q. On what occasion ? A.I was sent with Lauzun another 
 messenger, to take him into custody, and we found it in a drawer in 
 his room at his house in Oldford. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Ponsonby. 
 
 Q. Did you find that letter in Ireland ? A. No : it was found at 
 Oldford in England. 
 
 [This letter. No. 2, was then otfered to be read.] 
 
 Mr. Ponsonby I object to this letter being read in evidence, 
 
 because it was not found in the prisoner's custody ; because it was 
 not found in the county in which the treason is laid in the indictment. 
 But it is found in another kingdom, and therefore cannot be read 
 here. In Hensey's case, I Bur.,* Lord Mansfield said, " It is certain 
 that some one overt act must be proved in the county, where the in- 
 dictment is laid : indeed if any one be so proved in that county, it will 
 let in the proof of others in other counties." But it is not asserted nor 
 can it be supported, that papers found in another kingdom can be read. 
 Lord Clonmel. — We think they ofier it too soon : They must 
 prove their overt acts, and then read this paper by way of aggravation. 
 Mr. Fran KL AND. — We ofier this paper in evidence in order to 
 confirm the other evidence we have offered, and mean to give to 
 establish the overt acts. Here is a paper in the hand-writing of the 
 prisoner, and it cannot be contended that papers in his hand-writing 
 are not admissible- 
 Lord Clonmel. — Suppose a letter had gone to France, to which 
 place it had been directed, and was found there, could it not be read 
 here ? — beyond a doubt nothing is more certain than that scrihere est 
 agere in treason. 
 
 Mr. Ponsonby. — My Lords, that rule is to be taken with restric- 
 tions, and never was laid down absolutely but in Algernon Sidney's 
 case,f whose attainder was reversed by act of parliament ; and Judge 
 Foster says, J the rule is true with proper limitations,- and from his 
 observations the rule does not apply in this case. 
 
 * Howell's State Trials, vol. 19, p. 1345; and 1 Burr 647 : 3 Starkie Evidence, 
 1097. Stone's Case, 6 Term Reports, 527. 
 
 t Howell St. T. vol. 9, p. 817- The grounds of the reversal of the attainder 
 in Sydney's ease were these : — An illegal return of jurors ; the denial of lawful 
 challenges for want of freehold ; the insufficiency of legal proof to establish the 
 charge of treason ; that a paper found in Sydney's closet, supposed to be his 
 hand-writing, was not proved by the testimony of any of the witnesses to have 
 been written by him, &c., 2 Phillips State Trials, 111. Mr. Phillips remarks — 
 " On the subject of these writings, the strong and decisive objection against their 
 admissibility is that before-mentioned (which it is remarkable is not noticed in the 
 act of reversal), namely, that they were not proved to be connected with any 
 design, or in any manner to relate to the treasonable practices charged in the 
 indictment. If they had been written by Sydney, relative to those treasonable 
 practices, they might have been read in evidence against him though they had 
 never been published." 
 
 X Foster 198. 
 
234 TRIAL OF 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — What use do the counsel for the Crown make of 
 this paper? 
 
 Mr, Attorney- General. — My Lords, the overt act laid is, that 
 the prisoner encouraged the enemies of the King, and adhered to them, 
 and that he compassed the death of the King. Then the proof to 
 establish the charge is this, that two papers were sent, directed in the 
 terms, and enclosed in the envelopes your Lordships have seen. If 
 we shall prove that these letters were sent to the Post-office for the 
 purpose attributed to them, then the fact will be established. We 
 have proved them to have been written by Cockayne under the 
 directions of the prisoner ; that they were addressed to persons at 
 Amsterdam and Hamburgh. In order to give further scope and 
 effect to that evidence, and to prove that those letters were intended 
 to be sent abroad we offer another paper in evidence to shew, that 
 Jackson, having a correspondence with persons abroad, did send this 
 letter to Stone in England (with whom we have proved he had also 
 a correspondence) informing him of his arrival in Ireland, and stating 
 in another, that the goods and wares were arrived, shewing that 
 Stone was the medium through which the correspondence passed. 
 We do not mean to give this letter as a substantive evidence standing 
 alone by itself, but going with the others in support of the charge. 
 With regai-d to the rule of evidence, papers in the prisoner's hand- 
 writing are not to be disputed. If it were necessary that they should 
 be found upon him, all the letters stopped in the Post-office, upon 
 which persons have been hanged, Avere improperly received. The 
 distinction is that if the paper be not in the party's hand-writing, it 
 must be found in his possession to connect it with his intention. This 
 paper is not offered as evidence of an overt act, but as evidence coming 
 from the party accused, and offered to be used concurrent with other 
 pieces of evidence to support the overt act, and when it shall be read, 
 we shall be at liberty still further to confirm them all, and therefore 
 unless some case be cited, which we are not apprized of, upon the 
 argument, and principle, this evidence ought to be received and the 
 paper read. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — My Lords, I submit, that this paper should not 
 be read. This like every other thing offered in evidence, is legal 
 evidence, or it is not ; — there is no such thing in offering evidence to 
 a court, as saying, it is part of the evidence to prove the overt act, to 
 go connected with others, so as to make all together legal evidence. 
 But it must be legal in the first instance. If the gentlemen are to 
 establish the overt act by nine pieces of evidence, every one of them 
 ought to be admissible evidence in point of law, because after the 
 nine are received, they are not to say, that all of them taken together 
 will make legal evidence. This paper is not proved to have been 
 published by the prisoner, neither Avas it within the kingdom of 
 Ireland, much less in the county where the prisoner is indicted.* See 
 what the distinction was in Lord Preston's case.f He and two others 
 had procured a smack to carry them away ; their papers were seized ; 
 among the papers was found a scheme to lay before the King of 
 
 * 1 East P. C. 102, 104, 125; 3 Starkie 1097, last edition, 
 t 12 Howell St. Tr. 72(i. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 235 
 
 France. It was insisted that no overt act was proved, but his taking 
 boat in Middlesex ; the papers were not seized in Middlesex, and 
 were therefore not sufficient to prove any overt act in that county. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — Lord Preston was taken in Kent ; the 
 paper was found in Kent : he was tried in Middlesex, and the overt 
 act was laid there ; the Court did not stop evidence arising in Kent 
 from being given in Middlesex. He took boat in Middlesex, and 
 that was connected with the transaction in Kent. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY — I submit that the Court did establish the point I 
 contend for, because it was from the circumstance of his taking boat 
 in Middlesex that made it competent to the Crown to produce evidence 
 of papers found in Kent. The Court excluded everything done in 
 Kent, and said, that his having the papers upon him in Middlesex, 
 and taking boat there, justified the admission of the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — There is nothing in the report to shew 
 that the papers were in his possession, when he took boat in Middlesex. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — See what the evidence is. Assimilate it to the 
 King V. Hensey. This is either introductory evidence, or corroboi'a- 
 tive. Introductory of what ? — to evidence of one of the overt acts 
 laid in the indictment — applicable either to the charge of adhering to 
 the King's enemies, or compassing the King's death. How then does 
 it come before the Court ? The overt act is, that this man gave 
 information by letter to the King's enemies to invade this country ; 
 they prove a letter from him to a correspondent in a masked language, 
 as they say ; the prisoner may explain it, and shew that a real 
 transaction subsisted. This letter is to shew an intercourse and 
 correspondence between Stone and the prisoner at the bar. A letter 
 has been proved in the same sort of language, all in the hand- writing 
 of the prisoner, with certain marks and cyphers, explanatory of what 
 was the intercourse between them. This is introductory of evidence 
 bearing upon the charge in the indictment. Can it be denied to be 
 the hand-writing of the prisoner, or that it was directed by him. I 
 know not what the contents of it are. But it is a paper in the hand- 
 writing of the prisoner, and found in the possession of his correspondent, 
 to whom he wrote. 
 
 Mr. PoNsoNBY. — I am sensible of the observations of the Court. 
 But my Lords, this is a mere unpublished paper, unconnected with 
 any circumstance to give it authenticity. No act appears to have 
 been done, and with regard to papers written, they are only to go in 
 evidence where the rule can apply of scribere est agere, where anything 
 has been done to carry it into effect. But here it is found in the 
 possession of a third person, and there is no evidence to show how he 
 came by it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes — I do not see a necessity for adding a word 
 to what my Lord Clonmel has said. This evidence is introductory 
 and it is also corroborative of what Cockayne said. I do not feel the 
 objection as having any Aveight, that it is out of the county, or in 
 another kingdom. It is not to prove the overt act itself that this 
 letter is offered : — the overt act must be proved in the county ; but 
 that being done, evidence in other counties may be admitted, otherwise 
 in Lord Preston's case they would have excluded everything but 
 what could have been proved in IMiddlesex. 
 
236 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — I do not consider the evidence now 
 offered, as evidence of an overt act, but explanatory of that, which 
 pi'oves the overt act. Two papers have been proved, and this is 
 produced to shew, quo animo, the former were written. They are 
 marked with a cross and other emblems, and this letter is offered to 
 shew the prisoner's intention in sending those others. To say, that 
 letters or papers found in one place to explain the intention of the act 
 done in another, could not be admitted, would be dangerous. Lord 
 Pi'eston's case is a sti'ong one, because there the evidence found in 
 Kent was admitted to shew quo animo he took boat in Middlesex. 
 This paper is in the hand-writing of the prisoner, and the only 
 question is whether it may not explain the intention of his conduct in 
 Ireland. 
 
 [Here was read the paper, No. 2.] 
 
 A Cross f 
 
 To Monsieur Daudebuscaille. 
 
 (The outward cover.) 
 
 To Messrs. Texier, Angely et Massac, 
 
 a' Amsterdam. 
 (The inside cover.) 
 
 A Cross f 
 (Outward cover.) 
 
 To Mr. Chapeaurouge, 
 
 Merchant, 
 
 Hamburgh. 
 
 (To each is added a recommendation to forward the inclosed.) 
 
 Edward Lauzun — Examined by Mr. Frankland. 
 
 Q. Do you hold any employment? A. I am one of his Majesty's 
 messengers. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see that paper ? — (shewing him a letter. No. 1 .) 
 A. Yes, I found it in the apartment of William Stone, at Oldfoi'd. 
 
 [Here read the paper No. 1.] 
 To Mr. William Stone, London. 
 
 Dublin, 5th April, 1794. 
 Dear Sir, 
 Owing to a variety of incidents, which I will explain when I have 
 the pleasure of seeing you, I have been prevented writing until the 
 present moment. Some very excellent friends, to whom I owe most 
 singular obligations, being apprized of my arrival, have endeavoured 
 to render me service — and, were their power equal to their wishes, I 
 am confident I should experience the benefit of their good intentions : 
 Accepting, as I do, the Avill for the act, they have a claim on my 
 gratitude. 
 
 I must request you not to make use of any of the addresses I left 
 you, the price and nature of the article being entirely changed. 
 
 You will have the goodness to enclose your letter or letters to me, 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 237 
 
 under a cover thus directed — John Cockayne, Esq., Hyde's Coffee- 
 house, Dame-sti'eet, Dublin. 
 
 Pray write immediately. 
 
 I request, my dear Sir, that you will dedicate an instant, on the 
 return of the post, in acknowledging the receipt of this letter ; and if 
 you have any letters from the family at Shields which regard their 
 affairs in this country, you cannot too soon enclose them to me, as the 
 assizes at Cork are about to commence. 
 
 In the course of a very few days, I will give you some information 
 respecting the bills which you commissioned me to present. 
 
 I hope your lady enjoys better health, and with very sincere wishes 
 for her and your happiness, I request you to believe me your real 
 friend, 
 
 THOMAS POPKINS. 
 
 Oliver Carlton. — Examined by the Attokney-Genekal. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prisoner ? A. Yes. I assisted in arresting 
 him on a warrant from Lord Clonmel for high treason. 
 
 Q. Where did you arrest him ? A. At Hyde's coffee-house. 
 
 Q. In what part of the house ? A. Up two pair of stairs, back, in 
 bed. 
 
 Q. At what time ? A. Ten in the morning, 28th April. 
 
 Q. Did you find any papers in the room ? A. I found several 
 papers on a table and others in a trunk in the room where he slept. 
 
 [The papers marked E. F. G. L. N. O. shewn to the witness.] 
 Q. Do you know these papers ? A. Yes. I found these on Mr. 
 Jackson's table. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Ponsonby. 
 
 Q. Was the door shut ? A. It was shut, but not locked. 
 
 Mr. Frankland We will prove a letter written by Mr. Stone, 
 
 addressed to Mr. Thomas Popkins. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I object to this evidence; my doubt is as to reading 
 a letter, merely because it was found in the chamber where Mr. 
 Jackson was in bed ; it is not in the hand- writing of Mr. Jackson. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant This letter Avas found on Mr. Jackson's 
 
 table, and it is proved that he was the Mr. Thomas Popkins directed to. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-Gener.ax Besides, the letter to which this was 
 
 an answer, was found on Stone. 
 
 The Court You need not trouble yourself: it is good evidence.* 
 
 Q. (By a Juror.) AVas there another bed in the room ? 
 
 Witness. — No. 
 
 Mr. Jackson Sir, there was another bed in the room. 
 
 Witness If there was, I did not observe it. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Did the prisoner at the bar say any 
 thing about those papers ? A. He was very much agitated — he 
 jumped out of bed and ran about the room in great confusion — he 
 said he did not care about any but one particular paper ; and he asked 
 me what right I had to take his papers ; I told him my authority ; 
 that I had a Judge's warrant. 
 
 * Fost. 196; Hensey's case, 1 Burr. 644; Tooke's ease, East, P. C. 119; 
 Stone's case, 6 T. R. 527. 
 
238 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Jackson — I beg leave to ask this question. In the first 
 place, the witness is wrong as to the fact of the bed. Now, let me 
 ask you, did I, or did I not, when you were taking the papers, volun- 
 tarily say, there is the key of my portmanteau — take it ? A. You 
 did. 
 
 Mr. Jackson — You regarded two closets, and said you would 
 have them open ? A. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Jackson — And I opened them for you ? A. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Attokney-General — Were any of the papers you have 
 
 now seen, in that trunk that you have mentioned ? A. No the 
 
 papers there, were of no significance, I think 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Do you not believe that that paper which Mr. 
 Jackson expressed such anxiety about was a family paper, and entirely 
 of a private nature ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — Mr. Attorney knows that there was such a paper 
 among those that came vnider his inspection. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, — I do not know — there were some 
 papers that related to private affairs, and I believe they have been 
 returned, or at least not examined. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Was there among them a paper that could raise 
 anxiety in the prisoner ? 
 
 Attorney-General — I think thei'e was one that reasonably 
 might raise some anxiety in him. 
 
 Reuben Smith. — Examined by Mr. Attorney-General. 
 
 Q, Do you know Mr. Stone of Oldford ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Have you seen him write ? A. Yes, frequently. 
 
 Q. Look at that paper (shews witness a paper) whose hand- writing 
 is that ? A. I believe it is the hand- writing of Mr. Stone of Oldford 
 and of Rutland-place. 
 
 Q. Look at the signature — whose hand- writing is it? A. The 
 signature is the name of Stone reversed ; but I think the words W. 
 Enots are Mr. Stone's hand- writing. 
 
 Q, Whose hand-writing is the body of the letter ? A. Mr. Stone's. 
 
 [The Clei-k of the Crown then read this letter (marked L) as follows :] 
 
 Mr. Thomas Popkins. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I yesterday received yours of the 5th inst. I am happy you find 
 yourself so agreeably situated where you are. I have received no 
 letter for you, but the day after you left me, I received one to say 
 your first letters were received. I have received another since, in 
 which mine was acknowledged which I wrote the post after Gillet 
 was with us, but no mention was made of any other. 
 
 I have not made use of what you left with me. What a wonderful 
 change there is in the family. Will it tend to good ? I confess I 
 think better of it now than before. I want what you possess a 
 knowledge of the several branches of it to form a proper judgment of 
 the conduct in the last fracas. 
 
 Political affairs seem taking a great turn if we take into our view 
 the great whole. I cease to wonder at anything, we seem I think to 
 be the only party resolved to go on with vigour. The King of 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 239 
 
 Prussia publicly avows his disinclination, and I think the French as 
 well as the Emperor shew it by their inaction ; but to what can the 
 proscription now going forward in Paris tend, will it purify them and 
 make their conduct less exceptionable and their government more 
 fixed and permanent. I really feel a kind of awe in thinking on those 
 subjects, and see every day new matter to astonish me. 
 We are all tolerably well, and I remain. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 W. ENOTS. 
 April 11th, 1794. 
 
 P.S. — Since writing the above, I have received a letter in which 
 is, " I have received our friends letters, and you must tell him, that 
 having given them to the proper people, he must in future address his 
 friend Nicholas and not me ;" and in the conclusion he particularly 
 I'equests he may not be written to. 
 
 I feel particularly happy that the several letters have been received, 
 and I trust that even in the peculiar circumstances of the family they 
 will produce proper effects. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — "We shall now read the paper. No. 5, 
 there are two covers, both directed by Cockayne ; the first is directed, 
 " A Messrs. Texier, Augely et Massac, A Amsterdam." Within this 
 is enclosed a second cover directed, " A Monsieur M. Daudebuscaille, 
 A Amsterdam" — and within this is the paper which we shall now 
 read, enclosed in a cover marked on the outside with a large black 
 cross, and within Avhich is written, " Remember me to Laignelot and 
 all our friends." 
 
 [The Clei'k of the Crown then read this paper (marked C) as follows :] 
 
 The situation of Ireland and England is fundamentally different in 
 this — the government of England is national, that of Ireland provincial. 
 The interest of the first is the same with that of the people — of the 
 last directly opposite. The people of Ireland are divided into three 
 sects ; the Established Church, the Dissenters, and the Catholics ; the 
 first infinitely the smallest portion, have engrossed besides the whole 
 church patronage, all the profits and honours of the country exclu- 
 sively, and a very great share of the landed property.' They are of 
 course aristocrats, adverse to any change, and decided enemies of the 
 French Revolution. The Dissenters, which are much more numerous, 
 are the most enlightened body of the nation, they are steady republicans, 
 devoted to liberty and through all the stages of the French Revolution, 
 have been enthusiastically attached to it. The Catholics, the great 
 body of the people, are in the lowest degree of ignorance, and are 
 ready for any change, because no change can make them worse. The 
 whole peasantry of Ireland, the most oppressed and wretched in 
 Europe, may be said to be Catholic. They have within these two 
 years received a certain degree of information and manifested a 
 proportionate degree of discontent by various insurrections, &c. They 
 are a bold, hardy race, and make excellent soldiers. There is nowhere 
 a higher spii'it of aristocracy than in all the privileged orders, the 
 clergy and gentry of Ireland, down to the very lowest, to countervail 
 which, there appears now a spirit rising in the people which never 
 existed before, but which is spreading most rapidly as appears by the 
 
240 TRIAL OF 
 
 Defenders as tliey are called, and other insurgents. If the people of 
 Ireland be 4,500,000, as it seems probable they are, the Established 
 Church may be reckoned at 450,000, the Dissenters at 900,000, the 
 Catholics at 3,150,000. The pi-ejudices in England are adverse to 
 the French nation under whatever form of government. It seems 
 idle to suppose the present rancour against the French is owing merely 
 to their being republicans ; it has been cherished by the manners of 
 four centuries and aggravated by continual wars. It is morally 
 certain that any invasion of England would unite all ranks in opposi- 
 tion to the invaders. In Ireland, a conquered, oppressed and insulted 
 country, the name of England and her power is universally odious, 
 save with those who have an interest in maintaining it : a body 
 however only formidable from situation and property, but which the 
 first convulsion would level in the dust ; on the contrary, the great 
 bulk of the people of Ireland would be ready to throw off the yoke in 
 this country, if they saw any force sufficiently strong to resort to for 
 defence until arrangements could be made ; the Dissenters are enemies 
 to the English power from reason and from reflection, the Catholics 
 from a hatred of the English name ; in a word, the prejudices of one 
 country are directly adverse of the other, directly favourable to an 
 invasion. The government of Ireland is only to be looked upon as a 
 government of force, the moment a superior force appears, it would 
 tumble at once, as being founded neither in the interests nor in the 
 affections of the people. It may be said, the people of Ireland shew 
 no political exertion. In the first place, public spirit is completely 
 depressed by the recent persecutions of several. The Convention act, 
 the Gunpowder, &c. &c. Declarations of government, parliamentary 
 unanimity, or declarations of grand juries, all proceeding from 
 aristocrats, whose interest is adverse to that of the people, and who 
 think such conduct necessary for their security are no obstacles ; the 
 weight of such men falls in the general welfare, and their own 
 tenantry and dependants would desert and turn against them ; the 
 people have no Avay of expressing their discontent civiliter which is 
 at the same time greatly aggravated by those measures, and they are 
 on the otlier hand in that semi-barbarous state which is of all others, 
 the best adapted for making war. The spirit of Ireland cannot 
 therefore be calculated from newspaper publications, county meetings, 
 &c. at which the gentry only meet and speak for themselves. They 
 are so situated that they have but one way left to make their senti- 
 ments known, and that is by war. The church establishments and 
 tythes are very severe grievances, and have been the cause of 
 numberless local insurrections ; in a word, from reason, reflection, 
 interest, prejudice, the spirit of change, the misery of the great bulk 
 of the nation, and above all, the hatred of the English name resulting 
 from the tyranny of near seven centuries, there seems little doubt but 
 an invasion and sufficient force would be supported by the people. 
 There is scarce any ai-my in the countiy, and the militia, the bulk of 
 whom are Catholics, would to a moral certainty refuse to act, if they 
 saw such a force as they could look to for support. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General The other letter directed to Hamburgh, 
 
 is in the same words with this ; Ave have also proved two other papers 
 ill the same words, found on Mr. Jackson's table. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 241 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Read part of each of those papers found on 
 Jackson's table ; let their identity appear in proof. 
 
 [The Clerk of the Crown read part of each of the papers marked 
 (U) and (E) accordingly, wliich appeared to be counterparts of the 
 paper marked (C) and (D) directed to Monsieur Chapeaurouge, a 
 Hamburgh. (E E) two copies found on Jackson's table.] 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — We will now prove the paper found 
 by Mr. Oliver Carleton on Mr. Jackson's table, which is The State 
 of England that has been so much alluded to. 
 
 [Hei'e the Clerk of the Crown read the letter marked (F) as follows :] 
 
 Exclusive of positive information of the temper of the country, it 
 may be known by people at a distance by the following signs : 
 
 There are no petitions against the Avar. 
 
 There are courtly verdicts given by juries with few exceptions. 
 
 There are no mobs, though much distressed. 
 
 There is much readiness to enlist as soldiers. 
 
 There is much quietness in being impressed on the part of seamen. 
 
 The votes of parliament are neaxdy unanimous, though the parlia- 
 ment has run through half its length, and the members of the house 
 of Commons look to their re-election. 
 
 The stability of Lord Chatham contines in defiance of all his 
 neglects. 
 
 Terror pervades the friends of liberty who would soon shew a 
 different appearance if they were countenanced by the majority of 
 the people. 
 
 The temper of England is in favour of the first French Revolution 
 but not of the second. However, on the whole it shews symptoms of 
 being adverse to the present situation of the Avar, not from disliking 
 its principle, but from seeing little profit in it. At the same time, 
 though they think its main object unattainable (namely the overthrow 
 of the present French system) they Avould be moi'e earnest for peace 
 had they either suffered enough, or did they think the present French 
 Government sincerely disposed to peace. 
 
 There are many persons attached to the principles of the French 
 Revolution in England, if they are reckoned numerically, but they 
 are as nothing compared to the great mass of the people Avho are 
 indisposed to them. 
 
 In Scotland the proportion of Democrats is increasing, but they are 
 as yet a small minority. 
 
 Ireland will follow the Democracy of Scotland, each of these 
 countries wants time only to con\'ince itself in its OAvn Avay, but it 
 Avill not be convinced by a French in\'asion. 
 
 If France Avere to invade England CA'Ciy man Avould turn out 
 from good will or from fear, and the few who are discontented Avould 
 be quelled Avith ease, as the French citizens were by La Fayette in 
 the Champ de Mars, or the disaffected lately by the Commissioners 
 in Alsace. 
 
 There could be but one line of conduct for Englishmen to pursue, 
 should the country be invaded. They must defend it. 
 
 Wars being but the means of attaining peace, and the Avell-meaning 
 among the subjects of the Confederates, being told that the French 
 
 R 
 
242 TRIAL OF 
 
 are so adverse to peace, or ask such preliminaries, that it is in vain to 
 treat with them ; it would be highly useful if France declared after 
 any new successes which she may hereafter attain, 
 
 Her avei'sion to conquest. 
 
 Her disposition to peace. 
 
 Her desire that other nations should govern themselves. 
 
 Her determination of changing this system if the war against her 
 is continued. And it would be useful also if every convenient 
 opportunity were taken of declaring that her present government is 
 revolutionary, and that the constitution of June last will be acted 
 upon at the peace ; and also if she declared her regret at the necessity 
 of using harsh measures, and now and then employed philanthropic 
 language which has an astonishing effect in pacifying the English and 
 indeed pacifying Europe. 
 
 It would tend much to conciliate the minds of the English were the 
 Convention to deci'ee the liberation of aU the English now in a state 
 of arrest unaccused of crimes, and restoring to them their property, 
 at the same time allowing them to leave the country within a certain 
 space of time. 
 
 It would tend also much to create an aversion to the war, were the 
 Convention to decree the terms on which they would make peace. 
 This conduct would be magnanimous, and if they did not hold out 
 terms extravagant, the people of this country would not hesitate to 
 speak their aversion to a continuance of the war. 
 
 It would be very advisable to have copies of the more important 
 decrees of reports lodged at Havre to come hither by neutral vessels 
 for the purpose of being translated. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — A-Ve will now read another paper 
 proved to have been found on Mr. Jackson's table ; a note from Mr. 
 Hamilton Rowan to Mr. Jackson. 
 
 [Here the Clerk of the Crown read a paper marked (O) as follows :] 
 
 Jackson, Esq., Hyde's Coffee-house, Dame-street. 
 
 Will you be so good as to share my breakfast with me to-morrow 
 at nine, which I am particularly desirous of — as I find a party made 
 for dinner cannot take place. I need not say that by nine I mean 
 nine or as near it as you can, for I have hopes that a third person will 
 in that case take his share before he leaves town, which I find he is 
 forced to do in the course of the morning. 
 
 A. HAMILTON ROWAN. 
 Newgate, April 15th, 1794. 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — We shall read also Mr. Tone's note, 
 found also on Mr. Jackson's table. 
 [Here the Clerk of the Crown read a paper marked (N) as follows :] 
 
 Jackson, Esq. 
 
 Mr. Tone presents his compliments to Mr. Jackson, and is 
 extremely concerned that indispensable law business hurries him out 
 of town to-morrow morning. He is of course depi'ived of the honour 
 of attending Mr. Jackson at dinner, but will embrace the first moment 
 of his return, which he hopes will be in a week, to pay his respects to 
 Mr. Jackson. 
 
 Tuesday Morn. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 243 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — "We shall offer one piece of evidence 
 more ; the letter written by John Holford Stone of Paris, recommend- 
 ing the prisoner to Mr. Home Tooke ; it was found on the table in 
 the prisoner's room when he was arrested. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — This is not the best evidence the nature of the case 
 admits ; if Mr. Stone wrote any letter, he is the person to prove it. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I offer it as a paper found in the 
 possession of the prisoner ; but added to that, I wish to prove that it 
 is the hand-writing of Mr. Stone of Paris. If Mr. Stone was here 
 he could not be examiited as to this letter, because it would be to ask 
 him whether he was a conspirator : it is to me a matter of indifference 
 whether it is proved or not — I offer a witness to prove his hand- 
 writing — I care not about the event. 
 
 Lord Clonmel I should be inclined to admit this evidence if it 
 
 were necessary, but I should think it is not. 
 
 [Mr. Attorney- General being of opinion that the letter was material 
 evidence, it was read as follows :] 
 
 John Home Tooke, London. 
 
 Paris, 25 Nivose — Second Year of the 
 Republic, one and indivisible. 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 The circumstances of the two countries have hitherto prevented 
 me from giving or receiving any information respecting you, for as 
 there have been few or no other means of communication than the 
 post, I have had the traitorous correspondence bill too much before 
 my eyes, to hazard your tranquility, though I had nothing to fear for 
 my own ; this however will be delivered to yovx by a gentleman, a 
 citizen, I should have said, to whom you have been heretofore known, 
 and I introduce him as one who will be able to give you the most 
 accurate information of what is doing, and has been done here — and 
 recommend him also as the person to whom you may confide your 
 own sentiments respecting the state of affairs in this country or your 
 own. 
 
 As I know that your prudence keeps some pace with your patriot- 
 ism, you may be satisfied that I am sure of the principles of the man 
 I thus confidentially introduce to you, and thus much you may repose 
 on me. As to the rest, I leave you to arrange it, wishing myself a 
 third in the party. 
 
 And now my patriotic friend, let me offer you my warmest and 
 most heartfelt congratulations on the immense prospect of public 
 happiness which is opening befoi'e us ; you are amongst the small 
 number of those who in the worst of times have never despaired of 
 the cause of liberty, and you are the only one who when the name 
 was but a barbarism amongst us, taiight the great principles of sacred 
 equality which we have so completely reduced to practice. I look 
 forward with transport and joy, to the moment when the doctrines 
 which you have preached shall receive their due accomplishment, 
 when the various parties of ministerialists and oppositionists, dissenters 
 and churchmen, nobles, priests and kings shall sink into one undis- 
 tinguished mass of ruins, and nothing shall be seen or acknowledged 
 but the people, the sacred voice of the people. 
 
244 TRIAL, OF 
 
 The little commission wliicli you gave me to the milliner, I have 
 properly executed ; it was to have been sent to the ladies the last 
 spring, but the untoAvardness of events at that time hindered the com- 
 pletion, and I could not find also any one to Avhom I could properly 
 entrust it, the fashion being a little changed ; if nothing unforeseen 
 happens to hinder it, you may expect to have it over in two months 
 at farthest ; and under happier auspices than the last spring ; since 
 the fashion is so much improved, and I have taken all the precautions 
 and even more than you intrusted me with at Tuffins ; but the 
 sending it as you may suppose will depend on circumstances. 
 
 I leave to the friend I introduce to you the relation of the history 
 of this country for the twelve months last past. You will have fallen 
 into a thousand errors on the subject of our politics, as I, though on 
 the spot, have done, but I think I now see land. 
 
 God bless you, we shall meet under happier circumstances than 
 our last, and drink a cool bottle of good Burgundy under the shade 
 of our trees, an early day in the next summer, if you can spare so 
 much time from your legislative or ministerial avocations. 
 
 Health and fraternity, 
 
 J. H. STONE. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, — As some attempt has been made to 
 discredit the evidence of Mr. Cockayne, we will now produce a 
 witness to establish his credit. 
 
 Mr. Cdrran There has not been any evidence called on our side 
 
 to impeach the character of Mr. Cockayne. The gentlemen them- 
 selves shew that they liave a good opinion of his credit, when they 
 want to hoop him before he is cracked. I never saw such a course 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Then you shall see it now, and I hope 
 with success ; I think we have a right to call evidence to a witness's 
 character, whether it has been attempted to be impeached by other 
 evidence, or by something coming out on his cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — I am driven, I find, to state the ground of my 
 objection ; — I did not think it could be resisted. I conceive the 
 unifoi'm rule of law to be, that if the credit of a witness is impeached, 
 that witness may purge the impeachment by contradicting the allega- 
 tions of the impeachment ; but I submit it that this rule can hold only 
 where evidence aliunde is resorted to, to impeach the credit of the 
 witness. That the nature of this case makes the application of the 
 rule unnecessary ; the rule is, that evidence may be called to 
 contradict the impeachment — now, on what is the impeachment here, 
 if any there be, founded ? — on the evidence of the man himself. I 
 never heard of evidence being called for a man to rebut a man's own 
 evidence — to call a witness to rebut something, is to call a witness 
 contrary to something ; then the witness has been impeached — 
 how? he was asked, were you tried for perjury? Yes, said he, and 
 acquitted ; and honourably ; then the evidence oifered goes to rebut 
 Cockayne's own evidence. This then is an unusual and extraordinary 
 proceeding, and I trust therefore that you will be of opinion that this 
 evidence ought not to be received. 
 
 Loi'd Clonmel. — We are of opinion that this man may be produced 
 to this transaction, for what is it to do ? it is to produce several 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 245 
 
 witnesses to corroborate the same fact. Cockayne says he was tried 
 for perjury, and acquitted; now, the jury may believe that he was 
 tried and not believe one woi-d of what he said about his acquittal ; 
 then you produce evidence to supply this. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chambbrlaine. — I think the testimony of Cockayne 
 has been attempted to be impeached ; whether with success or not, I 
 do not know ; but the cross-examination could have had no other 
 object ; now is he not to be corroborat-ed in a fact material to establish 
 his credit ?* 
 
 [The Court having overruled the objection, the witness was called.] 
 
 Robert Mounsey. — Examined by the Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. Where do you live, Sir ? A. In Castle-street, Holborn, in the 
 city of London. 
 
 Q. Of what profession are you ? A. I am an attorney and solicitor 
 of Westminster Hall. 
 
 Q. What paper is that which you hold in your hand ? A. It is an 
 office copy of the indictment and acquittal of John Cockayne who was 
 examined here this day. 
 
 Q. Were you present at the trial of Cockayne ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Have you compared that copy ? A. I did both ways. 
 
 Q. And saw it attested by the proper officer. A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any circumstances that passed upon the trial ? 
 A. I recollect what Cockayne related, and everything he has said 
 is perfectly true. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything else ? A. Mr. Garrow who Avas his 
 counsel, said that they had not produced a copy of the judgment, and 
 that Cockayne could take advantage of it, but Cockayne said he would 
 not have any advantage taken, but that he would either be found 
 guilty or acquitted on the merits. 
 
 Q. How did the prosecutor conduct himself ? A. He seemed to be 
 very forward, and Mr. JMainwariug, who was the chairman, and one 
 of the Prothonotaries who was to tax the bill of costs, called on 
 Fletcher, the prosecutor, and desired him not to be so very forward. 
 
 Q. Did any friends attend Cockayne on his trial ? A. Mr. Impey, 
 who wrote Impey's Practice, Mr. Lowton the Marshal, and several 
 respectable people came forward as his friends. 
 
 Q. Was the acquittal on the merits ? A. It was. He was acquitted 
 on the prosecutor's evidence, without calling a witness. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Ponsonby. 
 
 Q. Did Cockayne ever appear for you as a witness in any cause at 
 York? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Is he a particular acquaintance of yours ? A. He is not. 
 
 Q. A^^iat is your motive in coming forward this day ? A. Because 
 I thought him very ill used. 
 
 Q. Had you not any other business here ? A. None other but to 
 give an account of this transaction. 
 
 * Bishop of Durham v. Beaumont, 1 Camp, 207 ; R. v. Clarke, 2 Starkib's 
 c. 241. 
 
246 
 
 TRIAL OF 
 
 John Cockayne called up by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. In what part of the house did you lie ? A. I lay on the same 
 
 floor with Mr. Jackson. 
 
 Q. Who usually got up first ? A. I was generally up before him, 
 Q. Have you heard there were any papers found in his chamber ? 
 
 A. I have. 
 
 Q. Had you any papers in his chamber the evening before ? I 
 should think not. 
 
 Q. Did you ever say to any person that you had the papers which 
 were found there in your hands at twelve o'clock the night before ? 
 A. I never did. 
 
 Mr. Curran — My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, I am sure the 
 attention of the court must be a good deal fatigued. I am sure, 
 gentlemen of the jury, that your minds must of necessity be fatigued 
 also. Whether counsel be fatigued or not, is matter very little worth 
 the observation that may be made upon it. I am glad that it is not 
 necessary for me to add a great deal to the labour, either of the court, 
 or the jury. Of the court I must have some knowledge — of the jury 
 I certainly am not ignorant. I know it is as unnecessary for me to 
 say much, or perhaps anything to inform the court, as it would be 
 ridiculous to affect to lecture a jury of the description I have the 
 honour to address. I know I address a court, anxious to expound 
 fairly, and impartially, the law of the country, without any appre- 
 hension of the consequences, and effect of any prosecution. In the 
 jury I am looking to now, I know I address twelve sensible and 
 respectable men of my country, who are as conscious as I am of the 
 great obligation to which they have pledged themselves by their oath, 
 to decide upon the question fairly, without listening to passion, or 
 being swayed by prejudice — without thinking of anything except the 
 charge which has been made, and the evidence which has been brought 
 in support of that charge. They know as well as I do, that the great 
 object of a jury is to protect the country against crimes, and to protect 
 individuals against all accusation, that is not founded in truth. They 
 will remember — I know they will remember, that the great object of 
 their duty is, according to the expression of a late venerated judge in 
 another country, that they are to come into the box with their minds 
 like white paper, upon which prejudice, or passion, or bias, or talk, 
 or hope, or fear, has not been able to scrawl anything. That you, 
 gentlemen, come into the box, standing indifferent as you stood 
 unsworn. 
 
 In the little, gentlemen, that I shall take the liberty of addressing 
 to you, I shall rest the fate of it upon its intrinsic weight. I shall 
 not leave the case in concealment. If there be no ground on which the 
 evidence can be impeached, I will venture to say I will neither bark at 
 it, nor scold it, in lieu of giving it an answer. Whatever objection 
 I have to make, shall be addressed to your reason. I will not say 
 they are great, or conclusive, or unanswerable objections. I shall 
 submit them to you nakedly as they appear to me. If they have 
 weight, you will give it to them. If they have not, a great promise 
 on my part will not give anticipated weight to that whose debility will 
 appear when it comes to be examined. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 247 
 
 Gentlemen, you are empannelled to try a charge. It consists of two 
 offences particularly described in the indictment. The first question 
 is, what is the allegation ? In the first branch, the prisoner is indicted 
 upon a statute, which inflicts the pains and penalties of high treason 
 upon any man, who shall compass or imagine the king's death. The 
 nature of the offence, if you required any comment on it, has been 
 learnedly, and I must add, candidly commented upon by Mr. Attorney- 
 General in stating the case. The second part is, that the prisoner 
 did adhere to the king's enemies. By the law of this country, there 
 are particular rules, applicable to cases of prosecutions for high 
 treason, contradistinguished from all the other branches of the 
 criminal law. The nature of the offence called for this peculiarity 
 of regulation. There is no species of charge to which innocent men 
 may more easily be made victims, than that of offences against the 
 state, and therefore it was necessary to give an additional protection 
 to the subject. There is an honest impulse in the natural and 
 laudable loyalty of every man, that warms his passions strongly 
 against the person who endeavours to disturb the public quiet and 
 security ; it was necessary therefore to guard the subject against the 
 most dangerous of all abuses, the abuse of a virtue, by extraordinary 
 vigilance. There was another reason : — there is no charge which is 
 so vague and indefinite, and yet would be more likely to succeed, 
 than charging a man as an enemy to the state. There is no case in 
 which the venality of a base informer, could have greater expectation 
 of a base reward. Therefore, gentlemen, it was necessary to guard 
 persons accused from the over hasty vii'tue of a jury on the one hand, 
 and on the other from being made the sacrifice of the base and rank 
 prostitution of a depraved informer. How has the law done this ? 
 By pointing out in terms, these rules and orders that shall guide the 
 court, and bind the jury in the verdict they shall give. The man 
 shall be a traitor, if he commits the crime, but it must be a crime of 
 which he should be proveably attaint, by overt acts. And in order 
 that there be an opportunity of investigation and defence, the features 
 of the overt acts should be stated of public record in the very body of 
 the indictment. Justly do I hear it observed, that there cannot be 
 devised a fairer mode of accusation and ti-ial, than this is. Gentlemen, 
 I have stated to you, how the foundation of it stands in both countries, 
 touching the mode of accusation and trial. I have to add to you, that 
 in Gi'eat Britain it has been found necessary still further to increase 
 the sanction of the jury, and the safety of the prisoner, by an express 
 statute in King William's time. By that law it is now settled in that 
 great country, that no man shall be indicted or convicted, except 
 upon the evidence of two witnesses, and it describes what sort of 
 evidence that shall be, either two witnesses swearing directly to the 
 same overt act laid in the indictment ; or two witnesses, one swearing 
 to one overt act, and the other to another overt act of the same species 
 of treason. So that in that country, no man can be found guilty, 
 except upon the evidence of two distinct credible witnesses, credible 
 in their testimony, distinct in their persons, and concurring in the 
 evidence of acts, of one and the same class of treason ; for it must be 
 to the same identical treason, sworn to by both witnesses ; or one 
 witness deposing to one act of treason, and the other to another act of 
 
248 TRIAL OF 
 
 the same class of treason ; that is the settled law of the neighbouring 
 kingdom, and I state it to you emphatically to be the settled law ; 
 because far am I from thinking, that we have not the blessing of 
 living under the same sanction of law, far am I from imagining that 
 the breath which cannot even taint the character of a man in England, 
 shall here blow him from the earth — that the proof, which in England 
 would not wound the man, shall here deprive him of his life — that 
 though the people in England would laugh at the accusation, yet here 
 it shall cause the accused to perish under it. Sure I am that in a 
 country where so few instances of a foul accusation of this sort have 
 occurred, the judges of the court will need little argument to give 
 effect to everything urged to shew, that the law is the same in Ireland 
 as in England. 
 
 Lord Ci-ONMEL. — Do you mean to argue that the statute of William 
 is in force in Ireland ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — No, my lord ; not that the statute of William is in 
 force — but I mean to argue, that the necessity of two witnesses in the 
 case of treason is as strong here as in England. It is the opinion of 
 Lord Coke, founded upon a number of authorities ; the opinion of 
 Lord Coke, referring to a judicial continnation of what he says ; the 
 opinion of Lord Coke controverted, if it can be said to be conti'overted 
 by the modest and diffident dissent of Sir Michael Foster. It is laid 
 down by Lord Coke, that he conceives it to be the established law, 
 that two witnesses are necessary to convict : 3 Inst. 26. " It seemeth 
 that by the ancient common law, one accuser or witness was not 
 sufficient to convict any person of high treason — and that two wit- 
 nesses be required, appeareth by our books, and I remember no 
 authority in our books to the contrary." I know of no judicial deter- 
 mination in our books to the contrary of what Lord Coke here states : 
 the common law is grounded upon the principles of reason. I con- 
 sider the statutes of Edw. VI., and William III., as statutes which had 
 become necessary from the abuses occasioned by a departure from the 
 common law. After the statute of Edw. VI., expressly declaring the 
 necessity of two witnesses, the courts had fallen into, perhaps a well 
 intcntioned departure from the meaning of the statute of Edw. VI., so 
 far that the place of two witnesses was supplied in evidence by any 
 thing that the court thought a matei'ial additional circumstance in the 
 case ; and to the time of William III., such a departure had prevailed, 
 and this was thought sufficient to discharge every thing respecting 
 the obligations of the statute. It became necessary therefore to enact, 
 and by that enaction to do away the abuse of the principle of the 
 common law, by expressly declaring that no man should be indicted 
 or convicted except by two witnesses to one overt act, or one witness 
 to one act, and a second to another act of high treason of the same 
 species. And there seems to rae to be a sound distinction between 
 the case of high treason, and of any other crime. It is the only 
 crime which every subject is sworn against committing : It is the 
 only crime which any subject is sworn to abstain from. In every 
 other case the subject is left to the fear of punishment which he may 
 feel, or to the dictates of his conscience to guard himself against 
 transgressing the law ; but treason is a breach of his oath of allegiance, 
 and is so lar like the case of perjury : and therefore in the case of 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 249 
 
 treason, no luan should be convieted by the testimony of a single 
 witness, because it amounts to no more than oath against oath : so 
 that it is only reasonable there should be another to turn the scale ; 
 and therefore it is that I conceive Lord Coke well warranted in lay- 
 ing down this rule, a rule deduced from general justice, and even 
 from the law of God himself. Gentlemen, what I am now stating, I 
 offer to the court as matter of law. 
 
 But what wei-e these witnesses ? Witnesses in all cases beyond 
 exception, in their personal circumstances, and in their personal 
 credit. Therefore it is the law, that no man shall be found guilty of 
 any offence that is not legally proved upon him by the sworn testi- 
 mony of credible witnesses. Gentlemen, I have submitted my humble 
 ideas of the law — I have stated the charge which the prisoner was 
 called upon to answer : Let me now state the overt acts, which in 
 this particular case are necessary to be proved. The first is, that the 
 prisoner did traitorously come to, and land in L*eland, to procure 
 information concerning the subjects of L'eland, and to send that 
 information to the persons exercising the government in France, to 
 aid them in cariying on the war against the King. I do not recollect 
 that Cockayne said one single word of the prisoner's coming here for 
 such purpose. The second overt act is, that the prisoner did traitor- 
 ously intend to raise and levy war, and incite persons to invade 
 L-eland with arms and men ; tlaat he did incite Theobald Wolfe Tone 
 to go beyond seas to incite France to invade this Kingdom ; that he 
 did endeavour to procure persons to go to France ; and that he agreed 
 with other persons, that they should be sent to France for the same 
 purpose. Having stated these overt acts which are laid in the indict- 
 ment, you will be pleased to recollect the evidence given by Cockayne. 
 Cockayne did not say that the prisoner came over here for any such 
 purpose as the overt act attributes to him ; then, as to the overt act, 
 of endeavouring to procure persons to go to France for the purpose 
 of giving information to the enemy ; the witness said he met Mr. 
 M'Nally ; he had known him in England ; Jackson was a clergyman ; 
 he had known him also. Cockayne had professional business with 
 Mr. M'Nally. Mr. M'Nally paid them a courtesy which any decent 
 person would have been entitled to. They dined at his house, and 
 met three or four persons there ; they talked of the politics of Ireland ; 
 of the dissatisfaction of the people ; but not a syllable of what is 
 stated in the indictment ; not one word of any conspiracy ; Cockayne 
 did not pretend to be able to give any account of any specific conver- 
 sation ; he went to Newgate ; Rowan was then in confinement ; he 
 sometimes went by himself; sometimes met Tone, sometimes Jackson; 
 he gave you an account of encouragement ; what was it ? Was there 
 any thing to support this indictment ? Let me remind you that you 
 are to found your verdict on what the witness says and you believe, 
 and not on what learned counsel may be instructed to state. Then 
 what does the witness say ? He admits that he did not hear all the 
 conversation. The crying injustice must strike you, of making a 
 man answerable for a part of a conversation, where the witness did 
 not hear it all; but take it as he has stated it, unqualified and uncon- 
 strued : how high was he wrought up by it ? He heard talk of 
 somebody to go to France ; he was to carry papers ; he heard an 
 
250 TRIAL OF 
 
 expression of instructions to the French ; what French ? What 
 instructions ? It might be to French manufacturers ; it might be to 
 French traitors ; it might be to the French King ; it might be to the 
 French Convention. Do I mean to say that there was nothing by 
 which a credulous or reasonable man might not have his suspicion 
 raised, or that there was nothing in three or four men huddling them- 
 selves together in Newgate and talking of an invasion ? No, but my 
 reasoning is this — that your verdict is to be founded on evidence of 
 positive guilt established at the hazard of the personal punishment of 
 the witness, you are not to pick up the conjectures either of his 
 malignity or credulity. I say that this man stands in defiance of your 
 verdict, because it will be effected by nothing but that irresistable 
 evidence on which alone it ought to be founded. But what was the 
 fact which Tone was to do or any other person ? It was an illegal 
 one. By a late act, an English subject going to France is liable to 
 six months imprisonment. By a clause in the same statute the crime 
 of soliciting a person to go is also punishable. The encouraging any 
 person to go to that country was therefore exposing him to danger, 
 but whether it was a motive of trade, or smuggling, or idle adventure 
 is not the question for you. It is whether the intention was to 
 convey an incitement to the French to make a descent on this king- 
 dom, and endeavour to subvert the constitution of it. You have a 
 simple question before you — has even the prosecutor sworn that he 
 endeavoured to do so? I think not. The next overt act charged is, 
 that he did compose and Avrite a letter in order to be sent to William 
 Stone, in which he traitorously desired Stone to disclose to certain 
 persons in France the scheme and intention of Jackson, to send a 
 person to inform them of the state of Ireland, for the purpose of 
 giving support and effect to an hostile invasion of this country. You 
 have heard these letters read. You must of necessity look on them 
 in one or two important and distinct points of view. The first 
 perhaps that will naturally strike you is, what are these letters ? Do 
 they sustain the allegations of the overt act? Are they letters 
 requiring Stone to inform the Convention, of this country being in 
 such a state as to encourage an invasion ? Does that paper support 
 this allegation? God help us! gentlemen of the jury! I know not 
 in what state the property or life of any man will be if they are 
 always to be at the mercy, and to depend on the possibility of his 
 explaining either the real or pretended circumstances on which he 
 corresponds with persons abroad. The letters are written apparently 
 upon mercantile subjects — he talks of manufactures, of a firm, of 
 prices changed, of different families, of differences among them, of 
 overtures to be accepted of, of disputes likely to be settled by means 
 of common mediation: what is the evidence on which you can be 
 supported in saying that manufactures mean treason — that Nicholas 
 means the war minister of France — the sister-in-law Ireland — that 
 " the firm has been changed," means Danton has been gullotined, but 
 that makes no alteration in the state of the house, meaning the 
 circumstances of the revolution — that the change of prices and 
 manufactures means any thing else necessary to give consistency to 
 the charge of treason. Give me leave to say that this ludicrous and 
 barbarous consequence would follow from a rule of this sort, the 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 251 
 
 idlest letter might be strained to any purpose. The simplicity of our 
 law is, that a man's guilt should be proved by the evidence of wit- 
 nesses on their oaths, which shall not be supplied by fancy, nor 
 elicited by the ingenuity of any person making suggestions to the 
 wretched credulity of a jury that should be weak enough to adopt 
 them. I come now to this. A letter produced imports on the face 
 of it to be a letter of business, concerning manufactures — another 
 concerning family differences. In which way are they to be under- 
 stood ? I say with confidence, better it should be to let twenty men, 
 that might have a criminal purpose in writing letters of this kind, 
 escape, than fall into the dreadful alternative of making one man a 
 victim to a charge of this kind not supported by such proof as could 
 bring conviction on the mind of a rational jury. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to state to you minutely, the rest of 
 these allegations of the overt acts. The charge against the prisoner 
 is supported, and this is perhaps the clearest way of calling your 
 attention to the evidence, either by the positive evidence of Cockayne 
 as to these facts, or by the written evidence which stands also on his 
 testimony alone. Touching actual conspiracy he said nothing : some- 
 body was to go to France — he knew not for what — he had an idea 
 on his mind for what it was — but never from any communication with 
 Jackson. There have been other letters read in evidence. Two of 
 them contained duplicates of a sort of representation of the supposed 
 state of Ireland. Cockayne says that he got the packet from Jackson, 
 that he himself wrote the directions ; one, addressed to Amsterdam, 
 the other to Hamburgh. They were read, and they contain asssertions, 
 whether true or false I do not think material, of the state of this 
 country. If material at all, material only in their falsehood. The 
 public are satisfied that these allegations are false. It is known to 
 every man in this country, and must be known with great satisfaction 
 by every honest man, that it is not in that state that could induce any 
 but the most adventurous and wicked folly to try an experiment upon 
 it. It is unnecessary for me to comment on the opinions contained in 
 that paper ; there is a matter more material, and calling more loudly 
 for your attention. It is stated to be written with the purpose of 
 inviting the persons governiBg in France to try a descent upon Ii-eland. 
 This paper is evidence to support that charge ; you have heard it 
 read. On what public subject have you ever heard six men speak 
 and all to agree? Might not a stranger, in a fit of despondency 
 imagine that an invasion might have a fatal effect on this country ? 
 It is not impossible but if ten men were to make a landing, some 
 mischief might happen. Then again, what do I mean to argue ? Is 
 it that this letter bears no marks of the design imputed to it ? No 
 such thing. It is a letter that the most innocent man might write, 
 but it is also such a one as a guilty man might write, but unless there 
 was clear evidence of his guilt, he would be entitled to your verdict 
 of acquittal. Though it was not expressly avowed, yet I cannot help 
 thinking that it was meant to lay some little emphasis on certain 
 names which I have met with in the newspapers — I am sure I have 
 met the name of Laignelot in the debates of the Convention — I have 
 met the name of Home Tooke and Stone in the English papers. I 
 have read that Home Tooke was tried for high treason and acquitted. 
 
252 TRIAL, OP 
 
 That Stone made liis escape into Switzerland. I believe it is said 
 that there is a person of that name in confinement in England at 
 present. But let me tell you, you are not to draw any inferences from 
 circumstances of this kind against the prisoner, let me tell you it is 
 the guilt of the man and not the sound of names by which his fate is 
 to be decided. 
 
 Other papers have been read. One seems to contain some form 
 of addresses. A letter said to come fi'om Stone has been read to 
 you. The letter to Beresford, said to be written by Jackson, 
 has also been read to you. I have stated the material parts of 
 the evidence. I have endeavoured to submit my poor idea of 
 the rule by which you ought to be guided. I see only one remain- 
 ing topic to trouble you upon ; it appears to me to be a topic 
 of the utmost importance. And, gentlemen, it is this. Who is the 
 man that has been examined to support this charge ? One witness. I 
 beseech you to have that engraven on your minds. The charge in 
 all its parts stands only on the evidence of Cockayne ; there is no 
 other evidence of any conversation, there is not a material letter 
 read in this case that does not rest upon Cockayne's evidence, and 
 that I am warranted in this assertion you will see to a demonstration 
 when I remind the Court that he was the only witness as I recollect 
 called to prove the hand-writing of Jackson. On his testimony 
 alone must depend the fact of their being his hand- writing, of the 
 inuendoes imputed to them or the purpose with which they were 
 sent. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am scarcely justified in having trespassed so long on 
 your patience. It is a narrow case. It is a case of a man charged 
 with the highest and most penal offence known by our law, and 
 charged by one witness only. And let me ask, who that witness is? 
 A man stating that he comes from another country, armed with a 
 pardon for treasons committed in Ii'eland, but not in England Avhence 
 he comes. What ! were you never on a jury befoi-e ? Did you ever 
 hear of a man forfeiting his life on the unsupported evidence of a 
 single witness, and he an accomplice by his own confession ? What ! 
 his character made the subject of testimony and support ! take his 
 own vile evidence for his character. He was the foul traitor of his 
 own client. What do you think now of his character ? He was a spy 
 upon his fi'iend. He was the man that yielded to the tie of three 
 oaths of allegiance, to watch the steps of his client for the bribe of 
 government, with a pardon for the treasons he might commit ; and he 
 had impressed on his mind the conviction that he was liable to be 
 executed as a ti-aitor. Was he aware of his crime ? His pardon 
 speaks it. Was he aware of the turpitude of his character, — he came 
 with the cure — he brought his witness in his pocket. To what ? To 
 do away an offence which he did not venture to deny ; that he had 
 incautiously sworn that which was false in fact, though the jury did 
 not choose to give it the name of wilful and corrupt perjury. Gra- 
 cious God ! Is it then on the evidence of a man of this kind, with his 
 pardon in liis pocket, and his bribe — not yet in his pocket — that you 
 can venture to convict the prisoner. He was to be taken care of. 
 How so ? Jackson owed him a debt^ — " I was to do the honourable 
 business of a spy and informer, and to be paid for it in the common 
 
THE KEV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 253 
 
 way — it was common acreable work — treason and conspiracy — I was 
 to be paid for it by the sheet." Do you find men doing these things 
 in common life ? I have now stated the circumstances by which, in 
 my opinion, the credit of Cockayne ought to be reduced to notliing in 
 your eyes. But I do not rest here. Papers were found in the 
 chamber of Mr. Jackson — the door was open, and by the bye, that 
 carelessness was not evidence of any conscious guilt — the papers were 
 ■ seized — that there were some belonging to Jackson is clear, because 
 he expressed an anxiety about some that are confessed not to have 
 any relation to the subject of this day's trial. I asked Cockayne if he 
 had any papers in Jackson's room the night before he was arrested — 
 he said not. I asked him if he had told any person that he had — he 
 said not. Gentlemen, the only witness I shall call, will be one to 
 shew you that he has in that sworn falsely. And let me here make 
 one observation to you, the strength and good sense of which has 
 been repeated an hundred times, and therefore rests on better authority 
 than mine. Where a witness swears glibly to a number of circum- 
 stances, where it is impossible to produce contradictory proof, and is 
 found to fail in one, it shall overthrow all the others. And see how 
 strongly the observation applies here — he swore to a conversation 
 with Jackson as to what he said and did, well knowing that Jackson 
 could not be a witness to disprove that, unless the good sense of the 
 jury should save his life, and enable him to become in his turn a pro- 
 secutor for the perjury. If on a point of this kind this man should 
 be found to have forsworn himself, it cannot occasion any other senti- 
 ment but this, that if you have felt yourselves disposed to give 
 anything like credit to his evidence where he has sworn to facts which 
 he must have known, it is the key-stone of the arch in his testimony, 
 and if you can pluck it from its place, the remainder of the pile will 
 fall in ruins about his head. I will produce that witness — but before 
 I sit down, permit me, gentlemen of the jmy, to remind you, that if 
 every word which Cockayne has here sworn were sworn in West- 
 minster-Hall, the judges would immediately have said — there is not 
 anything for the jury to decide upon ; the evidence of incitement rests 
 on him alone, there is no second witness ; so does the transaction of 
 the letters ; for De Joncourt's testimony could not have satisfied the 
 statute ; it was not evidence to the same overt act as affecting Jackson 
 personally, nor was it evidence of any distinct overt act, it was merely 
 that species of evidence, the abuse of which had been the cause of 
 introducing the statute act of William ; a mere collateral concomitant 
 evidence. The overt act was writing and putting into the post-office, 
 that was sworn to by Cockayne, and if he deserved credit, would go 
 so far as to prove the fact by one witness. See what the idea of the 
 statute is ; it is that it must be an overt act brought home to the 
 prisoner by each of the two witnesses swearing to it. If De Jon- 
 court's evidence stood single, it could not have brought anything home 
 to Jackson, Cockayne swore the superscription was his writing ; he 
 put the letters into the office. De Joncourt said nothing but that he 
 found in the office a letter which he produced, and which Cockayne 
 said was the one he had put into it. This observation appears to 
 collect additional strength from this circumstance. Why did they 
 not produce Tone ? It is said they could not. I say they could. It 
 
254 TRIAL OF 
 
 was as easy to pardon liim as to pardon Cockayne. But whether he 
 was guilty or not is no objection. 8hall it be said that the argument 
 turns about and affects Jackson as much as it does the prosecutor ? I 
 think certainly not. Jackson, I believe it has appeared in the course 
 of the evidence, and is matter of judicial knowledge to the court, has 
 lain in prison for twelve months past, from the moment of his arrest 
 to the moment of his trial. If he is conscious that the charge is false, 
 it is impossible for him to prove that falsehood ; he was so circum- 
 stanced as that he could not procure the attendance of witnesses ; a 
 stranger in the country, he could not tell whether some of the persons 
 named were in existence or not. I have before apologized to you for 
 trespassing upon your patience, and I have again trespassed — let me 
 not repeat it. I shall only take the liberty of reminding you, that 
 if you have any doubt, in a criminal case doubt should be acquittal, 
 that you are trying a case which if tried in England would preclude 
 the jury from the possibility of finding a verdict of condemnation. It 
 is for you to put it into the power of mankind to say, that that which 
 should pass harmlessly over the head of a man in Great Britain shall 
 blast him here ; — whether life is more valuable in that country than 
 in this, or whether a verdict may more easily be obtained here in a 
 case tending to establish pains and penalties of this severe nature. 
 
 [William Humphrys was then called several times for the prisoner, 
 but did not attend.] 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — Mr. Curran has gone so fully into the case as to 
 leave very little for me to say upon the subject. Gentlemen of the 
 jury, the Court will, I am sure, tell you that the laws of England and 
 Ireland know no single authority so great as that of Sir Edward Coke. 
 I am not afraid to be contradicted, when I say, that in point of 
 learning, practice, experience and reputation, as a lawyer, no man has 
 arisen in these countries whose authority holds an equal place with 
 his ; and he lays down the common law to be, that no man can be 
 convicted of high treason but on the evidence of two witnesses. I do 
 freely admit that later lawyers have held his doctinne to be erroneous, 
 and that in truth the common law is, that on the evidence of a single 
 witness, a man may be convicted of high treason. I admit that Sir 
 Michael Foster and Serjeant Hawkins say so. I admit Foster an 
 authority, but I do not admit Hawkins an authority. But I do not 
 admit them or any other man so great an authority as Lord Coke — 
 and he expressly lays it down, that on the evidence of one man only 
 shall no person be convicted of high treason. I am ready to read the 
 words of Foster : he says, page 233, Ir. Ed. " It hath been generally 
 agreed and I think upon just grounds (though Lord Coke hath 
 advanced a contrary doctrine), that at common law one witness was 
 sufiicient in the case of treason, as well as in every other capital case." 
 No man will deny that Coke stands higher than any other lawyer, 
 and no man will deny that that difference subsisted between him and 
 those men. But whatsoever may be the opinion of Foster, who wrote 
 in the reign of Geo. 11. he was giving his opinion on a case pei'fectly 
 out of the way at that time — on a case on which it was totally unne- 
 cessary for him to give an opinion — on a case that had not nor could 
 not have been drawn into controversy for eighty years before ; be- 
 cause that early in the reign of King William tliere passed an act for 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 255 
 
 the regulation of trials in high treason. This was an act declaratory 
 of the common law as was the St. Ed. III. ; for no lawyer will say, 
 that the statute of treasons, the best statute in our statute books is 
 anything else than declaratory of the common law of England. Lord 
 Coke says expressly that one witness was not sufficient, others have 
 differed from him ; but the stat. W. III. put the question out of dis- 
 pute for the future, because it enacts that no man be convicted of high 
 treason, but on the oaths of two credible witnesses. Whatever might 
 have been the opinion of lawyers before, it is clear from the time of 
 passing that statute, the question was put out of doubt, because two 
 witnesses are now expressly required. Therefore, when Foster wrote 
 that book, he was giving an opinion more as an antiquarian than a 
 lawyer, because he was examining a subject which could not come into 
 discussion so long as the statute of William III. remained. If the 
 legislature had not conceived Lord Coke right in his idea of the common 
 law, why should they have thought it necessary to pass that act ? 
 either they held that no man could be convicted without the testimony 
 of two witnesses, or they thought proper to enact it for the first time. 
 They could have but this reason for it, that if the law was not so, it 
 ought to be so. Cockayne is the only witness that has appeared to you 
 in this case, for as to the others they have been merely examined to the 
 finding of papei's here, delivering letters there, or something of that 
 sort. None of them were examined to prove any criminal charge 
 whatever against Jackson. The written letters are proved only by 
 Cockayne, the conversations are proved only by Cockayne, in short the 
 alleged treason in this case is proved only by Cockayne. And, gentle- 
 men of the jury, it demands serious consideration on your part, 
 whether, even supposing the law of Ireland to be such as that a may be 
 convicted on the evidence of a single witness, Cockayne be such a one 
 as will justify you in finding a verdict of conviction on his testimony. 
 By the law of England there mvist be either two witnesses to the same 
 overt act, or one of them to one, and another to another overt act of 
 the same treason ; but if there be two distinct treasons of divers kinds 
 in one bill of indictment, one witness to one, and another to another 
 of the said ti'easons would not be sufficient within the act. How is 
 the treason alleged here ? There are two species chai'ged, compassing 
 the king's death and adhering to his enemies. Do they produce two 
 witnesses to any one overt act, as the law of England requii-es ? No. 
 But they allege two distinct treasons, and produce but one witness to 
 prove both ; in England you must have two witnesses to one species 
 of treason, here it seems, there needs but one witness to two species 
 of treason. Does Cockayne appear to you in such a light as to justify 
 you in your consciences to take away a man's life on the credit of his 
 evidence ? See the account he gives of himself, he said he thought 
 Jackson had some intention of sending to the enemy some articles 
 that were prohibited, and he came here to prevent him. Was it 
 necessary to prevent Jackson from sending goods from Ireland, that 
 he should be allowed to come hither, instead of being stopt in Eng- 
 land ? Was thei-e no other way of doing that but by his coming 
 with him to Ireland ? Because, if he said truly, he thought that the 
 best way to prevent Jackson's sending goods from hence, was to let 
 him come hither. But it is plain from his own sweai'ing that that 
 
256 
 
 TRIAL OF 
 
 could not be his object. It must have been to forward him in the 
 execution of his criminal intentions in order to betray him, and then 
 to be rewarded for his treachery. I know not in what light to look 
 on Cockayne. Shall I call him what the law calls an approver, was 
 he in his secrets ? Did he join him ? Did he afterwards betray him ? 
 If so, the old maxim of our law was that no man for any crime could 
 be convicted on the evidence of such a person. I allow that latter 
 practice has departed from that rule, and that the evidence of an ap- 
 prover which was formerly driven from the bar is now received. 
 But of all the evidence known it is not only the most odious but the 
 weakest, and no judge ever tries such a case, who does not tell the 
 jury so. Now, in what light does Cockayne stand ? if he is to be 
 believed, he must have known Jackson's projects : in intention he 
 must have been as criminal as Jackson — and this for the purpose of 
 betraying his confidence and being rewarded for it ; for this purpose 
 he becomes an approver against the man with Avhom he had been 
 engaged — and this man was the only witness. If there were criminal 
 plots existing, why not examine others ? Wliy not examine Tone, or 
 Lewins ? it was as easy to pardon them as Cockayne : if their story 
 was true, why did they rest the credit of it on Cockayne, when they 
 might have had other witnesses ? — and then, they might have had, 
 not only more, but better evidence — then they might have had the 
 evidence of men, though equally criminal, yet not equally disgrace- 
 ful — of men who had not upon their oaths, and before the eyes of the 
 jury, been base enough to betray their fellow traitor ; they might 
 have had evidence on which the jury might have rested : a pardon 
 would have made them competent — their conduct would have cleared 
 them from the business — can you think that they would have brought 
 this case forward, supported by such a witness as Cockayne alone, if 
 they could have ventured to produce the rest ; if their story was true, 
 they would either have prosecuted the rest for treason, or have par- 
 doned them in order to produce them here. 
 
 Cockayne tells you that when the lettei's were put into the post- 
 ofRce, they were not indeed intended to be sent abroad ; they were 
 never to go out of the country, for he himself knew they Avould be 
 stopt ; yet the indictment avers that they wei'e intended to be sent 
 out of the country, and were delivered at the post-office for that 
 purpose. 
 
 It is difficult indeed to lay much stress on the evidence of Cockayne 
 — his memory was singularly bad — he was present at many meetings 
 — at various conversations — yet, he could remember nothing — he 
 understood, he thought, he believed ; but he could not swear. What 
 was the fact ? Was it that he was present at these meetings, these 
 conversations, and yet did not remember them ? No, the object of 
 this hesitation, this pretended delicacy, was, that when he should 
 come to the material parts of the case, they might so far work on 
 your minds as to induce you to give credit to him. Do you think he 
 would not have swoi*n to hang Jackson, if he thought it material to 
 get his money from Mr. Pitt ? No reward did he require, no reward 
 did he ask, but only the amount of a debt due to him by the prisoner, 
 that was all he expected, all he desired to receive. Now, can you 
 imagine that he would have hesitated but fi-om an affected delicacy. 
 
 c 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON, 257 
 
 that he might reserve himself for what he thought the most important 
 parts of the case. 
 
 The character of Cockayne has been supported by a witness — the 
 character of Cockayne has been given by himself —he was shocked 
 at the base idea of being accused of perjury; he was happy in 
 declaring that he thought that a greater reproach than to have led his 
 friend into a crime — the greatest crime he could commit — and to have 
 betrayed him when he had done so. What a witness ! who glowed 
 with indignation at the imputation of perjury — and gloried in murder 
 — for it Avas positive murder, if he knew the man meant to do this, 
 to encourage him in it, to support him in it, and then to betray him. 
 Do you feel such a man as this, a witness on whose testimony you 
 ought to take away the life of a fellow-creature ? In England, had 
 he been a witness in such a case as this, he must have been sent off 
 the table, and the jury must have been discharged ; but by crossing 
 the sea, he is to become a good witness ; and he can take away the 
 
 j life of a man in Ireland, though in England he could not touch a 
 hair of his head. If the court shall be against me and say that one 
 witness is sutficient, I submit : but I say to you, gentlemen of the 
 
 i jury, examine your hearts well, and say, will you be satisfied on the 
 
 i evidence of such a witness, to take away the life of any man. 
 
 Lord Clonmel You have heard what has been said by your 
 
 counsel ; would you wish to add anything to what they have said ? 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — My lord, I wish to consult my counsel whether it 
 would be proper. 
 
 After some conference with his counsel, Mr. Jackson said he would 
 not trouble the court. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant, in reply. — My lords, and gentlemen of the 
 jury. I do not know that I ever in my life rose with more anxiety 
 to discharge that duty which I owe to the public — an anxiety lest I 
 should leave anything undone, which that duty demanded, and an 
 anxiety, lest in the discharge of that duty I should transgress those 
 limits which the humanity and conscience of an advocate prescribe 
 to him, when he speaks in a case, where the life of a party is at stake. 
 
 ] Therefore I conjure you, gentlemen, to discharge your minds from 
 everything you may have heard before this day, upon the subject of 
 the trial ; from every impression, which the mention of such a crime 
 
 i may have occasioned, and that you will listen to the court, who are 
 bound to declare the law as you are to decide the fact, and take from 
 their opinion what the law is. I have heard this subject treated for 
 two hours past as if this trial were in Great Britain, and that you 
 were called upon, not to decide the case upon law existing in this 
 
 i country where the trial is had, but as if it were had in the sister 
 kingdom. To borrow an expression from the witness, I should feel 
 this the severest day I ever experienced, if that were to be the case : 
 or that I could bring myself to suspect that such language would be 
 used, because I should be controlled by those having power so to do. 
 There is nothing clearer, than that, by the law of Ireland, one witness 
 believed is sufficient to convict, and I conjure your lordships with the 
 utmost earnestness, if I am wrong in the law, that you will correct 
 me. It will become my duty to state the evidence, and, under the 
 direction of the coui't, those facts, upon which you, gentlemen, are to 
 
258 TRIAL OF 
 
 form your judgment. The prisoner stands indicted for two distinct 
 species of higli treason : tirst, for compassing and imagining the death 
 of the King : next, for adhering to the King's enemies ; and that I 
 may not, by any possibility, be guilty of misleading your judgments, 
 I shall refer in the course of the observations I shall make, to that 
 which is acknowledged to be the first authority. The cases of com- 
 passing the death of the King, or adhering to his enemies, are the 
 only instances in the law, where the will and intention, prosecuted 
 by an act, whether successful or not, are equivalent to the deed. The 
 moment the wicked intention of compassing the death of tlie King, 
 or adhering to his enemies is followed by an act, which you shall 
 believe to have been in prosecution of those schemes, the guilt is 
 complete : the measure of the iniquity of the party is full. Where- 
 fore for the advantage of the prisoner, for the charge is sti'ong against 
 him, it is necessary that the indictment upon which he was arraigned 
 should state all those specific facts from which the intention is to be 
 drawn ; for, as an overt act of that intention, no evidence can be 
 given, that is not stated specifically by the indictment ; and no 
 evidence can be given, that is not evidence of the act laid. You will 
 see, gentlemen, the advantage which the prisoner derives from this ; 
 before he is put to plead, he is apprized of everything alleged against 
 him ; directly the contrary of that, which occurs in any other criminal 
 prosecution. The use 1 make of that is, that you may see whether 
 there has been any use made by the prisoner of the notice which he 
 had of the charge brought against him. 
 
 Having thus stated what I conceive to be the law with the utmost 
 scrupulousness, let me state the overt acts, and see whether you are 
 satisfied upon them. The single question for you, gentlemen, is, 
 whether the facts alleged were done by the prisoner ? and 2dly, if ' 
 done, whether they relate to the charge brought against him. I 
 should be much better pleased, I declare most solemnly, that I did 
 not think there was evidence to support any of the overt acts laid in 
 this indictment, and that I am sorry to say, there is evidence for your 
 consideration upon every one of them. You, gentlemen, will weigh 
 it Avith every possible attention, the life of a fellow-creature being at 
 stake. Mr. Cockayne is the principal, but not the only witness in 
 support of the overt acts. Nothing can make so strong an impression 
 upon the mind of a jury as the manner, the air, and temper with 
 which testimony is given. The counsel for the prisoner endeavoured 
 to take advantage of that distress under which the witness laboured, 
 as if he had been prevailed upon to interfere for the purpose of 
 taking away the life of the prisoner at the bar. The witness said 
 that this day he felt as the most severe he had ever experienced — 
 that his mind had been shaken for some time past, and you, gentle- 
 men, saw the attempt which was made to represent this evidence as 
 the effect of intimidation and power. But no such thing appeared. 
 He was threatened with confinement ; that was, for not signing his 
 examination after he had made it. He told you, he was acquitte 
 upon the charge of perjury. Tliis is further supported by evidence 
 He declined to make any objections in point of law, and he w 
 questioned as to the conversation with Nailor, who is not produced ti 
 contradict wliat tlie witness said. In this light, Mr. Cockayne cami 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 259 
 
 forward, and though he could not take upon him to tell with what 
 intention, Jackson came to Ireland, positively ; the overt act laid 
 with regard to Ireland, is that he came to procure an invasion. But 
 if you believe the evidence of Cockayne, see the conduct of Jackson 
 upon his coming here, and see from that, whether his coming was not 
 for the purpose imputed to him. The witness tells you, that upon 
 their first coming to Ii-eland, the first conversation arose upon the 
 politics of L'eland, and the dissatisfaction of part of the people in 
 Ireland. He said that a person of the name of Lewins solicited 
 credentials to shew Hamilton Rowan, to give him a confidence in 
 holding communications with the prisoner. The witness told you, 
 that Jackson expressed his concern at having given some of the 
 papers for this pui'pose, and he wished to have them back again, as 
 he would not trust them in the hands of others, if he had them back. 
 He told you that there was a meeting at Rowan's : he saw a relative 
 of Rowan's there, who went away, after which Irish politics, and the 
 United Irishmen were the subjects of conversation. I say, gentle- 
 men, and I am sorry for it, that there is not a single overt act in 
 support of which there is not evidence for the consideration of a jury. 
 He said there were conversations about sending some one to France, 
 and that Tone agreed to go at one time, but receded at anothei% He 
 talked also of Dr. Reynolds, and also of the propriety and impropriety 
 of giving them instructions ; that the prisoner did not approve so 
 much of Reynolds, as he did of Tone. 
 
 [Here Mr. Prime- Serjeant was interrupted by the prisoner's 
 counsel, who said they had now a witness of the name of Watson to 
 impeach the character of Cockayne.] 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-Genekal. — My lords, in the absence of the 
 Attorney- General* it is my duty to resist the examination of this 
 witness. I cannot submit to such a precedent being established, and 
 the more so as every proceeding in this trial, and the solemnity, will 
 form a precedent for future cases. The witness they called to the 
 fact alleged, when they had stated their case for the prisoner, was 
 William Humphries, who being called did not answer, and then they 
 had just learned that he was gone to the Isle of Man. They did not 
 call any other person — nor did they say that they had any witness of 
 the name of Watson, which shows this attempt to be an after-thought 
 — a thought fabricated after the counsel for the prisoner had spoken 
 to evidence, and whilst the counsel for the crown were proceeding in 
 reply. Whatever may be the humane disposition of the court, I trust 
 that they will not dispense with that rule and order of proceeding 
 which the wisdom of your venerable predecessors, the judges of 
 England and Ireland, have made part of the law, wisely regulated 
 for the investigation of truth, and a departure from which, under such 
 circumstances, would lead to confusion, may be introductory of 
 perjury, and subversive of truth. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — I confess I think it is extremely irregular, and I 
 tell you why. See what Mr. Curran, who stated the case, said — 
 " The only evidence I shall produce will be a witness to contradict 
 
 * Mr. Attorney-General had retired to take some refreshment, it being at this 
 time near two o'cloclt on Friday morning 
 
260 TRIAL OF 
 
 Cockayne" — tliat witness did not attend. However, where the life 
 of a man is to be affected, I will go as far as I can in yielding to his 
 desire, even against what I conceive to be the rule, particularly as 
 my brothers are disposed to grant the indulgence. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — My lord, I feel that it wovild not be a stretch of the 
 rule to say, " Sir, you are precluded from giving further evidence." 
 But I proposed to call the witness from a conviction that I would 
 not do my duty without proposing to call him when it was mentioned 
 to me. 
 
 John "Watson, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q, Do you know John Cockayne ? A. I have seen Mr. Cockayne 
 the attorney of London. 
 
 Q. Do you know him ? A. I do — I see him now. 
 
 Q. Did you know him in London ? A. I did, by his character, for 
 near two years, while I was a licensed lottery man there. 
 
 Q. You knew his character ? A. I have heard his character. 
 
 Q. "Was it a good one or a bad one ? A. I knew his character in 
 his profession as an attorney, not his private character as a man. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — That might go to his being a good or a bad 
 attorney. 
 
 Q. Do you know his general character? A. I do as to his 
 practice. 
 
 Q. Do you mean as to his morality and integrity ? A. There was 
 neitlier morality nor integrity in it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — His general character as an attorney is not 
 the point in issue. 
 
 "Witness. — There was nothing in his practice that had morality or 
 integrity — it appeared from his connections — he was connected with 
 informers. 
 
 [The Counsel for the Crown proposed to cross-examine this wit- 
 ness.] 
 
 Court — We cannot permit it, because this man knowing nothing 
 of the private character of the witness, he could not have known 
 anything as to the material point to be enquired, whether the witness 
 was to be believed upon his oath. What do you mean by his private 
 character ? A. His private dealing, about which I know nothing. 
 Q. How long have you been in this kingdom ? A. Twelve months. 
 Q. How long since you gave any information about this matter ? 
 A. I was in court, and a gentleman here having heard me mention 
 Cockayne's name sometime ago, called me forward, I did not know 
 for what purpose. 
 
 The witness was ordered to retire. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant continued Gentlemen, the first ovei't act 
 
 is, that he came to Ireland to procure information of the king's 
 subjects. The second is, that he endeavoured to incite an invasion — 
 but it is irresistible as to the third, if you believe that the prisoner, 
 on the 21st of April did excite, exhort, and counsel, and as far as in 
 him lay, did encourage Theobald Wolfe Tone to go into parts beyond 
 seas, to France, to represent to the ruling powers there, that divers 
 subjects of this kingdom were disaffected, &c. Gentlemen, if your 
 notes and mine differ upon this evidence, I beseech you to pay no 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 261 
 
 nttcntion to mine. But as I have taken it, the witness has heard 
 alternately in conversations fi'om Jackson, Rowan, Tone and Reynolds, 
 that there was a scheme to send Tone or Reynolds, with a plan to 
 Paris. That expressions of encouragements were used to Tone by 
 the prisoner and Rowan. That the prisoner was present at some 
 encouraging conversation by Rowan, and upon some conversations 
 with Tone, who made objections on account of his family, and the 
 loss that might accrue by missing opportunities in Ireland. Jackson 
 told him, he would find the French a generous people. Was it 
 necessary, gentleman, to have recourse to the French upon the subject 
 of manufactures, or a law suit ? No, gentleman, it was a public 
 measure, and the reward was to be public also. It appeared, gentle- 
 men, in evidence that Jackson came into Ireland with a fictitious 
 name, that of Thomas Popkins, which he used in his correspondence. 
 It will be for you to discover, and ascertain for what purpsse the 
 parties involved the matter in these obscurities. Why, in one letter 
 the subject should be manufactures, and in the next, the subject 
 should be law. The fourth and fifth overt acts are a conspiracy with 
 others to procure a person to represent to the French, the dissatisfac- 
 tion of part of the people, and to excite an invasion. With respect 
 to these two overt acts, I think there is matter in the correspondence 
 of Jackson, when particularly adverted to, for the jury, to consider 
 whether there be proof of them or not. But, under the correction of 
 the court, I say, that if a single overt act be proved, clearly connected 
 with the treason with which the prisoner is charged, there is sufficient 
 to warrant you to convict him. But I acknowledge that if on the 
 other hand, you believe none of them are proved, the law and your 
 conscience call upon you to acquit him. The sixth overt act is, that 
 on the 2 1 st of April a letter was written to William Stone to reveal 
 his intention to send a person to France to represent the state of this 
 country. The evidence of Cockayne was, that Tone agreed to go, 
 and afterwai'ds receded from that agreement. The letter was written 
 on the 21st of April, and when he began, it was conceived that Tone 
 was to go ; and in this letter are these remarkable words ; " Let them 
 know whei'e I am, and that I am doing everything I can to serve 
 Mr. Nicholas, and that I am procuring a person to carry the covenants 
 and leases ; — a few days will decide whether we go or not. I have 
 written the above during the negotiation with the person ; he has 
 this morning 24th of April, decided that his private aifairs will not 
 let him go." If, gentlemen, you believe the evidence of Cockayne — 
 if you believe that this letter was written — if you believe that this 
 chai'ge in the indictment is proved, you will consider whether it is 
 connected with either or both of the treasons with which he is indicted. 
 " I wish you would write the first post day, and tell Mr. Nicholas 
 that to-morrow I send two letters for him, containing opinions 
 thoroughly considered, and well digested by counsel here." This 
 was begun on the 21st of April, and the letter appears to be concluded 
 on the 24th when it was put into the office on that evening, containing 
 the paper of the State of the kingdom, as appears from the evidence 
 of De Joncourt. The seventh overt act is grounded upon the same 
 evidence ; it is the same act laid to be by a person unknown : — if that 
 alone had been proved, and you are of opinion that it relates to the 
 
2tJ2 TKIAL OF 
 
 treason charged, it will warrant you to find him guilty. The letters 
 were sent to the post-office by Cockayne ; they were subscribed by 
 the directions of the prisoner. They got into the hands of Jackson 
 himself, and it was for him to account if they were put in by other 
 means. The letter proved by Cockayne to have been in the hand- 
 writing of Jackson, and found among the papers of Stone, requesting 
 that the papers before left might not be made use of, shews that 
 Jackson came to Ireland, having prefixed the correspondence wdth 
 fictitious names. He forbids this afterwards. The ninth overt act is 
 a letter written to Benjamin Beresford, requesting him " to inform 
 certain persons," &c. " You are requested to see Madgett directly, and 
 inform him that two letters, with the opinions of the greatest counsel," 
 &Q. That very night these two letters were intercepted in the office. 
 On the morning of the next day Cockayne applied to Mr. Hamilton 
 to know whether the letter &c. had been intercepted, and furnishes 
 the original paper in the hand-writing of Jackson, from which the 
 copy was made. Hamilton took a press copy of it, which being 
 imperfect, it was objected to by the prisoner ; the copy was written 
 in the prisoner's presence, and by his directions sent to the post-office. 
 The eleventh overt act is, that he sent information to France. This, 
 gentlemen, goes as well to the papers which were forwarded as the 
 others which have been produced in evidence. Now, gentlemen, see 
 whether any man living, of the most scrupulous and tender conscience, 
 can hesitate to pronoimce what the object and motive of such papers 
 were. Look at the words expressing the situation of Ii'eland, and 
 inviting " an invasion in sufficient force." Here is nothing of trade 
 or manufactures ; nothing of law suits or covenants or leases. If you 
 believe that this was written by the procurement of Jackson, to be 
 forwarded by his procurement as Cockayne has sworn, to the French 
 people, that generous people, who were to support the Ii-ish nation — 
 
 ]Mr. Jackson. — I beg Mr. Prime- Serjeant's pardon, there is no 
 e^'idence that the paper was to be forwarded. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sekjeaxt. — I beseech the prisoner at the bar, if I 
 liave mistated, even to his feeling, what the case will not warrant, to 
 apprize me of it, and I will retract it, with more satisfaction than any 
 assertion I ever made in my life. I intended to say, that if the jury 
 believe it was written by the procurement of the prisoner, and 
 intended to be foinvarded though intercepted, the crime in point of 
 law is consummate. 
 
 ISIr. Jackson The indictment states, that the letter was to be 
 
 sent to Benjamin Beresford. There is no such thing upon the super- 
 scription. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant — The tenth overt act does not state it, but 
 the ninth does state that the letter was to be sent to Benjamin 
 Beresford — the letter in evidence a Monsieur Beresford. It is matter 
 for the jury to consider whether the evidence proves the charge in 
 the indictment. K the jury believe that this letter was in the custody 
 of Jackson and written for the purpose imputed to him, it is a new 
 overt act. I agree with the gentlemen concerned for the prisoner 
 that the evidence of Cockayne, under the particular circumstances 
 under which it comes forward, does come so infected as not to 
 have that weight, which it would have if those circumstances did 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 263 
 
 not exist. But I say his testimony is corroborated by such a variety 
 of circumstances as establish the truth of it. Xo person is brought 
 forward to disprove the hand-writing of Jackson, as pro\ed by 
 Cockayne. Witli respect to Mr. Tone, it will be a subject for your 
 consideration, gentlemen, whether it was competent for the gentlemen 
 concerned for the prisoner to produce him. If he had been produced 
 by the Crown, he might very well object and say, " I will not accuse 
 myself." They had notice by the indictment that his testimony might 
 be materially, and could have come prepared. If there be weight in 
 these observations your lordships and the jur}- will give them a pro- 
 portionate attention — if there be not, you will throw them out of your 
 consideration. 
 
 Gentlemen, I feel a degree of satisfaction in my mind, arising from 
 this circumstance, that I am not conscious of having made an obser- 
 vation which the case will not warrant. Gentlemen, if you believe 
 the evidence, you have a duty to discharge to yourselves, your 
 country, and your God ; and if you do not believe it, your duty is to 
 acquit the prisoner. If you have such a doubt, not such as womanish 
 fears may suggest, but such as your sober judgment may, you will 
 give it due consideration and lean to the side of mercy. I am sure 
 the world will be satisfied ^^^th your verdict after you have given the 
 case such consideration. 
 
 Mr. Jacksox. — I feel a weight upon my mind to make an obser- 
 vation or two upon what Mr. Prime- Serjeant has said upon the 
 superscription of the letter to Monsieur Beresford. One was directed 
 to Basle in Switzerland, a neutral power ; and another was directed 
 to Amsterdam, which at that time was at war with France. The 
 places to which the letters were directed, were either neutral places, 
 or at war with France : — the letters were not sent to enemies of 
 England. There is nothing but constructive evidence that these 
 papers were intended for the enemies of Ireland. This, my lords, is 
 all I have to sav. 
 
 Lord Cloxmel, Chief- Justice — Gentlemen of the jury, in this case 
 of the King against William Jackson, clerk, the indictment against 
 the prisoner is founded on the statute of treasons, 25 Ed. Ill, chap 2. 
 a statute that has been considered as one of the greatest protections 
 to the subject that ever passed ; as stating and precisely ascertaining 
 what shall be treason to aifect the life of the subject, to prevent any 
 unascertained crime of that nature from alFecting him. The two 
 branches of treason comprehended in this indictment are, the compassing 
 the death of the King, and adhering to the King's enemies. I woidd 
 now mention a principle or two that have never been doubted ; one 
 is, that a conspiracy to levy war against the King or his government, 
 is evidence of compassing the death of the King. This is mentioned 
 in the works of aU the great crown lawyers ; in 4 Bl. Comm. 82. 
 3 Inst. 9- Foster's Cr. L. 212, 213. You will understand me when 
 I say, that e\-idence of conspiracy to levy war against the King or his 
 government, is evidence of compassing the King's death ; and the 
 reason justifies the principle ; for the result of such a conspiracy is 
 probably the King's destruction, either by his death or his impri- 
 sonment, which may lead to his death ; and for that reason it is 
 applicable as evidence of compassing the King's death. Again — 
 
264 TRIAL OF 
 
 another principle is, that giving intelligence to the King's enemies is 
 evidence of the second branch of this indictment, the adhering to the 
 King's enemies. This is a clear and simple species of high treason ; 
 each part of the indictment charges a clear high treason, not con- 
 structive nor involved. It lias been fortunate in this country, though 
 it may make the difficulty the greater on the judges at present, that 
 there is scarcely an instance in the recollection of the oldest lawyer, 
 of that crime having been committed in this kingdom, and a prose- 
 cution for it ; but a case has been detei'mined in the Court of King's 
 Bench in England, in the year 1758, resembling the present in many 
 instances. The King against Dr. Hensey,* who was convicted of 
 high treason and judgment of death pronounced on him ; in that case. 
 Lord Mansfield, with the concurrence of his brethern followed by 
 Foster, and as able assistants as the Chief- Justice had at any time, 
 lays down the law thus — " Levying war, is an overt act of compassing 
 the death of the King. An overt act of the intention of levying war 
 or of bringing war upon the kingdom," (and those words are very 
 material) " is settled to be an overt act of compassing the King's 
 death. Soliciting a foreign prince even in amity with the Crown, to 
 invade the x'ealm is such an overt act. And so was Cardinal Pole's 
 case. And one of these letters is such a solicitation of a foreign prince 
 to invade the realm. Letters of advice and correspondence, and 
 intelligence to the enemy to enable them to annoy us or defend them- 
 selves, written and sent in order to be delivered to the enemy, ai"e, 
 though intercepted, overt acts of both these species of treason that 
 have been mentioned ; and this was detemiined by all the Judges of 
 England in Gregg's case : where the indictment (which I have seen) 
 is much like the present indictment. The only doubt there arose 
 from the letters of intelligence being intercepted and never delivered ; 
 but they held that that circumstance did not alter the case." And, 
 gentlemen, to justify that doctrine, one obvious reason must occur to 
 all your minds ; that no person could be indicted with effect for 
 sending letters, if the law was that they must have gone to tlie place 
 for which tliey were intended ; because in that case they could not 
 possibly be laid hold of for the purposes of prosecution ; it would be 
 grossly absurd. Another paragraph in that case I will read to you 
 as bearing on the facts in this case. " As to the fact in the present 
 case — 'the jury are to consider whether they were written by the 
 prisoner at the bar, in order to be delivered to the enemy, and with 
 intent to convey to the enemy such intelligence as might serve and 
 assist tliem in carrying on war against this Crown, or in avoiding the 
 destinations of our enterprizes and armaments against them." I think 
 I have now laid down certain principles and clear positions in your 
 minds as far as I have gone, which will go a great way in directing 
 you in the consideration of this case ; I will now state to you how 
 this indictment is laid, and go through the different overt acts stated 
 to support the intention ; for that intention, if supported by the acts 
 stated on any of them, will complete the crime against the prisoner ; 
 any one of them, if you believe the intention, and the overt act 
 to be proved, will complete the charge against him. I shall endeavour, 
 
 * 1 Burr, 642. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 265 
 
 feeling great difficulty from my own inability at this late hour of 
 the night, to collect the facts in the best order for your consideration ; 
 it will be your verdict, and not the verdict of the Court ; we are 
 responsible for the law, it is our duty to state the law, and I have 
 laid down principles from great authority ; I shall only add to them, 
 that by the common law of both countries, one witness alone is sufficient 
 in these cases : if you believe that witness, and if he swears to the 
 facts that are laid, and if they are sufficiently stated to be the acts of 
 the prisoner in support of the intention charged, it is the opinion of 
 the court, that by the common law a second is not necessary, and no 
 statute on the subject to contradict that, exists in this country ; and 
 here, let me say how the law appears to be in that case ; it was not 
 only the opinion of Judge Foster, one of the most honest and greatest 
 lawyers that England ever knew, and who ranks with Lord Hale ; 
 but also, as appears from his Crown Law, p. 233, it was the general 
 opinion, that at common law, one witness was sufficient in the case of 
 treason, notwithstanding Lord Coke's opinion to the contrary : the 
 opinion of Judge Foster is the same with Serjeant Hawkins, and 
 though Hawkins is only a compiler, and states many doubts, yet he 
 is certainly one of the most faithful and laborious compilers that we 
 have. Let me now state the facts from the words of the indictment. 
 William Jackson is charged, for that, at a time when open war existed 
 between France and England — of which Foster says, that public 
 notoriety is sufficient evidence — he did, knowing the premises, but 
 contriving the tranquillity of the kingdom to disquiet, the government 
 to subvert, and the King of and from the crown to depose and deprive, 
 and to death and final destruction to bring and put ; did on the 3d 
 day of April, in the 34th year of the King &c. at the parish of St. 
 Andrew &c. traitorously compass, imagine, and intend the King, of 
 and from the crown of Ireland, to depose and wholly deprive, and the 
 King to kill, and bring and put to death. This is the general charge ; 
 that he imagined and compassed the king's death, and at that time 
 and under those circumstances ; and then in the first count, diffiirent 
 means are stated : first, that he landed in Ireland, for the purpose 
 of procuring information concerning the situation and disposition 
 of the King's subjects, now as to the dispostion of the King's sub- 
 jects, that part of the charge will be more in your mind when 
 you come to consider what I shall lay great stress on, the state oj 
 the nation that was sent over. It is next laid, that the prisoner at 
 the bar, did consult to levy war in the kingdom of Ireland, against 
 the King : and if it be proved to your satisfaction, that he did conspire 
 to levy war, and to invite the French power to invade this kingdom ; 
 it is evidence in support of this count. It is next laid, that the pri- 
 soner did incite and endeavour to persuade one Theobald Wolfe Tone, 
 to go into foi'eign parts to represent to the French powers that divers 
 subjects of Ireland were dissatisfied with the government, and to 
 persuade them to invade Ireland ; this also will be applicable to part 
 of that statement which I shall have occasion to dwell on hereafter. 
 The next act laid is, that the prisoner conspired with other persons 
 to procure and provide a person to go beyond the seas — it is to the 
 same pui-pose, but more general than the former, which applied to 
 Theobald Wolfe Tone only. Next, that he did conspire with others, 
 
266 TRIAL, OP 
 
 to send a person to France to give information of the state of Ireland 
 — and this also is evidence, if proved, of compassing the King's death. 
 It is next charged that he did compose and write, and cause to be 
 written, a letter to William Stone in England, and did by that letter 
 instruct him to disclose to the persons having the powers of govern- 
 ment in France, a scheme of the prisoner's to send a person to France 
 to satisfy said persons of divers subjects of Ireland being ready to 
 negotiate with them, for an invasion of Ireland, but that the private 
 affairs of such person would not permit him to go, and therefore that 
 the prisoner wovdd send a statement of the situation and dispositions 
 of the people of Ireland — this is evidence also of compassing the death 
 of the King. The next act laid is to the same effect of the last, but 
 put more generally, and this and all that I have mentioned, go in 
 support of the first count. The next charge is that the prisoner 
 delivei-ed and caused to be delivered the said letters into the post- 
 office here ; and if this be proved it falls under that head described by 
 Lord Mansfield in Hensey's case, and that act would be sufficient to 
 make him guilty of compassing the King's death. The two next 
 overt acts laid are, the writing a letter to Benjamin Beresford, and 
 the delivering that letter into the post-office. It is next laid, that the 
 prisoner composed and wrote, and caused to be written divers instruc- 
 tions, inviting the King's enemies to invade Ireland — and this seems 
 to me very material for your consideration : it is stated that among 
 other things the following particulars are contained, " that the Dis- 
 senters are steady republicans." — (I will not repeat this paper, as you 
 have already heard it more than once.) The next charge is, that the 
 prisoner wrote several other accounts and instructions concerning the 
 people of Ii'eland, and all these accounts caused to be delivered into 
 the post-office. And, in the next charge, those words which I have 
 stated ai-e again repeated. These are the charges, all of which ai'e 
 applicable to the first count ; and if any of them are substantially 
 proved, and you believe it, it will lead you to find the prisoner guilty. 
 These charges are applied to the second branch of the indictment, 
 and support it, as Avell as the first, if proved, I shall now take up 
 the evidence in the order it was laid before you, and it will be for you 
 to see whether the intentions, the purposes and the acts proved, be 
 the intentions, the purposes, and the acts of the prisoner Jackson. 
 Any one of the charges, if proved, will support either branch of the 
 indictment, and I shall make such observations as occur to me from 
 time to time. John Cockayne was first produced — ^he swears that he 
 has known the prisoner Jackson ten years ; it has been said that it 
 appeared fi-om Cockayne that Jackson came hither to funiish some 
 provisions for the French, and not with any treasonable design — but 
 Cockayne's evidence was, that when he came over, he did not think 
 Jackson would put himself into his present situation, or that he should 
 ever be a witness against him, which he swears he is very sorry for, 
 if you believe him. They dined, he says, at Counsellor M'Nally's ; 
 Counsellor Simon Butler dined there ; the conversation turned on 
 politics at large, those of the day, and those of the Irish nation ; it 
 went to the dissatisfaction of some part of the kingdom — now that 
 may be material, if you believe the witness, when you come to con- 
 sider the state of the nation, when the dissatisfaction of the King's 
 
 J 
 
THE REV. WILJLIAM JACKSON. 267 
 
 subjects is mentioned. The witness then says that he saw Mr. Lewins 
 at Hyde's cofFee-house, that he asked Jackson for some papers to 
 deliver to Mr. Rowan, to convince him that he was a man with whom 
 he might converse with confidence ; on this part of the evidence, one 
 observation arises ; as soon as these men came into this country, if 
 you believe Cockayne, Jackson furnishes Lewins with certain docu- 
 ments, in order to convince Rowan that he was a man to be confiden- 
 tially spoken with — of what wei*e they to speak ? why was he to 
 converse with Rowan, a prisoner in Newgate ? — and these were such 
 papers too, that Jackson said that if he had had them back, he would 
 not have entrusted them to Lewins again — these papers were asked 
 by Lewins with that view, but whether the prisoner gave them with 
 that view, is a conclusion for you to draw ; this passed a few days 
 after Jackson's arrival here. The witness and Jackson went together 
 to Newgate soon after — the conversation turned on Irish aiFairs — on 
 the United Irishmen — on some dissatisfactions among the people in 
 some parts of the kingdom ; it does not appear that any part of that 
 conversation was about manufactures and lawsuits, the topics alluded 
 to in some of Jackson's letters — it was a political conversation — I am 
 not saying that it was not possible such a thing might exist — far from 
 it — there may have been such things as lawsuits and differences in 
 Jackson's family, and Rowan not know a word of the matter. There 
 was another meeting — there, Tone read a paper but the witness did 
 not hear it ; there was something about a plan to send Tone to France, 
 and, if you believe the witness, Jackson approved of Tone for the 
 purpose, more than of Reynolds ; this supports what he said about the 
 plan of sending a person to France : the witness said they were to go 
 with some papers — with written instructions for the French ; that he 
 heard this alternately spoken of by Jackson, Rowan, &c. and that he 
 understood it was to Paris that they were to be sent. 
 
 On this letter (No. 2) marked with a large cross, and contained 
 within two covers, in each of which there was a recommendation to 
 forward the enclosed ; I will make one observation ; I wish not to 
 dictate ; I wish to raise in your minds sentiments that will lead you 
 to the truth ; it was said with good sense by the prisoner at the bar, 
 that there is no evidence that these papers were to go to the French ; 
 but see what was the recommendation in each of the covers — it was, 
 " to forward the inclosed ;" the paper was not to rest there ; this is 
 material for your consideration, that is, if you believe the paper to be 
 the hand-writing of Jackson. Cockayne next proved his own hand- 
 writing to the letter marked A, No. 3. That this copy was sent to 
 the post-office by the prisoner's directions, and that Mr. Hamilton 
 took a press copy of the original ; it is directed A Monsieur Beresford, 
 Basle, Switzerland, and dated Dublin 24th April ; it will be for you 
 to judge whether it means really and bond Jide a lawsuit, or whether 
 the language is not intended to convey other tilings — of what is 
 alleged in the overt acts laid — " collecting what is now sent as a real 
 case in point," this is incorrectly expressed, if it is a law matter that 
 is meant — however, the prisoner is no lawyer. " By hostile or pacific 
 means " — that may be meant of a lawsuit ; Jackson is a clergyman ; 
 he is not a lawyer. The letter is signed " Thomas Popkins," this 
 furnishes a circumstance for your consideration, if you believe 
 
268 TRIAL OF 
 
 Cockayne ; Jackson has shewn no necessity why he should change 
 his name in this country while conducting a lawsuit for a friend 
 abroad : Cockayne swears that this was a copy from a paper in Jack- 
 son's hand- writing ; look at the date, it is the 24th April, and compare 
 it with the day when the statement of the nation was put into the 
 post-office. The next letter is No. 4, B. it is in the prisonei-'s hand, 
 but the superscription is written by the witness, by the prisoner's 
 direction ; it is for you to consider what all this mystery means ; the 
 inside directed to one person — the outside to another 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — My lord, there is really no mystery in the case ; 
 Mr. Stone had a house at Oldford, all letters to him there were 
 directed in his own name ; all letters to him in London, were by his 
 directions to be sent to the house of Lawrence and Co. — now, may I 
 make one observation as to the other letter, which your lordship seems 
 to think was something enigmatical. 
 
 Lord Clonmei, — No ; — do not think that I say so. 
 
 Mr. Jackson That letter has a postscript mentioning something 
 
 about the birth of a child ; your lordship left it to the jury to enquii'e 
 whether it alluded to a bond fide transaction or not : no, my Lord — 
 that lady had been separated from her husband for several years ; she 
 had a child during that separation, and I believe the father did not 
 know the sex of the child ; for some reason best known to themselves, 
 they never corresponded. As explanatory of the lawsuit — My lord, 
 it is well known that Mr. Beresford was married to the sister of 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, and conceiving himself entitled to a 
 fortune on the death of Mrs. Hamilton, the mother of Mr. Rowan, in 
 right of his wife, requested of me to make enquiries about it, particu- 
 larly as he had written to the executors and repreutatives of Mrs. 
 Hamilton, and never could obtain an answer. 
 
 Lord CiiONMEL. — Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Jackson ; I wish, 
 if what he has said can be of any use, that there had been evidence of 
 it. This letter will also be for your consideration, whether it be 
 written bond fide — whether the opinions mentioned be legal opinions. 
 No. 5, C. is enclosed within two covers directed in witness Cockayne's 
 hand — [the Clerk of the Crown read this paper by his lordship's 
 order.] No. 6, is a duplicate of No. 5, the witness told you it is by 
 desire of Jackson all in his, the witness's, hand-writing. Mr. De 
 Joncourt proved that he had orders to intercept these letters, and that 
 he did so ; he found them on the 24th April, and gave them to Mr. 
 Hamilton. 
 
 Cockayne was then cross-examined ; but before I come to that, I 
 shall make one observation on his direct examination : he sweai's 
 he directed these letters by Jackson's desire ; you see what they were 
 — they were transcripts ; they corresponded with the papers found on 
 Ml". Jackson's table in his lodgings, which was evidence of his posses- 
 sion ; I say, then, as to these papers, of which there appears to have 
 been four, if you believe that two of them were sent by the direction 
 of the prisoner at the bar — that he knew their contents, and tliat he 
 sent them into foreign parts for the purposes stated in the indictment 
 — I have no hesitation in saying (and I believe my brothers entirely 
 agree with me, — if they do, they will say so, or qualify their opinions 
 as they may think proper) that they are treasonable to all intents 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 269 
 
 and purposes, as tending to invite a foreign enemy into this kingdom. 
 If you believe that to have been the intention of the prisoner at the 
 bar, you ought to find him guilty. 
 
 Now, as to the objections arising on the cross-examination of 
 Cockayne. He was examined as to his credit, that he was a man not 
 io be believed upon his oath : he stated the circumstances of the 
 indictment and prosecution for perjury : you heard the account he 
 gave of it, and you are the proper judges of his credit. 
 
 There were two papers found in the prisoner's possession, in his 
 chambers by Carleton, agreeing with the papers sent to the post-office 
 by his directions. If you believe they were put into the post-office by 
 his directions, you ought to find him guilty. It is then suggested 
 by his counsel, that they were put into the office by Cockayne, and 
 he knew they were to be intercepted. I gave an answer to that 
 early : — it was not from the knowledge, or intention of Cockayne, 
 that you are to judge, but from the knowledge or intention of Jackson 
 himself. The question is, whether you believe that they were sent 
 to the post-office by Jackson, with the intention I have described. 
 But if you believe, either that Jackson did not know the contents of 
 the letters, or that he did not send them, or that they were not directed 
 by his advice or request — if you believe, which is within possibility, 
 that this was all a scheme and a plan of Cockayne to bring the 
 prisoner into this situation, then you ought to acquit him. It is 
 possible that Cockayne might have contrived this scheme, abominable 
 as it would be, to entrap Jackson, for some bad or wicked purpose, 
 to take away Jackson's life, and might have written the body and 
 superscriptions of the papers for that purpose. If you believe that, 
 you can have no hesitation in acquitting Jackson. And if your 
 minds are suspended in such a degree of doubt, that you cannot, 
 balancing one supposition with another, satisfy yourself, you will 
 according to the benignity of the law, lean in favour of life, and 
 acquit the prisoner. 
 
 Mr. Jackson — My lord, will your lordship give me leave to men- 
 tion another thing ? 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Yes, go on. 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — There is another thing within the power of possi- 
 bility — that is, that supposing the fact to be as Cockayne has stated, 
 it is within the power of possibility, that one letter, which prima Jhcie 
 was to go to Amsterdam, then at war with France ; and the other to 
 Hamburgh, a neutral power. There is a possibility that they were 
 not to go any farther than those places ; for there is no evidence that 
 they were to be sent to France. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — I thought I had stated it more favourably for 
 you than you do for yourself. I stated, that the jury must believe, 
 that these letters were to go fuither, and were to be delivered to 
 French persons, for the purpose of exciting them to invade this 
 kingdom 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — There is another circumstance I must mention. I 
 am afraid I shall tire your lordship. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — No, sir, go on : — nothing can tire me upon this 
 occasion. 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — There is a circumstance which has been stated to 
 
270 TRIAL, OF 
 
 be very material ; the cross on tlie inside envelope of these two letters. 
 Now, it is usual, in the greatest mercantile houses on the continent, 
 at Hamburgh and other places, where letters are intended not to be 
 opened by the clerks, but by the principals only, to mark them with a 
 cross, and other symbols, to denote such intention. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, — Of that there is no evidence. The jury will 
 make their observation upon what you have said. The next evidence 
 was Sackville Hamilton. (His lordship then recapitulated Mr. 
 Hamilton's testimony, and that of the other witnesses ; on his observing 
 on parts of the letter B, No. 1 , particularly the words — " I am glad 
 to tind that the patterns I sent have reached the persons for whom 
 they were intended. The state of manufactures in England which 
 your friend drew out is very just.") 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — There is not anything surprising that a person 
 corresponding with Stone, should correspond on matters of trade and 
 manufactures ; he is extremely eminent in that way ; in particular, 
 he has lately constructed a very large stamp engine. 
 
 (On Lord Clonmel's making further observation on the signature 
 of Thomas Popkins.) 
 
 Mr. Jackson — I think I can easily explain that. I left England 
 some years ago, and became involved in difficulties which were not 
 over when I returned — I applied to Mr. Cockayne to arrange my 
 aifairs ; in the meantime, I lived in obscurity, and in order to conceal 
 myself the more effectually, I begged that any letter to me might be 
 directed under the name of Thomas Popkins ; but when I came to 
 this country, not being apprehensive of any personal danger, I went 
 by my own name ; and I was a man of as much publicity as any in 
 town. Another thing — there is no proof that I ever was employed 
 by France ; if I was, and if they were such a generous and brave 
 people, as I am supposed to have represented them, they would at 
 least have paid my debts ; yet I was under pecuniary difficulties — 
 now, for a man to come here and attempt an invasion, and yet not 
 have money to pay his debts, is to me as great a mystery as any that 
 has come out in this business. 
 
 Lord Clonmex,. — I wish the jury to attend to Mr. Jackson's obser- 
 vations on the facts ; but they cannot attend to his assertion of facts 
 which are not in proof. (His lordship then proceeded) — Here the 
 prosecution was rested. Mr. Curran, who stated the prisoner's case, 
 and observed upon the evidence, did give a promise to the court, that 
 a witness would be examined to contradict Cockayne. No such 
 witness is produced : — No witness was produced by the prisoner. 
 The covuisel stated their objections in point of law, and after they had 
 gone through their observations, and the Prime- Serjeant had gone 
 half through in reply, they offered a witness to discredit Cockayne ; 
 and to be sure, if he were discredited, there is nothing in the case. 
 I have no hesitation in saying, that if you do not believe him upon his 
 oath, you ought to acquit the prisoner. But the witness produced 
 knew nothing pertinent to the subject ; he knew nothing of his private 
 character, or anything beyond his practice as an attorney. I would 
 rather let any further observations come from my brethren. However 
 there are some which strike me as necessary to be made. It was 
 said, that the prosecutor should have produced Tone. The Prime 
 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 2^1 
 
 Sei'jeant answered that — the prisoner might have produced him. 
 The papers sent up to you go by consent. It was objected, that two 
 witnesses were not produced to the same overt act, or one to one 
 overt act, and a second to another. I have given you my opinion as 
 to that. My brothers will give you theirs — I think by the common 
 law of this kingdom, two witnesses are not necessary. The next 
 objection was to shew that Cockayne was a person not to be believed 
 upon his oath, and they endeavoured to blacken him by shewing what 
 they called the baseness of his conduct, being the attorney and friend 
 of the prisoner. To that it may be answered, I do not say it is the 
 case, that he was more likely to know the circumstances. There does 
 not appear to have been any grudge or quarrel between them : — but 
 however the case depends so much upon the credit of Cockayne that 
 unless you do believe him, you ought to acquit the prisoner. I wish 
 not to go further into the evidence as to what Carleton said, making 
 a second witness, being of opinion that a second witness is not neces- 
 sary. You, gentlemen, will consider the whole case, both upon all 
 the evidence which has been given and all the papers, which will be 
 sent up to you. I do not wish to say much in the way of observation ; 
 — however it is my duty to say something as it I'ose upon my mind. 
 It is somewhat remarkable that Jackson did not produce witnesses. 
 He was arrested in April 1794. He has had the same opportunity of 
 preparing for his defence as every other prisoner, and no person has 
 been produced. 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — My lord, the last time the trial was to come on, the 
 Crown put it off on account of the absence of Cockayne. I had two 
 witnesses then ; William Humfries and George Dodwell. The former 
 is an ensign in the city of Dublin regiment, who could have disproved 
 the declaration of Cockayne, stated by Mr. Curran. Mr. Humfries 
 has been in the Isle of Man. If your lordship would hear my agent, 
 he would throw light upon the transaction. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — I would wish to do as much as possible for you ; 
 but I cannot strain the law. What witness would you examine ? 
 
 Mr. Jackson. — I had desired my counsel to examine my agent. I 
 would examine my agent. I would examine him now to prove, that 
 Cockayne said he had papers of mine in the morning of my arrest, 
 which he denied upon the table here. 
 
 The Counsel for the Crown stated that Cockayne had left court, 
 it being at this time past three in the morning, and could not now be 
 confronted with any witness produced. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — It is irregular to examine this witness, who has 
 been in court during the whole trial, and heard Mr. Cockayne give 
 his testimony. If this man could have contradicted that witness he 
 ought then to have mentioned it. However examine him. 
 
 Edward Crookshank Keane, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with Cockayne touching any paper 
 found upon the table in Mr. Jackson's room ? A. I had ; the day I 
 was employed by Mr. Jackson Mr. Cockayne called upon me, and 
 said it was rather lucky that the papers found in Jackson's room, were 
 found there. He said he was the friend of Mr. Jackson, and wished 
 to give evidence, — he dined at my house for that purpose. He said 
 
272 TRIAL OF 
 
 he had these papers a long time before the arrest : — ^lie had them till 
 twelve o'clock the night before the arrest, and that night he put them 
 in the room where Mr. Jackson slept. I mentioned this to the coun- 
 sel, but did not wish to appear as a witness, and would not now but 
 for the earnest desire of the prisoner. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor-G-eneral. 
 
 Q. You called a witness of the name of Humfries ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did you not know, that Humfries was gone to the Isle of Man, 
 at the time you called him ? A. If you press me for my belief, I 
 belive he was, but he was summoned ; I saw him at the Quarter 
 Assembly ; he was served with the summons last Tuesday, and at 
 that time I understood he was not gone. 
 
 Q. You heard the examination of Cockayne ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. It was not till a considerable time after, that he was called upon 
 to be examined to the fact, which you contradict? A. I recollect 
 that very well ; but it was owing to what Mr. Carleton said relative 
 to some of the papers. 
 
 Q. Where is Theobald Wolfe Tone ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe he is within reach of the process of the 
 court ? Where is he ? A. I believe he is not in Dublin. 
 
 Q. Did you converse with him ? A. I never saw him more than 
 three or four times. 
 
 Q. Did you know Hamilton Rowan? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did he not escape immediately after Mr. Jackson was arrested ? 
 A. I do not know the exact time ; I believe it was the 1st of May. 
 
 Q. Did you not hear the whole examination of Cockayne ? A. 
 Not the whole, for I was going back and forward. 
 
 Q. Did you not hear him say, that he had a letter of Jackson's in 
 his possession ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Where is Mr. Lewins ? A. I believe he is in England ; he is 
 gone there about some business of his uncle, Mr. Braughall ; I believe 
 the crown might have had his attendance and Mr. Tone's too : but I 
 have heard there was a compromise with Mr. Tone by government 
 that he was not to be prosecuted. 
 
 Q. From whom did you hear it ? A. I am not at liberty to mention. 
 I first heard it upon a consultation of barristers, respecting Mr. 
 Jackson's business ; but I heard it in such a manner, that I believe it. 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath, do you believe that is the reason he is 
 not prosecuted ? A. I do believe it. 
 
 Q. When did Lewins go to England ? A. Near a month ago. 
 
 Q. Is he not your apprentice ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you not know from the indictment that Tone was a material 
 witness ? A. I cannot say to that. 
 
 Q. Don't you believe that there were meetings at Newgate between 
 the prisoner, H. Rowan, Tone, and others, which have been stated by 
 Cockayne ? A. I believe they had some meetings. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — This is not perfectly regular. The agent is not 
 usually received as a witness for his client in such a situation as the 
 present prisoner, and nothing but that sort of leaning for the accused 
 in such a situation could induce me to submit. We have been going 
 too far. 
 
THE BEV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 273 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — Gentlemen of the jury — I agree with my 
 lord on the law of this case, and after the full statement which you 
 have heard, I shall not trouble you with any observations on the 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlaine I am perfectly of the same opinion 
 
 with my Lord Clonmel, on the law of this case ; and in particular, I 
 agree that two witnesses are not necessary to prove an overt act of 
 high treason in Ireland — they ai^e necessary in England by force of 
 an act of pai-liament, which never was enacted in this kingdom. 
 Cockayne is certainly the only witness to prove the most material 
 facts in this case ; but it is most essential that you shall consider 
 whether his evidence is or is not confirmed by the papers which have 
 been read, one of which, it is true, has been sworn by Cockayne 
 alone to be the hand-writing of tlie prisoner, but two others have been 
 i sworn by another witness, Mr. Carleton, to have been found on the 
 j table of the prisoner at his bed side, at the time he was taken. If 
 you believe that those two papers, purporting to be a statement of the 
 affairs of this kingdom, were found in the possession of the prisoner, 
 i then you are to consider whether the fact of two precise counterparts 
 [thereof being found in the post-office (as Mr. De Joncourt has sworn) 
 I does or does not confii'm Avhat Cockayne has sworn, as to this material 
 part of the case, viz. That those papers so found in the post-office 
 j were written by the direction of the prisoner, with a declared inten- 
 i tion that they should be put into the post-office. But in considering 
 the overt act in proof of which two papers so found in the post-office 
 have been read, it is of the essence of the case that you shall be 
 satisfied that this statement of the situation of affairs in Ireland not 
 only was sent, or put into the post-office by the directions of Jackson, 
 but that his intent therein was, that that statement should be delivered 
 to the governing powers in France, as is charged by the indictment. 
 The prisoner has observed that one copy was directed to Amsterdam, 
 in a country then at war with France, another to Hamburgh (a 
 neutral port,) and therefore you will consider whether those state- 
 ments were intended merely as information to the persons to whom 
 they are addressed at those places, or whether they were to go further 
 — and in this part of the case it is fit that you should consider the 
 paper containing the directions, sworn by Cockayne to be in the hand- 
 writing of the prisoner, and by another witness to have been found 
 in the possession of Stone, who is sworn to have been Jackson's 
 correspondent. And in determining upon the intent of the prisoner 
 in putting or causing those two statements of the affairs of Ireland to 
 be put into the post-office (if you believe he did so), it is material to 
 consider part of Cockayne's evidence. You will recollect the conver- 
 sation of the pi'isoner with Mr. Hamilton Rowan and Tone at 
 Newgate, about sending Tone with written instructions to be conveyed 
 to Paris — Avhat those instructions were, Cockayne could not tell, 
 although he had seen the paper containing them. He told you that 
 Tone at first agreed to go, but that he afterwards retracted, giving 
 certain reasons, whei-eupon Cockayne told you, that the prisoner gave 
 encouragement to Doctor Reynolds to go, but that the result was, 
 that neither went. And you will consider whether it is or is not to 
 be reasonably inferred that the instructions spoken of by those persons 
 
 X 
 
274 TRIAL OP 
 
 at Newgate, were the same with those that were found (according to 
 the evidence) in a few days after in the post-office — precise counter- i 
 parts whereof, are sworn by Mr. Oliver Carleton to have been found 
 on the prisoner's table, at the time when he was apprehended — then 
 you will consider whether upon finding, that neither Tone, nor 
 Reynolds would go upon this mission, the prisoner resorted to the, 
 post-office, and took that method of sending the instructions. It was 
 remarked by the prisoner himself, that of the two places, to which 
 the papers containing " a statement of Irish affiiirs," were directed, 
 one was at war with France, and the other a neutral port. And I 
 agree that if you are not satisfied, that those instructions were 
 intended to be forwarded from one of those places to those who 
 possessed the government of France at that time, you cannot make 
 anything of this, the most material overt act that is charged by this 
 indictment. 
 
 At a quarter before four o'clock on Friday morning, the jury 
 retired, and after being enclosed about half an hour, returned with a 
 verdict of GUILTY. 
 
 Foreman. — My lord, I am directed by the jury to recommend the 
 prisoner to mercy, from his years and situation in life. 
 
 The Court. — Have you any doubts in your minds with respect to 
 the evidence ? 
 
 Foreman. — Not the least. 
 
 The prisoner was then remanded, and the court saying, that four 
 days must intervene, before judgment could be pronounced, he was 
 ordered to be brought up on Thursday, April 30th. 
 
 Thursday, April 30, 1795. 
 
 This day Mr. Jackson was brought up for judgment. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown Gaoler, set the Rev. William Jackson to 
 
 the bar. 
 
 Hold up your right hand. 
 
 Mr. Jackson accordingly held up his right hand. 
 
 Then the Clerk of the Crown proceeded to read the indictment. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, Mr. Curran is not yet come, but any 
 gentleman, as amicus curicB may suggest to the court. It is so ruled. 
 It is Mr. Curran's wish that the caption may be read, as well as the 
 other parts of the indictment. It is Mr. Curran's wish it should be 
 read, it is not a suggestion of mine. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — From the prisoner's apparent ill state of health, 
 if any advantage is to be taken from reading the indictment, I should 
 be glad it may be read through. But seeing his ill state of health, 
 I would not wish to encrease his labour by Avaiting. But do as you 
 
 please. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally My lord, let the clerk of the crown read three or 
 
 four lines. 
 
 Court. — Do so. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, by the statute of Geo. II. in this country, 
 founded on the statutes of "Wm. and Anne in England, regulating trials 
 of hi<^h treason, the prisoner charged Avith that offence is entitled to 
 a copy of the indictment. It has been ruled that that includes the 
 caption, and it is also ruled, that if the prisoner does not avail himself 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 275 
 
 of the objection previous to the plea pleaded, he loses the benefit of 
 it. Now, my lords, this gentleman was served with a copy of the 
 indictment in the usual time, but there was no caption annexed to the 
 copy that was served on him, but as it has not been usual in cases of 
 felony to make up the caption till after the conviction, it is possible, 
 that there may not be any caption in this indictment. I wish Mr. 
 Jackson may be convinced whether there is any caption on the record 
 or not. If there had been such, in a former stage of the prosecution, 
 the smallest variance between that and the indictment would be a 
 good ground of objection. It is the prisoner's wish to see that the 
 caption is on the record. 
 
 Lord Clonmel I see nothing in the objection. You should have 
 
 had a copy of the whole record if you had applied before. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown — The record is not made up, and the 
 caption not being part of the indictment, does not appear until the 
 indictment is put upon the record. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — As you are circumstanced, you cannot take 
 advantage of it. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — The prisoner then demands to know whether 
 there be a caption on the record. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — I wish the counsel assigned Mr. Jackson would 
 appear. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — I wish so too, my lord, for feeling as I do at 
 i:>resent, I am little able to go on. 
 
 [The court waiting some time for the counsel for the crown, Mr. 
 Curran came in, in the interval.] 
 
 Loi'd Clonmel — If there be nobody to pray judgment on this 
 man he must be remanded. 
 
 Mr. Curran My lords, I conceive that if the prisoner thinks 
 
 he has reason to make any motion in arrest of judgment, that this is 
 the time. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — The fii*st step in such a business is for the 
 Attorney or Solicitor- General, or some other of the King's servants 
 to pray judgment on the pei'son who is called up : that was the case 
 of Dr. Hensey, and several other cases in the state ti-ials, 
 
 INIr. Curran. — I speak not of the gentlemen conducting the 
 prosecution ; I speak merely as between the prisoner, the court and 
 the record ; I only mean that whenever it shall be the pleasure of the 
 court to go into this business, everything shall continue in the same 
 situation ; that there shall be no alteration in the record. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — It may be a full answer to what you say, that 
 the court Avill not be ancillary to putting your client into a worse 
 situation, whenever the matter comes on — 
 
 Mr. Curran — It is, my lord, a complete answer. 
 
 [Here Mr. Attorney- General came into court and apologised for 
 his absence which was occasioned by indispensable business elsewhere.] 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General It is now my duty to call on the 
 
 court to pi-onounce judgment on Mr. Jackson. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown — Set the Rev. William Jackson forward. 
 [Mr. Jackson was set forward.] 
 
 Clerk of the Crown — Hold up your right hand. [Mr. Jackson 
 
276 TRIAL OF 
 
 then held up his right hand, but in a short time let it fall, being to all 
 appearance in a very feeble state.] 
 
 [Here the indictment was read.] 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — Upon this indictment you have been 
 arraigned, upon your arraignment have pleaded not guilty, and for 
 trial have put yourself on God and your country, which country hath 
 found you guilty — what have you now to say why judgment of death 
 and execution thereon should not be awarded against you according 
 to law ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN I humbly move that the whole of the record on 
 
 which Mr. Attorney- General has prayed judgment be read over. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Mr. Attorney- General, you hear what is moved, 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General. — In the case of M'Dermott I recollect 
 the same application was made, and the court held them not entitled 
 to it. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — That was a case of felony ; but in a case of 
 treason I conceive we are entitled. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General I do not see what difference that 
 
 makes ; the statute does not make any. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — We wish to have the whole, the caption as well 
 as the indictment, read ; in case of treason, the prisoner is entitled to 
 a copy of the caption as well as of the indictment. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I acknowledge they had a right to 
 have a copy of the caption and therefore they have a right to have 
 it read. 
 
 [Clerk of the Crown read the caption.] 
 
 " Pleas before our Lord the King, at the King's courts of Trinity 
 term in the thirty-fourth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord 
 George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France 
 and Ireland King, Defender of the faith and soforth. Witness John 
 Earl of Clonmel. H. and E. Conway. County of the city of 
 Dublin to wit. Be it remembered, that on Friday next after the 
 morrow of the Holy Trinity in this same term, before our Lord the 
 King in the King's courts, upon the oath of twelve j urors honest and 
 lawful men of the body of the county of the city of Dublin, it is 
 presented in manner and form following, that is to say" — 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN Will you allow us to look at the record ? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General No, you have no right to it. As to 
 
 the objection of having no copy of the indictment, it comes too late 
 now, after pleading,* 
 
 (Clerk of the Crown, by desire of the prisoner's counsel, read the 
 caption again.) 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN I am one of the counsel assigned to the prisoner : 
 
 There is no doubt that the act does give him a right to have a copy 
 of the whole indictment, served on him in due time before trial, and 
 no doubt also, that has been considered as extending not only to what 
 is generally called the indictment, but to the caption also, and it 
 appears to be the constant usage to serve the parties with a copy of 
 
 * Fostci''s Crown Law, 230. j 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 277 
 
 the caption as well as of the indictment propei'ly so called. I need 
 not cite any authority for this ; it is to be found in the third page of 
 Foster.* I did understand that before I came into court the olficer 
 said there was no caption ; the fact however is, that my client has 
 never had any copy of it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — You do not exactly state what the officer 
 said ; he said the caption made no part of the indictment. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — The fact is, that the prisoner has had no copy of 
 it ; and of that fact, if you think it necessary, he is ready to make 
 affidavit. I know what may be said in answer to this objection, so 
 far as it is an objection — Foster does say, that if the prisoner pleaded 
 without a copy of the caption he is too late afterwards to make that 
 objection or any objection turning on a defect in the copy, for by 
 pleading he has admitted a sufficient copy. Now, my lords, having 
 learned that the prisoner was not served with any copy of the caption, 
 it was supposed that there was not any, and therefore it was thought 
 improper to say anything about the matter before ; it was conceived 
 by the prisoner and his counsel, and rightly, that there must be such 
 a record as on the entire of it would warrant the judgment to be 
 pronounced by the court ; reading this caption, such as it is, is a 
 surprise on the prisoner and his counsel ; they have therefore no 
 opportunity of considering, on the foot of the caption as read and of 
 which they had no copy, whether there may not arise an objection 
 that might warrant an ari-est of judgment. One objection strikes me 
 on reading it — it does not name the jurors by whom the bill of indict- 
 ment is supposed to have been found. The caption of the indictment 
 in the case of the Rebels in 1746 does name the juiy. If it should 
 appear to the court that a man has been brought to trial and convicted 
 where he has not in fact had the advantages which the law gives him 
 for his information and direction, it would be for the court to consider 
 whether by pleading over in chief, he shall be conceived to have 
 waived those advantages altogether ; that he has waived them in part 
 is certainly true ; he has waived them so far as regards the correctness 
 of the copy ; but whether it would follow that his pleading over is an 
 admission that he had a copy in fact served on him, will be for the court 
 to consider. Your lordships were pleased to intimate some inclina- 
 tion to let the prisoner be remanded and brought up some other day. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — All the court meant to say was that they would 
 yield to necessity. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN I did not mean to press it unless your lordships 
 
 were inclined from necessity ; but, there is one reason rather than any 
 other, on which you might think it ought to be done ; the prisoner 
 has been most violently indisposed all day ; he is at present in a state 
 of body that renders any communication between him and his counsel 
 almost impracticable ; he has every symptom of malady and disease 
 about him, as you might have seen when he was put forward. 
 
 Mr. PoNsoNBY. — The names of the grand jurors ought to be set 
 out in this and every other case of the same kind ; if the persons w^ho 
 ! found this bill were unqualified to act as grand jurors, it is no indict- 
 ment. I could not have made this objection before, never having 
 
 * Ibid, p. I, -228, 229. 
 
278 TRIAL OF 
 
 seen a copy of the caption ; your lordship will let us have time to 
 consider this objection. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General The application to your lordship is to 
 
 remand the prisoner, in order that he may have an opportunity of 
 considering the objection that is now made. I am sure, to indulge 
 my own feelings, I should be happy to grant what he desires ; but it 
 seems to me an application very needless, and what will produce no 
 fruit. The caption is a plain one, and he has pleaded to it as suffi- 
 cient, and has been tried on it ; I hope you will now put the gentlemen 
 to argue their objections, as the rule always is to argue motions in 
 arrest of judgment when they are made. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — They have stated their reason — what do you say 
 as to the caption not having the names of the jurors? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I say it is not necessary, and has not 
 been the practice ; it is a record of the court which states that the 
 jurors for our lord the King, have found a bill of indictment ; when 
 it is read, he pleads to it as a sufficient one. If the individuals of the 
 jury furnish any objection, he should have taken advantage of it 
 before plea pleaded — he might then have stated anything which he 
 thought a sufficient objection to the return of the grand jury, or the 
 circumstances affiicting them — ^lie might in other stages of the prose- 
 cution have availed himself of that objection. But though the names 
 of the grand jurors were placed on the record, and a substantial 
 objection to every one of them as grand jurors, and even though there 
 were a substantial objection to the sheriff who returned the pannel, 
 after plea pleaded he could take no advantage of such objections ; 
 because at the moment he pleaded, he admitted the sufficiency of the 
 persons who found the bill and who returned the pannel ; and it 
 would be strange to admit that for error, which, if on the face of the 
 indictment would not furnish a ground of objection, on which error 
 could be brought or judgment be reversed; therefore it seems per- 
 fectly nugatory. You have the caption taken according to the practice 
 of the court ; but though it Avere not, it is not necessary it should j 
 appear on the face of the record for the reasons mentioned, and by 
 pleading he has acknowledged it to be such as he should plead to. 
 His having pleaded will not prevent him from having his objections 
 to anything appearing on the indictment itself. But he admits that 
 it is well found, and even if it had what he wants, it would furnish 
 no ground for an arrest of judgment. 
 
 Lord Clonmel My brothers wish to hear if you have any^j 
 
 authorities to support the objection. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY Then you wish us to urge it this day ? 
 
 Lord Clonmel Yes, certainly. I believe it is lenity to tf 
 
 prisoner to dispose of it as soon as possible. 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — As to the practice, I do not believe there is anj 
 practice upon the subject. I do not know that there has been a bill 
 of indictment for high treason in this court for upwards of one hun- 
 dred years past, therefore as to the practice, it would puzzle a man 
 elder than any of the officers of the court to give any account of it. 
 First, then it appears from Foster that the names of the grand jurors 
 were set out in the caption. The Attorney-General has been pleased 
 to say that by pleading we have cured this defect, if any it was. 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 279 
 
 But the first principle of the criminal law is, that a verdict cures 
 nothing. 
 
 [Here the prisoner growing exceedingly faint, the court ordered 
 the windows to be opened that he should have free air.] 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY continued. The statute oi jeofails does not apply. If 
 it ever was error, it is error still. I humbly conceive, that you cannot 
 be warranted to pi-onounce judgment, unless it appears that the bill 
 of indictment was regularly taken and returned, as such bill ought to 
 be. That the names of the jurors should be set out, is plain for two 
 reasons, first that the prisoner might have an opportunity to object to 
 them, as not being qualified to be grand jurors. Secondly, that he 
 might have an opportunity of objecting to them, if they were called 
 on the petit jury, because otherwise it is impossible for him to know 
 who composed it, and these very persons who found the bill may be 
 put on the petit jury. If it does not appear on the record that all 
 things were legally done, the court cannot pronounce judgment. It 
 is not sufficient to say that the charges are sufficiently laid in the 
 indictment itself. It is not any answer to our objection to say that 
 we do not object to the counts which charge the treason ; but I say 
 it is necessaiy that on the record itself, as it stands made up, all the 
 circumstances should appear legally done. And if they do not appear 
 . so, the court cannot pronounce judgment. It is not merely on the 
 : indictment and verdict that the court pronounces its judgment ; it is 
 on the whole record. Suppose there appeared a plain, manifest and 
 i uncontroverted error in the caption of the indictment, could it be 
 argued that the court would be warranted in giving judgment ? 
 
 By this time the prisoner, having sunk upon his chair, appeared to 
 1 be in a state of extreme debility. 
 
 1 Lord Clonmel. — If the prisoner is in a state of insensibility, it is 
 [1 impossible that I can pronounce the judgment of the court upon him. 
 i If Foster had not mentioned a like instance (the case of an old woman 
 ;i brought up to the Old Bailey) hvimanity and common sense would 
 li require that he should be in a state of sensibility. 
 i Attorney-General — On that ground I have no objection to his 
 'f being remanded; it was on the other ground that I objected. 
 ; Mr. CuRRAN — Your Lordship did the same in the case of the 
 Walshes, father and son. 
 Lord Clonmel. — I did. 
 
 [Here the Clerk of the Crown read the caption again.] 
 
 Mr. PoNSONBY. — It does not state that they were sworn to try and 
 ; enquire. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — It is, on their oaths. 
 
 Here the prisoner becoming insensible. Doctor Thomas Waite, who 
 (was present in court, was desired to go into the dock to him. He 
 after some examination informed the court there was every apprehen- 
 sion he would go off" immediately. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Kinsley, who was in the jury-box, said, he would 
 go down to him ; he accordingly went into the dock, and in a short 
 time informed the court, that the prisoner was certainly dying. 
 
 The court ordered Mr. Kinsley to be sworn. 
 
280 TRIAL OF 
 
 He was sworn accoi'dingly. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Are you in any profession ? 
 
 Mr. Kinsley. — I am an apothecary and di'uggist. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Can you say you understand your profession 
 sufficiently, so as to speak of the state of the prisoner ? 
 
 Mr. Kinsley. — I can. I think him verging to eternity ; he has 
 every symptom of death about him. 
 
 Lord Clonmel — Do you conceive him insensible, or in that state, 
 as to be able to hear the judgment, or what may be said for or against 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Kinsley. — Quite the contrary. I do not think he can hear his 
 judgment. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Then he must be taken away. Take care in 
 sending him away, that you do not any mischief. Let him be remanded 
 until farther orders, and I believe it much for his advantage, as for all 
 of yours, to adjourn. 
 
 The sheriff informed the court that the prisoner was dead. 
 
 Lord Clonmel Let an inquisition, and a respectable one, be 
 
 held on the body. You should carefully enquire when and by what 
 means he died. 
 
 The court then adjourned, and the body of the deceased remained 
 in the dock, without being moved from the position in which he had 
 died, until nine o'clock of the following morning, May 1st, when an 
 inquisition was held upon a view of the body. Surgeons Hume and 
 Adrian were examined ; they opened the body and found near a pint 
 of acrid matter in the stomach, which was entirely corroded ; but the 
 bowels were not at all affected, the matter not having passed to them. 
 Mr. Hume was of opinion, the matter in the stomach was a metallic 
 poison, that it caused the death of the deceased, and that no diet could 
 have occasioned such appearances as the stomach exhibited ; it was 
 impossible the deceased could survive, the matter being of such a 
 mortal nature, as appeared from the symptoms. 
 
 Ml'. Gregg, the gaoler, was also examined; he said the deceased 
 was visited by Mrs. Jackson, in the morning, before he was brought 
 up to the court^ — witness went into the room, and perceived Mr. 
 Jackson much agitated ; — he said he had taken some tea which ahvays 
 disagreed with him, when his spirits were depressed ; immediately 
 after which he vomited very violently. 
 
 INQUISITION AND VERDICT. 
 
 County of Dublin, \ An Inquisition indented taken and held for 
 to tvit. J our Sovereign Lord the King at the place 
 
 commonly called or known by the name of the Court of King's Bench, 
 in the said county of Dublin, the first day of May, in the Thirty-fifth 
 Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the 
 Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King Defender 
 of the Faith and soforth, before George Hepenstal, Esq. one of the 
 Coroners of our said Lord the King, for the said county, on view 
 of the body of the Rev. William Jackson, then and there lying 
 dead, upon the oath of John King, William Gibton, John Brooke, 
 Christopher Halligan, Thomas Saunders, John Plunket, Francis 
 
THE REV. WILLIAM JACKSON. 281 
 
 Hammil, Thomas Mangan, John Elleiy, James Byefield, John Keane, 
 and James Murphy, good and hiwlul men, of the said county, duly 
 chosen, and who being then and there duly sworn and charged to 
 enquire, for our said Lord the King, when how and by what means 
 the said William Jackson came to his death, do, upon their oaths, say, 
 We find that the deceased William Jackson died on the 30th of 
 April, in consequence of some acrid and mortal matter taken into his 
 stomach, but how or by whom administered is to the Jury unknown. 
 
 A paper, of which the following is a copy, was found in the pocket of 
 the deceased, in his own hand-writing. 
 
 Turn Thee unto me, and have mercy upon me ; for I am desolate 
 and afflicted ! 
 
 The troubles of my heart are enlarged, O bring Thou me out of 
 my distresses ! 
 
 Look upon mine affliction and my pain ; and forgive all my sins ! 
 
 Consider mine enemies for they are many ; and they hate me with 
 a cruel violence ! 
 
 O keep my Soul, and deliver me. Let me not be ashamed, for I 
 put my trust in Thee. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 The following Trials deserve particular notice, perhaps not more 
 from the peculiar popular organization they develope, than from 
 the extraordinary displays of judicial character by which they were 
 enlivened. 
 
 The Defenders, at the period of these trials, and most probably 
 from the year 1790, had merged the agrarian, in the political nature 
 of their Association. They were not, in the beginning, however, 
 either political or aggressive ; they were a lawless body, resisting a 
 body still more lawless ; their crimes were the offspring of a system 
 of oppression pursued untii-ingly against them by the Peep-of-day 
 Boys of Ulster. 
 
 The various other commotions, which for years had disturbed this 
 country, destroyed its peace, injured its trade and manufacture, and 
 peopled its jails and gibbets, had causes peculiar to themselves. The 
 Whiteboys, who commenced their career of crime in 1759, grew out 
 of the adoption, by the landed proprietors and farmers in the south 
 of Ireland, of a system of extensive pasture-farming, followed by the 
 expulsion of the tenants, who had lived by the labour of agriculture, 
 from their small holdings. It was the same system of improvement, 
 which is now popularly known as " extermination," and produced 
 lamentable, but not surprising effects. " The cottiers " said the Right 
 Hon. Charles Grant, in his speech, April 22, 1822, "being tenants- 
 at-will, were everywhere dispossessed of their scanty holdings, and 
 large tracts of grazing-land were set to the wealthy monopolisers, 
 who, by feeding cattle, required few hands and paid higher rents. 
 Pressed by need, most of these unfortunate peasants sought refuge in 
 the neighbouring towns for the sake of begging that bread which they 
 could no longer earn ; and the only piteous resource of the affluent 
 was to ship off as many as would emigrate, to seek maintenance^or 
 death in a foreign clime."* This was a fertile nursery of crime ; and 
 accordingly the authors of the Whiteboy disturbances were found 
 abundantly amongst all classes and all persuasions of the peasantry. 
 It was a society making rude attempts to resist, or avenge want ; but 
 utterly free from disaffection to the government. 
 
 * Butler Bryan's Practical View of Ireland, 10. 
 
284 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 Similar causes, the pressiire of grand jury cess and of tithes, and 
 the demand of high prices for the setting of lands, produced in suc- 
 cession the Hearts of Oak, the Hearts of Steel, and the Right Boys. 
 Lord Clare accounted for these unfortunate combinations. He said, 
 " It was impossible for human wretchedness to exceed that of the 
 miserable peasantry in Munster ; he knew that the unhappy tenantry 
 were ground to powder by relentless landlords." 
 
 But the Peep-of-day Boys, were an association of a different 
 character, influenced at one and the same time by bigotry and 
 avarice. Intolerant of the religion of the Roman Catholics, and 
 desirous to possess their land, the Peep-of-day Boys combined the 
 gratification of both passions, by the adoption of a system of outrage 
 and robbery against the persons and the property of the Catholic 
 peasantry of the north of Ireland. They were chiefly, if not entirely, 
 Protestants, who assumed the sanctions of Protestanism for conduct 
 abhorrent from the spirit of all religion. Originally, they were con- 
 fined to the county of Armagh. Their career commenced in 1784, 
 and has been variously described. They drew upon the stores of 
 history, and found a precedent in the Puritan regicide's edict, " to 
 hell or to Connaught," and they proceeded very systematically to drive 
 the Catholic population of Ulster beyond the Shannon. At the 
 earliest dawn, they visited their houses under the pretence of seeking 
 for arms — the common trick of the tyrant in Ireland is a search for 
 arms — and, even in the guarded language of the advocate of flagella- 
 tion and pitchcaps, " committed the most wanton outrages, insulting 
 their persons and breaking their fui-niture."* But domiciliary visits 
 soon gave way to ejectment. Expulsion from farms became general ; 
 it was a proceeding by which the Protestant wrecker, Peep-of-day 
 Boy, and eventually purple Orangeman specially occupied the relin- 
 quished acres, and sat down, a conqueror, to enjoy the fruits of his 
 invasion. The facts are undeniable ; at a period little later than 
 these trials, not less than 7,000 Catholics had been burned out of 
 Armagh. Plowden adds, that the " ferocious banditti who had 
 expelled them had been encouraged, connived at, and protected by 
 government." It is certain the magistrates had been supine, and had 
 given passive encouragement to the Peep-of-day Boys, who had 
 changed their name into Orangemen. The charitable and christian 
 portion of the northern Protestants looked with horror and disgust 
 at the enormities practised upon the wretched peasantry, and falsely 
 said to be practised under the sanctions of Pi'otestantism ; but men of 
 that class were not the majority, nor were they found in any great 
 
 Musgravc's History, 54. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 285 
 
 numbers amongst those to whom was consigned the guardianship of 
 the peace. The magistrates — whether from secret sympathy, or want 
 of energy, it matters little — allowed the houses of the people to be 
 burned or unroofed, and the people themselves to be driven, under 
 fierce threats, out of their native dwellings, without any active inter- 
 position to save them. 
 
 The consequence was natural. The unprotected people sought 
 protection from themselves. They felt that they were the victims of 
 a conspiracy between Guilt and Power — burnt out of their houses, 
 shot, or robbed by the first ; unprotected, unredressed by the last — 
 and they looked to their own strength and despair for that defence 
 which the law refused. And hence came the Defenders. Their 
 oppressors were men of the lowest rank amongst the Protestants ; 
 the Defenders were in the lowest rank of the Catholics ; but the 
 crimes of neither can, with justice, be imputed to the spirit of their 
 religion. The Peep-of-day Boys were vulgar men, using the name 
 of religion, as a mask for robbery and aggrandizement ; the Defenders 
 were a society of affrighted peasants, agitated by despair or vin- 
 dictiveness, and driven to wage a defensive war against violence and 
 robbery. 
 
 A new element was introduced into the crime and misery of the 
 northern counties. The magistrates, supine before, now became 
 fiercely active. The cruelties of the Peep-of-day Boys were all in 
 the right quarter : they had depopulated the villages of the poor, 
 unroofed their houses, and brought dismay and sorrow to their 
 hearths ; it was no more than the rich man had done befoi*e — but, when 
 misery armed, and retributive crime stalked about, when the magis- 
 trate's own house was fired, and he was individually in danger, it 
 became necessary to cast aside supineness and to wake the most active 
 energies of the law. And accordingly we find that in February 1796 
 an Indemnity Bill was required "for those persons who nobly dared 
 to preserve the tranquillity of the country, and who in quelling tumults 
 and insurrections had exceeded the ordinary forms of the law." 
 
 Coupled Avith this bill of indemnity — passed to shelter the magis- 
 trates, who had sent the peasantry, in hundreds, on board transports, 
 without trial, or foi'm of law — was introduced an Insurrection Act 
 for " the purpose of preventing insurrections, tumults, and riots by 
 persons styling themselves Defenders, and other disorderly persons." 
 Not a word of specification beyond the Defenders — and yet it was 
 well known to the men who introduced that bill, that the association 
 of Defenderism — monstrous and portentous as it undeniably was — 
 was but the antagonist power to a more monstrous system, one which 
 had desolated several counties in Ireland, and introduced the worst 
 
286 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 disorders by which the state could be endangered. Not one word 
 was said of that system : not an allusion was made to the Peep-of-day 
 Boys who flushed with the victory of the Diamond had assumed the 
 more respectable name of Orangemen. It was a specimen of one-sided 
 legislation — too frequent in Ireland — whose fruits are abundant in 
 her history. The Defenders participated with the Orangemen in the 
 practices which disturbed the public peace ; but they alone reaped the 
 fruit of crime. One class of criminals was disposed of in the trans- 
 port ship, on the gallows, or by the military ; the other was openly 
 sanctioned or coldly censured, by the faint or feigned disapprobation 
 of secret sympathy. 
 
 And yet there were abundant materials for even-handed justice to 
 work upon ; there seldom occurred anything more criminal, more 
 detestable, and more inhuman than the northern persecution. A 
 bold and honest government could have done infinite good by a just 
 distribution of the penalties of the law, — if Avhilst they hunted down 
 the oppressed and plundered Defender, they had not spared his 
 plunderer and oppressor. The Report of the Secret Committee 
 mentions these things in a mitigated shape, reserving its censure for 
 the Defenders, and but slightly alluding to the provoking cause of 
 their crimes. 
 
 "In the summer of 1796, the outrages committed by a banditti, 
 calling themselves Defenders, in the counties of Roscommon, Leitrim, 
 Longtbrd, Meath, Westmeath, and Kildare, together with a religious 
 feud prevailing in the county of Armagh, induced the legislature to 
 pass a temporaiy Act of Parliament, generally called the Insurrection 
 Act, by which the Lord Lieutenant and Council were enabled, upon 
 the requisition of seven magistrates of any county assembled at a 
 sessions of the peace, to proclaim the whole or any part thereof to be 
 in a state of disturbance ; within which _ limits this law, giving 
 increased powers to the magistracy, was to have eflTect."* 
 
 The religious feud, thus slightly mentioned, was the cause of the 
 outrages of the banditti, whose ruined hearts and homes were their 
 only cause of warfare, and whose rude organization was supplied by 
 their despair. 
 
 When this persecution had proceeded to a great length, and the 
 revengeful fury of the people had worked great crimes, the magis- 
 trates of Armagh were compelled to take notice of the existence of 
 the agrarian warfare which was desolating the country. A meeting 
 of their body took place on the 25th December 1795, having been 
 convened by Lord Gosford for the purpose of adopting measures, " the 
 
 Report of the S(!crot Committee of the Commons, p. 7. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 287 
 
 most likely to check the enormities which had brought disgrace upon 
 the county and which would soon reduce it to the deepest distress."* 
 This meeting was only valuable for Lord Gosford's speech — a speech 
 of historical import, containing his undoubted testimony to the 
 alarming state to which the country had been reduced, by a band of 
 plebeian marauders, unchecked in their excesses by the magistracy 
 of the country. 
 
 " It is," said he, " no secret that a persecution, accompanied with 
 all the circumstances of ferocious cruelty, which have in all ages 
 distinguished that calamity, is now raging in this county. Neither 
 age, nor sex, nor even acknowledged innocence, as to any guilt in the 
 late disturbances is sufficient to excite mercy or affijrd protection. 
 The only crime, which the wretched objects of this ruthless persecu- 
 tion, are charged with, is a crime indeed of easy proof : it is simply 
 a profession of the Roman Catholic faith, or an intimate connection 
 with a person professing that faith. A lawless banditti have consti- 
 tuted themselves judges of this new species of delinquency, and the 
 sentence they have denounced is equally concise and terrible ! It is 
 nothing less than a confiscation of all property, and an immediate 
 banishment. It would be extremely painful, and surely unnecessary 
 to detail the horrors that attend the execution of so rude and tre- 
 mendous a proscription. A proscription, that certainly exceeds in 
 the comparative number of those it consigns to ruin and misery, 
 every example that ancient and modern history can supply ; for where 
 have we heard, or in what story of human cruelties have we read of 
 more than half the inhabitants of a populous country deprived, at one 
 blow, of the means as well as of the fruits of their industxy, and 
 driven, in the midst of an inclement season, to seek a shelter for 
 themselves and their helpless families, where chance may guide them. 
 This is no exaggerated picture of the horrid scenes now acting in 
 this country. Yet surely it is sufficient to awaken sentiments of 
 indignation and compassion in the coldest bosoms. These horrors 
 are now acting with impunity. The spirit of impartial justice — 
 without which, law is nothing better than an instrument of tyranny — 
 has for a time disappeared in the country, and the supineness of 
 Armagh is become a common topic of conversation in eveiy corner 
 of the kingdom."! 
 
 "When such horrors — so vividly painted and by so unquestionable 
 a hand — were permitted to be acted with impunity, there is no matter 
 of surprise in the fact that even this eloquent denunciation was 
 
 * Plowden. 
 
 t Plowden's History of Ireland from 1801 to 1810, introduction, p. 33. 
 
288 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 unproductive of any good elFect. The spirit of impartial justice did 
 not sleep — it was dead. For the legislature of the country was 
 equally supine in applying punishment where it was merited, and 
 equally active in oppressing and torturing the already grievously- 
 tormented victims of this " rude and tremendous proscription." In 
 the House of Commons, Grattan was, as might be expected, more 
 eloquent in his details, and more indignant in his invective. In 
 replying to the Attorney- Genei'al (Arthur Wolfe) who introduced 
 the Insurrection Bill, Feb. 1796, he said: — 
 
 " He did not suppose the right honorable gentleman's statement to 
 be inflamed but, he must observe, at the same time, that it was 
 partial. He did indeed expatiate very fully and justly on the offences 
 of the Defenders ; but with respect to another description of insur- 
 gents, whose barbarities had excited general abhorrence, he had 
 observed a complete silence ; he had proceeded to enumerate the 
 counties that were afilicted by disturbances and he had omitted 
 Armagh. He had received the most dreadful accounts ; that their 
 object was the extermination of all the Catholics of that county. It 
 was a persecution conceived in the bitterness of bigotry, carried on 
 with the most ferocious barbarity, by a banditti, who being of the 
 religion of the state, had committed with the greater audacity and 
 confidence, the most horrid murders, and had proceeded from robbery 
 and massacre to extermination ; they had repealed by their own 
 authority, all the laws lately passed in favour of the Catholics, had 
 established in the place of those laws the inquisition of a mob, 
 resembling Lord George Gordon's fanatics, equalling them in outrage, 
 and surpassing them far in perseverance and success." 
 
 He then proceeds to describe in detail the circumstances of this 
 xmparalleled and extraordinary phenomenon in history. The masters 
 of families were compelled to dismiss their Catholic servants ; the 
 landlord to eject his Catholic tenants ; Catholic weavers were seized 
 as deserters, transmitted to Dublin to abide their trial for leaving a 
 service they had never entered. 
 
 " Tliose insurgents, who called themselves Orange Boys, or Pro- 
 testant Boys — that is, a banditti of murderers, committing massacre 
 in the name of God, and exei'cising despotic power in the name of 
 liberty ; those insurgents have organized their rebellion, and have 
 formed themselves into a committee, who sit and try the Catholic 
 weavers and inhabitants when apprehended, falsely and illegally, as 
 deserters ; this rebellious committee, they call the committee of elders, 
 who, when the unfortunate Catholic is torn from his family and his 
 loom, and brought before them, sit in judgment upon his case ; if he 
 gives them liquor or money, they sometimes discharge him ; otherwise 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 289 
 
 they send him to a recruiting officer as a deserter. They had very 
 generally given the Catholics notice to quit their farms and dwellings, 
 which notice is plastered on their houses, and conceived in these short 
 but pithy words, " Go to hell, Connaught will not receive you ; fire 
 and faggot ! Will Thresham and John Thrustout." They followed 
 these notices by a faithful and punctual execution of the horrid threat, 
 soon after visited the house, robbed the family, and destx'oyed what 
 they did not take ; and finally, completed the atrocious persecutions, 
 by forcing the unfortunate inhabitants to leave their land, their 
 dwellings, and their trade, and travel with their miserable families, 
 and with whatever each miserable family could save from the wreck 
 of their houses and tenements, and take refuge in villages as fortifi- 
 cations against invaders. In many instances this banditti of perse- 
 cution threw down the houses of the tenantry, or what they called 
 racked the house, so that the family must fly or be buried in the 
 grave of their own cabin. The extent of the murders that have 
 been committed by this atrocious and rebellious banditti, I have heard ; 
 but have not heard them so ascertained as to state them to the house ; 
 but from all the enquiries I could make, I collect that the Catholic 
 inhabitants of Armagh, have been actually put out of the protection 
 of the law ; that the magistrates have been supine or partial, and 
 that this horrid banditti has met with complete success and from the 
 magistracy with veiy little discouragement."* 
 
 This was the provocation, and these the injuries by which the 
 Catholics of Ulster were driven into the ranks of Defenderism. 
 Men, however rude they may be, will often reason well upon fiimiliar 
 facts. The Catliolic, who saw his cabin in flames, and his wife and 
 children ruthlessly expelled from the scenes of his and their oldest 
 attachments ; and who moreover saw the magistracy in the country — 
 the men of birth, intelligence and wealth — the men in whom the law 
 is most familiarly recognized — not anxious to anticipate or qviick to 
 punish the mean and heartless agents of his wrongs, but their patrons 
 and sometimes their instigators, it is not at all surprising he trans- 
 ferred his resentments from the plebeian mob who yelled around 
 the ruins of his dwelling, to the law which seemed to sanction their 
 crimes. And thus the Defenders were by degrees transformed into 
 a political society, whose object was not alone to resist actual wrongs 
 — but to destroy, or remove, their real or imagined sources. 
 
 They saw but two parties in the country, an oppressive, harsh, and 
 bad government on the one hand ; and on the other, the Society of 
 United Irishmen bound together by a common tie of social love, and 
 
 * Grattan's speeches, vol. 3, p. "220. 
 
290 THE DEFEKDERS. 
 
 professing to link all classes of their countrymen in one common 
 resistance to all manner of injustice and oppression. Tortured, 
 transported or hanged by the first — sued, consoled and admonished 
 by the latter, it was natural for the Defenders to be eventually found 
 filling the lowest ranks of the Union. The reader will therefore find 
 them swearing allegiance to the Convention, and in their catechisms,* 
 he will detect the French notions of universal conquest over all tyrants 
 and kings. 
 
 " To the Armagh persecution, is the union of Irishmen most 
 exceedingly indebted. The persons and pi'operties of the wretched 
 Catholics of that county were exposed to the merciless attacks of an 
 Orange faction which was certainly in many instances uncontrouUed 
 by the justices of peace, and claimed to be in all supported by 
 government. When these men found that illegal acts of magistrates 
 were indemnified by occasional statutes, and the courts of justice 
 shut against them by parliamentary bari-iers, they began to think 
 they had no refuge but in joining the Union. Their dispositions so 
 to do, were much increased by finding the Presbyterians of Belfast 
 especially, step forward to espouse their cause and succour their 
 distress. "We shall here remark, once for all, what we most solemnly 
 aver, that wherever the Orange system was introduced, particularly 
 in Catholic counties, it was uniformly observed that the numbei's of 
 United Irishmen increased most astonishingly. The alarm which an 
 Orange lodge excited amongst the Catholics made them look for refuge 
 from a junction in the United system ; and as their number Avas 
 greater than that of bigoted Protestants, our harvest was tenfold. At 
 the same time that we mention this circumstance we must confess 
 and most deeply regret that it excited a mutual acrimony and vin- 
 dictive spirit, which was peculiarly opposite to the interest, and 
 abhorrent to the feelings of the United Irishmen, and has lately 
 manifested itself we hear in outrage of much horror.^" 
 
 It was supposed by some, and falsely represented by others, that 
 Defenderism was the origin of the second organization of the United 
 Irishmen. The connection between these two bodies of discontent 
 and conspiracy was attributable on the one hand to the causes I have 
 already stated — namely, the desire naturally felt by the Defenders to 
 enlist under the guidance of men of superior i-ank and ability whose 
 doctrines of brotherly affection and political equality so admirably 
 contrasted with the harsh and repulsive conduct of government and 
 the gross inhumanity of the Orangemen ; and on the other to the 
 
 * See the indictment in Weldon's case, post. 
 
 f Pieces of Irish History, written August 4th, 1798. 
 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 291 
 
 active propagandism of the working men of the Union who spared 
 no ojjportunities to extend the organization and numbers of the 
 society. So far was the latter feeling carried, that they imagined it 
 possible to reconcile tlie two factions — the Peep-of-day Boys and 
 Defenders — in one common political object. There is no evidence 
 that witli I'egard to tlie former, any conversions were effected. Their 
 atrocities were too remunerative, and the rich rewards of depopulated 
 holdings, were not sacrificed to any political chimera or unsubstantial 
 dream of patriotism. 
 
 But with the Defenders, the United Irishmen were most success- 
 ful. Neilson, Tone and some others in July and August, 1792, 
 exerted themselves to reconcile the Catliolics and Presbyterians in 
 the Barony of Kathfryland, and Neilson travelled through the 
 nortliern counties for the same purpose. Charles Teeling, some 
 few days before the battle of the Diamond, proceeded to Armagh 
 as he himself says " to open some channel if possible for a 
 pacific ai-rangement and to preserve the county from a wanton 
 expcnditui-e of blood."* Henry Joy M'Ci'acken, one of the victims 
 of court martial in '98 was also actively engaged in the same service. 
 These men had little success in their attempts at reconciliation, but 
 they were more fortunate in diverting tlie efforts of the Defenders to 
 a cliange in the government of tlie country. That body thus presents 
 itself under three successive aspects, an agrarian defensive society, — 
 an ignorant insurrectionary mob — and finally a portion of that great 
 national confederation by which the supremacy of England was nearly 
 overthrown. 
 
 An idea has been entertained that Jacobite opinions prevailed 
 amongst the Defenders, and that they had communications with 
 France before those of the Union. It seems improbable ; and Mr. 
 Teeling believes that they had no French views whatever. With 
 reference to any mission to France, it is in every way unlikely if not 
 impossible. Until their junction with the Union, they had, with few 
 exceptions, no man of sufiicient intelligence amongst them, to devise 
 and execute so intricate and difficult a project as that of intriguing 
 with the authorities of a foreign state ; nor is it at all likely that so 
 accurate a knowledge of the state of Ireland existed in France as to 
 lead the ruling powers there to open a communication with so insig- 
 nificant a body as the Defenders originally were. Dr. Madden says, 
 " it is difficult to understand the allusions to French subjects, in their 
 test and secret pass- words and cabalistic jargon, without supposing 
 that some slight tincture of the old Jacobite principles of 1689 was 
 
 * Tceling's Observations on the consequences of the liattle of the Diamond ; 
 Dr. Madden 's History of the United Irishmen, 1st vol., "id series, 98. 
 
292 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 still mixed up with their views and projects." If so, it must have 
 been a very indefinite tincture indeed — some dim and ignorant tradition 
 — some obscure memory of the mistaken loyalty and the unrepaid 
 heroism of former days. And as far as their cabalistic jargon is con- 
 cerned, the vulgar imitativeness of ignorance most naturally adopted 
 it from the foolish and unnatural cant of fraternity which was used by 
 some, even of the ablest, of the popular men of the day. A body of 
 oppressed and plundered peasants had work more congenial on hands 
 — that of self-defence or vengeance — than any plotting in connection 
 with a miserable defunct dynasty. The United Irishmen had too 
 much trouble in giving a political character to Defenderism, to allow 
 us to suppose that of its own accord it cherished any hope of being 
 able to assist in replacing the descendant of the miserable James — if 
 such a descendant existed — on the throne of England. They were 
 not Republicans certainly — the genius of their religion and their long 
 habits of endurance forbade it — but they were too ignorant to under- 
 stand the question of disputed succession, and the question itself was 
 utterly removed fi'om their sympathies and their sufferings. It is 
 equally erroneous with that more modern notion that the people of 
 Ireland expect to re-establish the titles which the prescription of 
 centuries and half-a-dozen confiscations have destroyed. 
 
 The vengeance of government was directed with peculiar bitterness 
 against the Defenders ; and, unfortunately for them, their steps were 
 tracked by the same low and cunning treachery which destroyed the 
 United Irishmen and saved English power in Ireland. The infamy of 
 Reynolds, and the appalling turpitude of Armstrong had their counter- 
 part in the vulgar villainy of Lawler.* After the battle of the Dia- 
 mond, the magistrates and military tribunals were active, to an extra- 
 ordinary degi-ee, against the unsuccessful people, Tliirteen hundred 
 of them were taken from the jails by Lord Carhampton and sent on 
 board the transport vessels without any form of trial or legal process.")* 
 Nor were the commissions of Oyer and Terminer — though somewhat 
 more formal — a whit less certain in distributing vengeance amongst 
 their victims. The convictions in the following cases were not such 
 as should be desired, or would be accepted by any but a government 
 of hardened despotism. 
 
 In most of the cases, the prisoners were but boys ; — either seduced 
 into the foolish conspiracy by shrewder and wickeder men, or else enter- 
 ing upon it from the uncalculating thoughtlessness of youth, as upon 
 something whose mystery had the delightful charm of exciting danger, 
 to recommend it to the adoption of possibly uncorrupted hearts and 
 
 • See the Trials of Weldon and Leary. Post. 
 f Dr. Maddon's History. 1 vol. 1 series, p. 132. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 293 
 
 giddy heads. When the mere boyhood of the prisoner Kennedy was 
 pressed upon the court, Lord Clonniel took refuge in a stale precedent 
 from Foster in which a lad was found guilty of a very atrocious 
 murder and not executed. Lord Clonmel was, to be sure, a vulgar 
 bigot and a furious partizan. His allusion to Rowan* — a man 
 altogether superior to the upstart plebeian, the descendant of a 
 Williamite soldiei*, who owed his elevation to the bench, to the same 
 qualities which enabled him to disgrace it — was brutal in the extreme. 
 And we have no just reason to be surprised at the inhumanity with 
 which — true to the instincts of his base nature — he hunted these 
 " tuckered traitors " to the gallows. 
 
 When all the sacrifices were complete, and the convenient juries of 
 those days, packed as they were with a skill worthy of the imitation 
 of the corruption of modern times, had found their courtly verdicts, 
 Lord Clonmel the presiding priest, stepped out of his office, and not 
 content with the bloody consummation he had assisted at, indulged 
 the grand jury with a harangue, which the reader will see at the end 
 of the trials of the Defenders, and which he will find but little diffi- 
 culty in pronouncing one of the most disgusting speeches ever uttered 
 from the Bench of Justice — even by the accurst lips of Jefferies or of 
 Toler — a monstrous and incredible example of judicial savagery and 
 falsehood. The unhappy Jackson had but shortly before perished in 
 the very shambles of justice — anticipating the public butcher, and 
 baulking hungry vengeance — and this inhuman judge, not sparing 
 even the dead, commenced his extra-judicial harangue by designating 
 him as a " self-executed traitor " — conti*ary to the finding of the 
 inquest which sat upon the unhappy being, and which with pious 
 reverence to an oath, refused to load his memory with the charge of 
 self-murder, but left the whole matter in a state of charitable doubt- 
 fulness. 
 
 The chief — nay, the only witness in the trials of the Defenders — 
 was William Lawler. He presented one other of the phases in which 
 the habitual treachery of those days manifested itself. With some, 
 as with that vile miscreant Cockayne, it was affected loyalty — with 
 others, as with Reynolds it was love of money — with others, as with 
 the abominable Armstrong, it was inherent depravity, irreclaimable 
 vileness, natural turpitude of heart — with others, as with O'Brien, it 
 was a mixture of bloodthirstiness and avarice — and, it is difficult to 
 say, what was the peculiar moving impulse of Lawler's treachery. 
 He stood confessed a ruffian who had dared to question the truth of 
 our divine faith — a low sceptic whose vulgar daring presumed to 
 
 * See the Speeches of the Grand Jury at the cucl of the Defenders' Trials. 
 
294 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 dabble with the great mysteries of Christianity — a miserable wretch 
 who accepted comfort from the appalling doctrine of eternal annihi- 
 lation. He had attempted murder — he had plotted, devised, concocted 
 tlie assassination of his brother in iniquity, Cockayne — he was a 
 thief — he had consented to the murder of the Protestants, and his 
 fastidiousness only refused to consent to the murder of all the 
 Protestants ! He was himself a Protestant — yet passed himself off 
 amongst the Defenders as a Catholic, and embraced their tenets and 
 their designs with equal promptitude — and yet what does Lord 
 Clonmel say of this man ? It is worth remarking — for wonderful 
 was the chain of sympathy which extended from the witness-table 
 whereon the corrupt perjurer was appealing to a Creator he did not 
 believe in, to the bench on which the judge was outraging His most 
 beautiful precepts. " My God, is it necessary for me to go into a 
 laboured refinement to satisfy you that every thing Lawler has been 
 saying hitherto is worthy of credit? It was alleged that the verdicts 
 were founded upon the extravagant assertions of a wretch who should 
 not be believed. If there be any man who thinks that way, I desire 
 no longer to discourse Avith him upon any subject."* He wished to 
 hold discourse with no man, who would not accept the plighted oath 
 of an intended murderer, and a professed Atheist ! And this was 
 uttered, but a few minutes after he had sent two boys, two tuckered 
 traitors, to the gallows upon the unsupported testimony and the 
 " extravagant assertions" of this " wretch!" 
 
 But a still more exti'aordinary exhibition was made by Lord 
 Clonmel in this unusual address to the Grand Jviry. Speaking of 
 one of the Mount Norres family Avho had distinguished himself 
 against a band of robbers that had infested the country, the Chief 
 Justice said — " With one sword he subdued seven and brought them 
 to the gallows. / saw the man^s picture xoith blood upon his face : 
 glorious picture ! and glorious story to be told !" There was one 
 man in that court, whose picture has been drawn in our legal history, 
 and with blood enough upon his face — the humanity of those who 
 see it, will possibly not pronounce it a very glorious one. 
 
 Having said so much on the Trials, little remains to be added. 
 With the Rebellion of '98, the Defenders substantially ceased to be 
 heard of : the spirit that animated them was one dependant on the 
 aggression of others, and may be discovered long after the society 
 was forgotten. It is to be hoped that the enlightened nationality of 
 feeling — superior at the same time to the heartless avarice and ruthless 
 bigotry of the Orangemen, and the savage vindictiveness and low 
 
 * Lord Clonmcl's speech. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 295 
 
 intolerance of the Defender — daily gaining ground, and quietly 
 winning its useful way amongst the young men of Ireland, will 
 consign to utter oblivion the feuds and follies of our ancestors of every 
 rank, and every creed. 
 
 Note. — The following passage is from Seward's Collectanea 
 Politica, 3d volume, page 153. 
 
 " The cause of the animosity which subsisted between the Peep-of- 
 day Boys and the Defenders has been differently accounted for. The 
 writer of a pamphlet under the name of Veridicus,* attributes it to 
 a quarrel which took place in the fair of Portnorris, between two of 
 those sectaries, whose personal enmity soon extended itself to the 
 entire body of each. The Roman Catholics (said he) assumed the 
 name of Defenders, because they could not obtain protection from the 
 laws, to which they had recourse after having been worsted by the 
 Peep-of-day Boys. When their passions became inflamed, they 
 proceeded to exercise the most desperate outrage against each other, 
 in the course of which many lives were lost." 
 
 This supposition is very absurd, and manifestly false, as might be 
 expected coming from Sir R. Musgrave, even in the character of 
 Veridicus. Another version of this contest about which I have 
 briefly treated in this notice of the Defenders is given in Hayes' 
 History of the Rebellion. 
 
 " In the beginning of the year 1795, parties of contending rioters 
 denominated Peep-of-day Boys and Defenders, disturbed different 
 parts of the province of Ulster, by acts of violence and outrage 
 against each other. Some say their animosities originated from elec- 
 tioneering. To these succeeded, in the summer of the same year, a 
 description of public disturbers — calling themselves Orangemen — 
 who now made their first appearance in the county of Armagh. 
 Their object appeal's to have been not to suffer a Catholic to remain 
 within the limits of their sphere of action. They posted up on the 
 doors of the Catholics, peremptory notices of departure, specifying 
 the precise time — a week at the farthest — pretty nearly in the 
 following words : ' To hell or to Connaught with you, you bloody 
 Papists, or if you are not gone by [nientioning the day\ we will 
 come and desti'oy yourselves and your properties. We hate all Papists 
 here.'" 
 
 Sir R. Musgrave thus accounts for the origin of the Orangemen : — 
 
 " As the Defenders not only became terrific to individuals in most 
 parts of the kingdom, by the constant perpetration of nocturnal 
 robberies and assassination, but as they formed a systematic combi- 
 
 * Sir K. Musgrave — Veridicus was a singular name for him to choose. 
 
296 THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 nation, and supplied themselves with arms for the obvious purpose of 
 subverting the constitution in church and state, and as they were 
 encouraged and directed by the Catholic committee* and the United 
 Irishmen — the Protestants of the Established Church, to defeat their 
 malignant designs, found it necessary to excite a spirit of loyalty, 
 which began to languish and decline in a very alarming degree, and to 
 rally round the Altar and the Throne, which were in imminent danger. 
 The battle of the Diamond, in the county of Armagh, in September, 
 1795, and the duplicity and treachery of the Romanists on that 
 occasion, convinced the Protestants that they would become an easy 
 prey to their enemies, from the paucity of their numbers, unless they 
 associated for their defence, particularly as the fimatical vengeance 
 which they displayed on that and other occasions convinced the 
 members of the Established Church that they meditated nothing less 
 than their total extirpation. In commemoration of that victory the 
 first Orange Lodge was formed in the county of Armagh, on the 21st 
 September, 1795, though the name of Orangeman existed some time 
 before. They were merely a society of loyal Protestants, associated 
 and bound together solely for the purpose of maintaining and 
 defending the constitution in church and state, as established by the 
 Prince of Orange, at the glorious Revolution, which they regarded 
 as a solemn and sacred duty." 
 
 The last passage must be read in connection with Lord Gosford's 
 statement, and Grattan's speeches on the same subject. A little 
 examination will show it to be full of most gross falsehood. 
 
 * This is not worth refutation. It is a feeble falsehood. 
 
TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 JAMES WELDON, 
 
 FOR 
 
 HIGH TREASON, 
 
 BEFORE THE COURT HOLDEN UNDER A COMMISSION 
 
 OF OYER AND TERMINER AND GENERAL 
 
 GAOL DELIVERY, 
 
 IN AND FOR 
 
 THE COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN, 
 
 IN IRELAND, 
 
 On MONDAY, Dec. 21, and TUESDAY, Dec. 22, 
 
 36 Geo. hi. a.d. 1795. 
 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 Monday, December 14, 1795. 
 
 Mr. Baron George sat as the Judge of the Commission, and was 
 assisted by Mr. Justice Chamberlain and Mr. Justice Finucane. 
 
 In the latter end of the month of August 1795, several persons 
 were taken into custody in the city of Dublin upon charges of High 
 Treason, and in the ensuing commission of Oyer and Terminer held 
 in October, bills of indictment were preferred against them, and others 
 not then in custody, which were returned by the grand jury to be 
 true bills. 
 
 The prisoners in custody were then brought to the bar of the court 
 for the purpose of having counsel and agents assigned. They were 
 severally called upon to name their own counsel and agents, and such 
 as they named were assigned by the court, as follows : — 
 
 Thomas Kennedy, 
 George Lewis, 
 Patrick Hart, 
 
 Edward Hanlon, 
 Thomas Cooke, 
 John Lowry. 
 
 Counsel — Messrs. Curran and M'Nally. 
 Agent — Mr. A. Fitzgerald. 
 
298 TRIAL OF 
 
 Thomas Murphy, | Michael Maguire. 
 Counsel — Messrs. M'Nally and Lysaght. 
 Agent — Mr. M. Kearney. 
 
 Henry Flood. 
 
 Counsel — Messrs. Fletcher and Ribgeway. 
 
 Agent — Mr. F. Flood. 
 
 In the interval between the October commission and the present, 
 a person of the name of James Weldon was apprehended upon a 
 charge of High Treason, and he together with such as had been 
 previously in custody, were served with copies of the indictments 
 and the captions thereof, five days before the first day of this com- 
 mission. 
 
 This day the prisoners who had been in custody at the last com- 
 mission were severally arraigned and pleaded Not Guilty.* 
 
 When Flood was put to the bar, 
 
 Mr. Ridgeway moved that the caption of the indictment might be 
 read. The court ordered it to be read, but the Clerk of the Crown 
 said, he had it not in court : whereupon it was sent for, and being 
 brought in, it appeared to be on paper. The counsel then objected 
 to its being read, and moved that the indictment be quashed for want 
 of a caption. He said the caption ought to make part of the record, 
 and be annexed to the indictment. Here it is neither — the caption 
 is upon paper, whereas the records of this court are always upon 
 parchment, as the indictment is, and the caption here is detached 
 fi'om the indictment. In several cases in the State Trials, in the 
 Rebels' case in Fost. 2, and in Hardy's case, 1794, the caption and 
 the indictment form one continued narrative, and it would be absurd 
 if it were otherwise. In Fost. 4, the caption states, " the bill here- 
 unto annexed is a true bill," &c. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My lords, the prisoner has been served 
 with a copy of the caption and the indictment, which is all that is 
 required. He has no right to look into the record. He might as 
 well object, that the indictment consisted of several skins of parchment, 
 when it is too long to be contained in one. 
 
 The Clerk of the Crown said, that the caption did make part of 
 the record. 
 
 Mr. Ridgeway. — If the officer assert as a fact, what every man 
 who has sight must be convinced is not so, I know not how to answer. 
 
 The Court said, that upon this point, they must be satisfied with 
 the averment of their officer, and desired him to proceed and read the 
 caption. 
 
 This was accordingly done, after which the indictment was read, 
 and the prisoner was asked, was he guilty, or not ? 
 
 Mr. Ridgeway said he intended to plead that there was no caption 
 to the indictment, but that his client wished for his trial and instructed 
 
 * The prisoners had, upon the first clay of the October commission, presented 
 petitions, stating that they were ready for their trial and praying they might be 
 tried in that commission. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 299 
 
 him to waive objections in point of form, which he had thought it his 
 duty to state. 
 
 The prisoner then pleaded Not Guilty. 
 
 James Weldon was then put to the bar and desired to name his 
 counsel ; he named Mr. Curran and Mr. M'Nally, who were accord- 
 ingly assigned to him. Immediately after this, the Clerk of the 
 Crown Avas proceeding to arraign the prisoner. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally My lords, I object to the prisoner's being arraigned 
 
 at this time ; I have only been assigned this morning : it is impossible 
 I could be prepared to advise him in his plea. It may be said, he 
 was served with a copy of the indictment ; but I apprehend, counsel 
 are not at liberty to consult with a prisoner in custody for treason, 
 until they are assigned ; therefore I submit, he ought to be allowed 
 five days before he is called upon to plead. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General My lords, if the prisoner wants time 
 
 to prepare for his defence, I have no objection to anything that is 
 reasonable. He might have consulted with counsel after the copy of 
 the indictment was served upon him ; for although only two counsel 
 are allowed to plead in court for him, yet he may have as many to 
 advise with as he pleases, and directions were given, that counsel 
 should be admitted to him. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain In fact this man has not had counsel 
 
 assigned till this morning, and as the Attorney- General does not seem 
 to object, I think it would be better to postpone his arraignment. 
 
 Mr. Justice Finucant: The act of parliament is not peremptory 
 
 as to the assignment of counsel before pleading. 
 
 Mr. Baron George No objection is made to allowing the prisoner 
 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General then said, he intended to have Weldon 
 tried first, and therefore aU the other trials must be postponed. He 
 mentioned Saturday for the arraignment and trial of Weldon, which 
 day was accordingly appointed. But on Friday Mr. Attorney- 
 General moved to postpone the trial to Monday, lest an objection 
 should be made, that the prisoner had not five clear days. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — There is another reason for postponing the 
 trial ; if it began on Saturday it might last till Sunday, which might 
 be productive of inconvenience. Therefore let the trial stand for 
 Monday. 
 
 Monday, December 21st. 
 
 The prisoner being put to the bar, Mr. M'Nally applied to have 
 the caption read. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General opposed this application ; the prisoner 
 is not entitled to have the caption read, he has an attested copy, and 
 can avail himself of that. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally cited Fost. 2, 228, 230, to show that the caption is 
 necessary to assist the prisoner in pleading. 
 
 The Court said the caption ought to be read. The prisoner must 
 be furnished with a copy of the whole record ; how can he know 
 whether he has such a copy unless the whole record be read. 
 
 The caption was accordingly read and appeared to be engrossed 
 upon parchment and annexed to the indictment. 
 
300 TRIAL OF 
 
 "Be it remembered, that at an adjournment of a commission of 
 Oyer and Terminer and general gaol delivery, held in and for the 
 county of the city of Dublin, in that part of the King's Courts, 
 Dublin, where the Court of King's Bench usually sits, on Monday 
 the 26th day of October, in the year of our Lord God, one thousand 
 seven hundred and ninety-five, and in the thirty-sixth year of the 
 reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, King of Great Britain, 
 France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith and soforth, before "William 
 Worthington, Lord Mayor of the said city, Michael Smith, Esq., one 
 of the Barons of his Majesty's Com-t of Exchequer in the said king- 
 dom of Ireland, Mathias Finucane, Esq., one of the Justices of his 
 Majesty's Court of Common Pleas in the said kingdom of Ireland, 
 and Denis George, Esq., one other of the Barons of the said court 
 of Exchequer in the kingdom of Ireland, and others, their fellow 
 Justices and Commissionei's of our said Loi'd the King, in and for the 
 whole county of the said city of Dublin, assigned by the letters patent 
 of our said Lord the King, under the great seal of his said kingdom 
 of Ireland, bearing date at Dublin the 20th day of June, in the first 
 year of the reign of our said Lord the King, directed to Patrick 
 Hamilton, Esq., the then Lord Mayor of the said city of Dublin, and 
 the Lord Mayor of the said city for the time being, John Lord Baron 
 Bowes of Clonlyon then being Chancellor of the kingdom of Ireland, and 
 the Chancellor of the said Lord the King of the said kingdom for the time 
 being, Chaworth Earl of Meath, Richard Earl of Ross, Humphrey Earl 
 of Lanesborough, Richard Lord Viscount Fitz- William, Sir William 
 York, then being Chancellor of the Court of Exchequer of the said Lord 
 the King of his said Kingdom of Ireland, and the Chancellor of the 
 said Lord the King of his Court of Exchequer for the time being, 
 Warden Flood, then being Chief- Justice of the Court of Chief Place 
 of our said Lord the King, in his said kingdom, and the Chief- Justice 
 of his said Court of Chief Place for the time being, Richard Rigby, 
 then Master of the Rolls in the said kingdom, and the Master of the 
 Rolls in the said kingdom for the time being, Richard Aston, then 
 being Chief- Justice of the Court of Common Pleas of our said Lord 
 the King in the said kingdom and the Chief-Justice of the Court of 
 Common Pleas for the time being, Edward Willis, then being Chief 
 Baron of the Court of Exchequer of the said Lord the King and the 
 Chief Baron of the said Court of Exchequer, for the time being, 
 Richaixl Mountney, then being second Baron of the said Court of 
 Exchequer, Arthur Dawson, then being third Baron of the said Court 
 of Exchequer, Robert French, then being second Justice of the said 
 Court of Common Pleas, Robert Marsliall, then being third Justice 
 of the said Court of Common Pleas, Christopher Robinson, then being 
 second Justice of the said Court of Chief Place, William Scott, then 
 being third Justice of the said Court of Chief Place ; and the Justices 
 of the said Courts of Chief Place and Common Pleas, and the Barons, 
 of the said Court of Exchequer, respectively, for the time being and 
 others in the said letters named, to enquire by the oaths of good and 
 lawful men of the said county of the city of Dublin, and by otlier 
 ways, means and methods whereof the truth may the better be known 
 as well within liberties as without, of all treasons, misprisions of 
 treasons, insurrections, rebellions, counterfeits, clippings, washings. 
 
THE DEFENDEKS. 301 
 
 unlawful coinings and other falsifying of money of Great Britain or 
 other money current in the said kingdom of Ireland by proclamations, 
 burnings and of all murders, felonies, manslaughters, killings, robberies, 
 burglaries, perjuries, forgeries, rapes, unlawful assemblies, extortions, 
 oppressions, riots, routs, crimes, contempts, deceits, injuries, escapes 
 and other offences and causes whatsoever as well against the common 
 law of the said kingdom of Ireland, as against the form and effect of 
 any statute, act ordinance or provision theretofore made, ordained or 
 confirmed, by any person or persons within the said county of the city 
 of Dublin, in anywise done, committed or perpetrated, or thereafter to 
 be done committed or perpetrated, and of all accessaries to the said 
 offences, and eveiy of them, within the said county of the city of 
 Dublin, as well within liberties as without, by whomsoever and 
 howsoever had, done, perpetrated or committed, by any person or 
 persons, upon any person or persons, at any time howsoever, and in 
 any manner whatsoever, and that the said treasons, and other the 
 premises, to hear, examine, discuss, try, finish, execute and determine 
 according to the laws and customs of the said kingdom of Ireland, 
 and to deliver the gaol of Newgate, in the county of the said city of 
 Dublin, of all the prisoners and malefactors therein, as often as occa- 
 sion should require. It is presented upon the oath of twelve good 
 and lawful men of the body of the said county of the city of Dublin, 
 whose names here follow, that is to say : Robert PoAvell, Daniel 
 Dickenson, James Mills, Andi'ew Callage, Hall Lamb, James Blacker, 
 Richard Wilson, William Henry Archer, Joshua Manders, Robert 
 Hanna, Francis Hamilton, Mark Bloxham, Lewis Hodglon, John 
 Gorman, William Evans, Robert Newell, William Lindsey, William 
 Berry, John Duncan, William Crombie, William Duncan, Richard 
 Cranfield, Bladen Sweny, in manner and form here following, that is 
 to say. 
 
 County of the city of\ " The Jurors of our Lord the King upon 
 Dublin, to icit. J their oath present that an open and public 
 war, on the 20th day of August, in the thirty-fifth year of the reign 
 ! of our Sovereign Lord Geoi'ge the Third, by the Grace of God, of 
 Great Britain, France and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith and 
 soforth, and long before, was and ever since hitherto by land and by 
 sea, and yet is carried on and prosecuted by the persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, against our most Serene, Illus- 
 trious, and Excellent Prince, our said Lord the now King, and that 
 James Weldon, of the city of Dublin, Yeoman, in the said county of 
 : the city of Dublin, a subject of our said Lord the King of his 
 \ kingdom of Ireland, well knowing the premises but not having the 
 I fear of God in his heart, nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, and 
 I being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, as a false traitor 
 of our said Lord the King, his supreme, true, lawful, and undoubted Lord 
 the cordial love and true obedience which every true and dutiful subject 
 of our said Sovereign Lord the King tow^ards him our said Lord the 
 King should bear, wholly withdrawing and contriving with all his 
 strength, intending the peace and common tranquillity of this 
 kingdom of Ireland to disturb, and the government of our said Lord 
 the King of this his kingdom of Ireland to subvert, and our said 
 Loi'd the King from the regal state, title, honour, power, imperial 
 
302 TRIAL OF 
 
 crown and government of this his kingdom of L'eland to depose and 
 deprive, and our said Lord the King to death and final destruction to 
 bring, he the said James Weldon, on the 20th day of August, in the 
 thirty-fifth year of the reign of our said Lord the King, and on divers 
 other days and times, as well before as after that day, at SuflTolk-street, 
 in the parish of St. Andrew, in the city of Dublin, and in the county 
 of the said city of Dublin aforesaid, with force and arms, falsely, 
 wickedly and traitorously did compass, imagine and intend the said 
 Lord the King, then and there his supreme, true and lawful Lord of 
 and from the royal state, crown, title, power, and government of this 
 his realm of Ireland to depose and wholly deprive, and the said Lord 
 the King to kill and put to death, and that to fulfil and bring to 
 eifect his most evil, wicked and treasonable imaginations and corn- 
 passings aforesaid, he the said James Weldon, as such false traitor as 
 aforesaid, and during the said war between our said Lord the King 
 and the said persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 to wit, on the said 20th day of August, in the thirty-fifth year of the 
 reign aforesaid, at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the parish aforesaid, 
 and in the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, with force and 
 arms, falsely, maliciously and traitorously, did join, imite and associate 
 himself to and with divers false traitors to the jurors unknown, and 
 did then and there with such false traitors to the jurors aforesaid 
 unknown, enter into and become one of a party and society formed 
 and associated under the denomination of Defenders, with design and 
 for the end and purpose of aiding, assisting and adhering to the said 
 persons so exercising the powers of government in France, and so 
 wasrinsf war as aforesaid, against our said Sovereiijn Lord the nowKino^, 
 in case they should invade or cause to be invaded this his kingdom 
 of Ireland ; and afterwards and during the said war between our 
 said Lord the King, and the said persons, so exercising the powers of 
 government in France, and enemies of our said Lord the King, on 
 the 20tli day of August, in the said thirty-fifth year of the reign of 
 our said Lord the King, and on divers other days, as well before as 
 after that day, with force and arms at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the 
 parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, and county of the said city of Dublin 
 aforesaid; he the said James Weldon as such false ti'aitor as aforesaid, 
 in further prosecution of his treason and traitoi'ous purposes aforesaid, 
 did with divei'S other false traitors, whose names are to the Jurors of 
 our said Lord the King as yet unknown, then and there meet and 
 assemble to confer, treat and consult for and about the adhei'ing to, 
 joining, aiding and assisting of the said persons exercising the powers 
 of government in France as aforesaid, and being enemies of our said 
 Lord the King as aforesaid, in case they should invade this his 
 kingdom of Ireland, and afterwards to wit, on the 20th day of 
 August, in the thirty-fifth year of the reign aforesaid, and on divers 
 other days as well before as after that day, with force and arms at 
 Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the 
 city of Dublin aforesaid, and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, 
 the said James Weldon, as such false traitor as aforesaid, in further 
 prosecution of his treason and traitorous purposes aforesaid, did then 
 and there, with divers other false traitors, whose names to the said 
 jurors are yet unknown, wickedly and traitorously associate and unite 
 
THE OEFENDERS. 303 
 
 himself to and witli divers false traitors unknown to the jurors afore- 
 said, and did along with said false traitors to the jurors aforesaid 
 unknown, enter into and become one of a party and society united 
 and associated under the denomination of Defenders, with design and 
 for the end and purpose of deposing, subverting and overturning the 
 government of this kingdom as by law established, and so associated 
 and united as aforesaid, did then and there, and on divers other days 
 and times as well befoi'e as after that day, meet and assemble, to 
 confer, consult and deliberate on and about the means and measures 
 for affecting his aforesaid traitorous and nefarious designs and pur- 
 poses. And afterwards to wit, on the said 20th day of August, in 
 the said thirty-fifth year of the reign aforesaid, and on divers other 
 days and times, as well before as after that day, with force and arms 
 at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, and 
 county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said James Weldon as 
 such false traitor as aforesaid, in further prosecution of his treason 
 and traitorous purposes, did then and there, with divers other false 
 traitors, whose names to the said jurors are yet unknown, wickedly 
 and traitorously associate and unite with divers other false traitors, to 
 the said jurors as yet unknown, and did along with such false traitors 
 to the jurors aforesaid unknown, enter into and become one of a party 
 and society, united and associated under the denomination of 
 Defenders, with design and for the end and purpose of subverting 
 and overturning the Protestant religion in this kingdom by law esta- 
 blished, and so associated and united as aforesaid, did then and there, 
 on divers other days and times as well before as after that day, meet 
 and assemble with divers false traitors, to the jurors as yet vmknown, 
 confer, consult and deliberate, on the means and measures for affecting 
 his aforesaid traitorous and nefarious design and purposes. And 
 afterwards to wit, on the said 20th day of August, in the said thirty- 
 fifth year of the reign aforesaid, and on divers other days as well 
 before as after that day, with force and arms at Suffolk-street afore- 
 said, in the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid, and in the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said 
 James Weldon as such false traitor as aforesaid, in further prosecution 
 of his treason and traitorous purposes aforesaid, and then and there, 
 with divers false traitors, whose names to the said jurors are yet 
 unknown, Avickedly and traitorously, in order to enlist and procure 
 one William Lawler, who aiding and assisting to the said persons so 
 exercising the poAvers of government in France, and enemies of our 
 said Lord the King as aforesaid, in case they should invade or cause 
 to be invaded this his kingdom of Ireland, did then and there traitor- 
 ously administer an unlawful oath to the said William Lawler, to the 
 purport following, that is to say, — " I am concerned. So am I. With 
 who? With the National Convention, (meaning thereby the National 
 Convention of France.) What is your designs ? On freedom. 
 Where is your designs ? The foundation of it is grounded in a rock. 
 What is your designs ? Cause to queal all nations, dethrone all 
 
 gs, (meaning thereby all kings,) to plant the true religion in the 
 
 hearts, be just. Where did the cock crow when the whole world 
 heard him ? In France. What is the pass word ? Eliphismatis." 
 And afterwards to wit, on the said 20th day of August, in the thirty- 
 
304 TRIAL OF 
 
 fifth year of the reign aforesaid, and on divers other days, as well 
 before as after that day, with force and arms at Suffolk-street afore- 
 said, in the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city of Dublin 
 aforesaid, and county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, the said James 
 Weldon as such false traitor as aforesaid, in further prosecution of 
 his treason and traitorous purposes aforesaid, did then and there, with 
 divers other false traitors, whose names to the said jurors are yet 
 unknown, wickedly and traitorously, in order to enlist, corrupt and 
 procure one William Lawler, to be aiding and assisting to the said 
 persons, so exercising the power of government in France, and 
 enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, in case they should 
 invade, or cause to be invaded, this his kingdom of Ireland ; and to 
 bind and engage himself thereto, did then and there traitorously 
 administer to and instruct the said William Lawler, to rehearse and 
 repeat an oath, the said James Weldon having then and there, for 
 that purpose sworn him the said William Lawler, a certain profession, 
 declaration, and catechism to the purport following, that is to say ; 
 " I am concerned. So am I. With who? With the National Con- 
 vention, (meaning thereby the National Convention of France.) 
 What is your designs ? On freedom. Where is your designs ? The 
 foundation of it is grounded in a rock. What is your designs ? 
 
 Cause to queal all nations, and dethrone all gs, (meaning thereby 
 
 all kings,) to plant the true religion in the hearts — be just. Where 
 did the cock crow when all the world heard him? In France. What 
 is the pass word ? Eliphismatis." And afterwards, to wit, on the 
 said 20th day of August, in the said thirty-fifth year of the reign 
 aforesaid, and on divers other days, as well before as after that day, 
 with force and arms at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the parish of St. 
 Andrew aforesaid, in the city of Dublin aforesaid, and county of the 
 city of Dublin aforesaid ; the said James Weldon as such false traitor 
 as aforesaid, in further prosecution of his treason and traitorous pur- 
 poses aforesaid, did then and there with divers other false traitors, 
 whose names are to the said Jurors as yet unknown ; wickedly and 
 traitorously in order to encourage, corrupt, procure and enlist the said 
 William Lawler, to become one of a party and society, formed for 
 the purpose of subverting the government of this kingdom of Ireland, 
 as by law established ; did then and there traitorously encourage, 
 corrupt, procure and enlist the said William Lawler to join himself to 
 and become one of a party or society foi'med and united for the 
 purpose of subverting the government of the kingdom of Ireland, as 
 by law established. And afterwards, to wit, on the 25 th day of 
 August, in the said thirty-fifty year of the reign aforesaid, and on 
 divers other days, as well before as after that day, with force and 
 arms, at Suffolk-street afoi'esaid, in the parish of St. Andrew afore- 
 said, in the city of Dublin aforesaid, and in the county of the city of 
 Dublin aforesaid, the said James Weldon as such false traitor as 
 aforesaid, in further prosecution of his ti-eason and traitorous purposes 
 aforesaid, did then and there with divers other false traitors whose 
 names to the said jurors are yet unknown, wickedly and traitorously, 
 in order to enlist and procure one William LaAvler to be aiding and 
 assisting to the persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 and enemies of our said Lord the King as aforesaid, in case they should 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 305 
 
 iuvade or cause to be invaded this his kingdom of Irehmd, did then 
 and there, traitorously administer an unhxwful oath to the said William 
 Lawler, to the purport following, that is to say, — ' I, William Lawler, 
 of my own good will and consent, do swear to be true to his Majesty 
 King George the Third, whilst I live under the same government- 
 More, I swear to be true, aiding and assistant to every brother bound 
 to me by this application, and in every form of ailicle from its first 
 foundation, January 1790 — And in every amendment hitlierto — And 
 will be obedient to my committees, superior commanders, and officers, 
 in all lawful proceedings and not otherwise, nor will I consent to any 
 society or any brother of an unlaAvfid character, but will observe and 
 obey the laws and regulations of my committee to whom I belong 
 determined brother, nor in any violation of the laws, but to protect 
 my life and property, and the lives and properties of my brothers — 
 And I will subject myself to my committee-men in all lawful pro- 
 ceedings and not otherwise, during the reign of his Majesty King 
 George the Third, whilst I live under the same government — I 
 likewise swear I will meet when and where my committee will please, 
 and v/ill spend what is pleasing to president and company — I will not 
 quarrel nor strike any person whatsomever, knowing him to be such, 
 but will live lovingly and friendly with every one under that deno- 
 mination — I will not rise any fight or quarrel on account of my present 
 intrus, or back that for unto my brotherhood.' *And the said jurors 
 of our said Lord the King upon their oath further present, that an 
 open and public war on the said 20th day of August, in the thirty- 
 fifth year of the reign of our said Lord George the Third and soforth, 
 and long before and ever since hitherto by land and by sea, hath been 
 and is carried on and prosecuted by the said persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France, against our most serene, illustrious 
 and excellent prince George the Third, now king of Ireland, and 
 soforth. And tliat the said James Weldon a subject of our said Lord 
 the King of his kingdom of Ireland, Avell knowing the premises, not 
 having the fear of God in his heart, nor weighing the duty of his 
 allegiance, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the 
 devil, as a false traitor against our most serene and illustrious and 
 excellent Prince George the Third, now King of Ireland, and soforth ; 
 and contriving, and with all his strength intending the peace of this 
 his kingdom of Ireland to disturb, and the government of this his 
 kingdom of Ireland to subvert, he the said James Weldon, on the 20th 
 day of August, in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of our said Lord 
 the now King, and on divers other days and times as well before as 
 after that day, with force and arms at Suffi^lk-street aforesaid, in the 
 parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, in the city of Dublin aforesaid, and 
 county of the said city of Dublin aforesaid, unlawfully and traitorously 
 was adhering to, aiding and comforting the persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France, and being enemies of our said Lord 
 the King as aforesaid, and that in the prosecution, performance and 
 execution of the said traitorous adhering of the said James Weldon 
 to the persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 and being enemies of our said Lord the present King, to wit, 
 
 * Second Count. 
 
306 TRIALS OF 
 
 on the said 20th day of August, in the said thirty-fifth year of the 
 reign aforesaid, at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the parish aforesaid, 
 and in the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, with force and arms 
 falsely, maliciously and traitorously did join, miite and associate 
 himself to and with divers false traitors to the jurors as yet unknown, 
 and did then and there with such false traitors to the jurors aforesaid 
 as yet unknown, enter into and become one of a party and society 
 formed and associated under the denomination of Defenders, with 
 design and for the purpose of aiding, assisting and adhering to the 
 said persons so exercising the powers of government in France, and 
 so waging wai" as aforesaid with our said Sovereign Lord the now 
 King, in case they should invade or cause to be invaded this his 
 kingdom of Ireland, and afterwards and durinsr the said war between 
 our said Lord the King and the said persons so exercising the powers 
 of government in France, and enemies of our said Lord the King, on 
 the 20th day of August, in the said thirty-fifth year of the reign of 
 our said Lord the King, and on divers other days as well before as 
 after that day, with force and arms at Suffolk-street aforesaid, in the 
 parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, and county of the said city of Dublin 
 aforesaid, he the said James Weldon as such false traitor as aforesaid, 
 in further prosecution of his treason and traitorous purposes aforesaid, 
 did with divers other false traitors whose names are to the jurors of 
 our said Lord the King as yet unknown, then and there meet and 
 assemble to confer, treat and consult for and about the adhering to, 
 joining, aiding and assisting of the said persons exercising the powers 
 of government in France as aforesaid, and being enemies of our said 
 Lord the King as aforesaid, in case they should invade or cause to be 
 invaded this his kingdom of L'eland." 
 
 The same overt acts were stated in support of the second covmt, 
 and in the same manner as set forth in the first. The indictment 
 concluded in this way — " against the duty of the allegiance of the 
 said James TVeldon, against the peace of our said Lord the King, liis 
 crown and dignity, and against the form of the statute in such case 
 made and provided." 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — How say you, James Weldon, are you 
 guilty of this treason in manner and form as you stand indicted and 
 arraigned or not ? 
 
 Mr. 31'Nallt My lords, I submit to your lordships that this 
 
 indictment must be quashed, the caption annexed to it, being illegal 
 both as to form and substance. The first error that appears upon the 
 face of the caption, is that it lays no venue ; it does not show whether 
 the bill was foiind by the grand jury of the city or the county of 
 Dublin. I am aware that by a statute this court is taken to be in the 
 city and the county. Locally it is in the county of Dublin : artifi- 
 cially it is in either ; but the caption does not set forth any county in 
 the margin : if it did, I admit it might be unnecessary to repeat that 
 county in the caption ; but all that is stated in the body of the caption 
 is, " the place where King's Bench usually sits," without aveiTiug it 
 to be in the city of Dublin, where the offence is supposed to be com- 
 mitted. 2dly. The caption states an adjournment of a session, but 
 does not state when the original session began, Str. 865. 2 Hawk. 362. 
 3dly. It does not state that the grand jury were sworn and charged, 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 307 
 
 4 Bl. Com. Fost. 4.* 2 Hal. P. C. 167. s. 6, 9- The caption states 
 that it is presented upon the oath of twelve men " that is to say," and 
 it sets out the names of twenty-three ; this is repugnant, for the latter 
 part is contradictory to the foi-mer. 4thly. The caption does not state 
 the additions of the jm-ors ; the precedent in the appendix to 4 Bl. 
 Com. states the foreman to be a baronet and the rest are esquires. 
 The necessity of the addition is ob^^ous ; it is to ascertain the identity 
 of the grand juror, for many objections may lie against him, he might 
 be an outlaw, convicted of treason or felony and consequently disabled 
 from serving upon a grand juiy. 
 
 Mr. Attorxey-Gexeral, rose to answer these objections, but 
 was stopped by the court. 
 
 Mr. .Justice Chamberlain. — The court do not think the objections 
 founded. It is taken for granted, that the caption is part of the 
 indictment : it is not ; — it is only the style of the court, and where 
 captions have been quashed, it has been upon certiorari, or writ of 
 error. 
 
 The prisoner then pleaded in abatement — "And the said James 
 Weldon says, that he is not a yeoman, but a soldier in his Majesty's 
 7th regiment of dragoons." 
 
 Mr. Attornt^y-Gexerae. — I demur to this plea. 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlaix. — Then you admit that he is not a 
 yeoman. 
 
 Mr. Attorxey-Gexeral — Is the plea so, my lord ? I had mis- 
 conceived it. 
 
 Then the plea was read, and after some conference among the 
 counsel for the crown, Mr. Attorxey-Gexerae replied, and averred 
 " that the prisoner is a yeoman, and this he prayed might be tried by 
 the country." The counsel for the prisoner joined the similiter — 
 " And the said James TVeldon doth so Kkewise." 
 Court. — You pray the usual process. 
 
 Counsel on both sides, said certainly ; and the Attorx'ey-Gexerae 
 prayed that a jury might be returned instanter. 
 
 It then became a question, to what time the plea related ? — whether 
 it meant, that he was a soldier at the time when the plea was put in 
 — or at the time when the indictment was found ? 
 
 Mr. CrRRAX. — The meaning of the plea is, that the prisoner was 
 never a yeoman, either at the time of his arrest, the time the indict- 
 ment was taken, or at this day. It is a sort of objection to the 
 identity that he is not the man presented by the grand inquest as a 
 yeoman, for he is a soldier. 
 
 A pannel was then returned by the Sheriff, and twelve persons 
 were sworn to try the issue, whether the prisoner be a yeoman. 
 
 Mr. At torx'ey- General Gentlemen of the jury — The prisoner 
 
 is indicted for high treason, and he is described in the indictment as 
 a yeoman, an issue is now joined upon that description and if it be 
 found for him, the indictment must be quashed. The law requires, 
 that an indictment must set forth what a party is ; the prisoner is 
 described as a yeoman ; we shall produce a witness to show what he 
 
 • In Townley's Case (18 How. St. Tr. 334) the jury are stated to hav« been 
 " sworn and charged to enqnii-e"" 
 
308 TniALS OF 
 
 is, and you will determine whether he be a yeoman, or not. The 
 objection is as frivolous as can be conceived ; it is a disgrace to 
 justice that such objections are allowed, and I say this to shew you 
 that if there be any doubt in the case, yovi wall lean against the plea. 
 What was the meaning of the word yeoman an hundred years ago, 
 or what was the meaning of the Saxon Avord geomman, is not now 
 the subject of enquiry. We will shew that the prisoner is a soldier 
 in a regiment of horse ; and the woi'ds yeoman and labourer have 
 been applied indifferently as sufhcient descriptions of persons in his 
 situation. The counsel for the prisoner may shew from black letter 
 books, what was the meaning of the word yeoman many years ago ; 
 but it is sufficient to describe a man to a common intent, and in the 
 known use of words at the time of the indictment found. The word 
 yeoman is applied to many difterent situations, as a person having 
 land and entitled to serve upon a jury. If that be the appropriated 
 meaning, it has not been so taken lately. There are yeomen of the 
 King's guards — so are the attendants upon the Lord Lieutenant's 
 person, and a variety of others in different situations. Therefore the 
 insignificant word cannot be now made a ground of objection, this 
 man being described with sufficient particularity. An objection 
 might be made to a description of a man as one kind of artificer, when 
 in truth he was of another, but the same objection cannot be made to 
 the words yeoman or labourer. 
 
 Tresham Gregg, sworn. — Examined by the Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. Are you gaoler of Newgate ? A. I am. 
 
 Q. Do you knoAv the prisoner ? A. I know the prisoner, James 
 Weldon, since he was committed to gaol. 
 
 Q. How long since is that ? A. About a month. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with him ? A. I asked him, what 
 business he was of. He said he was a breeches-maker from the 
 county of Meath, but that he had been a soldier for two years ; that 
 he was a soldier in the Black Horse and was taken in Cork. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath, do you know what a yeoman is? A. I 
 do not. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN Then you may go down, and enquire before you 
 
 come to prove that a prisoner is a yeoman. 
 
 Here the evidence closed. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN Gentlemen of the jury, — the law requires that there 
 
 should be a determinate degree of certainty in the specification, not 
 only of every crime, with which any man is charged, but also of the 
 person charged : and it is not for us to say, that any certainty Avhich 
 may be required in favour of life, or any objection permitted by the 
 law, is frivolous, or disgraceful to the jurisprudence of the country. 
 It is a known fact, that the certainty of description which has been 
 adhered to in this country, has been departed from in a neighbouring 
 country, and hundreds of innocent persons have perished for want of 
 it. This man is indicted as a yeoman, and if you have any doubt 
 upon the case, the uniform principle of the law is, that in such case 
 you should lean in favour of the prisoner. But gentlemen, there is 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 309 
 
 no doubt in the case ; your oath is, to try whether this man be a 
 yeoman. Our society is divided into different degrees, and the 
 inferior orders Avith regard to one another, and the peers who are 
 above them have correlative appellations. The name of yeoman is a 
 known and defined name. It is not to black letter that I shall refer the 
 court, or to books that are as little known as the pronunciation of the 
 word : but to the commentaries of Judge Blackstone, who has Avritten 
 not many years ago. 1 Bl. Com. 406 — ^"A yeoman is he that 
 hath free land of forty shillings by the year ; who was anciently 
 thereby qualified to serve on juries, vote for knights of the shire, and 
 do any other act, Avhere the law requires one, that is probus S)- legalis 
 homor He adds in the ensuing paragraph, " the rest of the com- 
 monality are tradesmen, artificers and labourers ; who (as well as all 
 others) must, in pursuance of the statute 1 Hen. V. c. 5, be stiled by 
 the name and addition of their estate, degree, or mystery, and the 
 place to Avliich they belong, or where they have been conversant, in 
 all original writs of actions, personal appeals and indictments, upon 
 which process of outlawry may be awarded ; in order as it should 
 seem, to prevent any clandestine, or mistaken outlawry, by reducing 
 to a specific certainty the person who is the object of its process." 
 Thus distinguishing the man of property in land, from those who earn 
 money by trades, as a tradesman or artificer, who must be described 
 by their degree, or mystery. From this respectable authority and tlie 
 plain sense of the case, the jury will find for the prisoner. You are 
 not to calculate consequences. If the man is entitled to the benefit of 
 the objection, you are sworn to give it to him, and you are not to 
 depart from that oath upon being told, that the objection is frivolous, 
 or disgraceful to justice. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — I wish that counsel in speaking to 
 this point, would argue, whether we are to advise the jury upon the 
 common acceptation of the word, or whether we are bound by the 
 strict letter of the law ? 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — Shakspeare seems to have considered a 
 soldier synonimous with yeoman, and Dr. Johnson, in his second 
 definition of the word, says, " it seems to have been anciently a kind 
 of ceremonious title given to soldiers ; whence we have still yeoman 
 of the guard." 
 
 " Tall yeomen seemed they and of great might. 
 And were enraged ready still for fight. — Spensek. 
 
 " Whose limbs were made in England shew us here, 
 The mettle of your pasture." — Shakspeare, Hen. V. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant My Loixls, yeoman is at this day the 
 
 general description of a man who is not a gentleman, or an esquire ; 
 for if a man has acquired no addition from his mystery, trade, or craft, 
 he is a yeoman. The rules of law must adapt themselves to the grow- 
 ing occasions of the times, and that man Avill be effectually described as 
 a yeoman, who has acquired no other addition, by which he could be 
 discriminated. In common reason, it is to be considered as the general 
 description of a man, who has not acquired any other. A soldier 
 most unquestionably cannot be a description under which a man could 
 be indicted. Burgess is not a good description — nor is citizen, nor 
 
310 TRIALS OF 
 
 servant ; neither can a soldier, because it is not general enough 
 upon which to arraign a man. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — The single question is, whether under i: 
 the statute of additions, 1 Hen. V. this description be sufficient ? The 
 authority of Shakspeare and Johnson is decisive to shew, that a soldier 
 is a yeoman. 2 Inst. 669. If a man be named a yeoman, he cannot 
 abate the writ. Is this such a name as the prisoner may be known 
 by ? He has given no evidence of his being of any art, or mystery, 
 and it is impossible for those concerned for the crown to know in all 
 cases, the true art, or mystery of a person accused. Before the statute 
 of Hen. Y. no description was necessary, and it was enacted to remove 
 objections made in outlawries. But where a party is forthcoming, 
 the argument is done away. Yeoman is a generic term, including 
 many degrees, and is fully sufficient to answer the intention of the 
 statute. 
 
 Mr. Saurin, same side. — This plea is founded upon the statute of 
 additions, by which it was provided that persons indicted, should be 
 described either by their state and degree, or by their mystery, or 
 trade ; if they were of any mystery or trade. Ever since the statutes 
 was enacted, it has been in the option of the prosecutor to describe 
 the person accused by his rank, or his trade ; it is not necessary to 
 describe him by both. From Lord Coke's argument upon the statute 
 it appears that state or degree mean one and the same thing ; " The 
 state or degree wherein a subject standeth." There are many persons 
 who have no trade and who must be described by some rank. A 
 soldier is no trade, and he stands in the nature of a servant taken into 
 the pay of the crown, and does not come within the description of 
 mystery, or trade — a servant is not of any mystery or trade. See 
 then the alternative offered to the prosecutor. Where a party has no 
 trade, or mystery, he must be described by his state or degree in the 
 community. What are they ? If under the rank of nobility, they are 
 divided into baronets, knights, esquires, gentlemen and yeomen, and 
 there is no other description under the rank of nobility by which he 
 could be described. Here we have shewn that this man was not of a 
 trade by which he could be described, and therefore he must be de- 
 scribed by his rank and condition, that is, a yeoman ; and if he be not 
 a yeoman, of what other rank is he ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain Is there any precedent of an indict- 
 ment, describing a man as a soldier ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Finucane It appears from Kelyng, that sailor is 
 
 a good addition, and Hawkins, in explaining the Avord mystery, says, 
 " art, trade, or occupation." 
 
 Mr. Kells and Mr. Ruxton said a few words on the part of the 
 prosecution. There being no precedent of an indictment against a 
 man, as a soldier, was a strong argument to shew it was no good addi- 
 tion, and as to sailor, it may be observed, that it is a sort of mystery, 
 for sailors serve a regular apprenticeship. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain, — The inclination of some of the court, 
 indeed I may say it is, at present, the opinion of all the court, that 
 yeoman within the common acceptation of the word, is a sufficient 
 description of the person. We mean to tell the jury so, and after that 
 to adjourn the court, and take the opinion of all the judges this even- 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 31 1 
 
 ing ; and in case we should be wrong in the opinion now given, we 
 shall take their advice how to proceed. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, — the issue you are to decide upon is — 
 Whether the prisoner is a yeoman according to the strict legal defini- 
 tion of the word ? Upon the authority of Judge Blackstone, who is 
 certainly a very high authority in the law, the prisoner does not 
 appear to be a yeoman. But according to the best writers in the 
 English language, he is a yeoman. " It seems to have been an ancient 
 kind of ceremonious title given to soldiers, yeomen of the guard." 
 Our present opinion is, that entitling the prisoner by a general title 
 of courtesy is sufficient within the statute of additions — All society is 
 divided into peers, baronets, knights, esquires, gentlemen, and yeomen, 
 tradesmen, and artificers. At the time of finding this indictment, 
 which is the material time for you to attend to, the prisoner was not 
 an artificex'. He had been bx^ed a breeches-maker, but two years 
 before he had given up that and became a soldier, so that, at the time 
 of finding the bill, he could not be entitled a tradesman, or artificer, 
 nor a gentleman, nor an esquire. Therefore imder the common 
 acceptation of the word, I think him sufficiently described, and I am 
 strongly fortified by this circumstance, that no precedent is produced 
 where a man is described as a soldier in an indictment. There may 
 be a reasen for sailors, because they serve an apprenticeship. Upon 
 the best English authorities, yeoman is a title of courtesy. If we are 
 wrong in this opinion, we shall be set right by the judges, who will 
 be summoned this evening. 
 
 The jury retired, and after some deliberation, brought in a verdict 
 that the prisoner is a yeoman. 
 
 The court immediately adjourned. 
 
 Tuesday, December 22, 1795. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — We are to inform the prisoner and 
 his counsel, that nine of the judges met at Lord Clonmel's, and they 
 were unanimously of opinion that the direction given to the jury was 
 right. 
 
 The prisoner then pleaded. Not Guilty. 
 
 the jury. 
 
 Sir Edward Crofton, Bart. William Sparrow, merchant. 
 
 William Bury, Esq. James French, merchant. 
 
 William Cope, Esq. Ralph Mulhern, merchant. 
 
 Moi'gan Crofton, Esq. Heniy Pettigrew, merchant. 
 
 Rawden Hautenville, Esq. William Blair, merchant. 
 
 Thomas Read, merchant. John Smith, merchant. 
 
 The prisoner was then given in charge to the jury by the Clerk of 
 the Crown, who read the whole indictment. 
 
 Mr. RuxTON opened the pleadings. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-Generae. — My lords, and gentlemen of the jury. 
 In this case it will not be necessary for me to do more than state the 
 several circumstances which may be material to explain the evidence 
 that will be produced; and even this statement is rendered necessary 
 rather from the importance of the case, than any difficulty, which will 
 occur. Were I to follow my own discretion, the case is so simple as 
 
312 TRIALS OF 
 
 to need no statement, but merely to produce the witnesses upon the 
 table. Gentlemen, the prisoner stands charged with the highest 
 crime known to the law ; tlie indictment states two species of that 
 crime, 1st, compassing and imagining the death of the King: — 2dly, 
 with adhering to the enemies of the King. Gentlemen, the charge 
 of compassing the death of the King, it may be necessary to explain 
 in a few words ; very few I shall use, because it will be the duty of 
 the court to explain to you, the law upon that subject ; therefore I 
 shall only say so much as will enable your minds to apply the evidence 
 to the charge stated in the indictment. The law has made it a capital 
 offence to compass, or imagine the death of the King. Our mild 
 laws, gentlemen, make the imagination of no other offence penal ; — 
 the crime must be committed in every other case. But the person of 
 the King is sacred : So much depends upon his life, that for the 
 sake of the public, their tranquillity, the preservation of their lives 
 and properties, the law has guarded the life of the King in a peculiar 
 manner. Any act, that in its nature tends to bring the life of the 
 sovereign into danger, will support the charge of compassing his 
 death. It is not necessary that the party accused shall have enter- 
 tained the design of putting the King to actual death — of depriving 
 him of life : — it is sufficient in the eye of the law, if the man has 
 determined to act in such a manner as to bring that to pass. As to 
 levy war — to change the government, which cannot be undertaken 
 without hazarding the King's life — to binng war upon the kingdom 
 must expose his life ; and even though the party had in his own mind 
 predetermined, not to put the King to death, yet, if he does those 
 acts, which endanger his life, he is guilty. But, gentlemen, the law, 
 which is thus careful of the sovereign's life, guards with equal care 
 the lives of the subjects, who may be accused of intending to commit 
 such a crime. Thoush the law makes the iniaoiuinjv the King's 
 death a crime, yet it takes care that it shall be proved by such 
 circumstances as evince the fact of the intention. There must be 
 what is called an overt act stated upon the indictment ; and that overt 
 act must be proved, from Avhence it can be collected, that the design 
 was taken to compass and imagine the King's death. 
 
 The other species of treason with which the prisoner is charged, is 
 adhering to the enemies of the King — to persons in a state of war 
 with these realms. Gentlemen, it is needless to say anything in 
 explaining the nature of this crime : — it speaks itself. These, gentle- 
 men, are the two charges, that he did compass the King's death — 
 that he adhered to the King's enemies. Adhering to the King's 
 enemies is evidence also of the compassing of the death of the King ; 
 because it is impossible to adhere to the enemies of the King without 
 exposing that sacred life to danger. Gentlemen, I shall state the 
 overt acts which are to support these charges. There are eight of 
 them. If any one of them be proved, and the inference be drawn 
 from it, which the indictment charges, though there be no evidence 
 of the other seven, the prisoner must be found guilty. Tlie first overt 
 act states, that he associated Avith divers traitors unknown, and 
 became one of a party under the denomination of Defenders for the 
 purj)ose of assisting and adliering to the persons exercising the powers 
 of government in France. Th(,^ second is, that he assembled with 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 313 
 
 others to consult about adhering to the French. Thirdly, that he 
 associated with persons called Defenders for the purpose of overturning 
 the government of this kingdom as by law established. The fourth 
 overt act is that he united with Defenders for the purpose of over- 
 turning the Protestant religion. Fifthly, that he enlisted one William 
 Lawler to aid the persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, and administered to him an oath, upon which I shall presently 
 make some observations. Sixth overt act states, that he enlisted 
 Lawler to adhere to the French, should they invade this kingdom, 
 and that he administered a catechism for that purpose. The seventh 
 is, that he enlisted, corrupted and procured Lawler to become one of 
 a party formed for the purpose of subverting the government. Eighth, 
 that he enlisted him for the purpose of overturning the Protestant 
 religion. Such, gentlemen, are the facts to be proved against the 
 prisoner at the bar. I have stated the outlines of them. Some, or 
 one of them must be proved, to sustain the charge. The same overt 
 acts are laid as applicable to each of the species of treason charged 
 against the prisoner. 
 
 Gentlemen, having stated, thus briefly, the charge and the nature 
 of it, it becomes my duty to state the evidence that will be produced 
 to sustain that charge. Before, however, I enter into the particulars 
 of that evidence, it may not be improper to call to your recollection 
 the state of things in this country at the time this otfence is alleged 
 to have been committed. La doing this, gentlemen, I shall state 
 what is a notorious historical fact — what cannot be excluded from 
 your minds — every man in the community must be impressed with it. 
 For some years there have existed in this country, a number of 
 persons, associated for wicked and atrocious purposes, styling them- 
 selves " Defenders." They have from time to time for the last four 
 or five years infested almost every part of this, in that respect, unhappy 
 country. It has appeared in various trials in the different provinces, 
 what the nature of the association of those wretches is : — it has 
 appeared with what designs they associated, and though those Avho 
 excited them have not appeared to public view, yet the manner of 
 exciting them, and the object ai'e but too plain. Since the year 1790, 
 there have appeared in many counties, particularly in the northern, 
 eastern and western counties, many persons under the denomination 
 of Defenders, connnitting various outrages, and avIio have directed 
 their attempts most particularly to disarm their fellow subjects. It 
 has appeared in every investigation of this offence, that there have 
 been in various counties, a number of persons, calling themselves 
 " Committee Men," who have guided the wretches they have deluded, 
 directed their actions, and prescribed their movements ; — pointed out 
 the different courses they were to take, and administered oaths, " to 
 be true and faithful to the committee men," — " to obey the laAvs of 
 the committee in all things," — and these oaths they have guarded 
 with such equivocations, that while they bound the parties to the 
 commission of the most atrocious crimes, the oath should appear to be 
 merely an oath of allegiance to the King, and submission to the laws 
 of the country. These committees have existed in many counties of 
 the kingdom, associating the lower orders of the people, by holding 
 out promises to seduce uneducated men ; — telling the poor lliat they 
 
314 TRIALS OF 
 
 would enjoy the property of the rich ; that they were no longer to 
 exist by their industry, and representing what they knew must be 
 impossible, that all men were equal. If it were possible that such 
 equality could be effected, the consequence would be the subversion 
 of all government, and that all would be reduced to a savage state. 
 Such, gentlemen, were the topics held out.. In other places they 
 propagated diiferent things — and they dared to use the sacred name 
 of religion, having no religion themselves, to forward the purposes of 
 their wicked imposition. It has appeared in too many instances, and 
 I am shocked while I state it, that these miscreants endeavoured to 
 instil hatred and animosity into the minds of their converts against 
 their fellow christians, though differing in some speculative points, 
 professing the same religion, worshipping the same God, and seeking 
 redemption through the same Jesus Christ. They represented, that 
 their Protestant brethren were to be destroyed ; and this they 
 attempted at a time when the legislature has been session after session, 
 endeavouring to put them upon a footing with themselves ; to do 
 away differences and to put an end to distrust. While I say this, 
 gentlemen, let no man imagine, that we mean to impute anything of 
 this kind to the general body professing the Roman Catholic religion. 
 No, gentlemen, we attribute these abominable practices to others, 
 who are seeking their own impious views. It is a subject so abhorrent 
 to my nature, that I would not have mentioned it, but that it must 
 come out in evidence ; for I would not suffer a word to escape my lips, 
 that would tend to divide those, who are bound to that law, and that 
 government which we all enjoy. The conduct of the committee men 
 is historically known ; it is proved in Connaught, it is proved in 
 several counties of the north and in Leinster ; and it is wonderful, 
 that I have seen circumstances proved in the most distant parts of the 
 west, corresponding with circumstances arising in the distant parts of 
 the north and east — manifesting most clearly, that there was a united 
 scheme to subvert the religion and the government of the country, 
 by exciting sedition among the lower orders of the people. How 
 these schemes were set on foot so universally, whether by French 
 gold, or democratic clubs, is neither for you, gentlemen, nor me now 
 to enquire — whether by the United Society of Dublin, or Belfast, I 
 will not trouble you at present with taking notice, or enquiring. I 
 only wish to impress upon your minds, that it is a fact historically 
 known, that there does exist in the country such a scheme of rebellion 
 and insurrection. Further to forward this plan, they have levied 
 money from the poor wretches they seduced. A man sworn pays a 
 shilling to the person administering the oath. The committee man 
 receives the shilling, and if he swear many, the consequence is, a 
 considerable income. In fact, the practice became common, and they 
 spoke of a committee man in a village as they would of a shoemaker. 
 " "Where are you going ?" " To the Defender-maker." And to that 
 Defender-maker the person paid a shilling, as if he had obtained 
 something valuable. 
 
 So far, gentlemen, it is necessary I should state these facts to you. 
 I hope in doing so, I do not overpass my duty. I do not mean to 
 I'ouse your passions upon this subject ; and if I did, I could not. The 
 statement I have made cannot affect the prisoner, unless it be proved 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 315 
 
 that he is such a man as is charged by the indictment, and it was 
 necessary to state what I have, that you might understand the dangers 
 and proceedings of the Defenders, which will be proved in evidence. 
 
 Gentlemen, the ci'ime with which the prisoner is charged, is of the 
 most awful nature in its consequences both to him, and to the public. 
 The charge is this, that the man at the bar is guilty of a crime, the 
 end and object of which Avas the destruction of the government under 
 which we live — the destruction of the life and liberty of every man 
 living under it — the destruction of our laws, which have been the 
 envy of every one for seven hundred years. But this crime is greatly 
 aggravated, if it be capable of aggravation, by the peculiar situation 
 in which the prisoner stood. The prisoner at the bar was, at the 
 time the offence was committed, a dragoon serving his Majesty in the 
 7th regiment of Guards, then in this city — placed in a situation to 
 defend his country — sworn in the presence of God, for whom he 
 seems to entertain a profound reverence, to defend his King and 
 country. Such is the man, upon whose life your verdict is now to 
 pass. Gentlemen, having stated the situation in which he was placed, 
 and the duty he particularly owed to his King and country — having 
 stated that he had solemnly sanctioned that duty in the presence of 
 his God, it is the less probable, that he should commit the crime. If 
 however he shall have committed the crime, then he will be less an 
 object of mercy. Gentlemen, it Avill be proved, that this man adminis- 
 tered an oath to a person of the name of William Lawler, which oath 
 went to bind that person to be a Defender ; — and now having men- 
 tioned the name of the person, who is the witness for the prosecution 
 upon this trial ; I shall state to you the nature of the evidence he is 
 to give, and the manner in which the Crown became acquainted with 
 the designs of the conspirators. 
 
 William Lawler, the witness, is a native of this city ; he is by trade 
 a gilder ; served a regular apprenticeship to that trade — after which 
 he practised at it for some time in this city, and then went to London 
 where his father had removed. There he had the misfortune, and it 
 is common to others as well as him, to read the words of that cele- 
 brated apostle Mr. Paine — to have his imagination somewhat heated 
 by his writings, and he became a member of the London Corresponding 
 Society, associated to improve our constitution.* There his principles 
 were not much improved ; he returned to Dublin, and became a 
 member of a reading society : — it was called the Telegraphe Society ; 
 and also of another society of an admirable name, if it imported 
 nothing more ; that was the Philanthropic Society, where there were 
 readings, and instructions, which if followed would have left the jury 
 no constitution, no law, upon which to hear the Attorney-General 
 state a case in the court of King's Bench. In that society they 
 
 * The London Corresponding Society originated about 1792, its grand object, 
 parliamentary reform, on the Duke of Richmond's plan. Chief-Justice Eyre, in 
 his charge on the trial of Tooke, said, " It is so composed, as by dividing and 
 subdividing each division, as soon as it amounted to a certain number, sending off 
 a new division so as to spread over the country, every other society, no matter 
 how remote, it incorporates or aifiliates, till it embrace an extent incalculable. It 
 is undoubtedly a political monster." John Edwards, on Hardy's trial, deposed that 
 this society was reading the address of Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Richmond when 
 it was assailed by the police. — Madden, 1 vol. 1 scries, 112. 
 
316 TRIALS OF 
 
 received instructions from Mr. Burke, now a fugitive in America. 
 The Defenders having broke out with unusual violence last summer, 
 approached the capital, and began to disturb the outlets of the city. 
 Lawler, a member of the society, and a republican, desirous enough 
 (I will not attempt to conceal it) of disturbance was asked by some 
 of the associates, or a discourse arose among them, Kennedy, Brady, 
 Hart, and others, touching the Defenders. However the subject was 
 first introduced, it was proposed, that Lawler should become a 
 Defender, and for that purpose, some of these excellent clubbists (he 
 Avill inform you who they were) proposed bringing him to the prisoner, 
 then quartered in Dublin. Accordingly Lawler was brought by two 
 persons of the names of Kennedy and Brady, to the pi'isoner, opposite 
 the barrack gate, Avhere the prisoner, Weldon was : — they sat for 
 some time together. Weldon was then quartered in the barrack, but 
 had a lodging within a door or two of an ale-house. Kennedy and 
 Brady bring Lawler to this lodging ; after they had sat some time 
 drinking punch, one Clayton came in, and they proposed to swear 
 Clayton and Lawler. Accordingly they were sworn by the prisoner 
 at the bar, and upon being sworn they paid their shilling a-piece. A 
 discourse arose, after the swearing, touching the object and nature of 
 the Defender's pursuits, and in the course of that conversation, the 
 prisoner did avow, that there would shortly be a rising in the north, 
 which would be joined by a person, whose name Weldon did not 
 disclose — a rising to effect by foi'ce the purposes of these associated 
 Defenders — and the other persons, Kennedy and Brady did unite in 
 declarations of that sort. It will appear to you, gentlemen, that being 
 thus laiited Defenders, Lawler was brought to three different meetings, 
 where Defenders were assembled, particularly at a public house in 
 Plunket-street — there were eighteen on nineteen together, and there 
 a discourse arose, and a proposition was made, for buying powder 
 and procuring arms, for the purpose of rising to seize the Castle of 
 Dublin, of seducing the army from their duty, and by terrifying the 
 good, industrious citizens of this town into a belief that the army had 
 betrayed them, they might be put into the possession and under the 
 government of miscreants such as these. 
 
 Such, gentlemen, are the facts, or pretty nearly (for I do not 
 pretend to say they are precisely) such as will appear in evidence. 
 I will now state the oath administered to Lawler by the prisoner, to 
 whom he had been bi'ought by Kennedy and Brady. The oath was 
 this — " I, William Lawler, of my own good Avill, and consent, do 
 swear to be true to his Majesty King George the Third." The oath 
 Avhich the prisoner himself had taken, but with a little addition to it, 
 Avell worthy your attention, because it appears to me that what was 
 designed to cover the guilt, is, if I iniderstand it, the strongest 
 manifestation of it. " I will be true, while I live under the same 
 government" — The first part is an oath of allegiance, but not that of 
 remaining under his government ; indicative, demonstrably, of a 
 design to change the government : — it is not limited to the life of the 
 King — but while the government remains, and when the oath was 
 administered, the prisoner ex^dained it, knowing that the object was 
 to appear to be taking an oath of allegiance, while he was intending 
 to destroy the King — This, said he, is put in to deceive the army, 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 317 
 
 that tliey may not discover tlie consequences. " I swear to be true, 
 aiding and assisting to every free brother" — that is a name for a 
 Defender known among themselves — " And in every form of article 
 from the first foundation 1790, and every amendment hitherto, and 
 will be obedient to my committees, superior commanders, and officers, 
 in all lawful proceedings and not otherwise." Here there is the same 
 sort of concealment, that is introduced in the part concerning the 
 King ; and, gentlemen, you must perceive, that " laAvful proceedings" 
 mean proceedings according to their laws — " nor will I consent to 
 any society, or any brotlier of an unlawful character, but will observe 
 and obey the laws and regulations of my committee to whom I belong 
 determined brotlier" — (Here Mr. Attorney- General stated the remain- 
 der of the oath as set out in the indictment.) This, gentlemen, was 
 the oath administered, as the witness will swear, by the prisoner, to 
 Lawler and Clayton — an oath, that needs little comment ; it is 
 impossible to read it, without putting the construction upon it, that 
 it requires obedience to other laws, than those of the countiy. But 
 if there were any doubt upon this, it will be removed by perusing 
 the catechism, which was administered and attested at the same time. 
 It is pretty much the same as has appeared in several counties of the 
 kingdom. It is plain, that there was but one National Convention in 
 the world at the time, that of France, and if you are satisfied of these 
 overt acts, both species of treason will be proved, encompassing the 
 King's death and adhering to his enemies. (Here Mr. Attorney 
 
 stated the catechism, vid. indictment.) Whether gs means kings, 
 
 you will determine. A stroke is made first in the paper and immedi- 
 ately after and close to it, are the letters gs, being the final letters of 
 the word kings. You are to determine how they meant to fill it up, 
 whether with that word or not. Upon putting all the parts together, 
 you Avill determine, what the object and tendency of the force intended 
 to be raised was ; whether it be not manifest, that there was an object 
 by force to change the government, and by that to aid the powers of 
 France, Avhich is adhering to the King's enemies. " To queal all 
 nations" Avas to put down the established government, and to place 
 themselves as governors, and to exercise that tyranny, which is exer- 
 cised in a neighbouring country, and using as a pretence, the sacred 
 name of freedom. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have told you, that after this oath was administered, 
 the witness attended tv>'0 or three meetings of the Defenders, hitherto, 
 possibly, conceiving that the Defenders might be used for the purpose 
 of obtaining what was their grand object, a reform of the realm — a 
 reform of the state, by making it a republic, and putting men, such 
 as himself in the government. But after attending one or two 
 meetings, he found the persons assembled had objects very different 
 from Avhat he had conceived. He was cautioned to take care how 
 he should say, he Avas a Protestant, and some of those miscreants 
 departing from that religion of which they pretended to be members, 
 formed designs of massacreing their Protestant brethren. Gentlemen, 
 let me repeat it again, for I cannot repeat it too often, that Ave do not 
 suppose, that any educated, or well-minded Catholic could entertain 
 such a design ; — but young men, Avhose minds are easily heated, for 
 such there are, unlettered men, profligate men, Avithout religion, or 
 
318 TRIALS OF 
 
 morals, of the lower order of the people — these are the persons who 
 are persuaded to entertain designs of this sort, and to the extent of 
 their power would make the attempt. Lawler discovered this — a 
 Protestant — seeing the tendency of their meeting, and knowing that 
 the Defenders were associated throughout the kingdom, he became 
 alarmed for the conseqviences, as to himself. He immediately disclosed 
 the designs to a gentleman by whom he had been employed — a man 
 of great worth and credit. Lawler told him confidently what had 
 come to his knowledge. That gentleman, Mr. Cowen, did, as was his 
 duty, inform government of the situation in which the state was, for 
 several hundreds were united in the scheme. Government thus 
 alarmed did immediately seize upon those against whom they had 
 charges and they were committed to prison : — they now remain for 
 their trials, and the prisoner Weldon is first brought up. One piece 
 of evidence, gentlemen, I have omitted to state, Avhich if it should 
 appear in the light I state it, is of the utmost importance to this case. 
 Weldon was a private in the 7th Dragoons, which was ordered to 
 Cork, there to embark for foreign service. Thus taken from his 
 gainful situation of a committee-man, or Defender-maker, it was 
 necessary to appoint some person to succeed him. He gave the oath 
 and the article to Kennedy, that he might become a committee-man. 
 Kennedy was seized, and in the fob in his breeches were found the 
 oath and the catechism, which Weldon had administered to Lawler. 
 So that here is a fact, which could not be made for the occasion — a 
 fact disclosed before Kennedy was seized — that the oath was delivered 
 over to Kennedy, which is fully and cleai'ly corroborative of the 
 testimony of Lawler. We will now call him, and we doubt not you 
 will examine this case, so important to society, with all due delibera- 
 tion, and find such verdict, as will do you honour, and the public 
 justice. 
 
 William Lawler, sworn ^Examined by the Solicitor-Gteneral. 
 
 Q. What has been your occupation — were you bred to any trade ? 
 A. I was bred in the gilding line. 
 
 Q. Did you work at that trade in England or Ireland ? A In both 
 places. 
 
 Q. First in L'eland, then in England ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You served an apprenticeship here ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. To Avhom ? A. The first part to Mr. Robinson of College- 
 green ; the second part to Mr. Williamson of Grafton-street. 
 
 Q. Did you work at your trade in England ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. When did you return ? A. About two years ago. 
 
 Q. When did you go to England ? A. About the year 1791. 
 
 Q. During the time you were in England, did you belong to any 
 political society ? A. The London Corresponding Society. 
 
 Q. Upon your return to Ireland, did you bring any letters of intro- 
 duction ? A. One. 
 
 Q. To whom ? A. To Archibald Hamilton Rowan. 
 
 Q. From whom ? A. From Daniel Isaac Eaton, of Bishopsgate- 
 street, London, printer. 
 
 Q. I suppose you delivered that letter ? A. I delivered it to a 
 servant of Hamilton Rowan. I called in about a week, and saw him. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 319 
 
 Q. "Where was he then ? A. He came out of a back parlour, and 
 we both Avent into the front parlour. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see him afterwards ? A. Yes, I saw him in the 
 street, and then in Newgate. 
 
 Q. After your arrival in Ireland, did you become a member of any 
 society ? A.I did, sir. 
 
 Q. Of what society ? A. I do not rightly recollect the name of 
 the first, but after it was dissolved 
 
 Q. Where did it meet ? A. At my rooms, at one Galland's in 
 Crane-lane, and in Hoey's-court. When that was dissolved I became a 
 member of another. 
 
 Q. What was the name of the second society ? A. The Philan- 
 thropic Society. 
 
 Q. You do not recollect that the first had any particular name ? 
 A. It had a name, but I do not recollect it. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the name of any particular gentleman of that 
 Philanthropic Society ? A. There was a Telegraphic Society. 
 
 Q. But do you remember the names of any persons belonging to 
 the Philantrophic society ? A. There was Burke and Galland in it. 
 
 Q. What Burke ? A. Of the CoUege. 
 
 Q. What is become of him ? A. I do not know, but am informed 
 he is gone to America. 
 
 Q You afterwards became a member of the Telegraphic Society ? 
 A. They were both much about the same time. 
 
 Q. Was there any particular object of this society ? A. Of the 
 Telegraphic. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I trust the gentlemen concerned for the crown will 
 endeavour to keep the witness, whose evidence they are apprised of, 
 to the strict rule of not drawing from him any answer, of the legality 
 of which there may be a doubt. It is too general to ask what the 
 object of a society was. I do no state this formally to argue upon it ; 
 but suggest it to their candour. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General. — If I knew of any other mode less 
 leading than that which I have used, I would adopt it ; but upon some 
 points it is impossible to put a question without in some measure sug- 
 gesting an answer to it. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — If I am pushed to the necessity of arguing the 
 ground of the objection, it will require very little to be said in support 
 of it. This man says he was a member of a particular society, and he 
 is asked what was the object of that society, although the prisoner 
 was not a member of it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — You have not laid a foundation for 
 asking this question, vmless you establish a privity between this 
 society and the prisoner. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General If I were driven to argue this ques- 
 tion, I could support it by very recent adjudications. To shew the 
 general schemes of treason, it is competent to examine as to the object 
 and design of the persons charged as traitors ; it was the uniform 
 practice in the cases of Hardy and Tooke. But it is not kind to 
 embarrass the court, if it can be avoided. 
 
 Q. Was there any other society, beside the Philanthrophic and 
 Telegraphic of which you became a member? A. Not till I became 
 a member of the Defenders. 
 
320 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Did they call themselves Defenders ? A. They met in serei*al 
 parts of the town. 
 
 Q. You sav you were of a society called Defenders ? A. I helieve 
 about a fortnight after the Fermanagh militia left Dublin, Brady and 
 Kennedy, called upon me to go to 'VVeldon to be sworn as a Defender. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — You cannot ascertain the time more particu- 
 larly ? A. Xo, my lord. 
 
 Q. Neither the month, nor the day ? A. Xo, my lord, for Brady 
 was to haye brought me to Hanlon, but he leaying town, Brady brought 
 me to TTeldon.) 
 
 Q. Who was Kennedy ? A. He was an apprentice to ilr Kennedy 
 the glass-cutter in Stephen-street. 
 
 Q. TMiat was Kennedy's christian name ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAX. — It strikes me, that this is not a fair examination, to 
 examine the witness to the acts of two strangers unconnected with 
 the prisoner. It is evidence to say, that two persons carried him, the 
 witness, to the prisoner — ^but to say they called upon him with the 
 intention of having him sworn is matter of opinion, and the evidence 
 ought to consist of facts. 
 
 (Court.) — Unless the witness was sworn, the e\-idence wiU signify 
 nothing. 
 
 Q. You saw "Weldon, the prisoner ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. ^Tiere was it? A. At the stables belonging to the Horse- 
 baiTack. 
 
 Q. (By the Cotirt "Were Brady and Kennedy along with you ? 
 
 A. Yes, my lord.) 
 
 Q. "VSTien you met "Weldon, where was he ? A. He happened to 
 be in the stable. On Brady's asking for him he came out ; Brady 
 introduced me to him ; we then went to a public-house. 
 
 Q- Before you got to the pubKc-house, did Weldon say or do any- 
 thing ? A. Xot to me ; he only asked me how I was, and shook 
 hands with me. 
 
 Q. Did nothing particular pass in the manner of introducing you ? 
 Au. Xo, sir ; not there. 
 
 Q. When you arrived at the public-house, what happened there ? 
 A. When we went to the public-house, a naggin of whiskey was 
 called for ; we went into a back parlour. Brady told Weldon, he 
 should go for Flood, who promised to meet them. 
 
 (By the Court.) — Do you mean that, Brady would go for Flood? 
 A. Yes, that he, Brady, would go for Flood. 
 
 Q. Did he mention his Christian name ? A. Xo, my lord, he did 
 not. 
 
 Q. Did Flood come ? A. Weldon desired Brady not to be long. 
 After some time a little boy came in, and told Weldon his supper was 
 ready. Weldon said that was his little boy, his son. 
 
 Q. What happened next ? A. Weldon went to get his supper. 
 
 Q. Did Weldon return after? A. Brady returned fii'St, and Clayton 
 along with him. 
 
 (By the Jury.) — You were left al ^ne then ? A. Except Kennedy. 
 
 Q. Did Weldon return after any interval ? A. He did, sir. 
 
 Q. How long after ? A. In about a quarter of an hour. 
 
 Q. When he returned, what happened ? A. After he sat down, 
 and took a glass of punch, he said, " We had better make these two." 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 321 
 
 Q. Who did he mean ? A. Me, and Clayton : — Brady asked him 
 if he liad a prayer-book ? "Weldon said he had. 
 
 . Q. Did he take out a prayer-book ? A. He did, and laid it upon 
 the table. 
 
 Q. What happened after the book was produced ? A. He pulled 
 out some papers and desired Clayton and me to take hold of the 
 prayer-book in our right hands. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any conversation particularly relative to the 
 object of s^vearing ? A. Xot before he put the oath. 
 
 Q. Were you told the purpose for which the oath was given ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Were you infoinned of it before ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You were brought to Weldon to be sworn ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. He administered the oath ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. How did it begin ? A. It began, " I, A. B." 
 
 Q. You have had an opportunity of seeing the paper ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. He said it was a test. 
 
 Q. Should you know the paper again ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 [Here a paper was produced, beginning I, A. B., &q., which the 
 witness said was the same paper he had seen with. Weldon.] 
 
 Q. You were sworn to the contents of that paper ? 
 
 Mr. CcRRAX. — I object to this as a leading question — Were you 
 sworn to the contents of that paper ? Wliat is the answer, but I was, 
 or I was not ? 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-Generai, You say you were sworn to that paper ? 
 
 A. I was to two. 
 
 Q. Is this one of them ? A. It is. 
 
 Q. Shew him the other — is that the other ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 [The paper beginning I, A. B., was then read. Vid. Indictment,] 
 
 Mr. M'Xallt. — I object to this paper going in evidence to the 
 jury, on account of a variance between it and the indictment, the oath 
 in the indictment is " I, William Lawler." This paper is I, A. B. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-Gexeral. — How were you sworn to that paper? — 
 Did you pronounce your name ? A. Yes : " I, William Lawler." 
 
 [The second paper, called the Catechism, was then read. Vid. the 
 
 Indictment.] 
 
 Q. After you were sworn, what happened next ? A. After I was 
 sworn to these papers ? 
 
 Q. Yes : what happened ? A. Brady asked him if he knew of any 
 man to head them when thev were to rise ? Weldon said, there was 
 one in the north, but did not mention his name. 
 
 Q. Had you any further conversation ? Remember such as you 
 can. A. He told us after, that before the time there would be letters 
 sent through the countiy to tell them when they were to rise. 
 
 Q. What further happened ? A. He was asked in what manner 
 every one would become acquainted with it, or how would they get to 
 know it ? 
 
 Q. By whom was he asked ? A. I believe by Kennedy. 
 
 Q You are sure the question was asked ? A. Yes : the question 
 was asked. 
 
 Y 
 
322 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. What answer did Weldon make ? A. He said the committee- 
 men would acquaint them. 
 
 Q. "What further happened upon that occasion ? A. Nothing I 
 believe of any consequence. 
 
 Q. At that meeting ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You got no instructions of any kind ? A. Weldon was to tell 
 Brady of any meeting of Defenders. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Did Weldon tell Brady so ? A. Yes, my lord; 
 he said he believed there would be a meeting in the next week in 
 Thomas-street of Defenders, but did not mention the particular place, j 
 
 Q. You have sworn to two papers, which have been read, had you 
 any opportunity of seeing these papers at any other time and with 
 whom ? A. I saw them with Kennedy afterwards. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Weldon say anything of them ? A. Weldon 
 told me he would give these papers to Brady before he left town. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Did he say he was leaving town ? A. Yes, 
 my lord, to go to Cork. 
 
 Q. Had you any intimation from anybody then present of any 
 meeting to be had ? A. Brady of a Sunday brought me to a meeting. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Did Weldon say for what purpose he would 
 leave the papers ? A. He did not. He told us the signs so as to 
 know a Defender. 
 
 Q. Tell the jury and the Court what the signs were? A. Weldon 
 said, suppose you happen to be in company and want to know a 
 Defender, the sign is to put the two hands joined backAvards upon 
 the top of the head, and pretend to yawn, then draw the hands down 
 upon your knee or upon the table. Then the other answers, by 
 drawing the right hand over the forehead and returning it upon the 
 back of the left hand. The person in answer or reply to that draws 
 the left hand across the forehead, and returns it to the back of the 
 right hand. Upon shaking hands, they pressed the thumb of the 
 right hand upon the back of the left, and not to be afraid to hurt the 
 person, and if they asked what was the pass-word " Eliphismatis." 
 
 Q. Did he tell you anything else ? A. No, he did not. 
 
 Q. I observe in that oath, there is a sentence to be true to George 
 the Third, was there any conversation about that ? A. At the time 
 he finished it and we kissed the book, he asked if we liked it ? — We 
 said we did. He turned about, and looked to Brady, who said, " They 
 knew what they came here for." " I told them before they came." 
 
 Q. Did anybody at that time talk about the words George the 
 Third in the oath ? 
 
 Court That is a leading question. 
 
 Q. Was there any conversation about the oath ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — That is not a way in which to put a question in a 
 case of life. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — I will argue it, if the court have any 
 doubt, and assign my reasons. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I say a leading question is not to be put, and a 
 question to which the answer is " yes," or " no," is a leading question. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — A leading question is that which sug- 
 gests the answer. Now if he answer " yes " to this question, and stop 
 there, that will not do ; this question then does not suggest the answer. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 323 
 
 Q. "What did he say ? A. He said, laughing, " that if the King's 
 head were off to-morrow morning we were no longer under his 
 government," 
 
 Q. Was that explaining the oath ? A. The test that he put first. 
 I asked him, was he not afraid of keeping these papers about him in 
 consequence of being in the horse — he said, no ; for they were never 
 searched — but he did not care who saw the first paper, for the small 
 paper was the principal. The first paper, he said, was only a cloak 
 for the army. 
 
 Q. Did he say why ? A. On account of swearing them to be true 
 to the King. He said, he had sworn several of them, and that they 
 would have some objection to part of it, but for that clause. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Was it to reconcile them ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Weldon said he would hand over the papers to Brady ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see them afterwards ? A. With Kennedy. 
 
 Q. When ? A. About a fortnight after Weldon went out of town. 
 
 Q. How came they into Kennedy's hands ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did you know them ? A. I challenged them at a place in 
 Drury-lane — Murphy lived in Chui'ch-street ; he and I were together, 
 and I said 
 
 Mr. M'Nal,l,y objected to this evidence, and the witness was stopped 
 by the court. 
 
 Q. Did Brady ever give you any intimation of any other meeting ? 
 A. He brought me to one in Plunket-street. 
 
 Q. To a meeting of what ? A. Of Defenders. 
 
 Q. Were any of the same persons present that were with Weldon ? 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — When was this ? A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 Q. Who was at that meeting ? A. Kennedy was along with me 
 at the same time. 
 
 Q. There were a good many there ? A. There was a good many 
 there. 
 
 Q. Was there anything done at that assembly ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAX. — Do the counsel think that evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — I do. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — What ! aflfect a man's life by what was done at 
 meetings, when he was an hundred miles off"! 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General I think it evidence, though the counsel 
 
 asks the question with some astonishment. It is a rule of .law, settled 
 in a variety of cases, and recognized in the very last, that it being 
 once established that the prisoner belonged to a society 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain We ai-e of opinion that this is evi- 
 dence, that there is a foundation laid for it, by swearing that Weldon 
 said, there were to be subsequent meetings, and that they should have 
 notice of them from Brady ; that is a foundation to let in evidence of 
 what is done at those meetings. 
 
 Q. What happened at that subsequent meeting ? A. They were 
 putting down money on the table, and I was asked for sixpence, as a 
 collection for powder 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Who asked you ? A. Brady desired me to put 
 down sixpence, I told Brady I had not sixpence. Kennedy said he 
 would lend me one — He gave me a shilling ; I laid down the shilling 
 and took up sixpence and gave it to Kennedy. I was told, that a 
 
324 TRIALS OF 
 
 man of the name of Locldngton then in the room was a captain of 
 Defenders. 
 
 Q. What else happened ? What powder did you mean ? A. G-un- 
 powder. I understood from them, that they wanted powder, as they 
 were going out to get arms, but not that night. 
 
 Q. Did you understand from the company for what they wanted 
 the arms ? A. They did not say. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — His conclusion, or his opinion is not evidence ; 
 but ask him as to facts done, or the conversations held. 
 
 Q. Did anything more pass ? A. I understood there was to be a 
 meeting. Brady and Kennedy both told me there was to be a meeting 
 after that. 
 
 Q. Where did they tell you that ? A. At the meeting. 
 
 Q. Did you see any of that company at any other place and where ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At Stoneybatter, the corner of Arbour-hill. 
 
 Q. Who gave you notice ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. You saw the same company ? A. Some of them, Hart, Leary, 
 Cooke and others. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — Unless he got notice from Brady who was 
 the person authorized it is not evidence. 
 
 Q. Did you see Brady or Kennedy afterwards ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At their own place in Stephen-street. 
 
 Q. Were Brady and Kennedy at Stoneybatter? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Of what people was the subsequent meeting ? A. Of Defenders. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN The court desired you not to give evidence of that. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General. — I hope the court have laid down no 
 rule upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. Baron George — We think you have not laid any foundation 
 for the meeting at Stoneybatter. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General. — My lords, I submit this is evidence. 
 Upon all occasions Avhere the proceedings of any society are let in, 
 all their acts are thereby made evidence. And so it was in^the State 
 trials lately, respecting the London Corresponding Society, and their 
 conduct was evidence of overt acts. I have established the fact, that 
 there was a meeting of a body of men called Defenders : this man was 
 admitted into them, and the evidence goes to shew that subsequent 
 meetings under the same appellation and obligation did assemble, 
 and did certain acts which will illusti-ate the charge against the 
 prisoner. 
 
 Mr. Baron George — I do not say, whether they may not be evi- 
 dence ; but I think you have not yet laid a foundation to let in evidence 
 of the meeting at Stoneybatter. 
 
 Q. You saw the oath aftei'wards in Kennedy's hands, upon what 
 occasion ? A. Upon a meeting with Murphy. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At Drury-lane in a woi'kshop. 
 
 Q. You said there were certain signs communicated by Weldon by 
 which a Defender might be known ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you see them made use of upon any occasion and where ? 
 A. Hart has asked me if 
 
 Mr. M'Nally objected to this conversation as not having been at 
 a meeting. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 325 
 
 Witness — Nobody is brought to a meeting unless introduced by a 
 person who is a member. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — What do you mean by that ? A. There must 
 be some person in the place who will know him. 
 
 Q. Know him to be what ? A. A Defender. 
 
 Q. Somebody went with you to Stoneybatter ? A. Yes : Walsh. 
 
 Q. Who is he. A. A tailor. 
 
 Q. Was he at the former meeting ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How did you know him? A. As being of the Philanthropic 
 Society ? 
 
 Q. Was he a Defender? A. He was from the signs he used. 
 
 Q. What Walsh is he ? A. A tailor in Fishamble-street. 
 
 Q. Did you know any other person by the signs ? A. Hart and Cooke. 
 
 Q. Were they of the meeting at Stoneybatter ? A. Yes ; and one 
 Leary, a shoemaker. 
 
 Q, (By the Court.) — Did you see them make the signs ? A. Cooke 
 came out of a place where he held a school in Stoneybatter and shook 
 me by the hand as a Defender. 
 
 Q. Was the meeting at Cooke's house ? A. Not as I know of. 
 
 Q. Where was the meeting at Stoneybatter ? A. At Mm-phy's — 
 an inn where cars set up. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Was Cooke at the meeting ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Who else ? A. Walsh and Hart. 
 
 Q. Did they all make the signs ? A. Not there : they did at 
 diiferent times. 
 
 Q. Am I to understand, that you frequented these meetings as a 
 Defender yourself ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. How long did you continue to be a Defender ? A. I cannot 
 rightly tell. 
 
 Q. Can't you say how long ? A. I believe about three months. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — What were the signs made use of at Stoney- 
 batter ? A. Shaking the hands. 
 
 Q. Anything else ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How did you shake the hands ? A. By pressing the thumb 
 upon the hand. 
 
 Q. In the manner Weldon had told ? A. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — Now we think there is a foundation 
 laid to let in the proceedings there. 
 
 Q. What were the proceedings ? A. Hart brought in a young man 
 and swore him. I saw him lay a small paper upon a book. 
 
 Q. What kind of swearing was it that was made use of? A. I do 
 not know. He told him he was brought to be sworn to be a Defender ; 
 he was not inclined to be sworn at first. Hart said he was to become 
 a Defender, as the object was to get arms to assist the French when 
 they would come. 
 
 Q. Was that man sworn ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. In the same way that you were ? A. He told him the signs. 
 
 Q. Did you see them shewn to him ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. (By the Coui't Did you see him sworn ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. In the same manner as before ? A. I cannot say. There was 
 a small paper laid upon a book : I was near the door and could not 
 get near him, there being many in the room and it a small one.) 
 
326 TRIALS Ol 
 
 Q. You say you continued a Defender three months ? A. I did, I 
 believe. 
 
 Q. What induced you to cease being a Defender — did you tell 
 anybody you were a Defender ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. To whom ? A. To Mr. Cowan in Grafton-street, after there 
 was a meeting in Drury-lane at one Nolan's. 
 
 Q. Who were at that meeting ? A. Hart, Cooke, Dry, Turner, 
 Lockington, Kennedy, Flood, and Coffey. 
 
 Q. What was done there ? A. We met for the purpose of getting 
 arms. 
 
 Q. It was soon after that meeting you told Mr. Cowan ? A. On 
 the Monday. 
 
 Q. Why did you tell him ? A. On account of what I heard Hart 
 declare. 
 
 Q. What was that declaration ? A. He tapped me on the shoulder, 
 and I followed him to a window. He asked me if Dry and Coffey 
 were not Protestants ; I said I believed they were ; he said he would 
 not sit in company with them. ^^ 
 
 Q. Was this said aloud ? A. No it was not. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — Then I have no right to ask it. 
 
 Q. Did you hear anything said aloud ? A. They said they would 
 meet on the Sunday following, but I could not hear rightly what 
 passed from attending to Hart. We were called to order twice for 
 being from the company. 
 
 Q. Did you hear anything pass? A. Coffey Avas in the chair, 
 and wanted to know how many Defenders there were in Dublin, 
 that there might be officers put over them, that they might be all 
 ready. 
 
 Q. You mentioned before, that there was a conversation about 
 subscribing for powder ; was there any conversation upon a subsequent 
 meeting upon that subject? A. Not about taking arms. 
 
 Q. At Drury-lane ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Where, then ? A. At Stoneybatter. 
 
 Q. What did you hear there ? A. I heard Hart desire some of 
 them to go home for pistols and arms, that they might go out to take 
 arms that night. 
 
 Q. To whom did he say that ? A. To the company — at the house 
 where the young lad was made a Defender ; and after sitting some 
 time and the others not returning, he thought they would not come 
 back ; he then desired every one remaining to lay their hands upon 
 the table, and swear on their oaths to appear there on the Monday 
 following with pistols to go get arms. 
 
 Q. What oath did he mean ? A. The Defender's oath that they 
 had taken. Hart was a committee-man it was said, and any person 
 obliged to attend him when required. 
 
 Q. You saw Hart exercise the office of a committee-man by swear- 
 ing another ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Did Hart himself say he was a committee-man ? 
 A. No, he did not.) 
 
 Q. You heard no other conversation at that meeting ? A. In about 
 half an hour after, I said I would go home — Walsh came out and 
 said 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 327 
 
 [Counsel for the prisoner objected to this evidence as private 
 
 conversation.] 
 
 Q. Why did you cease to be one of the body ? A. In consequence 
 of what Hart declared. 
 
 [This was also objected to.] 
 
 Q. You say there was to be a rising and somebody would head 
 them in the north, whom Weldon did not name ? A. So he said. 
 
 Q. Did Brady say anything about the same subject ? A. No, he 
 did not. 
 
 Q. Was the motive of the rising mentioned at the time ? A. It 
 was, he said there would be letters sent. 
 
 Q. But Avhat was the motive ? A. He did not say for what it was. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Q. What religion are you of? A. A Protestant. 
 
 Q. Have you always been a Protestant ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Have you always professed that religion ? A. Except when I 
 was asked what religion I was among the Defenders, I said I was a 
 Roman, in consequence of what Brady said to me. 
 
 Q. You are not, sir, upon a cross-examination under colour of an 
 answer to give illegal evidence. I ask you, except in the case you 
 mention now, have you always professed the Protestant religion? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you think you know the principles and grounds of what that 
 religion are ? A. I was brought up to be a Protestant, and do not 
 like to change. 
 
 Q. Were you taught to believe that there was a God ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you taught that there was the suffering of his Son for the 
 redemption of mankind ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you understand that your belief of these sacred doctrines is 
 the foundation of the oath you have taken ? A. When I had taken 
 the oath ? 
 
 Q. I ask you is it the foundation of the obligation of your oath ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Have you never, upon any occasion, declared that you did not 
 believe there was a God ? 
 
 The witness hesitated some time. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General I do not know what the consequence 
 
 of the question may be, but it exposes the man to punishment. 
 
 Mr. M'Naely I am prepared to shew that this question is legal. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — Since the question is objected to, I will not press it. 
 I will not ask you whether you have deliberately denied the existence 
 of a God, since this protection is put about you, I am sure it is neces- 
 sary for you. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I did feel that it was a question which 
 ought not to be put ; I have no reason to conclude what his answer 
 would be. 
 
 Mr. Curran After this kind of argument, I feel a sort of inde- 
 corum in pressing it. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant If this sort of use be made of the question, 
 
 the court will detei-mine upon it. 
 
2S TRIALS OF 
 
 ^m 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain It' he be exjx>sed to temporal punish- 
 ment, he is not bound to answer. 
 
 Mr. CrRRAN — It would be a different thing, and a man might say 
 it was mv misfortune to be converted by arsument of Atheists. He 
 might have read Hume upon Miracles, and adopted his notions. But 
 I do not press it. 
 
 Q. You have said that Kennedy and Brady brought you to the 
 prisoner at the bar ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Had you known liim before ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. You said, as you discovered their piu-poses, you discontinued ? 
 A. After what I heard fi-om Hart. I went to Mr. Cowan and told 
 him. 
 
 Q. After the conversation with Hart, you told Mr. Cowan ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was that not a conversation in which he communicated the bad 
 purposes of the meetings ? A. I did not like the idea of masjjaci-eing 
 all the Protestants. 
 
 Q. "Was it by Hart, that idea was communicated to you ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. And as soon as that was communicated to you, you formed the 
 design of quitting them ? A. Of telling what I heard. 
 
 Q. Wheu was the tirst time you knew of their bad designs ? A. 1 
 knew if they were to rise, that some persons were to be destroyed ; 
 but I did not think they would destroy aU the Pix'>testanrs. 
 
 Q. "When did you tirst undei-stand that any design of tliis kind 
 existed ? A. From the meetings I used to go to. 
 
 Q. How Ions after "Weldon had sone to Cork ? A. That I told ? 
 
 Q. That you knew of any persons being to be destroyed ? A. I 
 knew at that meeting when Weldon was present. 
 
 Q. How long after "Weldon's going to Cork was it, that you had 
 this conversation with Hart ? A. I do not recollect. 
 
 Q. Compute ? A. I may think wrong. 
 
 Q. Think of it ? A. I know the day of the month Hai't told me, 
 but I do not know the day of the month "Weldon went out of the 
 town. 
 
 Q. It was some time after, however ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. Weldon said there was to be some meeting ? A. He said he 
 believed there would be a meeting in Thomas-street, and when there 
 was, he would acquaint Brady, and Brady would acquaint us. 
 
 Q. Do you know how soon after that Weldon went to Cork ? A. 
 I do not, 
 
 Q. Do you know how long before the next meeting he went away ? 
 A. I cannot tell exactly ; it might be a week or a fortnight. 
 
 Q. He had gone to Cork bofore ? A. I believe so. 
 
 Q. "Who gave you notice of it ? A. I was with Brady and Ken- 
 nedy and they brought me there. 
 
 Q. Did Brady say Weldon desired him to bring you ? A. No. 
 
 Q. What did he say ? A. He said there was a meeting of De- 
 fenders in Plimket-street, and asked me to go there. 
 
 Q. He did not say Weldon desired hiui to bring you ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You said there was no mention at the meeting in Plimket-street 
 of the French — that was not until the meeting at Stoneybatter ? 
 A. It was at the meeting at JStoncybaiter. 
 
THE DKFENDKUS. 329 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the distance of time between the meeting in 
 Phuiket-street and at Stoneybatter ? A. I cannot tell. 
 
 (.1. I do not mean the day of the month ; nor what month it was? 
 A. 1 cannot tell tlie time. 
 
 Q. Did you make any speeches at Plunket-street ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there any secretary there taking down notes ? A. Not as 
 I saw. 
 
 C^. Was there any chairman putting questions ? A. There Avas a 
 man at the opposite side of the table, near the grate, and he put down 
 money upon the table, which he had collected — he said it was a sub- 
 scription for powder. 
 
 Q. The next meeting was where ? A. At Stoneybatter. 
 
 Q. Do you remember whom you saw there ? A. Hart, Leary, 
 Cooke and Walsh. 
 
 Q. These were all you recollect — Weldon was not there ? A. No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Then there was no person at Stoneybatter who was present at 
 the communication with Weldon ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Stoneybatter was the first place you heard any mention of the 
 French ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. Recollect yourself, because it is very material ; did Weldon tell 
 you that any part was to be taken by Cooke ? A. He never men- 
 tioned his name. 
 
 Q. Nor by Hart ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor by Walsh ? A. No. 
 
 Q. That you are clear of? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Who was it that started any mention about the French ? A. 
 Hart. 
 
 Q. Did he address himself in the way of a speech to the chair ? 
 A. There was no person appointed in the place. But the young man 
 was brought in to be sworn ; he appeared shy at first and Hart told 
 him the motives of becoming a Defender. 
 
 Q. It was addressed to the young man ? A. It was, but we were 
 all present by. 
 
 Q. Did any one else join in it ? A. No. 
 
 Q. He said we might get arms and assist the French and no other 
 person said anything upon the subject ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Then your evidence comes to this : — That the only mention 
 made about the French was at Stoneybatter — that Hart said it to the 
 young man and no one made any kind of reply. Who did you 
 understand from Brady had told him of the meeting in Plunket- 
 street ? A. I was walking with him and he told me there was a 
 meeting there, and asked to go there. 
 
 Q. Did he say who told him of it ? A. No, sii\ 
 
 Q. I suppose you are perfectly impressed with the enormous nature 
 of the crime of making an attempt upon the person of his Majesty ? 
 A. At that time he said we all lived 
 
 Q. I did not ask you as to that ; but did you not conceive it'to be 
 a crime to make an attempt upon the life of the King ? A.^Not at 
 that time. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I am sorry there was such a time — go down, 
 young man. 
 
330 TBIALS OF 
 
 Q. (By the Jury. — Do you now think it an enormous crime ? A. 
 I certainly do.) 
 
 Oliver Carleton, Esq. sworn Examined by Mr. Sauriic. 
 
 Q. TSHiat is that paper in your hands ? A. I had got a warrant 
 from Alderman James against Brady, Kennedy, Walsh and Flood. 
 The Alderman desired me to send for my officers — I did so, and 
 dispatched them to different parts. I went myself with two of them 
 to Kennedy's the glass-man in Steven-street, at half-past five in the 
 
 morning 
 
 Q. You were at that time in a public office ? A. Yes. VTe 
 knocked at the door some time : two boys came down at a back-door 
 in Druiy-lane : I asked them their names ; they said Kennedy and 
 Brady : I took them into custody. I had been desired to examine 
 the fob of Kennedy's breeches, and I woidd find there the oath and the | 
 catechism : I did search the fob and found them both. 
 
 Q. Were these the papers (shewing them to the witness)? A. i 
 These are the papers. 
 
 Q. "What was then done with Kennedy ? A. I took him and Brady 
 into custody and brought them to the castle guard. 
 
 Q. What became of Kennedy ? A. I saw him in Newgate some 
 time ago. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Naxly. 
 
 Q. How long have you known Lawler ? A. I do not know him 
 at all. 
 
 Q. Have you ever heard anything of him ? A. I never asked any 
 person about him ; nor ever heard anything about him. 
 
 Q. You know nothing of Weldou ? A. No. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Who informed you, that you would find these 
 papers upon Kennedy ? A. Alderman James, who desired me to be 
 particular in searching Kennedy, for I would find them in his breeches 
 pocket. 
 
 Q. (By the Jury.) — Kennedy is a boy ? A. He is a very young 
 man — so is Brady. 
 
 Q. What age may he be ? A. I am a very bad judge of the age 
 of a person. 
 
 Case rested for the Crown. 
 
 'Mr. CuRRAN. — My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, I am of 
 counsel in one of those cases in which the humanity of our law is, 
 very fortunately, joined with the authority and wisdom of the court 
 in alliance with me for the purposes of legal protection. Gentlemen, 
 I cannot however but regret, that that sort of laudable, and amiable 
 anxiety for the public tranquillity, which glows warmest iu the breasts 
 of the best men, has perhaps induced Mr. Attorney-General to state 
 some facts to the court and the jury, of which no evidence was 
 attempted to be given. And I make the observation only for this 
 purpose, to remind you gentlemen, that the statement of counsel is 
 not evidence — to remind you, that you are to give a verdict, upon 
 this solemn and momentous occasion, founded simply upon the 
 evidence which has been given to you ; for such is the oath you have 
 
THE DEFEKDERS. 331 
 
 taken. Gentlemen, I make the observation, not only in ordei* to call 
 upon you to discliar<re any impressions, not supported by testimony, 
 but to remind you also of another incontrovertible maxim, not only 
 of the humane law of England, but of eternal justice upon wliich 
 that is founded — that the more horrid and atrocious the nature of any 
 crime charged upon any man is, the more clear and invincible should 
 be the evidence upon which he is convicted. The charge here is a 
 charge of the most enormous criminality, that the law of any country 
 can know — no less than the atrocious and diabolical purpose of oflei*- 
 ing mortal and fatal violence to the person of the Sovereign, who 
 ought to be sacred. The prisoner is charged with entertaining the 
 guilty purpose of destroying all order, and all society, for the well- 
 being of wliich the person of the King is held sacred. Therefore, 
 gentlemen, I presume to tell you, that in proportion as the crime is 
 atrocious and horrible, in the same proportion ought the evidence to 
 convict, be clear and irresistible. Let me therefore endeavour to 
 discharge the duty I owe to the unfortunate man at the bar, (for 
 unfortunate I consider him whether he be convicted or acquitted,) 
 by di'awing your attention to a consideration of the facts charged, 
 and comparing it with the evidence adduced to support it. 
 
 The charge, gentlemen, is of two kinds — two species of treason — 
 founded upon the statute 25 Ed. III. One is, compassing the King's 
 death. The other is a distinct treason — that of adhei'ing to the King's 
 enemies. In both cases, the criminality must be clearly established, 
 under the words of the statute, by having the guilty man convicted 
 of the offence by provable evidence of overt acts. Even in the case 
 and it is the only one, where by law the imagination shall complete 
 the crime, there that guilt must be proved, and can be provable only 
 by outAvard acts, made use of by the criminal for the effectuation of 
 his guilty pm-pose. The overt acts stated here are, that he associated 
 with traitors unknown, with the design of assisting the French, at 
 war with our government, and therefore a public enemy. 2dly, 
 consulting with others for the purpose of assisting the French. 3dly, 
 consulting with other traitors to subvert the government. 4thly, asso- 
 ciating with Defenders to subvert the Protestant religion. 5thly, 
 enlisting a person stated in the indictment to assist the French and 
 administering an oath to him for that purpose. 6thly, enlisting him 
 to adhere to the French. Ttlily, corrupting Lawler to become a 
 Defender. 8thly, enlisting him by administering an oath, for similar 
 purposes. In order to wari'ant a verdict convicting the prisoner, 
 there must be clear and convincing evidence of some one of these 
 overt acts, as they are laid. The law requires that there should be 
 stated upon record, such an act as in point of law will amount to an 
 overt act of the treason charged, as matter of evidence, and the evi- 
 dence adduced must correspond with the fact charged. The unifonn 
 rule which extends to every case applies to this, that whether the fact 
 charged be sustained by evidence is for the conscience and the oath 
 of the jmy, according to the degree of credit they give to the testi- 
 mony of it. In treason, the overt act must sustain the crime, and the 
 evidence must go to support the overt act so stated. If this case 
 were tried at the other side of the water, it does not strike me, that 
 the very irrelevant evidence given by Mr. Cax'leton coidd have 
 
332 TRIALS OF 
 
 supplied what the law requires ; the concurring testimony of two 
 witnesses. I cannot be considered, indeed I should be sorry, to put 
 any sort of comparison between the person of Mr. Carleton and the 
 first witness who was called upon the table. Gentlemen of the jury, 
 you have an important province indeed — the life and death of a man 
 to decide upon. But previous to that you must consider, what degree 
 of credit ought to be given to a man under the circumstances of that 
 witness produced against the prisoner. It does appear to me, that his 
 evidence merits small considei-ation in point of credibility. But even 
 if he were as deserving of belief as the witness that followed, and 
 that his evidence were as credible as the other's was immaterial, I 
 shall yet rely confidently, that every word if believed does leave the 
 accusation unsupported. Grentlemen, I will not affront the idea which 
 ought to be entertained of you, by warning you not to be led away 
 by those phantoms which have been created by prejudice, and applied 
 to adorn the idle tales drunk down by folly, and belched up by 
 malignity. You are sensible that you are discharging the greatest 
 duty that law and religion can repose in you, and I am satisfied you 
 will discard your passions, and that your verdict will be founded, not 
 upon passion or prejudice, but upon your oaths and upon justice. 
 Consider what the evidence in point of fact is — Lawler was brought 
 by Brady and Kennedy to Weldon, the prisoner, in Barrack-street ; 
 what Brady said to him before, if it had been of moment in itself, I 
 do not conceive, can possibly be extended to him, who did not assent 
 to the words and was not present when they were uttered. Lawler 
 was carried to the prisoner at the bar to be sworn; and here give me 
 leave to remind you, what was the evidence — to remind you that the 
 expressions proved do not bear that illegal import which real or 
 affected loyalty would attach to them, and therefore you Avill discharge 
 all that cant of enthusiasm from your minds. I wish that I were so 
 cii'cumstanced as to be entitled to an answer, when I ask Mr. Attor- 
 ney-General, what is the meaning of the word Defender ? I wish I 
 were at liberty to appeal to the sober understanding of any man for 
 the meaning of that tremendous word. I am not entitled to put the 
 question to the counsel or the court — but I am entitled to call upon 
 the wise and grave consideration of the court to say, whether the 
 zeal of public accusation has affixed any definite meaning to the 
 word ? I would be glad to know, Avhether that expression, which is 
 annexed to the title of the highest magistrate, marking his highest 
 obligation and styling him the Defender of the religion of the 
 country, in common parlance acquii'ed any new combination, carrying 
 with it a crime, when applied to any other man in the community ? 
 Let me warn you, therefore, against that sort of fallacious lexico- 
 graphy which forms new words, that undergoing the examination of 
 political slander or intemperate zeal, are considered as having a knoAvn 
 acceptation. What is the word? A word that should be discarded, 
 when it is sought to aflix to it another meaning than that which it 
 bears in the cases where it is used. Let me remind you that a 
 Defender, or any other term used to denote any confraternity, club, 
 or society, like any other word, is arbitraiy, but the meaning should 
 be explicit. And therefore with regard to this trial, you are to reject 
 the word as having no meaning, unless from the evidence you find. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 333 
 
 it has in the mind of the party a definite explication ; for observe 
 that the witness such as he is — such as he was, witli all his zeal for 
 the furtherance of justice, which he was once ready to violate by the 
 massacre of his fellow subjects — with all his anxiety for his Sove- 
 reign's safety, whom he was once ready to assassinate, he, I say, has 
 not told you, that either Brady or Kennedy or any other pei'son, 
 what the principles were that denoted a Defender. But I will 
 not rest the case of my client upon that ground : no, it would be a 
 foolish kind of defence, because words might be used as a cloak and 
 therefore might be colourably introduced. You, gentlemen, are then 
 to consider what this oath, this nonsensical oath, which so far as it is 
 intelligible is innocent, and so far as it is nonsense, can prove nothing, 
 you are to consider, whether innocent and nonsensical as it may 
 appear, it was yet a cover and a bond for treasonable association. It 
 is not in my recollection, that any evidence Avas given, that the oath 
 was conceived in artfully equivocal expressions, for forming, under 
 the sanction of loyal language, a treasonable association. Is one of 
 the parties laughing, evidence, that it was treasonable, or the bond 
 of a criminal confederation ? It is not. Is it treasonable to say, 
 " that were the King's head off to-morrow, the allesiance to him 
 would be at an end ?" It is not. The expressions may bring a man 
 into disrepute — to lead the mind of a jury into a suspicion of the 
 morality of the man who used them — ^but nothing more. It may be 
 asked why should there be anything insidious ? Why but to cover a 
 treasonable purpose are all these suspicious circumstances ? It is 
 not for me, nor is it the prisoner's duty to account for them in defend- 
 ing himself against this charge ; because circumstances are not to 
 render innocence doubtful, but it is full proof establishing the guilt 
 and the treason indubitably which the law requires. Therefore I 
 submit that even if the evidence could be believed, it does not support 
 the overt acts — was there a word of violating the person of the 
 King ? Any affected misrepresentation or any abuse of government? 
 Have you heard a word stated of the King, not being an amiable 
 King ? Any words contumeliously uttered respecting his person — 
 disrespectful of his government — expressive of any public grievance 
 to be removed, or good to be attained? Not a word of such a subject 
 — nothing of the kind is proved by this solitaiy witness in all his 
 accuracy of detail. 
 
 Was there any proposition of assisting the French in case they 
 invaded this kingdom ? To support that charge a nonsensical cate- 
 chism is produced. There it is asked, " Where did the cock crow 
 when all the world heard him ?" What kind of old women's stories 
 are these to make an impression upon your minds ? Well, but what 
 does that mean ? Why, can you be at a loss ? It means to — kill 
 the King ! Look at the record — it charges the persons with com- 
 passing the King's death, and the question about the crowing of a 
 cock is the evidence against them. 
 
 Gentlemen, you all know, for you are not of ordinary description, 
 that the statute of Ed. III. was made to reduce vague and wandering 
 treasons — to abolish the doctrine of constructive treason and to mark 
 out some limited boundaries, clear to a court and jury. If a man 
 has been guilty of disrespect in point of expression to the government 
 
334 TRIALS OF 
 
 or the crown, the law has ascertained his guilt and denounced the 
 punishment. But all the dreadful uncertainty intended to be guarded 
 against by the statute, and which before the passing of the statute 
 had prevailed in case of treason, and which had shed upon the scaf- 
 fold some of the best blood in England wovdd again run in upon us, 
 if a man were to suffer an ignominious death under such circum- 
 stances as the present. If equivocal expressions should be taken as 
 decisive proof, or if dubious words were to receive a meaning from 
 the zeal of a witness, or the heat, passion or prejudice of a jury. 
 The true rule by which to ascertain what evidence should be deemed 
 sufficient against a prisoner is, that no man should be convicted of 
 any crime except upon the evidence of a man subject to an indict- 
 ment for perjury, where the evidence is such as if false, the falsehood 
 of it may be so pi"oved as to convict the witness of perjury. But 
 what indictment could be supported for a laugh, a shrug, or a wink ? 
 Was there any convei'sation about killing the King ? No : but here 
 was a laugh — there was an oath to which we were sworn — and then 
 — there was a wink ; by which I understood, we were swearing one 
 thing and meant another. Why, gentlemen, there can be no safety 
 to the honour, the property or the life of man, in a country where 
 such evidence as this shall be deemed sufficient to convict a prisoner. 
 There is nothing necessary to sweep a man from society, but to find 
 a miscreant of sufficient enormity, and the unfortunate accused is 
 drifted down the torrent of the credulity of a well-intending jury. 
 See how material this is, Weldon was present at only one conversation 
 with the witness. It is not pretended by the counsel for the crown, 
 that the guilt as to any personal evidence against Weldon does not 
 stand upon the first conversation. Was there a word upon that con- 
 versation of adhering to the King's enemies ? It was stated in the 
 case, and certainly made a strong impression, that Lawler was inlisted 
 in order to assist the French. I heard no such evidence given. The 
 signs of what he called Defenders Avere communicated to him ; the oath 
 which he took was read, and he was told there would be a subsequent 
 meeting of which the witness should receive notice from Brady. 
 
 Gentlemen, before I quit that meeting at Barrack-street, let me put 
 this soberly to you. What is the evidence upon which the court can 
 leave it to you to determine, that there is equivocation in the oath ? 
 It must be in this way : you are to consider words in the sense in 
 which they are spoken, and in Avritings words are to be taken in their 
 common meaning. Words have sometimes a technical sense for the 
 purposes of certainty : they may also be made the signs of arbitrary 
 ideas, and therefore I admit a treasonable meaning may be attached 
 to words which, in their ordinary signification, are innocent. But 
 where is the evidence, or what has the witness said to make you 
 believe, that these words in the oath were used in any other than in 
 the common, ordinary acceptation ? Not a word as I have heard. 
 Weldon can be affected only personally, either, first, upon acts 
 by himself, or by other acts brought home to him from the 
 general circumstances of the case. I am considering it in that 
 two-fold way, and I submit, that if it stood upon the evidence 
 respecting the conduct of the prisoner at Barrack-street alone, 
 there could not be a doubt as to his acquittal. It is necessary, 
 
 to 
 
I THE DEFENDERS. 335 
 
 I 
 
 therefore, that I should take some further notice of the subsequent 
 part of the evidence. The witness stated, that Weldon informed him, 
 I that there woidd be another meeting of which he, the witness, should 
 I have notice. He met Brady and Kennedy, they told liim there was 
 a meeting at Plunket-street ; and here give me leave to remind the 
 court, that there is no evidence, that there was any guilty purpose in 
 agitation to be matured at any futui*e meeting — no proposal of any 
 criminal design. Tliere ought to be evidence to show a connection 
 between the prisoner, and the subsequent meeting as held under his 
 authority. It is of great moment to recollect, that before any meeting 
 Weldon had left tOAvn, and, in the mention of any meeting to be held, 
 I let it be remembered he did not state any particular subject, as com- 
 j prehending the object of the meeting. What happened ? There 
 ' cei'tainly was a meeting at Plunket-street ; but there was not a word 
 of assisting the French — of subverting the religion — of massacreing 
 I the Protestants — of any criminal design whatever. There was not 
 ; any consultation upon any such design. I make this distinction, and 
 rely upon it, that where consultations are overt acts of this or that 
 : species of treason, it must be a consultation by the members composing 
 that meeting ; because it would be the most ridiculous nonsense, that 
 a conversation addressed from one individual to another, not applied 
 to the meeting, should be called a consultation : but, in truth, there is 
 no evidence of anything respecting the French, except in Stoney- 
 batter. There, for the first time, the witness says he heard any 
 I mention of the French. Here, gentlemen of the jury, let me beseech 
 you to consider what the force of the evidence is. Supposing that 
 what one man said there to another about assisting the French, to 
 have been criminal, shall Weldon, who was then, for a week, a hun- 
 dred miles from the scene, be criminally aifected by what was 
 criminally done at Stoneybatter ? It is not only that he shall be 
 I criminally affected by Avhat was criminally done, but even to the 
 shedding of his blood, shall he be affected by what any individual 
 said, who casually attended that meeting ! Have you any feeling of 
 i the precipice to which you are hurried, Avhen called upon to extend 
 this evidence in such a manner ? — without any one person being 
 I present with whom the prisoner had any previous confederation ! 
 You will be very cautious indeed, how you establish such a precedent. 
 How did Weldon connect himself with any other meeting ? Why, 
 t he said, there will be another meeting, you shall have notice — it 
 would be going a great way to aftect him in consequence of that. I 
 I lay down the law with confidence, and I say there is no doctrine in 
 '• it, so well ascertained and established, as that a man is to be criminally 
 affected only by his own acts — the man to be charged, must be charged 
 with overt acts of his own. There is no law — no security — no reason 
 in that country where a man can be mowed down by foolishly 
 crediting the evidence, not of acts of his own, but of the acts 
 of others, constructively applied to him, who did not attend 
 the meeting, nor was ever aware of it. If a man was to be 
 exposed to the penalties of treason hatched and perpetrated in 
 his absence, every member of society becomes liable to be cut off 
 by mere suspicion. I say, no man could go to his bed with an 
 expectation of sleeping in it again if he were liable to be called upon 
 
336 TRIALS OF 
 
 to answer a charge of suspicious words, spoken when he was an hundred 
 miles off, by miscreants with wliom he had no connection. Good, 
 ^God ! gentlemen, only take asunder the evidence ui^on which you are 
 called upon to take away the life of this man — " You, Weldon, are 
 chargeable, and shall answer with your blood, for what was done at 
 Stoney batter." — " Why,that is very hard, gentlemen, for I was not there 
 — I was an hundred miles off." — "Yes, but you were there in contem- 
 plation of law, consulting about the abominable crimes of compassing 
 the King's death, and adhering to his enemies." — " How, gentlemen, 
 could I be there — I knew not that there was any such meeting — I 
 was not present at it." — " Aye, but you were there in contemplation 
 of law, because you told Lawler, that Brady would infoi'm him, when 
 there would be a meeting in Thomas-street, and because you told him 
 so, you shall be answerable with your life for what is done at any 
 meeting, at any distance of time, at any place, by sti'angers whom 
 you have never seen or heard of. You have written your name, you 
 have indorsed the treasonable purpose, and through whatever number 
 of persons it may pass, the growing interest of your crime is accu- 
 mulating against you, and you must pay it with your blood, when it 
 is demanded of you." Gentlemen, before we shall have learned to 
 shed blood in sport — while death and slaughter are yet not matter of 
 pastime among us, let us consider maturely before we establish a rule 
 of justice of this kind. Terrible rviles, as we have seen them to be, 
 when weighed upon the day of retribution. I confess it is new to 
 me. Whatever doctrines I have learned, I have endeavoured to 
 learn them from the good sense, and humanity of the English law ; — 
 I have been taught, that no man's life shall be sacrificed to the inge- 
 nuity of a scholium, and that even he, who has heedlessly dropped 
 the seed of guilt, should not answer for it with his blood, when it has 
 grown under the culture of other hands from folly to crime and from 
 crime to treason ; he shall not be called upon to answer for the wicked 
 faults of casual and accidental folly. No ; gentlemen, I say it with 
 confidence, the act which makes a man guilty must be his own ; or if 
 it be by participation, it must be by actual participation, not by 
 construction ; a construction which leads to an endless confounding 
 of persons and things. If I do an act myself, I am answerable for 
 it : If I do it by another I am answerable also. If I strike the 
 bloAV, I am answei-able : If I send an assassin and he strikes the 
 blow it is still my act, and I ought to be charged Avith the criminality 
 of it. But if I go into a society of men, into a club, or play-house, 
 and a crime be there committed, there is no principle of law which 
 shall bring home to me the guilty conduct of those men which they 
 may pursue at any distance of time. What protection can a miser- 
 able man have from my discharging perhaps the ineffectual office of 
 my duty to him, if the rule laid down, that every word he said, or 
 was said by a man with whom he ever had a conversation, shall affect 
 him at any distance of time ? Consider what will be the consequence 
 of establishing the precedent, that a man shall always be responsible 
 for the act of the society to which he has once belonged. Suppose a 
 man heedlessly brought into an association where criminal purposes 
 ai'e going forward — suppose there was wliat has been stated, a society 
 of men cnlliug themselves Defenders and answering in fact to the very 
 
THE DEFENDEHS. 337 
 
 singular pictui-e drawn of them. Will you give it abroad, that if a 
 man once belongs to a criminal confederacy, his case is desperate — 
 his retreat is cut off — that every man once present at a meeting to 
 subvert the government shall be answerable for every thing done at 
 any distance of time by this flagitious association. What is the law 
 in this respect ? As in the association there is a peril, so in the 
 moment of retreat, there is safety. What could this man have done ? 
 He quitted the city — he went to another part of the kingdom, when 
 the treasonable acts were committed ; yes, but he was virtually among 
 them. What constitutes a man vii'tually present, when he is physi- 
 cally absent ? What is the principle of law by which he shall be 
 tried ? It can alone be tried by that, by which the mandate or 
 
 1 authority of any man is brought home to him. By previously sug- 
 gesting the crime, by which he becomes an accessaiy before the fact, 
 and therefore a principal in treason ; for by suggesting the time he 
 proves the concurrence of his will with that of the party committing 
 the crime. This is a maxim of law, that which in ordinary 
 felonies makes a man an accessary in treason will constitute him a 
 principal, because in treason there are no accessaries. Suppose a 
 meeting held for one purpose, and a totally distinct crime is committed, 
 are those Avho were at the first meeting accessaries ? Certainly not ; 
 because they must be procurers of the fact done. To make a man a 
 
 ; principal, he must be quodammodo aiding and assisting — that is not 
 proved. What then is the accessorial guilt ? Did the prisoner write 
 
 . to the others ? Does he appear to be the leader of any fraternity — the 
 conductor of any treasonable meeting ? No such thing. I say when 
 he quitted Dublin he had no intention of giving aid, or continuance 
 to any meeting ; the connection between him and the societies ceased, 
 and there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of any of their 
 subsequent acts. Unless there be positive evidence agains thim, you 
 ought to consider him out of the sphere of any association. But still 
 
 > you make him answerable for what was done. If you do that, you 
 establish a rule unknown to the sense or humanity of the law ; making 
 him answerable for what was done, not by himself but by other 
 persons. 
 
 Gentlemen, I feel that counsel, anxious as they ought to be, may 
 be led further than they intend ; — in point of time I have pressed 
 
 I further than I foresaw upon the patience of the jury and the court. 
 
 1 I say the object of this part of the trial is whether the guilt of any- 
 
 ' thing which happened in that society be in point of law brought 
 
 I home to the prisoner ? I have endeavoured to submit that the charge 
 ought to be clear and the evidence explicit, and that though the 
 meetings at which Lawler attended were guilty, yet the prisoner being 
 absent, was not affected by their criminality. Give me leave now, 
 with deference, to consider the case in another point of view. I say 
 
 : then, from what has appeared in evidence, the meetings themselves 
 cannot in the estimation of the law be guilty. If these meetings are 
 not provably guilty of treason, there can be no retroacted guilt upon 
 the prisoner, even if the communication between them and him were 
 proved. If there be no direct and original guilt — if they do not that, 
 which if done by him, would amount to an overt act of treason, 
 a fortiori, it cannot extend to him. Therefore let me suppose, that 
 
 z 
 
338 TRIALS OF 
 
 the prisoner was at the time present at these meetings. Be pleased 
 to examine this, whether if he were, the evidence given would amount 
 to the proof required. I conceive that nothing can be more clear 
 than the distinction between mere casual, indiscreet language, and 
 language conveying a deliberated and debated purpose. To give 
 evidence of overt acts, the evidence must be clear and direct. How 
 is Hensey's case ?* A species of evidence was adduced which it was 
 impossible for any man to deny : actual proof of correspondence found. 
 in his own writing and possession. How was it in Lord Preston's 
 case ?f Evidence equally clear of a purpose acted upon ; going to 
 another country for that treasonable purpose. In every case of which 
 we read memorials in the law, the act is such, that no man could say 
 it is not an overt act of the means used by the party in effectuation of 
 his guilty intent. But I said, that a deliberate purpose expressed and 
 acted upon is different from a casual, indiscreet expression. Suppose 
 now, that the meeting were all indicted for compassing the King's 
 death, and that the overt act charged is, that they consulted about 
 giving aid to the King's enemies, actually at war. The guilt of all is 
 the guilt of each, there is no distinction between them. If that meet- 
 ing held that consvdtation, they are all guilty of that species of high 
 treason. But if the evidence wei-e, that at that meeting which con- 
 sisted of as many as are now here, one individual tunied about to 
 another, and said " we must get arms to assist the French, when they 
 come here." Would any reasonable man say, that was a consultation 
 to adhere to the King's enemies? — a mere casual expression, not 
 answered by any one — not addressed to the body. Can it be sustained 
 for a moment in a court of justice, that it was a consultation to effect 
 the death of the King, or adhere to his enemies? No, gentlemen, 
 this is not matter of any deep or profound learning — it is familiar to 
 the plainest understanding. The foolish language of one servant 
 in your hall is not evidence to affect all the other servants in your 
 house : it is not the guilt of the rest. I am aware, it may be the 
 guilt of the rest ; it may become such. But I rely upon this ; I 
 address it to you with the confidence that my own conviction inspires ; 
 that yotir lordships will state to the jury, that a consultation upon a 
 subject is a reciprocation of sentiment upon the same subject. Every 
 man understands the meaning of a consultation : there is no servant 
 that cannot understand it. If a man said to another, " we will con- 
 spire to kill the King," no lacquey could mistake it. But what is a 
 consultation ? Why such as a child could not mistake if it passed 
 before him. One saying to another, " we are here together, private 
 friends — we are at war — the French may land, and if they do, we 
 will assist them." To make that a consultation there must be an 
 assent to the same thought; upon that assent, the guilt of the con- 
 sultation is founded. Is that proved by a casual expression of one 
 man, without the man to whom it was directed making any answer, 
 and when in fact every other man but the person using the expression 
 was attending for another purpose ? But if there be any force in 
 what I have said as applied to any man attending there, how much 
 more forcible will it appear, when applied to a man, who was an 
 
 * 19 Howell's St. Tr. 1341. f 12 Howell's St. Tr. G46. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 339 
 
 hundred miles distant from the place of meeting. If the law be clear, 
 that there is no treason in hearing treasonable designs and not con- 
 senting thereto, though it be another offence, unless he goes there 
 knowing beforehand, the meeting was to be. Here, gentlemen, see 
 how careful the law is, and how far it is fi-om being unprovided as 
 to different cases of this kind. If a man goes to a meeting, knowing 
 that the object is to hatch a crime, he shall be joined in the guilt. 
 If he goes there and takes a part, without knowing previously, he is 
 involved ; though that has been doubted. Foster says, " this is proper 
 to be left to the jury, though a party do, or say notliing as to the con- 
 siiltation." If, for instance, a man knowing of a design to imprison 
 the King, and goes to a meeting to consult for that purpose, his going 
 there is an obvious proof of his assent and encouragement. This is 
 the law as laid down by one of the most enlightened writers in any 
 science. Compare that doctrine with what Mr. Attorney- General 
 wishes to inculcate, when he seeks to convict the prisoner. There 
 was a meeting in Barrack-street, and it was treason, because they 
 laughed. As Sancho said, they all talked of me, because they 
 laughed. But then there is a catechism. Aye, what say you to that ? 
 The cock crew in France — Avhat say you to that ? Why I say it 
 might be foolish, it might be indecent to talk in this manner ; but 
 what is the charge ? That he consulted to kill the King. Where 
 was it he did that ? At Cork ! But did he not assist ? No ; he 
 was not there. But he did assist, because he communicated signs, 
 and thus you collect the guilt of the party, as the coroner upon an 
 inquest of murder, who thought a man standing by was guilty. 
 Why ? Because three drops of blood fell from his nose. This was 
 thought to be invincible proof of his guilt. It reminds me also of an 
 old woman who undertook to prove that a ghost had appeared. " How 
 do you know there was a ghost in the room?" "Oh! I'll prove to 
 you, there must have been a ghost — for the very moment I went in, 
 I fainted flat on the floor !" So says Mr. Attorney- General. " Oh, 
 I'll convince you, gentlemen, he designed to kill the King, for he 
 laughed." Weldon was chargeable with all the guilt of the meeting 
 — ^he laughed, when the paper was read and said, when the King's 
 head was off, there was an end of the allegiance. In answer to that, 
 I state the humane good sense of the law, that in the case, of the life 
 of a traitor ; it is tender in proportion to the abomination of the crime 
 — ^for the law of England, while it suspended the sword of justice 
 over the head of the guilty man, threw its protection around the 
 innocent, to save his loyalty from the danger of such evidence : — it 
 did more — it threw its protection around him whose innocence might 
 be doubted, but who was not proved to be guilty. The mild and 
 lenient policy of the law discharges a man from the necessity of prov- 
 ing his innocence, because otherwise it would look as if the jury were 
 impannelled to condemn upon accusation without evidence in support 
 : of it, but merely because he did not prove himself innocent. There- 
 fore, gentlemen, I come round again to state what the law is. In 
 order to make a general assembling and consultation evidence of 
 overt acts, there must be that assembling and the guilt must be 
 marked by that consulation in order to charge any man, who was 
 present and not say anything concurring with the guilt of that con- 
 
340 TRIALS OF 
 
 sultation. It is necessary that he should have notice that the guilty 
 purpose was to be debated upon : — ^that the meeting was convened 
 for that purpose. But let me recal your attention to this, and you 
 will feel it bearing strongly upon that case. The silence of a man at 
 such a meeting is not criminal to the degree here charged. Then 
 suppose his disclaimer necessary — suppose the law considered every 
 man as abetting what he did not disavow, remember that the wretch ! 
 now sought to be affected by his silence at a meeting, Avas one hundred 
 miles distant from it. There might have been a purpose from which 
 his soul had recoiled. Is this then evidence upon which to convict the . 
 prisoner ? There is no statement of any particular purpose — no 
 summons to confer upon any particular purpose — no authority given I 
 to any meeting by a deputy named — and let me remind you, that at 
 the last meeting, if there were the gossipings and communications \ 
 you have heard, there was not any one man present who attended j 
 the first meeting, nor is there any evidence to shew, that the prisoner , 
 had ever spoken to any one man who attended the last meeting, upon 
 any occasion, and yet the monstrous absurdity contended for is, that 
 although Weldon proposed no subject for discussion — although he 
 proposed no meeting — although he did not know that any purpose was 
 to be carried into effect, because he was then one hundi-ed miles off, 
 he is still to suffer for the foolish babble of one individual to another. 
 You are to put all proceedings together and out of the tissue of this 
 talk, hearsay and conjecture, you are to collect the materials of a 
 verdict, by which you directly swear, that the man is guilty of com- 
 passing the King's death. But suppose a man wei-e to suggest a 
 treasonable meeting — that the meeting takes place and he does not 
 go — the first proposal may amount to evidence of treason if it went 
 far enough, and amounted to an incitement. But suppose the meet- 
 ing held be a distinct one from that which was suggested, and the 
 party does not attend, it appears to me, that the act of that meeting 
 cannot be considered as his overt act. The previous incitement must 
 be clearly established by evidence, and I rely upon it, that the sub- 
 sequent acts of that meeting, to which I am supposing he did not go, 
 particularly if it be a meeting at which many others were present 
 Avho were not at the first, I rely upon it, I say, that no declaration of 
 any man (and more decidedly if it be by a man not privy to the 
 original declaration,) can be evidence upon which a jury can attach 
 guilt to the party. It is nothing more than misfeasance, which is 
 certainly criminal, but not to the extent of this charge. To affect 
 any man by svibsequent debate, it must be with notice of the purpose, 
 and if the meeting be dictated by himself it is only in that point he 
 can be guilty ; because if you propose a meeting for one purpose, you 
 shall not be affected by any other — no matter what the meeting is — 
 however treasonable, or bad ; unless you knew before for what 
 purpose they assembled you cannot be guilty virtually by what they 
 have done. Gentlemen, I do not see that anything further occurs to 
 me upon the law of the case, that I have not endeavoured in some 
 way to submit to you. Perhaps I have been going back somewhat 
 irregularly. Gentlemen, there remains only one, and that a very 
 narrow subject of observation. I said that the evidence upon whicli 
 the life, and the fame and the property of a man should be decided 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 341 
 
 and extinguished, ought to be of itself, evidence of a most cogent 
 and impressive nature. Gentlemen, does it appear to you that the 
 witness whom you saw upon the table comes under that description. 
 Has he sworn truly ? If he has — what has he told you ? As soon 
 as he discovered the extent of the guilt he quitted the fraternity. 
 Do you believe that ? Plart told him that all the Protestants were 
 to be massacred. " I did not like," said he, " the notion of massacre- 
 ing ALL." Here is the picture he draws of himself — he an accom- 
 plice in the guilt. I did not ask him, " Have you been promised a 
 pardon ?" I did not ask him " Are you coming to swear by the 
 acre ?" — But I appeal to the picture he drew of himself upon the 
 table. What worked his contrition ? Is it the massacre of one 
 wretch ? He was unappalled at the idea of dipping his hands, and 
 lapping the blood of part of the Protestant body — it was only heaps 
 of festering dead, that nauseated his appetite and worked his re- 
 pentance and conversion. Is your verdict to be founded upon the 
 unsupported evidence of a wretch of that kind. His stomach stood a 
 partial massacre — it was only an universal deluge of blood that made 
 him a convert to humanity ! And lie is now, the honest, disinter- 
 ested and loyal witness in a court of justice. What said he further ? 
 " As soon as I found from Hart their schemes, I went to Mr. Cowan." 
 You saw, gentlemen, that he felt my motive in asking the question. 
 " You abandoned them as soon as you found their criminality." — 
 Because had he answered otherwise he would have destroyed his 
 ci'edit ; but as it is he has thrown his credit, and the foundation of it 
 overboard. If Lawler be innocent, Weldon must be so. He saw 
 that and therefore he said, he thought it no crime to kill the King. 
 Therefore, gentlemen, my conscience told me, that if he felt no 
 remorse at plunging a dagger into the heart of his King, he would 
 feel no trembling hesitation at plunging a dagger into the breast of 
 an individual subject by perjured testimony. Those workings of the 
 heart which agitate the feelings at the untimely fate of a fellow creature 
 touch not him, and he could behold with delight, the perishing of that 
 man who had a knowledge of his guilt. He has no compunction and 
 he betrays no reluctance at drinking deep in the torrent of human 
 blood, provided it leaves a remnant of the class. What stipulation 
 can you make between a wretch of that kind and the secret obligation 
 of an oath ? You are to swear upon his oath — a verdict is not to be 
 founded upon your own loyalty — not upon what you have seen or 
 heard spoken disrespectfully of the government or the King. Your 
 honest, pure, and constitutional verdict can be founded only upon 
 that sympathy that you feel between your own hearts and the credi- 
 bility of the witness. It is a question for you. Will you hazard that 
 oath upon the conscience of such a man ? A man influenced by hope 
 and agitated with fear — anxious for life and afraid to die, that you may 
 safely say, " we have heard a witness, he stated facts which we could 
 not believe ; he is a wretch for he thought it no crime to murder his 
 King ; and a partial massacre appeared to him to be meritorious !" 
 Is it upon the testimony of that nefarious miscreant — the ready traitor 
 — the prompt murderer — I retract not the expression, if I did, it 
 would be to put in its place a word of more emphatic and combined 
 reprobation ; is it upon that evidence, I say you will pronounce a 
 
342 TRIALS OF 
 
 verdict, establishing the most aggravated degree of criminality known 
 to our law upon the person of that man, supposed by the law to be 
 innocent until his guilt be proved ? I know not whether the man 
 be a good subject or a bad one : it is not necessary for me to know 
 nor for you to enquire ; but I exhort you, finally to remember, that 
 in Great Britain, so anxious has the law been to guard against the 
 perfidiousness of such men, that no less than two concurrent witnesses ; 
 are necessary there in cases of treason. I call not upon you to adopt 
 that law ; but to shew you the principle, that there should be strong 
 evidence satisfying the mind of a jury. I commit the decision of 
 this case to your consciences, not to your humanity — I commit it to 
 your determination upon the sound principles of justice and law. 
 
 After Mr. Curran had sat down, he rose again, and said he had 
 closed without stating any evidence, from a conviction that it would 
 be unnecessary. It is desired to produce some evidence which I will 
 not oppose in a case of life. There is evidence to shew that Lawler 
 is not credible. 
 
 Samuel Galland was then called and sworn on the part of the 
 prisoner, but was not examined. 
 
 James Reynolds, sworn Examined by Mr. M'Naxly. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prisoner ? A. I have known him for seven- 
 teen years. 
 
 Q. What has been his general character ? A. I never heard of 
 any thing improper, before this trial ; he worked as a breeches-maker 
 and was an industrious man. 
 
 Thomas O'Neil, sworn — Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prisoner ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. How long have you known him? A. I have known him 
 twenty years. 
 
 Q, What has been his general character ? A. A very good one — 
 he was an honest, laborious man. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally then addressed the jury in a short speech for the 
 prisoner, apologising for his brevity by stating that he was much 
 indisposed and that any exertion upon his part was rendered less 
 necessary by the very splendid defence by Mr. Curran. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant in reply, spoke to the evidence very fully. 
 
 Mr. Justice Finucane Gentlemen of the jury. In this case 
 
 James Weldon stands indicted of two species of treason, declared to 
 be such, by the stat. 25, Ed. III. One of these is for imagining and 
 compassing the death of the King. And the other is for adhering to 
 the King's enemies. Now, gentlemen, as to first of these charges,; 
 that of compassing the King's death, such is the anxious care with! 
 which the life of the King is guarded by our law, that the offence is 
 not confined to acts, or attempts directly against the life of the King, 
 as by laying in wait to assassinate, or by murdering, but it extends 
 to every thing deliberately done, by which the life of the King might 
 be endangered. Thus, it has been always held, and is now well 
 established, that all attempts to dethrone or imprison the King are 
 overt acts of compassing his death ; for all experience, and all history 
 
 \ 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 343 
 
 shew, that the necessary consequence of such dethronement or 
 imprisonment has been the death of the King. So, also adhering to 
 the King's enemies, or encouraging them to invade the kingdom, are 
 overt acts of imagining his death ; and that I take it, does fairly 
 follow to the conviction of every man, when he considers that the 
 ultimate object of the King's public enemies is his death and destruc- 
 tion. The King is the first soldier of the state, and the sword of the 
 enemy is as much levelled at his life, as that of any soldier in his 
 army. And therefore every act of adhering, countenance, or assist- 
 ance to the King's enemies, does necessarily fall under that branch 
 of the statute, which makes the offence of compassing and imagining 
 the death of the King. Therefore, gentlemen, although these two 
 offences are made distinct by the statute, compassing his death and 
 adhering to his enemies, yet every overt act, which proves the person 
 adhering to the King's enemies, is also an overt act of compassing 
 the death of the King. By overt act, nothing more is meant, than 
 an act done by the party to effect his treasonable intent. It is called 
 an overt act, that is, an open act, the means used by the party to 
 accomplish his treason, that is to say, to put the King to death, or 
 adhere to the King's enemies. No man is answerable for the tacit 
 imagination of his heart, unless he does something to effect his 
 traitorous intent. To God alone, the searcher of all hearts, is he 
 answerable for his thoughts and intentions. But human tribunals 
 ■. , cannot take cognizance of thoughts, except so far as they are mani- 
 fested by acts. Therefore in every indictment of treason, the overt 
 acts, the means used to effect the purpose, must be set forth, because 
 it is against them, the accused is to make his defence. But though 
 the indictment should, as it generally does, state several overt acts, as 
 means used by the party to effect his purpose ; yet, if there be any 
 one applicable to the treason charged, it is sufficient. Now, gentlemen, 
 in the present indictment, the overt acts of both species of treason 
 are one and the same ; and from what I before mentioned, they may 
 be so, as every act of adhering to the King's enemies, is an overt act 
 of compassing the King's death. The overt acts in this indictment 
 are these : First, after reciting that a war is depending between the 
 King and the persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 (and here I must observe, that although no proof be given of a war 
 existing between the King and the persons exercising the powers of 
 government in France, yet the notoriety of the fact is sufficient evidence 
 of it) the indictment, I say, recites the war, and then charges that 
 the prisoner did unite with false traitors, called Defenders, and become 
 one of a party to aid the French, in case they should invade this 
 kingdom. This is stated as the manner in which he intended to 
 carry into effect his traitorous purpose. Secondly, that he did consult 
 with other traitors unknown, in the joining and assisting with the 
 French. Thirdly, that he did unite with traitors unknown, and 
 become one of a party called Defenders, united to subveii; the govern- 
 ment as by law established. But, gentlemen, this overt act being 
 thus laid, not stating that there was any plan formed to effect it by 
 force, we are of opinion, that this overt act does not fall within 
 either species of treason ; therefore you are not to apply your consi- 
 deration to that overt act. The fourth, is to the same purport, and 
 
344 TRIALS OF 
 
 you will also put it out of your consideration, that he did unite with 
 others unknown to subvert the Protestant religion, and consult about 
 the means, &c. The court are of opinion, that that does not form any 
 overt act of compassing the Kings death, or adhering to his enemies. 
 The fifth is, that the prisoner did, with other traitors unknown, in 
 order to enlist "William Lawler to be aiding and assisting the French, 
 in case they should invade this kingdom, administer an unlawful 
 oath. I will not read this to you now, gentlemen, because, when I 
 state the evidence, I shall lay it before you in its proper place. The 
 sixth is, that in order to procure and enlist William Lawler to aid 
 the French, he did administer and instruct him to repeat an oath, 
 declaration, or catechism, which I will also state by-and-by. The 
 seventh overt act relates to a conspiracy to subvert the government, 
 and not being laid to be intended by force, you will throw it out of 
 your consideration. The eighth is, that to procure William Lawler, 
 to assist the French, he administered an oath to him. These gentle- 
 men, are the overt acts laid in the indictment, and in my apprehension, 
 those, which are material for your consideration, may be classed under 
 two heads : first, that he did imite with Defenders, and meet and 
 consult with them, for the purpose of joining and assisting the French 
 in case they should invade this kingdom. Secondly, that he did 
 administer a certain oath and engagement to Lawler, to enlist, bind, and 
 engage him to aid and assist the French, in case they should invade this 
 kingdom. These two species of overt acts, are clear overt acts of adher- 
 ing to the King's enemies, which is one of the treasons ; so that if this 
 indictment did not charge the treason of compassing and imagining the 
 death of the King, and was confined solely to the charge of adhering 
 to his enemies, that species of treason, if proved, will be clearly sup- 
 ported. Therefore, gentlemen, if it should appear, beyond all doubt, 
 that these acts charged were done by the prisoner, or any one of 
 them, then the prisoner is clearly guilty of adhering to the King's 
 enemies, and also guilty of the other species, not directly, but by 
 consequence. But unless you shall be perfectly satisfied, that they, 
 or some of them were done, and his object was to assist the French, 
 whatever other objects he had, you must acquit him of the offence 
 charged. It will be now your duty, to consider the evidence most 
 minutely : for this purpose, I will state the evidence which has been 
 given in this case. The first witness for the crown Avas William 
 Lawler ; he mentioned, &c. [Here his lordship recapitulated the 
 evidence with the utmost accuracy and precision, which being de- 
 tailed very amply already, it is thought unnecessary to repeat. His 
 lordship also read the papers, as stated in tlie indictment and proved, 
 and then observed :] If you, gentlemen, are satisfied that this was 
 an engagement to bind this man to aid the National Convention of 
 France, it is a clear overt act of adhereing to the King's enemies ; 
 because it is procuring another person to assist the enemies of the 
 King, if you shall be of opinion, that the words National Conven- 
 tion mean the National Convention of France, and if you believe that 
 it was put to this man. Another object of the paper is to destroy all 
 
 gs. If you shall be of opinion, that tlie blank is to be filled up 
 
 with the word " King," it goes to substantiate the other species of 
 treason in the indictment, because our King is included in the number. 
 
THE DEFENBERS. 345 
 
 and every act done to dethrone the King is comprehended in that 
 species of treason of compassing his death. Then the other paper, to 
 which the witness says he was sworn, together with the engagement, 
 states that the person taking it is " to be true and faithful to King 
 George III., whilst I live under the same government." These 
 words are deserving of your consideration, because it is a quali- 
 fication of the engagement, only whilst he lives under the same 
 government, and how far other parts also qualify it, and make it 
 pleasing and agreeable to others, is also for your consideration. Now, 
 to be sure, if this oath were taken alone and by itself, there is nothing 
 in the terms of it that could tend in any degree to support the overt 
 acts charged in the indictment. But connecting it with the test 
 taken at the same time, it deserves a very diiFerent consideration ; 
 and it will be for you, gentlemen, to consider how far one throws 
 light upon the other. If the object of them be to bind this man to 
 the National Convention, to dethrone all Kings, there can be no 
 doubt that they support the treason charged in the indictment. After 
 the oath was taken, the witness mentioned to you that Brady asked 
 the pi'isoner if he knew any person who was to head them when they 
 rose ; that he answered there was one in the North. There is no 
 overt act of a rising, or a conspiracy to rise ; but if you believe that 
 this rising was to aid the purposes of the society and to aid the 
 French, it goes to support the overt acts. [Here his lordship stated 
 remainder of the evidence, and that which was given on the part of 
 the prisoner.] Here, gentlemen, the evidence closed. It would add 
 materially to the weight of it, if Alderman James showed how he 
 acquired intelligence of these papers being upon the person of 
 Kennedy. If Lawler told it to him, or to any other person,it would add 
 to his testimony, because connecting it with his testimony it would 
 fortify what he said upon his direct testimony, that he saw them with 
 Kennedy. But consider whether it is possible the information could 
 have come from any other quarter. However, at the same time, 
 you are also to consider whether it might not be an after thought. 
 You are to determine, from the whole testimony of Lawler, and the 
 credit you give to him. 
 
 Then it is asked, what is the word " Defender." There is nothing 
 ci'iminal in the word itself, — it is a name assumed by a set of persons. 
 But the question is, Avhat are the purposes and designs of these 
 people? Of that you are the proper judges. If their designs and 
 intentions were to adhere to the French, and to support them, the 
 charge of adhering to the King's enemies is supported. If their designs 
 were not such, the indictment is not supported. But considering the 
 oath and the test together, supposing them administered, as sworn by 
 Lawler, they shew very sti'ongly what their designs were. That they 
 were designed to adhere to the National Convention of France, if you 
 believe those words mean the Convention of France, — and part is to 
 dethrone all Kings, if you believe that the blank is to be filled up ; that 
 shews the design of the Defenders, and the witness, if believed, shews 
 the design of this man, in administering it. What were their designs 
 further appears from what Hart declared aloud, at Stoneybatter ; 
 for he declared aloud, that they were to get arms to assist the French. 
 
346 TRIALS OF 
 
 So that there he declared what the object was. The oath and test 
 declares it also, if you believe the evidence of Lawler. 
 
 But it is objected, that the acts for which a man is to answer, must 
 be his own, and that the prisoner was not present at those declara- 
 tions. But here are his own acts, if you believe the witness, for he 
 is charged with administering this oath and test, an engagement to 
 assist the National Convention, and to dethrone all Kings, if you 
 believe these expressions, and the blank is to be so applied. What- 
 ever the designs of the papers were, they are declared by the prisoner, 
 to be designs of Defenders, and to be his own pi-inciples and designs. 
 So that if it appears from his own acts, it is brought home to himself, 
 and the declaration of the prisoner agrees Avith the declaration of 
 Hart. If they do, Hart is a Defender, and explains what the object 
 of the test is, namely, to raise arms for the French. But this is said, 
 not to be a conspiracy, unless it was a consultation or general talk 
 by a meeting. Why, certainly it may, or may not aifect a person 
 present, according to the circumstances of the case, of which you are 
 the proper judges. But here it is sworn, if you believe the evidence, 
 that Hart spoke aloud in the meeting, and desired those present, to 
 go out for arms. That was a communication with the whole com- 
 pany, — to seize arms to enable them to be more assisting to the 
 French. This is the explanation which Hart put upon it himself, in 
 the hearing of the company, and assented to by the company, for they 
 go away to get arms. Then he tells you, that some of the company 
 remained, and those who went away not returning immediately, such 
 as remained were sworn in the manner he described, that they would 
 attend on the Monday following, with arms, to go and seize arms. 
 That is an act done by Hart not to an individual, but addressed to 
 such of the body as remained, and was assented to by them all. But, 
 gentlemen, I only mention this, as obviating a difficulty thrown out 
 by the counsel. But the whole is for your considerrtion, and I 
 cannot but observe, that all depends, upon the testimony of Lawler. 
 Certainly one single witness is competent to prove the crime of high 
 treason, although it is otherwise in England: but we must go according 
 to the law of this country, by which one witness is competent to 
 prove the fact. But I say the whole depends upon the testimony of 
 Lawler, and before you find a verdict upon his testimony, you must 
 be satisfied with the truth of it. It has been stated, and no doubt the 
 fact is so, that he is a witness subject to great objections. By his own 
 confession, he is an accomplice in the treason. By his own confes- 
 sion, at one time he would not scruple to attempt the life of the King.! 
 At present, he is of a different way of thinking. Also by his own 
 confession, he did not shudder at the idea of shedding Protestant 
 blood, but that he stopped at the idea of massacreing all. These are 
 certainly strong objections to impeach the character of the witness. 
 This man is a competent witness, and so far a credible one, because 
 if he were not credible, it would not be of any utility to examine 
 him. You, gentlemen, have heard his story, and you have seen the 
 manner in wliich he told it to you ; that is matter for you to consider, 
 and to balance against the objections urged to impeach his character 
 There is no attempt made to discredit the man by producing evidence 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 347 
 
 against him. It has been said, that there has been no attempt by the 
 prisoner to shew, he was not, at the time, in Barrack-street, where 
 the oath was administered, that fact being capable of proof, and in 
 that respect, to disprove what was said by Lawler. But that receives 
 this answer, and a very full one in my opinion, that no particular 
 time is stated, and therefore he could not be prepared with the proof 
 which has been mentioned. Witnesses have been examined to the 
 prisoner's character, but such evidence is of little weight in this case. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain, Mr. Baron George, and Mr. Judge 
 FiNUCANE addressed some observations to the jury, who then retired 
 for about twenty minutes. When they came into court, the Clei'k of 
 the CroAvn addressed them. 
 
 Ceerk of the Crown. — How say ye, gentlemen of the jury, have 
 ye agreed to your verdict ? 
 
 Jury We have. 
 
 CiiERK OF THE Crown. — Wlio shall Say for you ? 
 
 Jury. — Our Foreman. 
 
 Clerk of the Crown. — Gaoler, make a bar, set James Weldon 
 forward — How say you, gentlemen of the jvxry, is James Weldon 
 guilty of the treason whereof he stands indicted or not ? 
 
 Foreman GUILTY. 
 
 The prisoner was thereupon brought back to Newgate, and the 
 court adjoui-ned to next day. 
 
THE PROCEEDINGS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 MICHAEL MAGUIUE, 
 
 AND 
 
 JOHN LEARY. 
 
 Wednesday, December 23, 1795. 
 
 Brady, Kennedy and Hart were this day brought up and being 
 severally asked, whether they were ready for their trials, answered 
 they were not, and an affidavit was sworn by Kennedy for the purpose 
 of postponing their trials. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, I am humbly to move your lordships 
 to postpone the trials of these prisoners upon the affidavit, which has 
 been j ust sworn by Kennedy, on the part of himself and the other two 
 prisoners. The affidavit states that John Le Blanc, late of this city, 
 but now of Belfast, is a material witness for the prisoners, without 
 the benefit of whose testimony, they cannot with safety go to trial : 
 that due diligence would have been used to procure his attendance, 
 but that they did not know until after the trial of James Weldon 
 yesterday, that Le Blanc's testimony would be material. The affidavit 
 also states that this application is not made for the purpose of delay. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My lords, although I could shew, 
 that the affidavit is not sufficient to induce the court to put off the 
 trial, yet I feel that it is my duty, unless circumstances made it 
 absolutely necessary for the public safety to bring on the trials, to 
 shew the prisoners every indulgence. Thei'efore, my lords, I shall 
 not resist this application, and when I do this, I yield a great deal, 
 because from information which I have received since yesterday, I 
 should be able to lay before the court evidence to support that which 
 was given on the part of the Crown. But at present, I yield to this 
 application. 
 
 The trials of these three men were accordingly postponed. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — My loi'ds, from this alteration in the 
 arrangement, which I made for this day, I am not prepared to go on 
 with any other trial. 
 
 And thereupon the court adjourned. 
 
THE DEFENnKRS, 349 
 
 COUNTY COURT, 
 
 Thursday, December 24. 
 
 Michael Maguire was indicted for high treason in compassing the 
 King's death and adhering to his enemies ; in support of which a 
 number of overt acts were stated, the principal of which was, that in 
 order to enlist Thomas Roden, a fifer in the 104th regiment, to join 
 with, and become a Defender to aid and assist the persons exercising 
 the powers of government in France, he did keep and detain him from 
 his regiment for the space of ten days and did give him during that 
 time, by way of stipend, at the rate of sixpence per day. 
 
 The indictment is not set forth in this case, the prosecution having 
 been given up, and therefore the reporter would not have mentioned 
 it, except to notice a proceeding which had the appearance of novelty 
 to some ; but being sanctioned by the approbation of thi-ee judges 
 may serve as a precedent in cases under similar circumstances. 
 
 The prisoner having pleaded Not Guilty, and a jury sworn, Mr. 
 Prime- Serjeant stated the case on the part of the Crown, and the 
 witness was called. 
 
 Thomas Roden, sAvorn. — Examined by Mr. Attorney-General. 
 
 Q. Where were you born ? A. In Staffordshire. 
 
 Q. What brought you here ? A. I enlisted for a soldier. 
 
 Q. In what regiment? A. In the 104th regiment. 
 
 Q. What was the nature of your duty in that regiment ? A. 
 A fifer. 
 
 Q. Did that regiment come to Ireland ? A. Yes, please you, my 
 lord, it came to Belfast. 
 
 Q. Did you come with it ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How long ago ? A. Three quarters of a year. 
 
 Q. Where did it go to ? A. From Manchester. 
 
 Q. But after you came to Belfast, where did you go to ? A. To 
 Dublin. 
 
 Q. Look at the prisoner ; did you ever see him before ? 
 
 The witness hesitated. 
 
 Q. Which is the man ? Point out Michael Maguire. A. I neither 
 see Michael Maguire, nor Murphy. 
 
 Q. Do you know Michael Maguire ? A. If I should see him, I 
 should know him. 
 
 Q. Do you see him ? 
 
 The witness looked about, but made no answer. He was then 
 desired to look through all the seats, beginning with the first row, 
 until his eyes reached the dock. After doing so, he said — I do not 
 see him. 
 
 Q. Look again in the same manner, A. I do not see him. 
 
 The witness was then desired to withdraw, and the sub-sheriff of 
 the county was desii-ed not to suffer any person to speak to him. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My lords, if I believed, that the 
 witness had thrown his eyes towards the dock, I should desire to have 
 
350 TRIALS OF 
 
 the prisoner acquitted immediately. But the gentlemen round me 
 say, he did not throw his eyes to the dock. I shall now desire, as 
 has been practised at the Old Bailey, that the prisoner may be brought 
 to the front seat, and that some persons, as nearly of his own condition 
 in appearance as may be, should be placed there along with him. 
 
 This was accordingly done. The gentlemen of the bar retired 
 from tlie front seat — the prisoner was placed there, and five or six 
 persons, taken from the crowd of auditors, were placed along with 
 him. 
 
 The witness was then brought in, and desired to look at the several 
 persons, sitting in the first seat, beginning at one and looking on to 
 the other. 
 
 The witness did so, and after looking at them for some time, he 
 laid his finger upon the head of a person who was not the prisoner. 
 
 The witness was ordered off the table and the prisoner was 
 acquitted. 
 
 Murphy was then put upon his trial, given in charge to the jury, 
 and the witness not being produced, the prisoner was acquitted. 
 
 The coui't adjourned. 
 
 CITY COURT, 
 
 Monday, December 28, 1795. 
 
 John Leary was arraigned upon the following indictment, the 
 caption of which is omitted, as being the same as that set forth in 
 Weldon's case. 
 
 The indictment contained two counts, one for compassing the 
 King's death and the other for adhering to the King's enemies, and 
 the overt acts laid in proof of both counts were the same, and were 
 as follows : 1st, that the said John Leary did, on the 20th day of 
 August, in the 35th year of the reign, at Suffolk-street, in the parish 
 of St. Andrew, in the city of Dublin, associate himself with several 
 false traitors, associated under the name of the Defenders, to aid, 
 assist, and adhere to persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, in case they should invade Ireland ; 2d, that he did meet 
 with other false traitors to confer for and about the adhering, aiding, 
 and assisting as aforesaid; 3d, that he did enter into, and become one 
 of a society united and associated under the designation of Defenders 
 with design to subvert the government, and did meet to consult about 
 such object ; 4th, that he did so associate with design to subvert the 
 Protestant I'eligion ; 5th, that he did with intent to enlist a liege 
 subject, to the jurors unknown, to aid and assist the French govei'n- 
 ment in an invasion, traitorously administer a certain profession, 
 declaration, and catechism to the said person, to the following purpose 
 — " I am concerned. So am I. W\th who ? With the National 
 Convention, (meaning thereby the National Convention of France.) 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 351 
 
 What is your designs ? On freedom. Where is your designs ? The 
 i foundation of it is grounded on a rock. What is your designs ? 
 
 Cause to queal all nations, dethrone all gs, (meaning thereby all 
 
 kings,) to plant the true religion in the hearts ; be just. Where did 
 the cock crow when the whole world heard him ? In France. What 
 is the pass-word ? Eliphismatis." 6th, That with the same objects 
 he did cause the said liege subject to rehearse and repeat a certain 
 catechism (as above set out) ; 7th, that he did with others procure 
 the said person to enlist and become one of a society formed for the 
 purpose of subverting the government ; 8th, that with the same 
 designs, he with other traitors administered and caused to be admi- 
 nistered to the said person the following oath : " I, A. B. of my own 
 good will and consent, do swear to be true to his Majesty King 
 George the thii'd whilst I live under the same government. More, I 
 swear to be true, aiding, and assistant to every brother bound to me 
 l)y this application, and in every form of article from its first foun- 
 dation, January, 1790, and in every amendment hitherto. And will 
 be obedient to my committees, superiors, commanders, and officers in 
 all lawful proceedings and not otherwise, nor will I consent to any 
 society or any brother of an unlawful character, but will observe and 
 obey the laws and regulations of my committee to whom I belong 
 determined brother, nor in any violation of the laws but to protect 
 my life and property and the lives and properties of my brethren. 
 And I will subject myself to my committee-men in all lawful proceed- 
 ings and not otherwise during the reign of King George the third, 
 whilst I live under the same government. I likewise swear I will 
 meet when and where my committee will please, and will spend what 
 is pleasing to president and company — I will not quarrel nor strike 
 person whatsomever, knowing him to be such, but will live lovingly 
 and friendly with every one under that denomination — I will not rise 
 any fight or quarrel on account of my present intrus, or back that for 
 unto my brotherhood." 
 
 There was an averment to both counts that an open and public 
 war was carried on by the French government before, and on the 
 20th of August, in the 35th year of the reign, and since, against 
 " our most serene, illustrious, and excellent Prince Geo. III. King of 
 Ireland and soforth." 
 
 The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and the Sheriffs having returned 
 their pannel, it was called over. 
 
 THE JURY. 
 
 Hugh Crothers, Benjamin Woodward, 
 
 George Overend, George Armstrong, 
 
 Daniel Geale, Edward Armstrong, 
 
 Samuel Tyndall, Archibald Tredennick, 
 
 Richard Jackson, James Atkinson, 
 
 David Weir, Cornelius Gautier. 
 
 The prisoner was then given in charge to the jury, and Mr. 
 Attorney- General stated the case, to the same effect as in Weldon's 
 trial. 
 
 William Lawler was produced, but before he was sworn, 
 
352 TRIALS OF 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — Do you believe in the existence of a God, and 
 rewards and punishments hereafter ? A. I do. 
 
 The witness was then sworn — Examined by Mr. Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. Of what country are you ? A. Of Irehand, Sir. 
 
 Q. To what i^i'ofession, or trade were you bi'ed ? A. To the Pro- 
 testant religion. 
 
 Q. To what trade ? A. The gilding. 
 
 Q. Where have you woi*ked ? A. In Ireland. 
 
 Q. Any where else ? A. In England. 
 
 Q. At what time have you worked there ? A. In the year 1791. 
 
 Q. What time did you return ? A. Two years. 
 
 Q. During your residence in England, were you of any society ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What society ? A. The London Corresponding Society. 
 
 Q. After your return to Ireland, did you become a member of any 
 society in Dublin ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Of what society ? A. I do not know the name of it. 
 
 Q. What became of that society ? A. It was dissolved. 
 
 Q. Did you become a member of any other ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Of what ? A. The Telegraphic and Philanthropic societies. 
 
 Q. These were two difiex-ent societies ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the name of any person, who was a member 
 of eithei*, or which of them ? A. John Burke belonged to them 
 both. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect what the general subject of discussion, or 
 debate was ? A. After Burke found the first society was dissolved, 
 and he was expelled the College, he collected ten persons, I was one, 
 and he told us the object of each was to get ten, and each of these 
 ten was to get five, as they would have a number sufficient to take 
 the castle. One hundred were to get soldiers' clothes, by which the 
 citizens would think the soldiers had joined them. 
 
 Q. In the course of last summer, did you become a member of any 
 other society ? A. When we had made up our ten, we were to 
 inform Bui'ke, and having made up my ten, I did inform him, and he 
 got a room in High-street for the diflerent tens to meet in. 
 
 Q. Did they meet ? A. They did, and he called it the Philan- 
 thropic Society ; and any member proposed any friend he thought 
 proper, and he accordingly was elected a member. 
 
 Q. Pray sir, have you ever heard of any party or set of men, 
 known by the name of Defenders in this country ? A. I have. 
 
 Q. Were you ever admitted a Defender ? A. I was, in Barrack- 
 street. 
 
 Q. And by whom ? A. By Weldon. 
 
 Q. What Weldon ? A. Of the Black Horse. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the manner in which you were admitted? 
 A. By an oath administered, or declaration : two papers were read. 
 
 Q. Where are they ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. I will shew them to you — look at these papers (pi-oducing 
 two papers)? A. These are the papers I was sworn to by Weldon. 
 
 Q. Was any other communication made to you ; any sign ; or 
 signal ? A. Weldon shewed me the signs, so as to know a Defender. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 353 
 
 Q. Shew them to the jury. A. Wcldon told us when we were 
 in company, and wanted to know a Defender, the sign was, to put 
 the two hands joined backwards upon the top of the head, and pre- 
 tend to yawn, then to draw the hands down upon your knee, or upon 
 the table. Then the other answers, by drawing the right hand over 
 the forehead, and returning it upon the hack of the left hand : The 
 person in answer, or reply to that, draws the left hand across the 
 forehead, and returns it to the back of the right hand. Upon shaking 
 hands, they pressed the thumb of the right hand upon the back of 
 the left, and not to be afraid to hurt the person, and if they asked, 
 what was the pass-word, " Eliphismatis." 
 
 Q. Did you ever see these papers in the possession of any man of 
 the name of Kennedy ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you told Alderman James, that he would find them with 
 Kennedy ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At the post-office. 
 
 Q. In what part about Kennedy ? A. In his fob. 
 
 Q. After you were sworn in Barrack-street, was there any mention 
 of any future meeting ? A. Weldon was asked when there would be 
 any meeting : he said there would be a meeting in Thomas-street, 
 he believed, in the course of the next week, and he would inform 
 Brady to let us know. 
 
 Q. How soon after you were sworn, was there any meeting, at 
 which you were present ? A. I do not know. It was of a Sunday. 
 
 Q. Can you form any belief as to the time, whether a week, or a 
 month ? A. It was not long after. 
 
 Q. Where was that meeting ? A. In Plunket-street, it was Brady 
 and Kennedy brought me there. I was walking on a Sunday and 
 they brought me there. 
 
 Q. Do you know John Leary ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Point him out to the court and the jury? A. There he is in 
 the dock. 
 
 Q. Be so good as to tell the court and the jury, who were at the 
 meeting in Plunket-street, as you know ? A. Brady and Kennedy. 
 
 Q. Who else ? A. I cannot say exactly. 
 
 Q. Can you say, was Leary there ? A. I think the first place I 
 saw him, was at Stoneybatter. 
 
 Q. Then am I to understand you to say, whether he was at Plun- 
 ket-street, or not ? A. He might be there for all I know. 
 
 Q. And do you not know, he was at Plunket-street ? A. I do not. 
 
 Q. How long after the meeting at Plunket-street was the meeting 
 at Stoneybatter ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. I do not mean that you should tell exactly — it was after the 
 meeting at Plunket-street ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You saw Leary there ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You are positive you saw him there ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. How came you to go there ? A. Walsh, a tailor told me of it. 
 
 Q. And you went with him there ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. In what character did you go there ? A. As going to De- 
 fenders. 
 
 Q. Was any person sworn at that meeting ? A. Hart brought in 
 a young man and another along with him. 
 
 2 a 
 
354 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Was there any oath administered, or any book produced ? 
 A, Hart had a book in his hand. The young man seemed unwilling 
 at first. Hart said the object was to assist the French, when they 
 would come. 
 
 Q. Did you hear him make that declaration ? A. I did, and all 
 present, or else they must be deaf. 
 
 Q. Was Leary pi-esent, I ask you again ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Was there any objection made to what Hart said by anybody ? 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. After the man was sworn, did Hart do anything else ? A. He 
 had sent some to get arms that night, pistols, and swoi'ds : — he desired 
 them to bring what they had, as they intended to go out that night ; 
 that they knew a young man at one of the houses where they intended 
 to go. Leary seemed to be a little in liquor at the time. 
 
 Q. After the young man was sworn did anything else happen? 
 A. Hart gave the signs and the pass-word, Eliphismatis. 
 
 Q. Did he give the same sign, that Weldon gave you ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did you hear the purport of the oath administered by Hart ? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. After swearing, was there any proposal made by Hart? 
 A. He desired such of the young men as were present, who had not 
 arms, to go and get arms. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Had any one arms there ? A. I had a sword 
 and pistol. 
 
 Q. Was there any other person with arms ? A. I did not see any. 
 
 Q. Did Hart exercise any authority, or do any other act ? A. He 
 was a committee-man, and in consequence of the persons not return- 
 ing, he desired every person present to come to the table, and lay 
 their right hands upon it, and on their oath to come the next night 
 with arms. 
 
 Q. Did the company obey ? A. Every one that was present. 
 
 Q. Was Leary present ? A. I cannot say he was present just at 
 that time. 
 
 Q. You say, he was present at the time, the oath was administered ? 
 A. He was. 
 
 Q. And at the time the declaration was made by Hart of the 
 motives? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. After that conversation, were any arms taken ? A. Not as I 
 know of, I saw Murphy since ; he told me arms were taken. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with Leary ? A. I had, at his own 
 place. 
 
 Q, When was that ? A. In the course of the week after. 
 
 Q. What did he tell you of the proceedings of that night ? A. He 
 said they went to one house, where there was a great noise, and a 
 ringing of a bell — that they had a stone to throw tlie pannel in : he 
 had a blunderbuss in his hand, and Iiad gone round to the corner ot 
 the house to see the person ringing the bell ; he could not see the 
 bell, and believed it was in the chimney — not seeing it, he came back 
 and struck the pannel with the butt-end of the blunderbuss and broke 
 in the pannel, and also broke the stock of the blunderbuss. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Where was this house? A. At one side of 
 Blackhorse-lane. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 355 
 
 Q. Was it the same niglit ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. What night did you understand it was ? A. I understood from 
 Leary it was the same night that I had left them, that they had gone 
 out.) 
 
 Q. What more did he say was done afterwards ? A. He said, he 
 ran up stairs, saw the person ringing the bell, and tripped the legs 
 from under him. 
 
 Q. I forgot whether you said he gave any account of what became 
 of the blunderbuss ? A. He said, that after tripping the legs from 
 under the man, they took away the arms that were in the house. 
 
 Q. But what became of the blunderbuss he had ? A. I understood 
 from him, that he had left it with a person to be mended. 
 
 Q. Did you see Hart afterwards ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with Hart as to what passed ? 
 
 (CouKT. — Was Leary present ? A. No. 
 
 Then this is not. evidence.) 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant. — My lords, I do not wish to press it. But 
 here was a direction given by Hart, and I want to shew it was 
 followed up. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — I think it is not evidence unless Leary 
 was present. 
 
 Q. Do you know what became of the arms which were taken that 
 night ? A. Leary told me afterwards, when we were walking up 
 Blackhorse-lane and we came to a house, that it belonajed to a com- 
 mittee-man, and that the arms were lodged in a hay-stack belonging 
 to that man. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Do you recollect the day ? A. I do not, it 
 was either of a Monday or Tuesday. 
 
 Q. Was it the Monday or Tuesday after the meeting ? A. No.) — 
 He had a pair of woman's shoes, which he had mending and was 
 going home with them ; we went up Blackhorse-lane and we turned 
 into a house. There were some men sitting down, in a place where 
 they had drawn home some hay. Leary spoke to one of them, whom 
 he told me afterwards belonged to the place. He pointed out to 
 me the place where the hay had been, under which the arms had been 
 put. But the hay was not then in the place at that time we saw it. 
 He said the man told him a person came to take away the arms as 
 the hay was to be removed. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — You say there was no hay upon the place 
 where the arms had been ? A. There was not. Both the hay and 
 the arms were removed, for I could not see any. 
 
 Q. Do you say the prisoner told you the arms had been removed ? 
 A. He said, the man who owned the place told him that he gave 
 notice to the people to remove the arms, as he was to take away the hay.) 
 
 Q. You said the owner of the hay was a committee-man ? A. So 
 Leary told me. 
 
 Q. Describe the situation of the house ? A. The house was on the 
 right hand of the lane, but we went in at a gate, and when we entered 
 the gate, the house was on the left side. 
 
 Q. Did Leary tell you with whom he left the blunderbuss ? A. I 
 do not recollect. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you the place ? A. No. 
 
356 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. "Were you at any meeting, after the meeting at Stoneybatter ? 
 A. I was, at Nolan's in Drury-lane. 
 
 Q. Were you at any other ? A. I was at Toole's, the upper end of 
 Cork-street, where I was taken. 
 
 Q. Did you know there was a meeting there ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did you suppose it to be a meeting of Defenders ? A. It was : 
 after the army had been after some of them, I saw Murphy, who had 
 been taken up and was afterwards let out. 
 
 Q. But did you ever tell any person, that there would be a meeting 
 at Toole's in Cork-street ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Whom ? A. Mr. Cowan and Alderman James. 
 
 Q. You told of this meeting ? A. I told them of it before. It 
 was after I gave my information that these persons went to Toole's. 
 I knew they were to meet there to be out of the way. Dry and 
 others were to meet — but I had given informations of them before, 
 and it was settled that I should be there. 
 
 Q. You talked of a meeting at Nowlan's ? A. Yes : in Drury-lane. 
 
 Q. Who was at that meeting ? A. Coffey was in the chair ; Dry, 
 Turner, Cooke, Hart, Lewis, Kennedy, and Flood. 
 
 Q. You have seen all these people at different meetings of Defen- 
 ders before ? A. I had not seen Lewis — Leary was not there. 
 
 Q Do you recollect any particular conversation with Hart there ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lords, I object to this evidence. The wit- 
 ness has sworn that Leary was not present, and therefore no conver- 
 sation can be evidence. 
 
 Mr, Prime- Serjeant — I have the authority of this court for this 
 evidence upon the former trial. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — That came out upon the cross-examination. 
 
 Q. When did you discover all you have told, and why, and to 
 whom ? A. I told it to Mr. Cowan in Grafton-street. 
 
 Q. Why did you tell it ? A. In consequence of what Hart told 
 me. 
 
 Q. What was that ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — I object to that question. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant. — This is not to affect the prisoner. Surely 
 the witness may tell what was his motive. 
 
 Court — Tlie private conversation between him and Hart was 
 objected to upon the former trial, and refused to be admitted upon 
 the direct examination. It afterwards came out upon the cross-exa- 
 mination. Any motive or avowal by Hart in the absence of Leaiy 
 is not evidence. 
 
 Q. When was the meeting at Toole's? A. On the Saturday 
 after. 
 
 Q. AVas there any general proposal of any kind made at Nowlan's ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally I object to that. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain We are of opinion, that all acts done 
 
 at general meetings are evidence ; but the private declaration of an 
 individual, not communicated to the body, or at all adopted by it, are 
 not evidence. 
 
 Q. Was there any general jiroposul made to the meeting? A. 
 Ct)flfVy wanted to know what number of Defenders were in Dublin, 
 thai they might have officers. 
 
THE DEFENDEUS. 357 
 
 Q. Was there any money collected? A. None, but twopence a 
 piece for the beer that was drank. 
 
 Q. Was there any proposal, or demand for money at Plunket- 
 street ? A. I was asked for sixpence. 
 
 Q. For what pm-pose ? A. To buy powder. 
 
 Q. Was there any money given ? A. I said I had none. Kennedy 
 gave a shilling ; I laid it down and took up sixpence and gave it to 
 Kennedy. 
 
 Q. What brought you to Plunket-street ? A. Brady and Kennedy 
 brought me there. They said they were Defenders. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Was there any signal made use of ? A. No ; 
 there was not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. You have sworn that you believe in God. Have you made any 
 declaration to the contrary ? A. Never. I was at a meeting with 
 Galland, John Burke, and Le Blanc, who would wish to persuade 
 me that there was no Savioui*. But I never heard any one say, or 
 deny, that there was a God. 
 
 Q. And you always, I presume, have held a contrary doctrine ? 
 
 CouKT. — He is not bound to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — In the case of the King v. Taylor, Peake's N. P., 
 as witness was asked as to his belief in Jesus Christ, that was not 
 thought a proper question. But to ask him as to his belief of a God 
 is a legal question. 
 
 Q. You said you were taught to believe in the Protestant religion, 
 and that there was a Saviour ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Have you always, and do you yet adhere to those opinions ? 
 A. These men whom I mentioned before, had with their doctx-ine 
 almost persuaded me, that there was no Saviour, but I saw since 
 through it. 
 
 Q. You mentioned the names of Galland and John Burke — why 
 did you not mention the Christian-name of Galland ? As you are a 
 Christian, do you not know the christian name of Galland ? A. I do 
 not know. 
 
 Q. Are there not two persons of that name ? A. There are ; the 
 man I speak of was an engraver. 
 
 Q. You have seen through all their false doctrine — how long 
 have you been converted ? A. Since that time, three quarters of a 
 year. 
 
 Q. Was it since you gave information to Alderman James, or 
 before ? A. It was before. 
 
 Q. You were a Chi-istian before you went to Alderman James? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Is that the truth ? A. It is. 
 
 Q. You were bred a carver and gilder ; A. I was. 
 
 Q. To whom did you serve your time ? A. I was bound to Mr, 
 Robinson in College-green. 
 
 Q. Does he now live in Capel-street ? A. I have seen the name 
 over a shop there, but I do not know whether he is the man, or 
 owner of the shop. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe, that the Jack Robinson, who formerly lived 
 
358 TRIALS OF 
 
 in College-green and the Jack Robinson in Capel-street, is the same 
 person ? A. I believe so. 
 
 Q. Have you never seen him in Capel-street ? A. I might, but 
 not in that shop. 
 
 Q. Do you not know, as a gilder, every man of eminence in that 
 line, keeping a shop ? A. I do not recollect ever seeing at that place 
 the name of Robinson up, only that time. 
 
 Q. Do you believe there are two Cowan's carrying on the same i 
 business in Dublin ? A. There are ; himself and his son. 
 
 Q. They live in one house ? A. As I hear. 
 
 Q. If there were another, would you not hear of it? A. I 
 believe so. 
 
 Q. And by the same rule would you not know, if there were two 
 of the name of Robinson ? A. I have heard, he is the same person, 
 
 Q. How long did you live with him ? A. About three years. 
 
 Q. How long were you bound to serve him ? A. Seven years. 
 
 Q. Then you served only three out of seven ? A. That is all. 
 
 Q. You were a confidential servant to him ? A. I was an appren- i 
 tice to him. 
 
 Q. He had always a good opinion of you as an honest and fair 
 young man ? A. I cannot say he had at one time, or he would not 
 have done what he did. 
 
 Q. What was that ? A. He gave me a good horse-whipping. 
 
 Q. He never made any charge upon your integrity ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. What Avas the charge ? A. There were Avomen who used to 
 work at the gilding business over the front shop, and the men at 
 carving in the room over that up stairs. There were some small 
 frames missing. Mr. Twigg and one Ryan, wei'e called up to the 
 gilding-room, and had some conversation ; Mrs. Robinson called me to 
 go to the master for a shilling, and I understood that afterwards Twigg 
 informed him I was listening. I said I was not ; they brought 
 me up and charged me with taking those things. I denied it. Mr. 
 Robinson brought up a rattan with a ferrule upon it, and he laid on 
 me. In the evening Mrs. Robinson brought me some supper. I could 
 not take it at the time and got my things and went away. I went to 
 a woman who had nursed me, and the people in the house not hearing 
 me, I slept in the out-hoxise all night, and Avhen the men went out in the 
 morning, I told the woman what happened between me and Jack 
 Robinson. 
 
 Q. Was that the only charge against you ? A. That was all. 
 
 Q. Do you foi'get the punch-ladle, Mr. Lawler ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Were you ever charged with stealing a punch-ladle from Cham- 
 pion ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Were you never charged with stealing a punch-ladle, which i 
 your mistress sent by you to a silversmith ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You are an excellent workman ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. What made you leave Robinson ? A. In consequence of that 
 leathering. 
 
 Q. How soon after you left Mr. Robinson did you go to England ? 
 A. After serving the remainder of ray time to Williamson in Grafton- 
 street I went to Gallagher, he having spoken to me before I was out 
 of my time. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 359 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Did Robinson assign your indentures ? A. 1 
 was informed he ran away.) 
 
 Q. You went to England ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. And was a member of the Corresponding Society ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you honour that society with the name of Lawler ? A. No. 
 
 Q. What then ? A. With the name of Wright. 
 
 Q. What Christian name ? A. William Wright. 
 
 Q. What was your motive for changing your name ? A.I had 
 listed in the 29tli regiment of foot. 
 
 Q. How long did you remain with that regiment ? A. About a 
 month. 
 
 Q. Y''ou were an attested soldier. A. I was. 
 
 Q. By vii'tue of your integrity, Mi*. Wright Lawler, when you 
 deserted, did you not break the oath you had taken ? A. I do not 
 know what oath I took. But I took one. 
 
 Q. After you had deserted you went into the Corresponding Society 
 by the name of Wright ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where did it usually meet ? A. One division met in Bishops- 
 gate-street. 
 
 Q. Was that the division you belonged to ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did they meet in the day, or in the night? A. In the evening. 
 
 Q. Is not Bishopsgate-street one of the most public sti'eets in 
 London ? A. It is a wide street. 
 
 Q. And a great thoroughfare ? A. There are a great many pass 
 there ; but Cheapside is more public. 
 
 Q. After you deserted you went to London to conceal yourself? 
 A. I did live there. 
 
 Q. You went there publicly ? A. I cannot say publicly, because 
 there was not one in a hundred who knew me. 
 
 Q. Did you walk the streets publicly, or go in a sedan chair to the 
 Society ? A. No, nor in a hackney coach. 
 
 Q. You have led a remarkable life since you came to Dublin ? A. 
 An honest life ; I never cheated any man. 
 
 Q. How long is it since you were wounded ? A. The Philanthropic 
 Society, Burke, Le Blanc, Flood, and several more were together : a 
 man belonging to Ringsend, I can't think of his name, was in custody 
 in a watch-house, and they agreed on a meeting to go there and take 
 him out, which we did, and one Thompson, who had a hanger, cut 
 me, when I went in. 
 
 Q. (By the Court Was he a man of the watch ? A. No : one of 
 
 the Society.) 
 
 Q. Who instituted that Society? A. I acquainted Burke I had 
 made up my ten. 
 
 Q. Were you not the root from which it sprung ? A. I made up 
 my ten. 
 
 Q. Who made the proposal for the rescue ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Were you armed as well as the rest ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. With what ? A. Pistols. 
 
 Q. How many ? A. Four. 
 
 Q. How many ball cartridges had you at that time? A. Not one. 
 
 Q. Were there any shots fired that night ? A. There was a pistol 
 fired. 
 
360 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Who fired it ? A. Am I to answer ? 
 Court. — You are not bound to criminate yourself. 
 Q. Do you know who fired the pistol ? A. I do. 
 Q. Do you choose to answer ? A. If your lordships think I am 
 bound to criminate myself, I will answer. 
 
 Court. — You are not bound to answer to criminate yourself. 
 
 Q. Was the prisoner taken out of the police-house that night ? A. 
 I did not see him that night, but I heard he was taken out. 
 
 Q. When you heard the shot, you scampered otF? A. I did not ' 
 scamper off. 
 
 Q. Wliy did you leave the place ? A. Because I was cut in the 
 hand. 
 
 Q. Who generally acted as president of the Philanthropic and 
 Telegraphic Societies ? A. Sometimes one and sometimes another. 
 
 Q. Did you know a man of the name of Lawler there ? A. I 
 believe I did. 
 
 Q. Who was treasurer ? A. I was to one division. 
 
 Q. On your oath was not the Philanthropic Society instituted 
 originally for the purpose of reading, and were there not subscriptions 
 for the purpose of buying a library ? A. It was to act as a Philan- 
 thropic Society, that was the name they put on it, as lovers of 
 mankind. 
 
 Q. Were they to murder one part of their fellow-subjects ? A. 
 They were all ready to do what the Telegraphic would do. 
 
 Q. Was not the Philanthropic Society dissolved in consequence of 
 a sanguinary proposal made by a person ? A. The Philanthropies 
 were to meet at Nowlan's on the 23d of August, the same day the 
 Defenders were to meet in Cork-street. 
 
 Q. You were a member of both societies — which were you to meet 
 that day ? A. I went to Dry. 
 
 Q. You went to the Defenders? A. After I went there. Dry, 
 CoiFey and Kennedy went with me to Nowlan's. 
 
 Q. Did you not leave the Philanthropic Society because they would 
 not do an injury ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Was not that society instituted for the purpose of improvement? 
 A. Burke and Le Blanc proposed reading, writing and learning 
 French, whichever they chose, and they subscribed to buy papei* — 
 but it was a cloak, for if any one came in, they could do nothing to 
 them, as they were only learning to read and write. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — They Avere to learn French? A. They were. 
 
 Q. Was it through Le Blanc ? A. He was to have taught it.) 
 
 Q. You were treasurer to this society? A. Yes: to the Pliilan- 
 thropics ; one part of it. 
 
 Q. Were you ever examined as a witness in a court of justice 
 before the trial of Weldon ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Never in England ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Was there ever a charge exhibited against you in England ? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the transaction of the Dog and Duck ? A. 
 There is not a man in England, who would not give me a good 
 character as to that. 
 
 Q. Were you ever charged with stealing a watch ? A. Never. 
 
THK DEFENDERS, 3Gl 
 
 Q. With stealing anything ? A. But by Robinson. 
 Q. Did Galhigher throw out any imputation as to integrity ? A. I 
 do not recollect that he did. 
 
 Q. Did you never hear, that he made any charge upon you ? A. 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Did neither he, nor his wife ? A. They did not : after I left 
 him, he gave me a great quantity of goods, and Mrs. Gallagher said 
 it was better to keep a trotting horse than a gilder, he used so much 
 coals and candles. 
 
 Q. Was there any charge of cruelty exhibited against you in that 
 family ? A. I never did any act of cruelty. 
 
 Q. Was there no charge made against you ? A. No. If I did, I 
 do not think he would give me a stroke of work. 
 
 Q. Were you never charged with putting out an old woman's eye ? 
 A. There was a small bottle of eye-water, and it was said thei'e was 
 spirit of turpentine put into it. I was innocent of the charge. 
 
 Q. You have said the prisoner was not present at Plunket-street ? 
 ' A. I did. 
 
 Q. What part of Stoneybatter, was the meeting in ? A. The 
 corner of Arbour-hill. 
 
 Q. Is it not at this side of the Maypole ? A. I do not know 
 where the pole is. 
 
 Q. There was an oath proposed to a person unknown, did you 
 never see him after ? A. Never to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Did you before ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Did you ever enquire his name ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Had you seen Leary that evening before ? A. Not to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Q. Did you see him that evening after ? A. In the course of the 
 week after. 
 
 Q. But after the meeting broke up did you see him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. He was a little in liquor ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You were near the door — how near was he to you? A. I 
 do not know whether he was in the room at the time the oath was 
 put. 
 
 Q. And you do not know, whether he heard the oath put ? A. 
 No. 
 
 Q. Nor whether he saw the signs you mentioned? Will you swear 
 he was in the room at the moment the oath was taken ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You did not hear the oath ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How came it that you heard what Hart said, and did not hear 
 the oath ? A. Thei'e were two windows in the room and some got 
 into the windows to prevent people from looking in, and some got 
 round him and the stranger. 
 
 Q. You were armed ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Where did you carry your arms ? A. My sword was under my 
 coat, and pistols were in my pocket. I was desired to bring them 
 there. 
 
 Q. They were concealed ? A. They were. 
 
 Q. Did you take them out ? A. I opened my coat to shew them, 
 
 Q. Did every one in the room see the arms ? A. Hart did, and 
 several saw the arms, because I opened my coat and shewed them. 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 j 
 i 
 
362 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. "Was tliere any person armed but you ? A. They said, they 
 were not. 
 
 Q. You believe Avhat they said ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. There was a man there armed with a fiddle ? A. There was a 
 fiddle playing in the house ; I think it was up stairs. 
 
 Q. Not in the room where you were ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Where was the house broke open, that you spoke of? A. On 
 one side of Blackhorse-lane. 
 
 Q. Was that matter ever made public ? A. Not as I saw. 
 
 Q. No reward by the owner of it ? A. Not as I saw. 
 
 Q. Did you ever make any enquiry about it, or the name of the 
 person whose house it was ? A. No, I did not enquire. The day 
 Leary and I was out, he shewed me a house at the right hand, where 
 they had been. There Avas a gate opposite to us, and they went over 
 that gate to the house. 
 
 Q. You did not mention a word of this upon your direct exami- 
 nation ? A. I was not asked as to that. 
 
 Q. You were sworn to tell the whole truth? A. I told nothing 
 else. 
 
 Q. When you appeared upon the former trial, did you say a word 
 about this house — did you, or did you not ? A. I did not, but I 
 knew it. 
 
 Q. Did you say anything upon the last trial, anything of what you 
 have stated, Avhen you mentioned that Burke was expelled from the 
 College ? A. I said, I belonged to the society. 
 
 Q. But did you say anything as to Burke's proceedings ? A. No, 
 I was not asked. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything upon the last trial, respecting his 
 sacred Majesty ? A. How, as to Weldon. 
 
 Q. No ; but respecting the King ? A. I do ; Weldon told me 
 when I took the test, that if the King's head was off to-morrow, there 
 was an end of our allegiance. 
 
 Q. Did you not say there was a time you thought little of killing 
 the King? A. At the time the oath was put. 
 
 Q. How often have you tendered the oath yourself? A. What 
 oath ? 
 
 Q. Have you not been in the habit of administering oaths ? A. 
 At the times the Philanthropic met in High-street, there was some 
 little boys carrying about the books. I swore them not to divulge 
 the secrets of the society, nor withdraw themselves from it. 
 
 Q. Were they members of it ? A. They were. 
 
 Q. Did you ever administer an oath, not to give evidence against 
 any of the society ? A. Burke swore the ten, but I do not remember 
 what the oath Avas. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Did you swear those little boys ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect swearing one of these boys with a pistol to his 
 breast ? 
 
 The witness did not answer. 
 
 Q. Have you sworn against any of these little boys ? A. I do 
 not recollect that I did. 
 
 Q. Will you swear you did not ? A. I cannot swear that. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 363 
 
 Q. You can swear the facts without an intention of remembering 
 what you swear to ? 
 
 Witness did not answer this question. 
 
 Q. But you do not remember, whether you have SAvorn against 
 these little boys, or not ? A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. I ask you this, have you not sworn a great deal that you do 
 not remember ? A. I swore a great deal at the Philanthropic Society. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Do you mean what you swore here, or your 
 I information before the magistrate ? A. No ; but what I swore at 
 the Philantlu'opic Society. 
 
 Q. Have you not sworn a great deal before the magistrate in your 
 information, that you do not remember this day ? A. I do not think 
 I ever swore Brady, or Kennedy, or Flood, or Coffey to that. 
 
 Q. You gave information before a magistrate ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. You swore to them : now do you remember, as you sit upon 
 the table, everything you have sworn in those infonnations against 
 i Leary ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Or what you have sworn against any of them ? A. Yes, I do 
 • recollect. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the name of every person you swore against ? 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. Now mention the names of the little boys to whom you admi- 
 nistered oaths ? A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Recollect the names of the little boys, you swore ? A. There 
 is one lives in Castle-street — there was a good many, and I did not 
 know their names at that time. 
 
 Q. Did you ever swear a Philanthropic, a Telegraphic, or a De- 
 fender, never to give evidence against any member ? A. At the 
 Telegraphic Society, Bui'ke and a gi-eat many more were present — 
 one of the men wanted to swear the members present, and went down 
 and brought up a book : two or three were sworn, and he desired me to 
 take up the book and swear, but as I had it in my hand, they desired 
 me to stop, for they would not admit the oath to go round. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the trial of Jackson in this country ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. You recollect a particular witness of the name of Cockayne 
 upon that trial ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. I ask yon on your oath, do you know of any design against the 
 life of Cockayne "'' A. There was Le Blanc the Frenchman, the 
 night before Jackson's prosecution, and a man who lived in Capel- 
 street, belonging to the Philanthropic, knocked up against my window. 
 My wife got up, and asked who was there ? They desired me to put 
 on my clothes, and if I had any weapons, to bring them out. I did 
 so. They told me we should stop Cockayne from appearing against 
 Jackson. We went to a house at Stephen's-green, in the way leading to 
 Leeson-street, where he said Mrs. Jackson lived — he desired us to wait 
 till he came back. He went in, and when he returned, said Cockayne 
 had been there, but was gone. He then went for Wallei-, and brought 
 him : We were walking up and down the street better than two 
 hours, waiting for Cockayne. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — W^iat was the name of the other man ? A. 
 I do not recollect ; he lived in Capel-street. We got a glass of punch 
 before we went to the green. 
 
364 
 
 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Who went into the house ? A. Le Blanc. We went afterwards . 
 to Henry-street, to a house which Le Blanc pointed out, where he I 
 said Cockayne lodged up stairs, and said he would get in over a little 
 glass-case : he desired us to walk up and down the street, till he went 
 for Waller. He and Waller returned. After we walked back and for- 
 ward for some time, and seeing no light up stairs, he thought Cockayne 
 had not come there. We were for two hours and a-half. Le Blanc 
 said, if he could see him, he would take him out of the way, to 
 prevent his appearing. But if he was killed, and the court should 
 know it, the informations he had given could be read ; but if we 
 kept him, and he did not appear, Jackson would be acquitted. 
 
 Q. You were present, and one of that party that went first for the ,. 
 purpose of assassinating the man, and afterwards determined to keep i 
 him confined ? A. I do not say we went for that purpose. 
 
 Q. You were one of the party ? A. There were four of us. 
 
 Q. Mention their names ? A. The man who lives in Capel-street, 
 the left hand side, he is a coachmaker ; Le Blanc and Waller, who 
 works at Jackson's foundery in Church-street, and myself. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant — Whereabouts in Capel-street does this 
 man live ? A. He lodged in Capel-street with his mother, on the left 
 side, in a gate-way. 
 
 Q. What is his mother's name ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. What part of Capel-street is it in ? is it between Essex-bridge 
 and Mary's-abbey, or near where the lottery is drawn ? A. I cannot 
 say. 
 
 _ Q. You know where the lottery is drawn ? A. Yes : it is this 
 side of the lottery. 
 
 Q. Where did Le Blanc live ? A. In Golden-lane. 
 
 Q. He was an embroiderer ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — You mentioned that at the meeting in Stoney- 
 batter. Hart said aloud, the object was to get arms to assist the 
 French ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was Leary present ot that time, or not ? A. I cannot say.) 
 
 Q. (By one of the Jury — You say, that Hart desired such as 
 had not arms, to go home and get arms ; therefore, I conceive you 
 were the only person armed, and the others went home for the pur- 
 pose of getting arms ? A. I was the only person armed, that I know 
 of. Hart desired them to go for arms, and not finding them return, 
 he desired those who remained, to put their hands upon the table.) 
 
 Q. How many remained ? A. About fourteen. 
 
 Q. How many went away ? A. At the time the young man was 
 sworn, there were twenty in the room. 
 
 Q. Then there were but six who went for arms ? A. When Hart 
 desired those who remained to lay their hands on the table, I beckoned 
 to Walsh and he came out, but said, he had a naggin of punch to 
 pay for. I went home and was afterwards informed, that they were 
 out. 
 
 Q. Was the prisoner at Stoneybatter that night ? A. He was 
 there. 
 
 Q. Was he present at the time, the oath was sworn upon the 
 table ? A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Was the prisoner ever sworn as a Defender ? A. Not as I 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 365 
 
 know of, but whenever we met in the streets, he used to make signs, 
 and shake hands as Defenders do. 
 
 Q. But you never heard him sworn ? A. Never. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, I omitted to examine the witness as to 
 the papers : upon the former trial, his evidence went to show they 
 were found upon Kennedy, but nothing more. 
 
 Court Examine him. 
 
 Q. How often have you seen these papers before ? A. Very often. 
 
 Q. Can you take upon you to swear, who wrote these papers ? A. 
 To the best of my belief, it was Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see Hanlon write ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Can you swear whose writing they are from having seen any 
 ■person write ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Is there any private mark upon these papers ? A. I would 
 know them anywhere. 
 
 Q. Is that an answer ? A. I described them to Alderman James, on 
 account of their being much tumbled. 
 
 Q. I ask you, have you any private mark upon these papers ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen them in the possession of any other ? A. 
 In the hands of Coffey. 
 
 Q. Did any one else see them ? A. George Lewis. 
 
 Q. Will you swear this is the identical paper, which was in the 
 hands of Weldon, which you saw in the hands of Kennedy, and in 
 the hands of Coffey ? A. The very paper. 
 
 Q. From what mark, can you say that ; and that it is not a paper 
 wrote by the same person ? A. I took particular notice, at the time 
 'Weldon swore me, of the hand the papers were wrote in, and that 
 they were damaged. 
 
 Q. K the same man, who wrote these papers, wrote duplicates, 
 and that they were damaged, would you swear to them ? A. I believe 
 these are the papers. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General Upon what occasion did you see the 
 
 papers in the hands of Coffey ? A. Sunday 23d of August — when 
 we were at Dry's in Cork-street — Coffey swore George Lewis upon 
 them, and Kennedy put them in his breeches' fob. 
 
 Alderman James sworn. — Examined by Mr. Saurin. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect having received information of any papers 
 t being in the custody of any person ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. From what person ? A. From the witness who is just gone off 
 the table. 
 
 Q. Of what papers ? A. He told me of the Defender's oath, that 
 I would find it 
 
 Mr. M'Naley My lords, I object to this. If the magistrate took 
 
 down the information, the writing should be produced 
 
 Witness I had a written memorandum of it, but do not know 
 
 what I did with it. I gave a copy of it to Mr. Carleton, and gave 
 him directions to search Kennedy's fob for a particular paper. 
 
 Mr. Saurin What day were those informations given ? A. I 
 
 believe on the 27th or 28th of August last. 
 
 I Q. Did you ever issue a warrant to apprehend Lawler himself ? 
 A. No. 
 
366 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Do you know anything of his being apprehended ? A. He 
 came on Saturday, 29th of August, for I was particular in taking a 
 memorandum of that, and gave me information of several Defenders. 
 
 Q. Do you know the circumstances of Lawler's being apprehended ? ' 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. What were they ? A. He came to me on Saturday evening 
 and asked my advice or opinion 
 
 Court. — This private conversation is not evidence. 
 
 Mr. Solicit OR- GrENERAL. — My lords, where it is necessary to 
 shew, that the witness came in voluntarily. 
 
 Court. — That appears already from the testimony of the witness i 
 himself. 
 
 Q. Where was it that Lawler was apprehended ? A. I believe at 
 Crumlin, I was so fatigued myself after the severe duty that week, 
 that I sent to Messrs. Godfrey and Atkinson to arrest the people 
 assembled at Crumlin. 
 
 Oliver Carleton, Esq., sworn Examined by Mr. Kells. 
 
 Q. Did you receive any directions from Alderman James, with 
 respect to Kennedy ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lords, I submit that no evidence can be given 
 with regard to Kennedy, who is not upon his trial. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain Recollect the tendency of this exa- 
 mination. The witness gave an account of these papers, that he saw 
 Coffey swear Lewis to these papers, and that Kennedy took them up, 
 and put them into his fob. Surely if it appears they were found 
 there, it will be some evidence of the identity of these papers, to go to 
 the jury. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, there is no evidence that the prisoner 
 was sworn upon these papers. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General The only object of Mr. Carleton's 
 
 testimony is to let in these papers to be read. What effect they may 
 have is another question. 
 
 Q. Where did you find these papers ? A. In the fob of Kennedy's 
 breeches. 
 
 Q. How came you to search there ? A. By the particular directions 
 of Alderman James. 
 
 Q. These are the papers ? A. They are. 
 
 John Atkinson, Esq., sworn. — Examined by Mr. Ruxton. 
 
 Q. Did you hold any office in this city ? A. Yes, sir, constable of 
 the south division. 
 
 Q. Did you get any directions in August last to apprehend any 
 person ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did you execute those orders ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Whom did you apprehend and where ? A. I went to Crumlin 
 and apprehended live people, Lawler was one of them. 
 
 Q. You took him by the directions of Alderman James ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By the Court.) — Was it so far as Crumlin ? A. It was near it. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 Q. Crumlin is in the county of Dublin ? A. I believe so. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 367 
 
 William Finnegau, sworn — Examined by Mr. Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q, Where did you live in August last ? A. In a place called the 
 Blackquarry-road, in the neighbourhood of Stoneybatter : near hand 
 to it. 
 
 Q. There is a road intervening between your house and Blackhorse- 
 lane ? A. There is a lane, but it does not go through, I am nearer 
 Glassnevin than Blackhorse-lane. 
 
 Q. Was your house ever robbed ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. About what time ? A. I do not know : it might be in August, 
 I the beginning of the month. 
 
 Q. There were some arms taken out ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. Have you a bell in your house ? A. I have. 
 
 Q. Mention what happened at the time of the robbery ? A. It 
 was on Sunday night, that I am certain of, though the witness said it 
 was on Monday or Tuesday. The first thing that alarmed me was 
 [throwing stones at a window ; I got out of bed : they threw so hard 
 against the window, I was afraid of opening it. They then broke the 
 pannel of the door, and I desired the woman to ring the bell. 
 
 Q. Where is the bell situated ? A. In the yard, there is a rope 
 Ithi'ough the house, and the woman rung it from withinside. 
 
 Q. Were there arms taken ? A. A brass-barrelled blunderbuss 
 and a fusee and a couple of pistols. 
 
 Q. What is become of your nephew that was in the house that 
 night ? A. I do not know : he made examinations of that : I saw 
 him swear the examinations. 
 
 Q. He swore to the arms ? A. I do not know, I was not present, 
 when the examinations were drawn. 
 
 Q. The arms were produced to him ? A. No, they wei'e produced 
 to me. 
 
 Q. Did you hear, during the time of the robbery, any person com- 
 plaining of the ringing of the bell ? A. Wlien I went out, the door 
 being broken 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — I object to this as illegal evidence. 
 
 Q. Did you hear any conversation going on, while the robbery 
 « was committing ? A. Not while the robbery was going on, I did 
 not. 
 
 Q. Did you hear the persons say anything ? A. One of the persons 
 asked me, why I rung the bell. I said the reason was to prevent 
 ; myself from being robbed. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. You say it was a woman was ringing the bell. A. It was. 
 
 Q. Had she lived with you any time ? A. She had. 
 
 Q. Who else was in the house ? A. A little boy and my nephew. 
 
 Q. Where was the boy ? A. In bed. 
 
 Q. Where was the nephew ? A. He was up, and threw the 
 blunderbuss out of the window and it was broke, which displeased 
 them. 
 
 Q. The blunderbuss that was broke was yours ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. Then the door was not broke open by a blunderbuss? A. No, 
 but by the axletree of a cart. 
 
668 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q, Who was in the room with tlie woman who rung the bell ? 
 A. She was in the kitchen. 
 
 Q. Was your nephew ill-treated that night by any person ? A. No. 
 
 Q. His heels were not knocked from under him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. He never rung the bell that night ? A. No, he did not. 
 
 Q. What night was this robbery ? A. Eleven o'clock on Sunday 
 night. 
 
 [The papers were then offered to be read.] 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lords, these papers are not evidence to go to 
 the jury. They stand in a very different situation from what they 
 did, when they were read upon the former trial, or I would not make 
 the objection, because I consider myself bound to submit to every 
 rule laid down by this court. It does not appear that those papers 
 were ever in the possession of the prisoner — ^that tliey were ever shewn 
 to him, or ever read in his hearing. It does not appear, that these 
 papers and the prisoner were, in any one instance, ever together. I 
 conceive, that the rule of evidence with respect to papers is this. If 
 the paper be found in the possession of a man, it becomes evidence 
 to go to the jury to consider for what purpose he had it in his posses- 
 sion. Or, if the paper be proved to be in the hand-writing of the 
 prisoner, then after proof of that, it may be I'cad in evidence against 
 him. But if you recur to the evidence of Lawler, he has not presumed 
 to say, that these papers were in the hand- writing of Leary. He saw 
 the prisoner at Stoneybatter ; there was a paper laid upon a book, 
 and something said, which he does not know, but it does not appear, 
 that either of these was the paper laid upon the book. Therefore, 
 without going into the argument at large, I submit these papers 
 ought not to be read. If it did appear, that these papers were at the 
 meeting at Stoneybatter, the objection might be weakened. But 
 there is no evidence of that, nor that they were read, so that the 
 prisoner did not know of their contents. And no papers are ever 
 read against a prisoner, unless there be some evidence, that he knew 
 their contents, and assented to them. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant — My lords, I conceive that these papers 
 ought to be read upon two grounds. The principle upon which you 
 have already determined one or two points of evidence goes directly 
 to determine the admissibility of these papers, independent of the 
 ground upon Avhich they were originally offered. The principle upon 
 which the general acts of a body are admissible against an individual 
 of that body applies to these papers. The witness says he was sworn 
 upon these papers. The signs were then communicated to him ; and 
 upon a meeting between him and the prisoner, there was a communi- 
 cation between them of one or more signs, particularly the sign of 
 pressing the thumb upon the back of the hand. The ground upon 
 Avliich these papers were offered is as explanatory of what was said by 
 Hart, acquiesced in by the prisoner, and acted upon that very night. 
 The next ground upon which I conceive it to be admissible, even if 
 the general ground were out of the case, is this : These papers were 
 brought forward in support of the consistency of the witness Lawler, 
 to show that he had at different times made the same declarations — 
 that he pointed out these papers as being in the possession of Kennedy, 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 369 
 
 and the same principle which induced the court to let us into evidence 
 of the place where the papers were found, calls upon the court to 
 look at the papers themselves. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General,. — My lords, these papers wei'e produced 
 at a meeting of Defenders. Dry, Coffey, and Kennedy met at Cork- 
 street. Kennedy produced the papers, gave them to Coffey, who 
 swore Lewis and Kennedy put them up. This goes to show the 
 
 system and design among them, and 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — I am of opinion this is evidence to 
 go to the jury, in the point of view mentioned, namely, as evidence of 
 the intentions, schemes, and designs of the persons associated under 
 the name of Defenders ; and if we stop this evidence it would interrupt 
 the train of such discovery. It cannot be denied that there is evidence 
 to go to the jury of the proceedings of Defenders. The jSrst meeting 
 was in Barrack-street, where an oath was administered to the witness, 
 and certain private signals communicated to him to be introduced by ; 
 the prisoner was acquainted with them and communicated them to the 
 witness ; and thei'efore the papers must be material to develope the 
 real design of the papers. It is necessary that the jury should be 
 convinced what the schemes of the Defenders were, and there is 
 nothing more proper to show that than these papers, because the 
 jury may infer that every man associated must have been privy to 
 their designs, provided they think the papers are the same, and of 
 that they will be reminded hereafter. 
 
 [The papers were then read. Vid. Indictment.] 
 
 Mr. M'Nally now addressed the court and jury, as counsel on part 
 of the prisoner ; and commenced the defence of his client by regretting 
 the disadvantage under w^hich the unfortunate man necessarily 
 laboured, from being deprived of that great aid which all men derive 
 who have the good fortune of being supported by the extraordinary 
 and brilliant abilities of his friend Mi*. Curran, assigned with him, as 
 counsel for the prisoner ; but who, in consequence of a particular 
 event, was precluded from appearing in his pi*ofessional chai'acter, on 
 the present most serious and interesting occasion. But though 
 standing alone, he said he would rouse his mind from depression, 
 though weak and fatigued, yet he felt consolation from the cheering 
 recollection, that the presiding judges, before whom he pleaded for 
 the life of the prisoner, were not less eminent for their constitutional 
 principles and legal knowledge than distinguished and I'evered for 
 their patience and humanity. From the jury also he received comfort. 
 Some of them were personally and intimately known to him — with 
 the characters of all he was acquainted ; and he was convinced in 
 addressing them he submitted his thoughts to fellow-citizens, from 
 whose wisdom and good nature he had to expect every favour and 
 indulgence, and from whose verdict the prisoner had to expect such 
 a decision as would be consistent with minds equal to the arduous 
 task of discriminating between right and wrong, between truth and 
 imposition, between affected candour and hypocrisy, and of adducing 
 from the evidence before them such a conclusion as would fully satisfy 
 their own consciences and be entitled to the approbation of the public, 
 for whom they were trustees. 
 
 2 B 
 
370 TRIALS OF 
 
 He here adverted to the statement which had been made on the part 
 of the crown by the Attorney- General, on opening the case ; which, 
 he observed, set foi'th a number of facts that did not afterwards appear 
 in evidence, and which, of course, the jury were bound to expunge 
 from their recollection when they came to contemplate upon the verdict 
 which they should pronounce, and which, by the rules of justice, must 
 result solely from testimony given in proof by the witnesses, and 
 credited by the jury. He hoped it would not be understood, that in 
 making this observation it was his intent to insinuate in the slightest 
 manner any imputation that could afiect the known candour of the 
 first law officer of the crown. No ; on the contrary, he considered 
 himself called upon, having this opportunity, publicly to declare, that 
 humanity to the prisoner, as Avell as zeal to the crown, had on every 
 prosecution as well as the present marked that gentleman's professional 
 conduct, and bore honourable testimony to the benignity of his mind. 
 
 There were, he said, some principal objects to which he would 
 presume to solicit the attention of the jury. These objects were : — 
 First, the oath they had taken; second, the pre-eminence of the 
 great and sacred character who prosecuted ; third, the approver 
 examined as a witness ; and, fourth, the nature of the evidence which 
 that approver had divulged in support of that indictment. 
 
 He then proceeded to the first point he had proposed to submit to 
 the jurors' consideration, and it called for their most serious attention, 
 he meant the nature of that oath which they had taken when called 
 upon as triors of the prisoner. They would recollect they had sworn 
 that " they would well and truly try and true deliverance make 
 between their Sovereign Lord the King, and the prisoner at the bar, 
 and a true verdict give according to the evidence" — they would 
 recollect that on swearing thus, they had appealed to the Almighty 
 God to punish them if they did not do impartial justice. To find 
 according to the evidence was the obligation of the oath. Now what 
 does finding according to the evidence import ? It imports no less 
 than this, that a jury should not find a verdict of gviilty on any proof 
 that was not convincing, cleai", and strong as holy writ ; that was not 
 free from imputation and divested of doubt. The evidence on which 
 a man's life depended, on which a man's life might be the forfeit 
 should be unclouded, unshadowed by uncertainty and clear as the sun 
 at mid-day ; for evidence is that which puts the matter in issue on the 
 ground of cei'tainty ; where thei'e is a doubt in a criminal case there 
 cannot be a conclusion of guilt against a prisoner, but there must be 
 a verdict of acquittal. Unless every man on the jury is convinced of 
 the prisonei''s guilt they are ruled by their oaths, they are compelled 
 by their consciences, they are called upon by the rigid principles of 
 justice, they are directed by the imperative voice of mercy to acquit. 
 It was for this reason that by the old law pi'isoners accused of capital 
 crimes were not allowed to exculpate themselves by the testimony of 
 witnesses — the rule, however, was weak and dangerous, though the 
 motive assigned to it was merciful and benign. No man, says Lord 
 Coke, should be convicted but on clear and indubitable evidence, and 
 that is the reason, continues his lordsliip, that prisoners were not 
 allowed witnesses by the common law. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally now gave a short statement of the indictment against 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 37 1 
 
 ilie prisoner. By tliis indictment, he observed, the prisoner stands 
 
 ;i charged with two distinct species of high treason, the most enormous 
 
 ' offence tliat the hiw recognizes, or that the subject can be guiUy of. 
 
 ;| The first charge is that "the prisoner at the bar with other false 
 
 I traitors did associate themselves for the purpose of aiding and assisting 
 
 ■ the persons exercising the powers of government in France, &c., 
 
 waging war against the King, and did compass and imagine the death 
 
 of our Sovereign Lord the King, with an intent our Lord the King 
 
 I to kill and put to death." The second charge against the prisoner is 
 
 that " he was adherent to the King's enemies giving them aid and 
 
 comfort," and both these offences were declared to be liigh treason 
 
 ' by statute the 25 of Edward the Third, and that statute expressly 
 
 j required that the party accused of high treason, be thereof upon 
 
 ! sufficient proof attained of some overt or open act by men of his 
 
 j own condition — that is by a jury. 
 
 ( As to the first of these charges it did not appear to him, that any 
 ! overt act of compassing and imagining the King's death had been 
 j: given in evidence ; and therefore he would not now urge any argu- 
 ". ment upon the law on that species of treason, or recapitulate those 
 which on a former occasion he had submitted to the opinion of the 
 court. On the occasion he alluded to, his objections had been over- 
 1 ruled by the court, and certain it was, the judgment of the court was 
 supported by the highest authorities ; authorities to which he must 
 submit, though not convinced ; they merited every respect from him, 
 and it was his dvity to bow with reverence to their judgment. Here 
 I he again urged that the law respecting the first charge in the indict- 
 l. ment need not be stated to the jury ; for that though the indictment 
 spread its terrors over six skins of parchment, exhibiting no less than 
 sixteen specific overt acts of treason, yet not one of those overt acts 
 applied to the first charge, and he believed the learned judges who 
 presided, would be of opinion, that only two overt acts had relation to 
 the second, for which reason, he would take into contemplation only 
 the second count, and those overt acts which appeared to support it. 
 As to the law on the second count or charge in the indictment, it 
 struck him, that the species of treason set forth therein, contained 
 two branches. First, " being adherent to the King's enemies in his 
 realm, and giving them aid and comfort therein." Secondly, " being 
 adherent to the King's enemies, and giving them aid and comfort 
 elsewhere," that is, out of the realm. The offence charged upon the 
 prisoner, and on which the overt acts were grounded, was clearly the 
 first branch of the second species of treason, " being adherent to the 
 King's enemies within the realm," but he submitted to the court, that 
 there was no evidence to shew an adherence to the King's enemies 
 within the realm ; for there was no proof before the jury, that the 
 King had enemies within the realm. Perhaps it might be asked, are 
 not rebels the King's enemies ? Are not traitors foes to their Sove- 
 reign ? The answer is, that in contemplation of law, persons of such 
 description are not the King's enemies. No man owing allegiance to 
 the Crown, whether natural allegiance, — which included all his 
 Majesty's subjects, or local allegiance, which included alien residents, 
 were in contemplation of law, the King's enemies : the enemies meant 
 by the statute of Edward the Third, were to be understood the subjects 
 
372 TRIALS OF 
 
 of foreign powers, with whom the nation is at open war, and there 
 did not appear a scintilla of evidence in the course of the trial to 
 shew that the prisoner at the bar had adhered, or given aid, or had 
 abetted such foreigners, or held the least connection, or the slightest 
 intercourse with them within or without the realm. The charge he 
 observed, was novel, though the law that provided against it was 
 ancient. He doubted if there was a precedent to be found in the 
 books more recent than the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He had seen 
 one in the state trials of that reign, but it was so loose and faulty, as 
 not to be an authority. Adhering to the King's enemies without the 
 realm was a more frequent offence, but no such offence was set forth 
 in the indictment, nor no overt act of such an offence. The overt 
 acts of this species of treason as described by the books, were, writing 
 and sending letters of intelligence to the enemy, supplying them with 
 provisions, or warlike stores, or rather articles of a similar nature, 
 not one of which overt acts appeared in the indictment. If, however, 
 the court were of opinion, that the second count was well laid, he 
 submitted, that the only facts, in proof, that applied to it, were those 
 which tended to establish the fifth and eight overt acts, and that he 
 would observe upon those facts and the credit they deserved, when he 
 came to speak on the evidence given by Lawler the approver. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally now called the attention of the jury to the second 
 object^ — the prosecutor. Who was the prosecutor ? The prosecutor 
 was the King. A character sacred, pre-eminent, and paramount to 
 all others known to the constitution. A character to whom, politically 
 speaking, the law attributed immortality and i")erfection — a character 
 so elevated, that a great constitutional writer, after mentioning his 
 prerogatives and his revenues, ascribes to him so great and so trans- 
 cendant a nature, that he adds, the people are led to pay him the most 
 awful respect, and to look up to him as superior to other beings. 
 But that respect and reverence due to the Sovereign, must not inter- 
 fere with justice ; must not influence a jury, bound by their oaths to 
 determine by the intrinsic weight of evidence, not by influence arising 
 from extrinsic causes. The strongest proof a jury can give of loyalty 
 and affection to their Sovereign, is to administer impartial justice to 
 his subjects. The jury would keep in their minds that his Majesty 
 did not come forward, on the present occasion, to prosecute for an 
 offence against a private individual ; but for an offence the most 
 henious that the law recognized ; for no less an offence than an intent 
 to destroy his own sacred life, by bringing war and desolation on the 
 land. The horror that arose from the contemplation of such a crime, 
 nay from the intimation of it, must strike a deep and sensible impres- 
 sion into the mind of every man — but he conjiired the jury again to 
 recollect the nature of the oath they had taken ; to judge solely from 
 the evidence, and that to determine fairly tliey must divest their 
 hearts of all passion, and their minds of all bias ; they should neither 
 act from feelings nor from influence ; and that without a dereliction 
 of both, however worthy the motives might be which guided them, 
 they could not decide conscientiously, the issue they were sworn to 
 try, and truly to determine, between the King and the prisoner. 
 
 Look now on the Avitness — turn your eyes on William Lawler, the 
 approver, by his own confession, he stands before you a principal 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 373 
 
 actor in the perpetration of a catalogue of crimes the most atrocious 
 and shocking. Contemplate for a moment the transgressions of this 
 miscreant, in which he would implicate the prisoner and consider his 
 conduct seriously before you give credit to his evidence. In what 
 character does he come forward ? In that of an approver, that is a 
 culprit, who being charged with a crime or crimes, for the purpose of 
 saving his own life accuses another. It cannot be very material to a 
 man of such a desci'iption whether he convicts the innocent or the 
 guilty. A wretch who by his own confession attempted murder 
 against the law, which would have little compunction in committing 
 murder under the sanction of the law, when safety to his own life 
 was the reward. He said under the sanction of the law, because an 
 accomplice is clearly a competent witness, whether he be indicted or 
 not, and for this plain reason, that if the evidence of such a man was 
 entirely rejected, many crimes of the most enormous nature might be 
 perpetrated with impunity. But there existed a general rule of law 
 in such cases, to which the courts had always paid a tenacious regard, 
 and which must strongly imj)ress the jury, when stated to them by 
 the learned judges on the bench, it was this — that unless some fair 
 and unpolluted evidence was produced, corroborating and communi- 
 cating a verisimilitude to the testimony of the accomplice, that testi- 
 mony ought to have no weight with the jury. This was a rule of 
 benignity, and he would venture to assert that the law reporters could 
 produce but one exception to it ; a solitary case reported by Mr. 
 Leech, of a trial before Judge Bullei', in England, and that exception 
 did not forcibly apply here, for in that case, the witness on whose 
 single testimony the jury found a verdict of guilty, was not impeached 
 for the commission of any oflence, saving that individual one in which 
 he had been 2i particeps criminis. He did not appear pied with an 
 accumulation of black offences ; attempts at murder and conspiracies 
 for assassination. The jury would not forget Lawler's confession of 
 faith. No, they would remember that though he swore on the Holy 
 Evangelists he at present believed in the existence of a God, he yet 
 had acknowledged the impious fact that his faith in the Trinity had 
 been shaken. That though he had been heretofore instructed in tiie 
 Protestant religion, yet he acknowledged he had been seduced from 
 the principles of Christianity to the sceptical opinions of deism. But 
 impiety of a much grosser nature than deism would be proved upon 
 him, by witnesses of credit. It would be proved that ]\Ir. Lawler 
 had not only openly and repeatedly declared his disbelief in the 
 Trinity, but in the existence of any of its members ; that he had 
 denied the divinity of each of the three divine persons ; that his 
 creed admitted of no deity, of no translation of the soul, but recog- 
 nized only one melancholy opinion, that " death is eternal sleep ;'' 
 that man, like the inanimate tree, lies where he falls, sinking to all 
 eternity into his native earth, incapable of renovation or ascension 
 into future life. Such was the diabolical religion, at least such had 
 been the infamous professions of Mr. Lawler ; the Atheist and 
 approver. Such was the infernal instigation under which this un- 
 believing witness had acted ; whose call, like that of St. Paul's, was 
 not from infidelity to the true faith, but who like Julian the apostate 
 renounced the precepts of the true faith to become an infidel and a 
 
374 TRIALS OF 
 
 persecutor. To him may be well applied an epigram made ou a 
 similar character ; on a wretch who having long professed and disse- \ 
 minated the precepts of Atheism, received the Sacrament, in order j 
 to qualify for a place — 
 
 *' Who now can think recanting odd, 
 
 To shun a present evil 
 That wretch who oft' denied his God, 
 
 Has now denied the Devil." 
 
 Such is the delineation of Mr. Lawler's religious theory ; let us now 
 take a slight view of his moral practice. Out of his own mouth the 
 jury should judge of his morality — mark his confessions in the course 
 of his cross-examination. He had been discharged, or he had ran 
 away, for he did not positively say which, from his first master, Mr. 
 Robinson, on a suspicion of theft. He had confessed having taken 
 an oath of fidelity when he enlisted, and having premeditately broken 
 that oath when he deserted ; of having solemnly sworn not to prosecute 
 the unhappy deluded youths with whom he associated, and whom he 
 had seduced into clubs, and of having perjured himself by the breach 
 of that obligation. It was true he had not acknowledged an intent to 
 commit murder, for when asked who fired the pistol into the watch- 
 house in the attempt to rescue, he refused to answer that question, 
 well knowing the consequence. But, was not that refusal a tacit 
 confession of the crime ? Was it his innocence of the charge, or his 
 prudence to avoid punishment for the crime, prevented an answer ? 
 The jury were the judges of that, and the jury would apply this 
 refusal to his credit. On the question of assassination he was more 
 candid, for with audacity and composure he had coolly and deliberately 
 stated having been one of four who had lain in wait to put Cockayne 
 to death. So that this witness, on the credit of whose testimony the 
 life of the prisoner at the bar depended, stood himself before the jury, 
 self arraigned, and pleading guilty to charges of one intended murder, 
 two perpetrated perjuries, and a premeditated assassination ! Could 
 his credit support such a weight of accumulated guilt ! The act of 
 discharging a pistol into the Avatch-house might, no doubt, by the 
 ingenuity of argument, be palliated and softened down to manslaughter 
 in case a life had been lost. It might be construed into an act of 
 passion with malice prepense ; but the intended assassination of 
 Cockayne had none of these qualities, the intention there was 
 blackened with the most implacable malignity, and had the fact been 
 accomplished would have amounted to murder of the most aggravated 
 enormity. Mark his coolness, recollect his deliberation, previous to 
 the commencement of the diabolical deed. He was awake in the 
 night, and, in the night he arose and marched forth armed for the 
 purpose of assassination! Would the jury credit such a Avitness as 
 this ? A miscreant leprosied with crimes, surrounded Avith fears for 
 his OAvn personal safety. A miscreant Avith the gallows in his front, 
 the pillory in his rear, and his pardon suspended over his head, on 
 condition that lie should support, by his testimony in court, the 
 information he had sworn to before a magistrate. 
 
 It may be ansAvered, and indeed it Avas thrown out on a former 
 occasion, that the jury Avould give Mr. LaAvler credit because he Avas 
 consistent. Is not every liar that fabricates a scheme of villainy for 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 375 
 
 reward, or for impunity, consistent ? Is it to be presumed that a man 
 of Ml". Lawler's docility and cunning would not corroborate, on the 
 tabic, in the face of the court, what he had previously promulged and 
 sworn before Alderman James ? Every man knows the melancholy 
 story of the unfortunate youths who suffered an ignominious death in 
 London, from the perjured evidence of Salmon and Geoghegan. 
 These wretches swore away the lives of their fellow-creatures, to 
 acquire rewards given by statute, on conviction for highway robberies, 
 and their evidence was always consistent — so was the evidence of 
 Titus Oates and his associates, and so w^ould the evidence of conspi- 
 ratoi's, such as Mr. Lawler, ever be found. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally having concluded his description of the approver, 
 proceeded to observe upon such parts of the evidence as, he said, 
 appeared material in the case, if anything could appear material 
 coming from the mouth of such a man ; and as he thought the whole 
 should be narrowed to what had been sworn to have passed at the 
 meeting at Stoney batter, he would confine himself to the facts 
 respecting that meeting. 
 
 It had been sworn by Mr. Lawler that the prisoner had been there, 
 at a meeting of a society calling themselves Defenders, but it did not 
 appear that he ever attended that society a second time, a circumstance 
 which must impress the juiy with a belief that, if he had been even 
 there, he was disgusted with their proceedings, and dropped their 
 association. He was not, however, answerable as a traitor, even if 
 he had been present at one meeting and saw and heard what passed, 
 for he only concealed what he had seen or heard, without showing an 
 approbation by a second visit, and to conceal treason except in case 
 of an actual conspiracy to kill the King, was not treason, but only a 
 misprision ; a crime of a different species from that on which the 
 prisoner was indicted. 
 
 The most serious part of the overt acts, he conceived, to consist 
 in taking those oaths or obligations which had been read from the 
 papers found by Mr. Carleton, the peace officer, on the person of 
 Kennedy. But was there any evidence to support that overt act — 
 was there any proof that the prisoner had taken oaths, or either of 
 them ? Not an iota of proof ! — not so much as a reasonable presump- 
 tion ; for there was not proof that he had ever read those papers, or 
 had even heard them read, or was present when any oath of any kind 
 was administered. Neither was it in proof, before the jury, that the 
 papers which lay on the table in the house at Stoneybatter contained 
 an oath or obligation, nor was it pretended that such paper was one 
 of those which had been admitted to be read in evidence by the 
 court. A person named Hart, as sworn by the approver, had put his 
 hand upon a paper that lay on the table ; but the approver declared 
 he did not hear anything that had passed on that occasion, so that 
 for aught he knew nothing had passed, and if anything of consequence 
 did pass, or if any thing treasonable was said, it was equally clear 
 that the prisoner had not heard or seen anything ; but it appeared 
 he was in liquor — it appeared he was so situated that he could neither 
 hear what was said nor see what was done. 
 
 He then urged that no intimacy had appeared by evidence to have 
 subsisted between the approver and prisoner on any other occasion. 
 
376 TRIALS OF 
 
 He had not been on the party at the watch-house when the approver 
 was wounded in attempting to commit murder. He had not been 
 called upon to join the conspirators who premeditated the assassination 
 of Cockayne ; in short, it did not appear he had been at any meeting 
 but one at Stoneybatter ; and there was no satisfactory evidence 
 before the jury, even from the approver himself, that any ti*eason was 
 agitated at that meeting in the presence or hearing, or by the assent 
 of the prisoner. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally now touched on the difference of the statute law in 
 cases of high treason, in England and Ireland. In England, he 
 observed, the prisoner would not have been put upon his defence, but 
 must have been acquitted on the evidence given for the crown ; for 
 there one witness, though perfectly credible, as well as competent, 
 could not affect a prisoner charged with high treason — there the 
 legislature, jealous of crown pi-osecutions, and tenacious of the subject's 
 safety, had prudently and cautiously provided, that to sanction and 
 support a conviction of high treason, there must be two credible 
 witnesses to one overt act, or one credible witness to one overt 
 act and a second witness to another overt act of the same species 
 of treason.* The Irish statute had not adopted a similar provision, 
 and as the parliamentary law of England had no force, and he 
 trusted never would have force in Ireland, he could not urge the 
 English statute as an authority, though he would venture to state 
 it as containing a principle wise and salutary, and which should 
 have weight with the jury as being derived from the common law, 
 which was the same in both countries. The principle was this that 
 one man's oath was as good, in point of law, as another's, and there- 
 fore in perjury there must be two witnesses at least to convict ; for 
 the oath of the single person charged was as strong and conclusive 
 evidence of his innocence as the oath of the person charging was of 
 his guilt. This rule applied, with gi'eat effect, to cases of high 
 treason, because as every man living within the realm, under the 
 protection of the laws, owed in return for that protection allegiance to 
 the crown, which lie could not transfer or divest himself of, that oath 
 of allegiance ballanced in the scale of justice the oath of any single 
 witness. Every man is presumed to have taken the oath of allegiance ; 
 the jury must presume that Leary, the prisoner, had taken that oath, 
 and that oath should not only counterpoise, but preponderate against 
 the oath of Lawler whose credit was impeached, shaken, nay, sapped 
 and overturned by his own confession of having broke the oath of 
 attestation, which he had solemnly sworn, when he enlisted and 
 promised true faith, allegiance, and loyalty to his Majesty. 
 
 When the jury took these observations into their consideration he 
 trusted they would not convict a man upon evidence impeachable and 
 inconclusive ; evidence which could only raise a presumption of guilt. 
 If any treason appeared he submitted it was but constructive treasonf 
 — what was construction ? The best lives that England ever boasted, 
 the greatest characters that ever served their country and supported 
 
 * See Memoir of Rov. Wni. Jackson. 
 
 t See the speech of Eiskine on constructive treason. Trial of Lord George 
 Gordon, Howell's St. Tr. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 377 
 
 its constitution, had been sacrificed to construction. It was a boundless 
 ocean witliout limits. Should a jury venture on it, they would find 
 themselves without compass, without sail, without rudder, without 
 chart to guide them — they would be tost by the undulation of every 
 wave and sported with by every storm ; till striking upon some sunken 
 rock, or di-awn into some whirlpool, they and their bark would be 
 dashed to pieces, or foundering sink into a treacherous abyss ! It 
 was on certainty a jury would found their verdict ; certainty resulting 
 from the conviction of unimpeached evidence. Construction was at 
 best a scheme of chance, a wheel from whence the properties, the 
 liberties and lives of the most upright and honourable might by 
 degrees be drawn at the will of the directors, till every man of worth 
 and estimation in the country dropped off as by lottery. 
 
 Mr. M'Naley concluded by again adverting to the heinousness of 
 the crime charged upon the prisoner, and described to the jury the 
 dreadful sentence and horrid execution which would inevitably succeed 
 a verdict of conviction. It was, he said, the cruel invention of savage 
 and barbarous times ; the most severe that stained with blood the 
 black page of the criminal code. It was the vindictive sentence of 
 irritated and insatiate vengeance, not the punishment of pure and 
 unimpassioned justice. It was not confined to death, but extended 
 to torture, mutilating and disfiguring the dignified image of God, after 
 whose form we were taught to believe man was made. But it went 
 further than even the destruction of the offending object, it visited 
 the sins of the father upon the innocent children, by tainting and 
 corrupting the current of their blood ; by marking them like the 
 devoted offspring of the first murderer, turning them abroad wanderers, 
 outcasts and vagrants over the face of the earth. 
 
 Samuel Galland, sworn Examined by Mr. M'Naely. 
 
 Q. Do you know William Lawler, alias Wright ? A. I know him 
 by the name of Lawler. 
 
 Q. From the general character which he bears in life, do you 
 consider him to be a man, who ought to have credit upon his oath, 
 giving evidence in a court of justice ? A. I do not. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. In Crane-lane. 
 
 Q. Of what business are you ? A. I am a grocer, but served my 
 time to a hair-dresser. 
 
 Q. How long have you lived there ? A. Since I was two years 
 old. I am near twenty-one years there. 
 
 Q. How long have you been a grocer ? A. Two years. 
 
 Q. Were you ever a member of a society ? A. I was of a reading 
 society. 
 
 Q. What was the name of it ? A. It had no name, it was so young, 
 before I left it. 
 
 Q. What did you read ? A. The papers of the day : Chambers' 
 Dictionary. 
 
 Q. It was not politics you read ? A. Not at all. In the course of 
 conversation it might ; but it was not the principal part. 
 
 Q. Was it not the principal motive for introducing those clubs ? 
 A. Not when I was a member of it. 
 
378 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. When was this club established ? A. Some time after Lawler 
 came from England, he asked me, was there any society in Dublin ? 
 I said, No : — He said, there might be some reading society, and he 
 asked me to become a member, and my brother, and others. 
 
 Q. Were you ever a member of any other society ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Was not your brother a member of the Philanthropic ? A. I 
 believe he was. 
 
 Q. Was not he a member of the Telegraphic ? A. No ; I believe 
 not. 
 
 Q. You say you are a grocer ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You deal in spirits ? A. No : tea, and sugar only. 
 
 Q. Was your brother a member of that society which expired so 
 soon ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear of such a society, as Defenders? A. I have 
 heard of them as a body, but not as a society. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe such a society exists ? A. I believe they 
 exist, when men have fallen sacrifices to it. 
 
 Q. What do you believe are their designs — were they not criminal ? 
 A. I cannot say — I should think they were criminal. 
 
 Q. Have the goodness to tell us, why you did not continue in the 
 society, as well as your brother ? A. I had not time, and I deserted 
 it, before it was dissolved. They were scrambling about a chairman 
 and secretary, and party matters, and there was no knowledge to be 
 acquired, but noise and confusion. 
 
 Q, Was Burke a member of that society ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Can you recollect the names of any others ? A. Not many. 
 There was myself, my brother, Lawler, an acquaintance of Lawler's, 
 one Strut, in short there was not many — twelve or fourteen. 
 
 Q. Did you know John Le Blanc ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. AVas he a member ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How long have you been acquainted with him ? A. Some time 
 after Lawler came from England. It was through Lawler, I became 
 acquainted with him. 
 
 Q. Did you know Leary ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you know Dry ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you know Weldon ? A. No ; I never saw him until his 
 trial. 
 
 Q. Do you know Brady or Kennedy ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you know Coffey ? A. I did know one Coffey. 
 
 Q. Did you know Flood ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Clayton? A. No. 
 
 Q. Lewis? A. No. 
 
 Q. Hanlon? A. No. 
 
 Q. Hart? A. No. 
 
 Q. You knew only Coffey ? A. That was all, and my acquaintance 
 with him was very slight. 
 
 Q. You were summoned upon the last trial ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Tell how you came to communicate what you knew of Lawler ? 
 A. I told it to Mr. Bates. 
 
 Q. Who is he ? A. A hatter in Parliament-street, who told it to 
 the attorney, I believe, who summoned me. 
 
 Q. Was Bates a member of any of the clubs ? A. No. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 379 
 
 Q. How came you to know that Lawler was to give evidence ? 
 A. I did not know, but I mentioned that I knew the man, and what 
 his character was. 
 
 Q. You thought Lawler was under a heavy charge, and it was 
 cruel in you to oppress him ? A. I did not, but said, I was sorry for 
 him. I told Bates again, when he heard that Lawler was turned 
 approver. 
 
 Q. You wished Lawler well ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And then when Bates told you that Lawler was turned informer, 
 this man whom you wished well, was such a man as was not to be 
 believed ? A. Bates sent to me, and I went to him, to Castle-street, 
 where he lives, he asked me how long I knew Lawler, I said, for 
 many years. Wliat do you know of him ? — I told him all I knew 
 about him, and then 1 was sent for by Flood. 
 
 Q. Who is he ? A. An attorney. And it is by that I am obliged 
 to tell what I have. 
 
 Q. Have you a good many friends that you are anxious for, whom 
 you would not believe upon their oaths ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Have you any other friend, who ought not to be believed upon 
 his oath ? A. I believe I have. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, I beg leave to suggest a question. 
 Whether the witness ever had any conversation with Lawlei*, 
 respecting his principles of religion ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. Tell the jury, what it was ? A. At his first coming from 
 England, I perceived he was a Deist, and denied that Jesus Christ 
 was the Son of God. I was shocked at it. He said, the only way to 
 become reconciled to it, was to read upon it. I said, it was a shocking 
 piece of business. But, said he, I will go further, for I deny the 
 existence of a God. Where, said I, do you think your soul will go 
 after you die ? — He answered, nowhere. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — How long did you continue in the society after 
 this ? A. Not long.) 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant It was after you were shocked by these 
 
 irreligious opinions, that you were anxious about him, and went to 
 Bates ? A. His belief is nothing to me : in his own breast let it 
 lie. 
 
 Q. You kept him company after this ? A. He came to my place, 
 but I never went to him. 
 
 William Ebbs, sworn. — Examined by Mr. M'Nallt. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. In Cathedral-lane. 
 
 Q. How long have you known Lawler ? A. About twelve 
 months. 
 
 Q. Where did he reside in that time ? A. In my house : he took 
 a lodging from me. 
 
 Q. Do you know of Lawler's having anything concealed in your 
 house of a remarkable kind ? A. Not till after he was appre- 
 hended. 
 
 Q. Had you occasion to make a search in his apartment ? A. On 
 my coming home to my breakfast, my wife told me, she saw Mrs. 
 Lawler go into the yard, and conceal something in the dirt-hole — I 
 Avent out immediately, and found two leathern bags, containing sixty 
 
380 TRIALS OF 
 
 musket balls. I never liad a bad opinion of him, till I saw them, and 
 I was then shocked. 
 
 Q. If Lawler swore that he had no ammunition or balls, would he 
 swear true ? A. No, certainly he would not. 
 
 Q. Have you ever conversed with Lawler upon the subject of the 
 Deity ? A. No, I had very little communication with him, though 
 he lodged with me. 
 
 Q. You have heard of his character ? A. I have. 
 
 Q. From what you know of the general character of Lawler, is he 
 a man that ought to be believed by a jury, giving evidence in a court, 
 of justice in a capital case ? A. I would not believe him upon his 
 oath. 
 
 Q. Were you ever a member of those societies ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Were you solicited to become a member ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. By Lawler. 
 
 Q. You did not become a member ? A. No, I did not choose it : 
 I asked him the intention of it ; he would not tell me till I was 
 admitted. He applied to me for a room in my house, for a society to 
 meet in, and I refused. I did not like him after that. His wife gave 
 me a pistol loaded with powder and ball. 
 
 Q. You have been summoned on the part of the crown and by the 
 prisoner ? A. I have five or six times, every day. 
 
 Q. Who summoned you to attend Weldon's trial ? A. The crown, 
 and I was not called upon. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney- General. 
 
 Q. How long did Lawler live in your house ? A. Twelve months 
 since he took the lodging first. 
 
 Q. Wlien did he go to live with you last ? A. Five or six months, 
 before he was taken up. 
 
 Q. During that time he followed his business ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. And maintained his family ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. And conducted himself well ? A. For a time he did. 
 
 Q. He was a member of those societies? A. I believe so. He 
 told me so. 
 
 Q. He was an active member ? A. I believe so, by his asking me. 
 
 Q. You heard his testimony this day and you were asked, if he had 
 sworn, that he had not balls or powder in his room he Avould have 
 sworn false. But if he did not so swear, but was asked, had he ball 
 cartridges would you disbelieve him ? A. There was both powder 
 and ball in the pistol. 
 
 Q. Do you know anything of rescuing a prisoner from the watch- 
 house ? A. I heard of it, he being cut. 
 
 Q. Was not that a long time ago ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. And if he swore, that a long time ago he had no cartridges, and 
 a long time after, you found balls in the house or the room, would 
 you think you ought to conclude, he had perjured himself? I need 
 not press you for an answer. 
 
 Q. At the time he was arrested, would you, if asked, say, that he 
 was not a man to be believed ? A. I would for this reason 
 
 Q. Give me your reason ? A. I would. He told my wife several 
 things from which she said he was a dangerous man. He never kept 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 381 
 
 the Sabbatli, for which I determined to get him out of my house. 
 When I came down clean for church, I used to see him working. 
 
 Q. Are there not many honest men, who work upon Sunday ? A. 
 There may : but I was asked my reason for not believing the man, 
 and I assign that as one among others. 
 
 Q. At that time, you had no other reason ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. Except what your wife told you ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You ground your opinion upon what you heard this day ? A. 
 Not by any means. 
 
 Q. You can have no interest in this business ? A. No, indeed, for 
 I have lost. 
 
 Q, By this man ? A. No, but by loss of time here. 
 
 Q. Then the evidence you give is not founded upon what he has 
 said this day ? A. No, I had this opinion some months ago. 
 
 Q. How long did he work upon the Sabbath from the time he came 
 to lodge with you ? A. Occasionally. 
 
 Q. How long had he remained ? A. Seven, or eight months. 
 
 Q. And why did not you turn him out ? A. I could not, because 
 he paid his rent regularly. 
 
 Q. Did he work from the time he came ? A. Occasionally he did, 
 and I gave him Avarning ; he took the lodgings for a year. 
 
 Q. But he did not stay a year ? A. He did not, but his furniture 
 is there still, and his rooms are locked, what can I do with them ? 
 
 Q. Did you speak well of this man, within this month ? A. As 
 to his pa)-, I might, and keeping good hours. 
 
 Q. Did you not speak well of him within these six weeks ? A. 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Q. Upon what occasion, did you say he kept his hours and paid his 
 rent ? A. I do not recollect. There were many called to my house, 
 but I w^as not at home. 
 
 Q. When did you first tell this, that he was not to be believed on 
 his oath ? A. I do not recollect, that I mentioned it to any one, 
 except sitting in court the former day. 
 
 Q. Did you never converse respecting him, after his being arrested? 
 A. I do not know that I did. 
 
 Q. And yet it should seem very natural that you should converse 
 about it. When did you first hear that he was a witness ? A. I did 
 not hear it till after Weldon's trial. 
 
 Q. Did you never hear of it till then ? A. I had heard of it, but 
 was not certain of it. 
 
 Q. Did you not mention it then ? A. No, I did not like to mention 
 it, because I thought it rather disrespectful to myself to have had such 
 a man in my house. 
 
 Nicholas Clare, sworn Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. No. 39, Townsend-street. 
 Q. What business are you ? A. A tailor. 
 Q. A master, or journeyman ? A. A master. 
 Q. Do you know William Lawler ? A. I do. 
 Q. How long ? A. About fourteen months ; the beginning of the 
 winter 1794. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had any conversation with him about his 
 
382 TRIALS OF 
 
 principles of religion ? A. In the winter of 1794, 1 belonged to the 
 Telegraphic Society ; I was at it three or four times, and there was 
 H meeting at which they talked of the Age of Reason by Faine, some 
 recommending it, others approving of it. Lawler said, I go further 
 than he does, for I deny any part of the Trinity, either Father, Son, 
 or Holy Ghost. 
 
 Q. How long were you a member of that society ? A. I quit it 
 immediately upon seeing there was a fellow of this opinion in it. 
 
 Q. On your oath did you quit it upon hearing the opinions divulged 
 by Lawler ? A. On my oath I did. 
 
 Q. From the knowledge you have of his character and opinions, 
 do you consider him a man to be believed upon his oath, gi vino- 
 evidence in a court of justice ? A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Give your reason. A. I should think a man, who denied the 
 three persons of the Trinity ought not to be believed upon his oath. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Saurin. 
 
 Q. You were of that society ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. When did you quit it? A. October or November 1794. 
 
 Q. Lawler is a much younger man, than you ? A. I do not know ; 
 I am about 32 years of age, and I do not know his. 
 
 Q. Did you read that book ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you read any other ? A. I did, and intended to make them 
 a present of a Dictionary of arts and sciences, I thought it such a 
 society ; but when I found he promulged such opinions and being a 
 leading man, I quit it, and was glad I did not give my books to them. 
 
 Q. Was Burke a member ? A. Thei-e was a Mr. Burke. 
 
 Q. Was Galland there ? A. I do not know him. 
 
 Q. Had you any other acquaintance with Lawler than what arose 
 from meeting him there ? A. Never. 
 
 Hei'e the evidence closed on the part of the prisoner. 
 
 George Cowan, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Attorney-General,. 
 
 Q. Do you know Lawler ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. How long ? A. Four or five years. 
 
 Q. Is he a man to be believed upon his oath in a court of justice ? 
 A. I never heard of an opinion to the contrary till this trial. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect his going to you in August last ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Tell the jury upon what occasion was that? A. He came to 
 me on Monday morning, 23d or 24th of August, and seemed to be a 
 good deal agitated. He came into the parlour ; he shut the door of 
 the parlour, and then opened his mind to me. 
 
 Q. What intercourse had he with you before that ? A. After his 
 coming fi'om England, he came to work with me ; he staid but a 
 short time, when he went to Gallagher's, South Great George's- 
 street, he worked in Gallagher's house and in his own lodgings. I do 
 not believe he worked for any one else. 
 
 Q. What passed when he shut the door ? A. He told me that he 
 wished to open his mind upon a matter that concerned him very 
 much ; that there was a conspiracy against the Protestants of this 
 country, which he wished to make known for my advice, what to do. 
 (Here Mr. Cowan asked, was Lawler within hearing, and being 
 
THE DEFENDF.US. 383 
 
 answered in the negative, he proceeded.) He then told me of the 
 societies he had been in. I do not recollect, that he mentioned the 
 London Corresponding Society. He mentioned the others, which he 
 mentioned here. I asked him, was he sworn a Defender ? He told 
 me, he was a sworn Defender, and there told me almost word for 
 word as he has done upon the table the two days he has been 
 examined. Upon my word, he has adhered to what he told me very 
 closely in the two examinations. 
 
 Q. Was there any one present ? A. There was not. 
 
 Q. Could any one hear ? A. There could not. 
 
 Q. Why not ? A. Because there was no person present. 
 
 Q. Was the door shut ? A. It was ; he shut it himself. 
 
 Q. What advice did he ask — did he make any proposal ? A. 
 When he heard the Protestants were to be put to death, that lay very 
 heavy upon his mind, he was a Protestant himself — in order to pre- 
 vent the mischief, if possible. 
 
 Q. Did he speak of any intention he had with regard to himself? 
 A. He did not. 
 
 Q. Until nov/ you never heard anything to impeach his character ? 
 A. Never. 
 
 Q. Do you know Ebbs ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Had yoi; ever any conversation with Ebbs ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. When ? A. Shortly after Lawler was apprehended. 
 
 Q. Upon what occasion did Ebbs appear to know that Lawler was 
 charged with high treason — or that he was a witness ? A. He 
 appeared to me to know that he was charged along with the rest. 
 
 Q. How did Ebbs express himself of the man ? A. He represented 
 him as a very honest industrious creature ; that he would pay his 
 rent the very day it became due ; that he and his wife appeared 
 extremely decent. I went up to the room to look for him before he 
 was taken up. 
 
 Q. Ebbs did not impress you with any opinion injurious to Lawler 
 and his family ? A. No, but the reverse ; he told me he was an 
 honest industrious man, and never was more sm'prised in his life. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. Ebbs said he never was more surprised than when Lawler was 
 taken up a Defender ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you of anything bad, which he knew of Lawler ? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Did he then teU you of what he found in the dirt-hole ? A. No. 
 
 Q. If you had a lodger of whom you had a good opinion, and that 
 he left bags of balls and slugs after him, would you not be surprised ? 
 A. I must tell you further. On Friday last, I saw Ebbs ; he 
 came to me in our hall of which he is a free-brother ; he said, he 
 wished to have the furniture taken away, as he was afraid his house 
 would be puUed down by the mob. Neither at that time, nor until 
 this moment did I hear him say anything against the man. 
 
 Q. The day of the convei'sation in the hall, was the day you re- 
 turned yourself a common council-man upon a minority of votes ? 
 A. It was the day of the election. 
 
 Q. That election has been set aside ? A. It has. 
 
384 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. Would you not change an opinion of a lodger, if you found 
 ammunition after him ? A. I might. 
 
 Q. Do you not think Ebbs had a right to change his opinion ? 
 A. No doubt but he might. 
 
 Q. Do you not think he was right ? A. Certainly. 
 Q. When you spoke to Ebbs, did you say anything respecting 
 religion ? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Then the character which Ebbs gave of Lawler was confined 
 to the points of industry and payment of rent ? A. It Avas. He 
 never mentioned his religion to me. 
 
 Q. Do you not think a lodging is as necessary to a rogue as to an 
 honest man ? A.I believe so. 
 
 Q. And therefore, it is necessary for a rogue to pay his rent, to 
 secure his lodging ? A. It is. 
 
 Q. A^^hat Lawler told you was consistent with what he told upon 
 the table ? A. He has told a little more here. 
 Q. Nothing less ? A. No. 
 
 Q. If a man laid down a jilan, which he intended to support by 
 evidence, Avould it not occur to him, as the first thing to be consistent ? 
 A. It might. 
 
 Q. Did you never hear of men being hanged upon the consistent 
 evidence of a conspiracy to convict them, for the pvirpose of procuring 
 rewards ? A. I never did hear of it. 
 
 Q. If you were of that malicious disposition, would you not com- 
 pose a train of lies to support your story ? A. I do not think it easy 
 to support a train of lies. 
 
 Q. But if a man gave information of certain facts before a magis- 
 trate, though that were false, would he not endeavour to support it 
 before a jury? A. He ought to do it, if they were truths. 
 
 Q. When a man swears to a lie in one place, it is his object to 
 make it appear as like it in another ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe that a man, Avho would swear to one lie in 
 one place, would swear to another in another place ? A. I should 
 suppose so. 
 
 Q. If he told a lie before the magistrate, would he not tell the 
 same lie here ? A. I think so. 
 
 Q. If he contradicted his informations, would he not be liable to 
 an indictment for perjury ? A. No doubt of it. 
 
 Q. If you had a good opinion of the consistency of LaAvler, why 
 did you ask, was he Avithin hearing ? A. I'll tell you my reason, 
 because I should be happy to tell everything Avith respect to the 
 prisoner, as to LaAvler. Lawler's wife came to me and told me, that 
 Ebbs wanted his rent — this was after LaAvler was apprehended. 
 I desired Mi-s. LaAvler to send Ebbs to me, and I Avould satisfy him. 
 The reason I did this was, that LaAvler should not understand, that 
 anything was done for him in consequence of any prosecution. I 
 gave money to pay Ebbs the rent, and Ebbs was paid the rent, and 
 he continued the furniture ever since. 
 
 Q. Then thei-e have been pecuniary services for Lawler's family ? 
 A. So far as that. 
 
 Q. HoAv are you to be re-imbursed? A. I could not think of 
 letting him Avant after the infoi'mation he gave me. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 385 
 
 Q. It was from motives of charity in your own hmnane breast, that 
 you advanced the money ? A. I did not say any such thing. 
 
 Q. Do you expect to be re-imbursed ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Do you expect Lawler will ? A. I do not know but he will. 
 
 Q. By what means ? A. By his livelihood. 
 
 Q. What ! do you expect that he will be let to live in the city of 
 Dublin ? A. I do not see what is to hinder him. 
 
 Q. Then you do not see as far as I do. Lawler has other expec- 
 tations ? A. I believe not, because in the presence of Mr. Kemmis, 
 he told me, he never expected anything. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe he is acting in expectation of his Majesty's 
 pai'don ? A. For what. 
 
 Q. For his oifeuces ? A. I do not know anything of them. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe he expects a pardon ? A. I do not believe it. 
 
 Q. I ask you again ; if he be guilty of the crimes, that he says he 
 is, do you not believe that he expects a pardon ? — Do you not believe 
 he is guilty ? A. I believe he is, and I tell you why. When I went 
 to England, in 1792, I got an order to pay him a sum of money — 
 £10. I went to look for him, and found he had changed his name ; 
 he came to me in the evening after, and told me he had enlisted, 
 which was the cause of changing his name ; and I went afterwards 
 to the same place, and the woman told me, there had been a party of 
 soldiei's looking for him. 
 
 Q. You had £ 1 to advance him ? A.I had. 
 
 Q. This was in London ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. You knew him there ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath do you know what brought him back ? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. You never encouraged him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You employed him upon his return ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. He went to you as his best friend ? A. He was glad to work 
 with me, as I have some of the best workmen from England. 
 
 Q. But he staid a short time ? A. Gallagher inveigled him from me. 
 
 Q. What was the £10? A. George Drury was guardian of this 
 boy and another, and was owner of certain rents. There was £50 
 a-piece coming to the boys ; and £40 had been paid to tliis man, and 
 £10 remained due. Drury requested I would pay him in London, 
 which I did. 
 
 Q. If Lawler or any other person had told you he did not believe in 
 a God, and afterwai-ds told you he had been guilty of the offences he 
 mentioned here, would you consider him to be a man to be believed 
 in a court of justice? A. I never heard anything against him until 
 this trial. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that to be answer to my question'? Why do 
 you evade it ? A. What is it ? 
 
 Q. If a man told you he disbelieved the three persons of the Trinity, 
 and confessed the crimes this man has told, would you take him to be 
 a man who ought to be believed upon his oath ? A. I must_ confess 
 it would shake my credit of him. Upon getting the information I 
 did I thought it my duty to myself, my country, and my king, to let 
 government be acquainted Avith it. 
 
 Evidence closed. 
 
 2 c 
 
386 TRIALS OF 
 
 Mr. Baron George Mr. M'Nally as you are the single counsel 
 
 for the prisoner, you are at liberty to observe upon the evidence if 
 you choose, in addition to what you have already argued. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally My lords, I feel myself much indebted to your' 
 
 lordships. I will just make one observation, which I omitted before.; 
 In all the evidence against the prisoner, with respect to conversations j 
 between him and Lawler, they are always stated without the inter- i 
 vention of a third person — all the conversation in Blackhorse-lane j 
 was private — without the privity of a third person who could disprove , 
 the statement. This is the only remark I wish to make, as I will not 
 trouble the gentlemen of the jury further, although I well know the 
 ability of the gentleman who is to reply to me. But I have seen the 
 jury take notes of the evidence upon which they will decide, not upon 
 the arguments of counsel. The jury are the judges of the life and 
 death of this unfortunate prisoner — charged with an offence of pro- 
 digious weight. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General spoke to evidence on the pai't of the 
 crown. He said, that the marked attention of the jury, during the 
 progress of the trial, and the laborious and anxious situation in which 
 their lordships had been placed, during the course of the longest ses- 
 sion of Oyer and Terminer that had been remembered in Ireland, 
 would render him unjustifiable, were he not to condense his observa- 
 tion within as narrow a compass as possible. He said, that it would 
 be his duty to impress two points upon the minds of the jury. 1st, 
 that the existence of a treason, such as was charged in the indictment, 
 had been established beyond controversy. 2dly, that there was 
 sufficient evidence to convince every reasonable man that the crime 
 was brought home to the prisoner at the bar. As to the first point, 
 it was a lamentable and notorious truth, which the evidence con- 
 firmed, not only by parol proof, but by written documents, found upon 
 the associates of the prisoner, and not attempted to be controverted, 
 that this rank and foul treason has not only existed, but had burst 
 forth into acts of most alarming outrage through many parts of 
 the kingdom; and upon the present occasion, we trace it under its 
 various and mysterious modifications to have had the same actuating 
 contagious principle which has diffused itself from France through 
 those seminaries of political mischief and disease, which, under the 
 appellation of societies, clubs, committees, and defenders, urged on by 
 French missionaries, have infected and endangered both Great Britain 
 and Ireland. 
 
 As to the rules of law, matured as they are by a series of judicial 
 determinations in the various cases that have been adjudged upon 
 the subject of treason, and the stat. 25 Ed. III. what you, gentle- 
 men, have heard from my learned friend (the Attorney- General) 
 and what you will hear from the wisdom and authority of the Court, 
 render it unnecessary for me to detain you upon that part of the case. 
 The meeting, associating, consulting, and confederating with a body 
 of men, leagued and united under the obligation of a deliberate oath, 
 to be true to the French Convention, and to assist the forces of the 
 French (at open war with the state) with an armed confederacy, in 
 case tlx'y should invade the kingdom ; llio enlisting of men into the 
 conspiracy, and the nightly arrangements for numbering and giving 
 
THE DEFENDEHS. 387 
 
 officers and discipline to tlie body, the subscribing money to purchase 
 ammunition, the phindering the peaceable inhabitants of the country 
 of their arms, for the avowed purpose of giving assistance to the 
 invaders, amount in themselves to a direct invitation, and encourage- 
 ment to the enemy to invade these, his Majesty's realms ; and are 
 plain overt acts of the treason in the two counts of the indictment, 
 namely, the compassing of the King's death and the adhering to his 
 enemies. Now in the body of evidence brought to substantiate the 
 charge, there is one prominent feature, which arises out of the oath 
 and catechism, which I consider together, as if they were one instru- 
 ment, each part throwing light on the other, and to which I call the 
 particular attention of the jury ; as from the internal and immutable 
 evidence arising from that instrument, from the manner in which it 
 appears to combine the principles of the confederacy, from the 
 authenticity which it has received, not only from the circumstantial 
 evidence, by which it was identified, but by which it was traced to 
 the fob of that associated Defender, on Avhom it was found, by aid of 
 the information of the principal witness, Lawler. It constitutes a 
 most important branch of the case, not only as an irrefragable proof 
 of the treason which teems through every line of it, but also that 
 from the previous description given by Lawler of its contents, and of 
 the person upon whom it was found, there is the strongest degree of 
 corroborating credit given to the whole testimony of that witness. 
 
 Of the instructions, and signals, which accompanied that initiating, 
 that ceremony of swearing, you have had a minute description, and 
 Lawler has proved that the pi'isoner was well acquainted with those 
 mysterious signals. He has also told you, that the first meeting of 
 Defenders, at which he saw the prisoner, was at Stoneybatter, and 
 that he, the prisoner, then appeared to him to be somewhat in liquoi*. 
 And here in conformity to those principles of moderation, and upright 
 candour which have distinguished the conductor of the present pro- 
 secutions, I am free to acknowledge, that the prisonei''s being some- 
 what in liquor, is a part of the evidence from which I ought not to 
 draw your attention, and from his manner of saying it. The witness 
 in mentioning that fact, shews that his mind is divested of any male- 
 volence, towards the prisoner. I will say, however, that if inebriety 
 was to be an excuse for outrage, there would be 99 atrocious criminals 
 in 100 of the lower order of the people of Ireland, Avho in truth, 
 might plead it in bar of their being convicted. That intoxicating 
 drug which is so unhappily and universally made use of in this country, 
 is the constant preparatory to everything that is desperate, amongst 
 those, who may not be sufficiently susceptible of being inflamed by 
 the wi'itings of the illustrious Thomas Paine, whose doctrines an 
 ingenious man has aptly called, the whiskey of infidelity and treason. 
 At that meeting at Stoneybatter, which I have mentioned. Hart, who 
 is proved to have been invested with the authority of a committee- 
 man, in the presence of the whole company, expostulated with a 
 person who was just introduced and appeared reluctant to be sworn, 
 and who desired to know, what was the object of the engagement, to 
 which Hart replied, in a loud voice: " The object is to take arms 
 from those that have them, that we may assist the French when they 
 land." And at the same meeting, Hart commanded all present, to 
 
388 TRIALS OF 
 
 lay their hands upon the table, and to engage on the virtue of their 
 Defender oath to attend on a future evening, that they might proceed 
 to plunder a house of arms. 
 
 Upon a subsequent interview between the witness and the prisoner ; 
 he, the prisoner, relates the circumstances of a robbery, that was 
 committed by him, accompanied by Hart and others, pursuant to 
 their engagements ; and the manner of breaking the liouse, the taking 
 of arms of a particular description, the ringing of a bell, during the 
 robbery, by some person within, and the exact geographical situation 
 of the house, are all related by the witness, from the account the 
 prisoner gave him. And the owner of the house that was robbed, 
 has been examined, and has confirmed that account in most of the 
 essential points : as to the arms taken, the bell ringing, the site of 
 the house, and the particular time and manner of the robbery, so as 
 to leave no room to doubt of the prisoner being involved in the 
 transaction. 
 
 The witness, Lawler, has undergone the most sifting scrutiny of 
 examination for two days, in the course of this, and a former trial. 
 That he was to have been a principal witness, has been publicly 
 known, and the course of the cross-examination, and the evidence 
 adduced by the prisoner, shew to demonstration, that the prisoner's 
 counsel have been thoroughly aware and instructed of the evidence 
 for the crown, branched out as it has been into such a variety of place, 
 time and circumstance. It is next to an impossibility, that any fabri- 
 cated tale of transactions so recent, involving so many persons, and 
 the series of so many facts could have escaped detection, or that any- 
 thing but consistent truth could have supported itself, without a 
 contradiction, either from the witness himself, or from some other 
 quarter. But nothing of that kind has been attempted or argued. 
 It has been indeed attempted, to shew however, that the witness is 
 divested of all sense of religion ; that he has been involved in many 
 crimes, and that as he is an accomplice in the crime, which he now 
 proves against another, he deserves no credit himself. Of the three 
 witnesses, who have been called by the prisoner, the two first, after 
 swearing to the irreligious sentiments of the witness, have acknow- 
 ledged that they themselves continued long in the same political 
 societies Avith the witness, who had come recommended from the 
 London Corresponding Society, a philanthropic admirer of that same 
 Thomas Paine, whose works were their principal study, and you, 
 gentlemen of the jury, ai'e the best judges which of tlae witnesses 
 have been the most pious of his disciples. But this, you cannot 
 forget, that after the time when Lawler was supposed to be arrested, 
 those two witnesses enquired for him, with the utmost solicitude of 
 regard and friendship for their old associate. But, Lawler afterwards 
 becaiiie a penitent and witness for the crown ! Whilst he was an 
 imreclaimed criminal, he was their friend ; but when, by his discovery, 
 he made atonement, lie is infamous in their eyes. Et liinc illce 
 lachrymce. Wliilst lie was a Defender, lie was virtuous and a man of 
 truth ; but now he has revolted from them, and is an infidel. As for 
 the third witness for the prisoner, it has been proved, that under the 
 same inij)ression as tlie other two, when first resorted to, and asked 
 for the witness's character, he then represented him, as a most honest 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 389 
 
 and industrious creature. This appears, from the evidence of Mr. 
 
 Cowan, who was called to the credit of the witness, Lawler, after his 
 
 credit had been thus impeached ; for it is remarkable, that this is the 
 
 only defence that has been attempted. Gentlemen, you have all heard 
 
 Mr. Cowan, and you know him, and if anything could raise a man 
 
 of his known worth in estimation and merit amongst his countrymen, 
 
 it would be his conduct on the present occasion. Mr. Cowan has told 
 
 you of the sedulous industry of Lawler, who worked for him at his 
 
 trade. He has told you of the voluntary disclosure made by him, at 
 
 a time when there was not a shadow of accusation against him. He 
 
 has mentioned to you his motives of conscientious remorse, and his 
 
 horror of intended massacre, and he says, that he has been uniform 
 
 and consistent from the first moment of his discovery ; and as an 
 
 instance of his present sentiments of Lawler, he has said that he 
 
 (Cowan) would employ him hereafter at his trade. 
 
 But the learned counsel then interi-ogated in a tone of some signi- 
 ficance. " What, sir, do you think that Lawler will be let to live in 
 Dublin," " If so," says the counsel, " I think I can see further than 
 you do." Grood God ! can any advocate be so hai'dy as to insinuate 
 that a witness who comes forward in aid of public justice, must do it 
 at the I'isk of his life ? Are we come to this ? Is terror to be huna- 
 out to prevent the investigation ot truth i And will any man dare, 
 in the face of this tribunal, to i-aise such a suggestion? 
 
 Here the court observed, that IMr. M'Nally was not in court, 
 which they regretted, for though the expressions made use of by him 
 had not excited the same ideas in their minds as in that of the Solicitor, 
 yet from the sense that might be put on them, it was necessary the 
 words should be explained. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General — I did not perceive that the learned 
 gentleman had gone out since I begun. I ask pardon for mentioning, 
 in his absence, what I had rather he was present to explain.* 
 
 It has been argued, that as this case must turn upon the evidence of 
 the single witness, who is an accomplice in the crimes of which he 
 accuses others, that no jury should credit him, and that no court 
 should sanction a conviction upon his evidence. I am well aware that 
 such an opinion was formerly contended for, and that even the com- 
 petence of such a witness has been strenuously argued against. But 
 since the case of Charnock,f who was tried soon after the Revolution, 
 before as great judges as ever sat in Westminster- Hall, no attempt has 
 been made to support such an opinion, and capital convictions upon 
 the evidence of a single accomplice have, in some late instances, been 
 
 Mr. M'Nally had left the court for the purpose of taking some refreshment, 
 and upon his return being informed of what had passed, explained, and said, his 
 meaning was that Lawler would be so covered with infamy that no'person in Dublin 
 would employ him, and therefore he must seek his bread elsewhere. This expla- 
 nation was deemed amply sufficient by the court, and the matter terminated to the 
 satisfaction of all parties. 
 
 t Charnock and others were indicted for conspiracy to assassinate Wm. III., 
 and the chief witness against them was Captain Porter, who was himself implicated 
 in the plot. He was the prototype in turpitude of Captain Armstrong of a later 
 period. Charnock insisted on his incompetency, but the court ruled that he was 
 a competent witness. Burnet seeks to implicate James II. in the design. See 
 12th Howell St. Tr. 1378 ; and also see Burnet, 2 vol. p. 171. 
 
390 TRIALS OF 
 
 sanctioned by all the judges of England as reported by Leach.* If it 
 were not so, many dark and dangerous crimes would go unpunished ; 
 for the perpetrators of dark crimes are seldom known by any but the 
 accomplices ; and more so in this country than any other, where noc- 
 turnal outrage has become familiar, and where convictions in most 
 instances could never be had through any other means than the dis- 
 covery of accomplices. And although a dictum to the contrary of 
 the opinion which I maintain may have derived new force by what 
 has lately fallen from an authority which every man must venerate, 
 I will take the freedom to say, that upon principles as sound and as 
 just as ever have been adopted in the law of evidence, and the inves- 
 tigation of truth, that a jury maybe well warranted to find a vei'dict, 
 and judges well warranted to sanction a conviction, even upon the 
 evidence of a single accomplice. 
 
 But this is not a case resting upon the evidence of a single accom- 
 plice ; for exclusive of the intrinsic weight, and consistency of his 
 evidence, here is a number of collateral, corroborative facts, arising 
 from the testimony of others, as to the finding the oath in the fob of 
 Kennedy, where Lawler had previously told it to be — the uniform 
 relation of the facts to James and Cowan, and the detail of the robbery 
 of Finegan's house of the arms. 
 
 Besides, that no general and unqualified remark can attach upon the 
 credibility of all accomplices. There are various gradations and shades 
 of criminality that might tend to discredit, but neither the laws of 
 God or man preclude the hope of exculpation by repentance, towards 
 which a fair, voluntary, and explicit disclosure of his guilt is the first 
 step to gain credit and reception to the penitent. And see how much 
 more strongly this argument will hold in cases of treason than any 
 other. It is of the peculiar essence of that crime that the intention 
 of the mind, manifested by ovei't acts, indicative of the intention, shall 
 be a completion of the guilt. But evil " into the mind of man may 
 come and go." And no one of sound sense will say that the man 
 whose deluded mind had been betrayed into such overt acts, Avho took 
 an early opportunity to revolt from his associates before they accom- 
 plished their horrid purpose, and from a principle of remorse disclosed 
 and prevented the completion of the mischief, shall, in point of moral 
 turpitude, be deemed as infamous as the man who comes Avith his 
 bloody hands to relate the murder which he had assisted others to 
 commit. 
 
 There is one other striking feature of this case, that in my opinion, 
 goes strongly to set up the credit of Lawler, and to attach criminality 
 upon the prisoner and his associates. For it appears that the instruc- 
 tions from whence the cross-examination has been furnished could not 
 have been derived from any other source but a direct and intimate 
 privity and participation in all that criminality which is imputed to 
 the witness. Thus we have it from the cross-examination, that 
 " Paine's Age of Reason " was the vade mecum of the societies ; that 
 
 * The case referred to is the King v. Atwood and Robbins ; 1 Leach Crown 
 Cases, 464. They were found guilty on the testimony of an accomplice, and 
 Judge Buller took the opinion of the twelve judges who hold the conviction right. 
 And see King v. Crowder, I Leach 478 ; Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 Term R. 
 609; King v. Jones, 2 Camp. R. 132. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 391 
 
 the witness was the pei'son best armed at the watch-house and at 
 Stoneybatter. From the cross-examination you have it that the witness 
 was employed by Le Blanc, the Frenchman, who has appeared a prin- 
 cipal actor amongst the Defendei's, as well as leader in a conspiracy 
 to put Cockayne out of the way before Jackson's trial. Who is it 
 that lias heard Avhat this cross-examination has brought out that does 
 not believe the men in the dock Avere privy to the whole, and that 
 does not stand appalled at the horrid work that midnight treason has 
 been hatching ? And who is^ it that has heard the learned counsel 
 ask such questions from the secret cabinet of his instructions, that is 
 not convinced that privity and participation have furnished those 
 examinations, and linked traitors together through every stage from 
 that society in which Lawler's mind was first corrupted down to the 
 lowest Defender, that has been the desperate instrument to carry into 
 effect the most alarming system of assassination, treason, and rebellion. 
 
 These, gentlemen, are circumstances, which, from their nature, 
 could never have been revealed by any man that had not shared in 
 their criminality ; and being brought out by the prisoner, by their 
 cohision, they throw a light upon the whole, and flash conviction upon 
 the mind of every man that heard them. 
 
 And now, gentlemen, give me leave to congratulate you and the 
 country in which we live, however painful this enquiry has been, that 
 after the irrefragable proof which we now have of the co-operation of 
 French missionaries with the promoting of treason and sedition at 
 horae, there yet remains that fair and impartial appeal to justice, which 
 the prisoner, or those who have involved him, could not find in any 
 part of the woi'ld that is not blessed by the British constitution — that 
 constitution which they have endeavoured to destroy. In order to 
 rescue the deluded from their guilt, by timely example — in order to 
 save us from the degrading supplication to military justice. 
 
 In order to save us from these horrid butcheries, w'hich have 
 deluged so great a proportion of Europe in blood, I trust that by a 
 conscientious discharge of your duty, you will give your country 
 cause to look up with veneration to the trial by jury. 
 
 The jury retired for one hour, and bi'ought in a verdict — Not 
 Guilty. 
 
 Wednesday, December 30. 
 
 Clayton and Cooke were brought up to be tried, when Mr. Attor- 
 ney-General moved to postpone their trials ; it had appeared upon 
 the former trials, said he, that there are persons wicked enough to 
 take away the lives of witnesses. One of the witnesses who w as to 
 prosecute those prisoners does not attend, and Mi\ Cowan, another 
 witness, been attacked with the gout in his stomach, and cannot 
 attend. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally I have a doubt how far the court has any dis- 
 cretion under the habeas corpus act, to postpone these trials. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General I admit, that if no indictment be 
 
 found the fii-st session, after committal, the prisoner must be dis- 
 charged ; and if one be found, and he is not tried the second session, 
 he is to be discharged. But the act is silent as to the right of 
 being tried. Then, my lords, I leave it to your discretion. Upon 
 
392 TRIALS OF 
 
 the habeas corpus act, the right of trial remains as before. The 
 j)risoner may be discharged, but they are still liable to be tried. 
 
 Court. — If the pi-isoners presented petitions upon the first day of 
 the session after their committal, are not tried on the second commis- 
 sion, they are entitled to be discharged. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, then addressed the court, and the by- 
 standers, in order to have it fully understood by the prisoners and the 
 public, that though the persons now in custody should be discharged 
 from imprisonment, yet the prosecution was by no means given up, 
 but would on the contrary remain in full vigour and be carried on as 
 soon as the King's witnesses should be forthcoming. He then 
 descanted on the causes of those enormities which had brought the 
 peace of the city and country, the property and lives of the public 
 into the very imminent danger in which they had so lately been, and 
 from which he hoped that the proceedings of this commission would 
 secure them. Those evils he atti'ibuted to the veiy relaxed state of 
 morality — the extreme and culpable inattention of masters and fathers 
 of families to the manners and conduct of their children, and to tlie 
 growing and alarming prevalence of iiTcligion and infidelity, which 
 wherever they became general, destroy pviblic happiness and public 
 safety, and loosen all the bonds which hold society together. As one 
 instance of culpable neglect in the public to the morals of the rising 
 generation, he mentioned the conduct of those many masters who ai'e 
 become too proud to let their apprentices sleep in their houses. It 
 was a known fact, he said, that apprentices now were generally sent 
 to lodge in other houses than their masters, and in that profession 
 with which he was most nearly connected, that of an attorney, there 
 were only two men in the city of Dublin who kept their apprentices 
 in their own houses. The natural consequence of this was, that boys 
 at a very early age became fit subjects of those wicked men to work 
 on, whose object was to remove every religious and moral principle 
 from the mind in order to make way for those abominable docti'iues 
 which they wished to inculcate. He was not yet become a very old 
 man, and yet he was old enough to remember a time when fathers and 
 masters kept their children and apprentices at home, and taught them 
 to pass their vacant evenings in some innocent amusement — ^now the 
 evenings and Sabbath were devoted to clubs and societies, where folly 
 was taught to hatch ti^eason, and imbecility to plot massacre. To 
 prevent effectually these di-eadful crimes, which it was now fully 
 proved had been attempted, the public must exert their own powers ; 
 the master and the father must again become the guardian of his 
 servant and his child's innocence ; and in order effectually to preserve 
 that innocence, the best way would be found to guard them against 
 the temptations and the opportunities of vice. Much pains had been 
 taken, he said, to misrepresent to the public what passed in that place 
 — it had been attempted to throw such a degree of odium on the 
 King's witnesses, as should induce the public to believe their testi- 
 mony insufficient to convict men charged with secret and most 
 enormous crimes. It was true, indeed, that the Avitness on a late 
 prosecution had been proved to be a man who had been guilty of very 
 atrocious offences, but by whom can men that have committed crimes 
 in secrecy ever be convicted but by accomplices ? If men of purity 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 393 
 
 and innocence only can convict in such cases, crimes the most dan- 
 gerous to the public must for ever pass unpunished. 
 
 Cooke, Clayton, Turner, Flood, Hanlon, and Clarke, were then dis- 
 charged from their imprisonment. 
 
 Thomas Dry, who had been out on bail on a charge of being a 
 Defender, was called, and appearing, he was discharged on his own 
 recognizance of £50. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General said that the principal witness against 
 Oliver Corbally, charged with high treason, had absconded. The 
 crown therefore would not produce any evidence against him. 
 
 A jury was then impannelled, to whom Oliver Corbally was given 
 in chai'ge, and acquitted for want of prosecution. 
 
 James Weldon, who had been convicted, was now ordered up for 
 sentence. His indictment was read, and he was asked, what he had 
 to say, why judgment of death should not be pronounced against him ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords, I shall humbly submit to your lordships, 
 that, the j udgment in this case ought to be arrested. Each count in 
 an indictment is in the nature of a separate indictment, and therefore 
 each coxint should contain all the legal and essential requisites of an 
 indictment. If any of these essential requisites be omitted, the 
 indictment is vitiated, and the judgment must be arrested. Every 
 indictment and therefore every count ought to have formal conclu- 
 sion ; here the first count has not such conclusion. It does not say 
 against the allegiance — against the peace — or contrary to the statute. 
 Therefore the count is to be thi'own out of consideration. But the 
 jury having, notwithstanding the direction of the court, retui'ned a 
 general verdict, it became necessary to examine the second count, 
 and that is objectionable for uncertainty in the specification of the 
 offer. The indictment is founded upon the statute and ought to 
 pursue the words of it — The statute says, " if a man be adherent to 
 the King's enemies, and give them aid and comfort either within the 
 realm, or elsewhere." The disjunctive particle in this sentence 
 creates a second offence, perfectly distinct from the first. One offence 
 is adhering to the King's enemies within the realm ; the other is 
 adhering to them without the realm. This is somewhat a ncAv case. 
 I have taken pains to search for precedents of indictments for adhe- 
 ring to the King's enemies and have found but one in the reign of 
 Elizabeth, but it is so vague and such a riddle as not to hold a moment. 
 But referring to the words of the statute, I wish to know, for which 
 offence this man is indicted in the second count. The indictment 
 should state that he adhei'ed to the King's enemies within the realm, 
 or that he adhered to them without, according to the words of the 
 statute constituting the crime. There is a strong reason for this. 
 Suppose he were acquitted, he might be indicted for adhering to the 
 King's enemies without the realm, and he could not plead autre fois 
 acquit, because he would be told the indictment were not the same. 
 Therefore this indictments being essentially defective in omitting the 
 words of the statute, the man is not convicted according to law. I 
 take this to be a rule, that where two things are included within a 
 sentence, sepai-ate in their nature, a man cannot be indicted indiscrimi- 
 nately for both, but the indictment should distinguish between them. 
 There might have been a third count for adhering to the King's 
 
39^ TRIALS OF 
 
 I 
 
 enemies within the realm or without, and then a general verdict Avould 
 prevent any objection. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — My lords, it will be very unnecessary 
 for me to give you much trouble. It is said, you should arrest the 
 judgment for error in both the counts. It is said each count should 
 be considered in itself as a complete indictment. For the substance 
 of the charge, the rule is so. But where there are many counts, each 
 specifying an oiFence, the indictment may have one general conclusion, 
 going to the whole. As here, to simplify the case, the prisoner is 
 charged with compassing the death of the King, and the next count 
 specifies a new charge, that of adhering to the King's enemies. Both 
 being thus specified, and there being prefatory matter, stating what 
 the prisoner was, and his designs, then comes the general conclusion 
 of the indictment, applying to both counts. If any man of common 
 understanding, clear of technical modes of reasoning, read this 
 indictment, he will find so, and it is according to the order used since 
 the introduction of the English law, the conclusion always going to 
 every count contained in the indictment. After having stated what 
 the designs were, it says, he is guilty of compassing the King's death 
 and of adhei'ing to the King's enemies, and then there is a general 
 conclusion, not confined to one or other count, but going to both 
 offences included within the same statute. I believe all that which 
 was so much to the disgrace of the law, in taking technical objections, 
 has been exploded, in a variety of instances, and provided substantial 
 justice has been done, courts of justice do not attend to objections of 
 this sort unless they are absolutely bound so to do. If in the common 
 course of language this conclusion can be applied to both charges, 
 your lordships will do so, according to the modes now adopted upon 
 cases of this sort, and it will be sufiicient to refer your lordships 
 to your own understanding, without further argument. 
 
 As to the second objection, it is somewhat savouring of substance, 
 that the indictment should state whether he adhered to the King's 
 enemies, either within the realm or without. An objection of that 
 sort being made, I expected, that some precedent would be shown, or 
 some authority that would warrant the objection. This indictment is 
 conformable to the precedents I have seen, and when your lordships 
 look into the statute, you will find there can be no ground for the 
 objection — " Within the realm, or elsewhere" — is not part of the 
 description of the crime, as set forth upon the face of the statute. 
 The crime is " adhering to the King's enemies" — that is what the 
 statute has declared — " if any man levy war, or be adherent to the 
 King's enemies in the realm and gives them comfort elsewhere" — if 
 he adhere to them, by giving them comfort in the realm or elsewhere 
 — in a word, as if the statute said — " If he give them aid, let them be 
 where they may" — let the act done be within the realm or without, 
 he is alike guilty of adhering to the King's enemies. Your lordships 
 see by the context, they are superfluous words, because it clearly 
 shews, that if aid be given anywhere, the party giving it will be 
 guilty. 
 
 [Here Mr. Attorney- General was stopped.] 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain, — We will not trouble you any further, 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 395 
 
 find it would not be foir to the man, if we by our conduct insinuated, 
 tliat tlie objections were likely to prevail. We ai'e of opinion, that 
 the objections are not founded ; that the conclusion in sense and 
 according to precedents goes to both counts. So it is in all declara- 
 tions. Therefore there is nothing in the first objection. We are 
 also of opinion, that the essence of the offence is adhering to the 
 King's enemies, and it is immaterial where they are. It is an offence 
 not constituted by statute, but an offence at common law, and the 
 statute only says, that no man shall be indicted but for treason, as 
 there specified. It is not created by the act — And indeed, if it were 
 necessary, it does substantially appear, because two overt acts state, 
 that an open and public war is carried on by the French, and that 
 the prisoner was adhering to the persons exei'cising the government 
 of France. So that if it were necessary, it is substantially charged 
 that he was adhering to the enemies, without the realm. 
 
 Mr. Justice Finucane I agree, that the conclusion goes to both 
 
 counts, and with regard to the last count, I think the statute is 
 completely complied with in this indictment. "Be adherent to the 
 King's enemies within the realm or elsewhere" — At the time this 
 statute was passed, no treason could be tried, but treason within the 
 realm, and that is the treason specified, " giving them aid within the 
 realm" — then are added the words, " or without" — How is the charge 
 here ? — that the prisoner at Suftblk-street in the city of Dublin, &c. 
 The locality is annexed to the person adhering, not to the enemy to 
 whom he adhered. Therefore this is a sufficient charge within the 
 words of the statute. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — I concur perfectly with the rest of the 
 court. 
 
 Mr. Baron George then, after a suitable and pathetic exordium, 
 pronounced the sentence of the law, that the prisoner be executed on 
 the 2d of March, 1796. 
 
THE procep:ding8 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 THOMAS KENNEDY. 
 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 Monday, February 22, 1796. 
 
 Lord Clonmel sat as the Judge of the Commission, and was 
 assisted by Mr. Justice Chamberlain and Mr. Baron George. 
 
 Brady, Kennedy and Hart having postponed their trials at last 
 Commission, upon the indictment then depending {vid. ante, p. 348,) 
 new bills were sent up to the grand jury, which being returned 
 true bills ; copies thereof were served upon the prisoners previous to 
 this Commission, and at their own desire, Messrs. M'Nally and 
 Lysaght were assigned their counsel. 
 
 This day Thomas Kennedy was put to the bar, and arraigned upon 
 the following indictment. 
 
 The indictment varied but little from that in Weldon's case, and it 
 is therefore thought unnecessary to set it out at length. The counts 
 were for the same ti'easons as in Weldon's case, and the overt acts 
 were participations in the designs of the Defenders ; the ' publication 
 or possession of the treasonable papers ; assisting Weldon in the 
 administering of the oath to Lawler ; causing Lawler to repeat the 
 catechism ; and swearing him as a Defender. The overt acts in 
 support of both counts wei-e the same. 
 
 The prisoner pleaded. Not Guilty. 
 
 The following gentlemen were sworn upon 
 
 THE JURY. 
 
 Alexander Kirkpatrick, Joshua Paul Meredith, 
 
 Samuel Tyndal, George Adamson, 
 
 Cornelius Gautier, Samuel Middleton, 
 
 John Evatt, John Ormston, 
 
 David Weir, Meade Nesbitt, 
 
 Wm. Watson, jun. Godfrey Bourne. 
 
398 TRIALS OF 
 
 William Lawler,* sworn — examined by IMr. Saurin. 
 
 Said he went to London in the year 1791, where he worked at his, 
 business, which was that of a gilder ; became a member of the London 
 Corresponding Society ; their object was a radical reform in Parlia-! 
 ment ; returned to Ireland about two years ago ; had a letter of j 
 introduction from Daniel Isaac Eaton, a bookseller, in London, to Mr. ! 
 Archibald Hamilton Rowan, of Dublin ; did not know the contents of i 
 the letter, but it was to introduce him to Mr. Rowan ; did not ask 
 Eaton for the letter, but understood he corresponded with Rowan. | 
 Witness, upon his return to Ireland, became a member of a society ; does i 
 not recollect the name ; it was soon after dissolved ; it was a repub- 
 lican society ; gave the letter to a servant of Mr. Rowan's two or three 
 days after he arrived ; does not know the street ; it was the left-hand 
 of Britain-street ; called in a few days and saw Mr. Rowan himself ; 
 he gave witness a print of Thomas Paine. Witness became acquainted 
 with Bui-ke, who was expelled the College, and Atkinson, the son of 
 a watch-maker in Skinner-row, who told him Burke was collecting 
 ten men, and desired witness to meet him at Gallan's, in Crane-lane ; 
 the Telegraphic Society afterwards met in Hoey's court ; Burke told 
 him the plan was that he himself named ten, each of whom was to find 
 ten others, and each of those were to find five ; this would make a 
 sufficient force to take the Castle of Dublin ; one hundred were to be 
 clothed in scarlet uniforms, to make the citizens believe the soldiers 
 had joined them ; witness made up his ten in a fortnight, and procured 
 a room in High-street, where they met ; they were called the Philan- 
 thropic Society. About a fortnight after the Fermanagh Militia Avent 
 to Lehanstown Camp witness became a Defender ; was introduced to 
 that society by Kennedy, the prisoner at the bar, and Brady ; they 
 called at his lodgings on Sunday evening, and brought him to the 
 Horse Barrack, where he was to be sworn a Defender by Weldon, to 
 whom witness was to pay a shilling, as he was a committee-man ; had 
 known Brady and Kennedy before ; they were members of the Philan- 
 thropic Society ; had a conversation with them three weeks before 
 about Defenders ; they said there was a thing getting among the army, 
 so that they could do without the societies ; they said they were sworn 
 by Hanlon, of the F'ei'managh Militia, and as Hanlon had gone to the 
 camp, they would bring the witness to Weldon, whom they met at a 
 public-house opposite the Barrack-gate ; they were joined by Clayton ; 
 Weldon said, " had we not better make these two ?" meaning Clayton 
 and the witness ; a prayer-book was produced, and Weldon jiulled tAvo 
 papers out of his pocket, desired the witness and Clayton to lay their 
 right hands on the book, and repeat after him, which Avas done ; these 
 are the papers. The next time Avitness saw these papers Avas about 
 eight days after Weldon left toAvn, in the possession of Kennedy, in 
 Drury-lane ; Murphy and Fay Avere Avith the Avitness ; kncAv them to 
 be Defenders by their using the signs ; Kennedy came out of his 
 master's house in Drury-lane Avith these papers ; Avitness challenged 
 
 * The general tenor of the witness's testimony upon this trial, corresponding- 
 with what he had given in the two former cases, it is abridged considerably and 
 given in the form of a narrative, rather than by question and answer. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 399 
 
 them, loud enough for all to hear ; Kennedy allowed them to be the 
 same papers ; when Weldon swore them upon the test, he told them 
 the signs by which they might know a Defender. [Here the witness 
 described the signs as before, vide p. 322.] Weldon said Eliphismatis 
 was a latin word, but he did know the meaning of it. He also said, 
 " if the King's head were off to-mon*ow they would be no longer under 
 his government." Witness asked Weldon was he not afraid to cany 
 those papers about him ; he said no, for he was never searched, and 
 did not care who saw the large one, the small one was the principal, 
 the other was only a test on account of swearing the soldiers. Brady 
 asked if there was any one to head them ? Weldon said there was 
 ' one in the North, but did not mention his name. Kennedy asked how 
 they would be informed ? Weldon said there would be letters sent 
 through the country to inform the Defenders when they were to rise. 
 Brady asked how every one would know it ? Weldon said by the 
 committee-men ; he would tell Brady when the next meeting would 
 be held, that there would be one next week. Clayton and Kennedy 
 then went away, the rest remained drinking punch ; they were all 
 sober, but Kennedy was obliged to go home, being an apprentice. [The 
 witness then gave an account of the meeting in Plunket-street, pre- 
 cisely as in the former case, vide p. 328.] The next meeting was at 
 Stoneybatter, which was held for the purpose of going out to take arms. 
 Hart swore a young man, and mentioned that their object was to assist 
 the French. This was some time in the month of August. The 
 next meeting was at Nowlan's, in Drury-lane, on Sunday the 23d of 
 August ; a good many attended ; Coifey was in the chair ; he wanted 
 to know how many Defenders were in Dixblin, that they might have 
 officers placed over them ; it was agreed to meet on the Sunday fol- 
 lowing, when the committee-men would report the numbers. Hart 
 and the witness were called to order for talking together. Hart told 
 ! him — [this evidence was objected to and not admitted]. The day after 
 i he ceased to be a Defender, and gave information to Mr. Cowan, in 
 Grafton-street. Witness's reason was on account of what he had 
 heard from Hart, as to the designs of the Defenders ; heard there was 
 to be a meeting at Crumlin ; told Mr. Cowan of it and also Alderman 
 James ; witness went there to delay them ; they went to that place to 
 be out of the way ; the prisoner was not at Crumlin ; witness told the 
 Alderman he would be there, and knew he himself was to be taken 
 with the rest ; told Alderman James that the papers upon which witness 
 was sworn by Weldon were in Kennedy's fob ; saw them at a meeting 
 at Dry's, in Cork-street, on the 23d of August, when they were pro- 
 duced by Kennedy, who took them from his fob, and asked if Lewis 
 was not a proper person to be sworn a Defender ? — was answered by 
 Dry he was ; Coffey produced the prayer-book ; Kennedy laid the 
 papers upon Coffey's bed, which was strapped up like a ti'unk ; there 
 were three papers ; Kennedy said he had written one himself, for 
 there was one of Weldon's which he did not like ; witness paid no 
 attention to the third paper ; after Lewis was sworn, Kennedy put the 
 papers into his fob again ; Lewis called on witness the same day after 
 dinner ; they went to the Philanthropic Society, which usually met at 
 Dry's, in Cork-street ; it was to meet that evening at five o'clock ; the 
 meeting at Nowlan's was to be at six ; Lewis was sworn before they 
 
400 TRIALS OF 
 
 went to Nowlan's ; saw the papers with Kennedy at Dry's, but not at 
 Nowlan's ; when he read the papers, he read g's Kings. 
 
 [The catechism and oath were then read.] 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Was brought up in the Protestant religion ; his father and mother 
 were Pi-otestants ; knows that every true Protestant believes in the 
 Trinity ; went with the Methodists before he went to England, but 
 did not then deny the Protestant religion ; sometimes went to church, 
 sometimes to chapel ; continued a Methodist after his return to 
 Ireland ; has read the first and second parts of Paine's Rights of 
 Man, but never read his Age of Reason ; always believed in God, 
 and a future state, but Burke wanted to persuade him to believe there 
 was no Saviour, and that he was a false prophet ; Burke gave him a 
 little book written by himself, and signed with his name, in support 
 of his doctrine ; it shook witness in his belief, but he was since con- 
 vinced of his error, and was sorry for it ; had done many things 
 before which were wrong. Witness asked the chairmen at the corner 
 of the street, what number Rowan lived at ; the name of the street was 
 on the back of the letter ; Eaton told him, he mentioned him in the 
 letter to Rowan ; never was charged with bringing a false letter to 
 Rowan ; there was a false name in the letter to Rowan, for witness 
 went by the name of Wright in London, and that must have been the 
 name in the letter ; when witness told Rowan his name, where he 
 lived and of the Corresponding Society, Rowan did not ask him to 
 come again ; he gave witness some printed papers, does not recollect 
 exactly what they were ; never was charged with being a thief ; it 
 was said he took a frame from Mr. Robinson's, but another person 
 afterwards told him he knew who stole it ; Rowan asked him about 
 the society in London and the militia, and about forming a society 
 here ; this passed in Newgate ; one Strephon, who came to witness, 
 mentioned a wish, that there should be a society formed here like the 
 London Corresponding Society ; Avitness advised an application to 
 Rowan, who approved of it, but desired them to be cautious, as they 
 saw Avhat a scrape he had got into ; the reason he changed his name 
 was on account of his having enlisted, and deserted ; does not exactly 
 I'ecoUect what he swore when he was arrested ; was not then a member 
 of any Society ; after he deserted, he became a member of the 
 London Corresponding Society, went publicly there, and being but 
 little known, thought there was no danger of his being appi-ehended, 
 particularly as he had changed his name ; belonged to the 16th 
 division of the Con-esponding Society ; believes he was guilty of a 
 breach of his oath, when he deserted; is sorry for it ; he collected ten 
 members for the Philanthropic society, they were sworn not to with- 
 draw from the society, nor divulge their secrets ; did not upon any 
 former occasion swear in evidence, that the oath was, not to give 
 evidence against each other ; hopes he will b(; pardoned for all his 
 offences, but cannot hope for reward, as nothing had been promised 
 him ; made no objection to Weldon's oath, nor was he shocked at the 
 supposition of the King's head being cut off"; lie did not then think 
 it a criminal act ; one of their members had been arrested and lodged 
 in a watch-house ; they went to take liim out, there was a shot fired ; 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 401 
 
 is not bound to tell who fired the shot ; after a meeting in Stoney- 
 batter with Fay and Kennedy, the prisoner and some others, they had 
 a talk of a design to attack the Chancellor in the course of the winter, 
 as he returned from the house of lords, and to hang him from one of 
 the trees in Stephen's-green ; did not mention this in his information 
 to Alderman James, but intended to have mentioned it to him ; it 
 might not have come out now had not counsel desired him to tell all 
 the treasons he knew of ; does not know who threw the stone at the 
 Chancellor, nor did he see it thrown ; told Alderman James the 
 reason he became a Defender was to know what they were about ; 
 agreed with them in everything but what he heard Hart say ; has 
 been kept in close custody in the Castle for three months for the 
 purpose of giving evidence against the prisoner's ; Burke Avas the 
 principal person, who led him astray in religious matters ; Mr. Cowan 
 advised him to give information ; was standing in Dame-street the 
 day lord Camden arrived here ; was also in the Castle-yard that day ; 
 never threw a stone at the Chancellor, nor heard of a stone being to 
 be thrown, till after it was thrown ; does not recollect any reason he 
 had for going home early the evening the stone was thrown ; was 
 called on and went out with the party to confine Cockayne ; were 
 prevented by his not being at Mrs. Jackson's ; Le Blanc said if 
 
 Cockayne was put to death, what he had sworn would stand good ; 
 
 witness had a pistol when he was in the watch-house ; there was a 
 pistol fired, it had a ball in it ; was present at the attack upon a house 
 I tjie corner of Bull-alley, in going home ; had pistols about him, but 
 does not know whether he had charged them or not ; it was a crimpinf- 
 house ; believes the oath was written by Hanlon, the Fermanao-h 
 militia-man. 
 
 Alderman James, sworn — Examined by Mr. Solicitor- General. 
 
 Lawler came to him with Mr. Cowan, about the 26th of Auo-ust, 
 and lodged informations. His evidence upon the former trials and 
 the present, corresponded with the account he then gave, except as 
 to the design upon the Chancellor. The alderman issued warrants 
 against several persons in consequence of the informations, and 
 he desired Mr. Carleton, the chief constable, to be particular in 
 examining Kennedy's fob, for Lawler said the oath would be found 
 there ; took Lawler's examinations the first time he saw him ; no 
 examinations had been lodged against Lawler at that time, nor did 
 the alderman ever issue a warrant for his apprehension, but issued 
 warrants against many other persons upon his informations. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 Lawler did not disclose the circumstance respecting the Chancellor. 
 The alderman thought it his duty to find out everything ; cannot say 
 that Lawler intentionally withheld it; he did not disclose the circum- 
 stance of his enlisting or deserting, or that he had fired a shot into 
 the watch house. He was examined after dinner, about eight o'clock ; 
 no warrant was issued to apprehend him, but he was taken at the 
 house of one Toole in Crumlin, in consequence of his information 
 that he would be there. 
 
 2d 
 
402 TRIALS OF 
 
 Oliver Carleton, Esq — Examined by Mr. Ruxton. 
 
 Was high constable of police in August last ; received warrants 
 from Alderman James against Kennedy, the prisoner, and Brady, in 
 consequence of which he went to Stephen-street, between four and 
 five in the morning of the 27th of August ; rapped very loud at the 
 door, two persons came to a gate and opened it ; he asked their names, i 
 they answered, Kennedy and Bi-ady ; he took them into custody, and 
 agreeable to the directions he had received, was particular in searching 
 Kennedy's fob, in which he found the oath and catechism ; [they 
 were here shewn to the witness, and he identified them from the 
 initials of his name.] 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 He asked Kennedy how the papers came there, and what was the 
 use of them ? — He made no answer. 
 
 Case rested for the crown. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, I am of 
 counsel in this case with my learned friend, Mr. Lysaght ; and it 
 therefore becomes my duty to call your attention to the defence of the 
 unfortunate young boy, who stands a prisoner at the bar of the court, 
 arraigned for high treason. Gentlemen, I apply to him the epithet 
 of unfortunate, not because the evidence that has been given against 
 him, can, in my humble opinion, impress your minds with a con- 
 ception of his being guilty, but, because any subject of the crown, 
 standing in his situation, standing in that dock, and before this 
 tribunal, accused of the most heinous offence the law recognizes, and 
 punishable by the most cruel sentence the law knows, must be con- 
 sidered as unfortunate, however conscious of his own innocence. 
 Gentlemen, I address you on the part of this unfortunate youth, 
 under the influence of that reverential awe that always influences my 
 mind when calling for the attention of a jury of your description. A 
 jury which I am convinced, from my personal knowledge of some of 
 you, and from the general character of you all, is composed of wise 
 and intelligent men ; men who are well acquainted with the principles 
 of those laws under which we live, and by which the lowest of us are 
 protected, and fully adequate to the honest discharge of that high and 
 respectable, I was going to say paramount office, which they fill. In 
 addressing you, gentlemen, I must of course, feel for my own defi- 
 ciency ; but I find consolation from this reflection ; that you, actuated 
 by the principles of mercy, while guided by the rules of law and 
 justice, will contribute every aid to such observations as I shall 
 submit to your deliberation. Gentlemen, every man who admires 
 and loves the constitution of his country, (and every man who is not 
 either a Knave, a fool, a lunatic, or an infant, must admire its system,) 
 I say every man who loves and admires the system of our constitution, 
 must look up to juries as the legal guardians, protectors, and conser- 
 vators of the lives, the liberties and the properties of the people. I 
 consider a jury as a political citadel, placed in the centre of the 
 constitution — a citadel, where liberty has often planted her standard, 
 and where she must always make an effectual stand against oppression 
 and tyranny, unless betrayed by those whose sacred duty it is to 
 protect her. Gentlemen, it is necessary that I should make a few 
 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 403 
 
 observations to you on what has fallen from Mr. Attorney- General, 
 in stating tlie case for the crown ; and my leading observation is, 
 that tlie learned gentleman, in the discharge of his official duty, has 
 this day, in the most honourable and candid manner, stated the case 
 against the prisoner, without an attempt to aggravate or colour the 
 charge ; and I doubt not but those other learned counsel for the 
 prosecution, whose duty calls upon them to follow Mr. Attorney- 
 General, will adopt the same manly and humane conduct. 
 
 I beg leave, gentlemen of the jury, to remind you of the excellent 
 caution urged with warmth and with clemency, by the Attorney- 
 General. He cautioned you against acting under prejudices resulting 
 from extrinsic causes. His advice was just, legal and wise. A juror 
 should divest his mind of all extrinsic matters ; he should come into 
 that box pure, unsullied and unbiassed as an infant entering into life ; 
 the evidence given in court should be the only object of his delibera- 
 tion. On the evidence sworn to in court, and that evidence only, he 
 is bound in conscience, by his oath, to form his verdict : For what 
 is his oath ? He is sworn on the Testament of his faith, that he will 
 well and truly try, and a true deliverance make between his Sovereign 
 the King and the prisoner, according to evidence. For this reason, 
 gentlemen, if French politics or French depredations, be stated, you 
 will consider them as extraneous to the matter in issue ; and, for this 
 reason, should the counsel for the crown attempt to engage your 
 passions by adverting to the distracted state of this or that country, 
 you will expunge such statement from your recollection. For, gen- 
 tlemen, you are not sworn to give a verdict upon the state of France, 
 or upon the state of Ireland, but truly to try upon the evidence, given 
 to you upon oath, whether the prisoner be guilty or not guilty of the 
 crimes of high treason, charged upon him by the indictment. Gen- 
 tlemen, the Attorney-General has adverted to the public newspapers, 
 and has stated to you that through their medium pains had been 
 taken to influence the public mind, in respect to the trials for treason, 
 now prosecuting by government. Gentlemen, I do think with Mr. 
 Attorney- General, that animadversions on legal proceedings while 
 they are pending, is an offence ; but if Mr. Attorney- General has 
 read all the public papers, he must know that such animadversions 
 have not been confined to papers of any particular political description ; 
 for in those papers denominated Court Prints, the writers of them 
 have not only traduced those who have appeared as witnesses for the 
 prisoner, but those employed as their counsel. In one of those morn- 
 ing prints, I have been noticed with censure, and the character with 
 whom I had the honour to act on a trial at the last commission, a 
 character as great and eminent for genius, as ever appeared at this or 
 any bar, has been calumnated for exerting his paramount abilities in 
 defence of his client.* But, gentlemen, I am satisfied that whatever 
 
 * Alluding to John Philpot Curran, who suffered still more from similar causes 
 at a later period, when engaged in the defence of the United Irishmen in 1798. 
 " Mr. Curran, upon those memorable trials, exposed his character at the time to 
 the foulest misrepresentations. The furious and the timid considered it as an act 
 of loyalty to brand as little better than a traitor the advocate who, in defending 
 the accused, ventured to demand those legal privileges and that fair, impartial 
 hearing, to which, by the constitution of their country, they were entitled. He 
 
404 TRIALS OF 
 
 you have heard, or whatever you have read relative to the subject 
 now before you — you will obliterate from your memories, confining 
 your deliberations solely to the evidence given in open court. Gen- 
 tlemen, Mr. Attorney- General has spoken of the necessity of making 
 an example — in my humble opinion this was not a subject to be 
 addressed to you ; for, gentlemen, it is not your pi'ovince to make 1 
 examples, that last and distressing duty, founded in necessity, belongs 
 to another tribunal. Your duty is to hear the evidence, and on the I 
 credit you give the evidence to acquit or convict — and I trust, from ! 
 the nature of the evidence, acquittal will this day mark your verdict i 
 — and that the prisoner will not be found a subject for example. 
 
 There are, gentlemen, but two leading features in this case to which 
 I shall call your attention : 
 
 First, Mr. Lawler, the principal witness produced on the table, and 
 secondly, the evidence given l3y that witness. As to the witness, ] 
 though he does not come under the legal description of an approver, 
 as on a former occasion was stated by the bench, yet it clearly ap- 
 pears, from his own confessions, that he has been a, particeps criminis, 
 in a catalogue of offences as vile and black as ever stained a human 
 heart, or disgraced the character of man ; therefore he comes before 
 you, gentlemen of the jury, in at least a questionable shape, and within 
 that rule of law and legal evidence, that has been laid down by one 
 of the wisest, and what was more to his honour, one of the humanest 
 judges that ever presided in an English court of justice. I allude, 
 gentlemen, to that celebrated jurist, whose noble and independent 
 conduct deservedly procured him the title of the " great Lord Hale." 
 What are the words of that great man upon approvers ? I will teU 
 you, gentlemen, his opinion upon such witnesses. Lord Hale says, 
 " though an approver be admissable as a witness in law, yet, the 
 credibility of his testimony is to be left to the jury, and truly it would 
 be hard to take away the life of a person upon the evidence of such 
 a witness, that swears to save his own ; and yet confesseth liimself 
 guilty of so great a crime — unless there be very considerable cii'cum- 
 stances, which may give greater credit to what he swears." This 
 opinion will be found in Hale's Pleas of the Crown, p. 305. Gen- 
 tlemen, it will be for you to consider whether the witness, Lawler, 
 comes within the description given by the great and good Lord Hale — 
 and it will also be for you to consider that Lord Hale is here speaking 
 of a witness implicated only in the offence he is called to prove, 
 coming forward charged only with one crime. But, gentlemen, what 
 would the learned and benevolent Lord Hale have said, if he had 
 been speaking of such a witness as Lawler ? If he had been speaking 
 of a particeps criminis, who had declared he had taken the oath of 
 allegiance, as a soldier and a subject, and had violated that oath ? If 
 he had been speaking of an impious man, against whom it had been 
 proved, that he had denied the existence of the persons of the Trinity ? 
 
 often received as he entered the court, anonymous letters threatening his life, if 
 he should utter a syllable that might bring discredit upon the public measures of 
 the day." — Curran's Life by his Son, 2 vol. p 82. In his defence of Bond, he 
 was repeatedly interrupted by the clamorous and savage gestures of the military 
 who thronged the court. They mistook the man. He fixed his eyes upon them, 
 and exclaimed, " You may assassinate me, but you shall not intimidate me." 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 405 
 
 ' If he had been speaking of a man who had administered oaths to 
 
 ' seduce and delude youths, had sworn them never to prosecute 
 
 Defendei's, and had then come forward and prosecuted them himself ? 
 
 If he had been speaking of a man who had united with conspirators 
 
 to assassinate a witness ? If he had been speaking of a man who had 
 
 confessed, there was a time when he did not think it a crime to take 
 
 off the head of his sacred Majesty, and destroy the government ? I 
 
 ; add, destroy the government, because the existence of the constitution 
 
 and government of this country depends upon the existence of the 
 
 King, A man, who, when the question was put could not deny, and 
 
 therefore refused to answer that he once fired a charged pistol into a 
 
 watch-house, with intent to commit murder ; and that there was a 
 
 time, and that recent, when he did not consider it a crime to lie in 
 
 wait for the purpose of seizing and hanging no less a person than the 
 
 I Lord High Chancellor of Ireland. It is true, gentlemen, Mr. Lawler 
 
 ; is by his own account a repentant sinner, for he has told you, he hopes 
 
 i to obtain forgiveness from government and from God. He has now 
 
 i told you how long repentance has dawned upon him — but if he has 
 
 [ repented, how does the sincerity of his contrition appear ? Does it 
 
 appear as it ought ? Does it appear he has made a full confession of 
 
 all his offences ? No, for it appears that he suppressed the whole of 
 
 the intended assassination of the Lord Chancellor, and the intended 
 
 assassination of Cockane, when he gave in his information on oath to 
 
 Alderman James. Alderman James, I presume, admonished him, and 
 
 swore him to tell the truth, and he suppressed the truth. I admit, gen - 
 
 tlemen, that necessity on particular occasions, justifies the admission of 
 
 such witnesses as Mr. Lawler, otherwise, if that was not the case, the 
 
 most atrocious offences would often escape with impunity ; but permit 
 
 me, gentlemen, to advert to the great Lord Hale, and on his authority 
 
 to observe, that even in such cases there must be strong corroborating 
 
 circumstances to give credence to the man who, even voluntarily, comes 
 
 forward to save his own life, by the sacrificing the life of another. 
 
 Gentlemen, the papers found on the prisoner and produced in 
 evidence to support this prosecution, will, probably, be held up to 
 you, and expatiated on by the counsel for the crown, as strong corro- 
 I bo rating circumstances. But you must have remarked, that no 
 evidence was given by Lawler to shew that these papers are the 
 I identical papers that were in the possession of Weldon ; of course it 
 does not appear to you that those papers were ever appropriated to 
 any use, or ever published in any manner by the prisoner ; and, 
 gentlemen, the court will concur with me in this rule of law, that the 
 possession of papers without a publication, however seditious their 
 contents may be, however treasonable their tendency, does not amount 
 to high treason, for the mere possession of treasonable papers does not 
 amount to an overt act. God forbid it should ! for, if that was the 
 case, no man would be safe ; — the false friend, the bribed servant, the 
 suborned guest, every spy that came into a man's house, would have 
 it in his power, by privately depositing a private paper, to bring his 
 innocent intimate, master, or host to condign punishment. Gentle- 
 men, a very melancholy case once occurred in England which very 
 fully illustrates this position. It is a case well known to the learned 
 judges of the bench ; and, indeed, I believe of general notoriety. I 
 
406 TRIALS OF 
 
 mean the case of Salmon, Grcoghegan, and other miscreants, who, 
 in consequence of large rewards, offered by act of parliament, 
 for the apprehension and conviction of foot-pad robbers, entered 
 into a conspiracy to obtain rewards, by falsely accusing innocent 
 young men. Gentlemen, they accomplished their diabolical scheme, 
 by insinuating themselves into the confidence of unsuspecting and 
 unwary youths, and then putting marked coin, or other articles into 
 their pockets, by which they fabricated evidence to satisfy a jury, 
 convicted the dupes of their villainy, and pocketed the parliamentary 
 I'emuneration of their wickedness. They were at last discovered, and , 
 j ustice cut asunder this gordian knot of treachery. They were indicted I 
 for murder, but the law could not reach their lives — they were indicted 
 and convicted of conspiracy ; they were set in the pillory, and the 
 enraged populace pelted out the brains of two of them. Does Lawler 
 appear a man incapable of such a villainous scheme ? Is it impro- 
 bable that he, with a hope of pardon and reward before him, possessing 
 the confidence of the prisoner and having given information to the 
 magistrate, contrived by some subtle stratagem to convey these 
 papers to the possession of the prisoner, for the very purpose of 
 using them afterwards in corroboration of his own testimony ? 
 Gentlemen, there is one circumstance that strengthens this position, 
 it is this : you must recollect that Lawler swore his reason for getting 
 among the Defenders was for the purpose of coming at what they 
 were about ; but will you believe that to be the fact ? If mere 
 curiosity was his motive, why did he not secede from the societies 
 when he did become acquainted with the purposes of their association ? 
 He must have had a motive, and that motive must have been to 
 betray — he must have been sent in, or he went into the societies for 
 that purpose. Gentlemen, you cannot for a moment suppose, that the 
 wretch who has confessed he would at one time have thought it no 
 offence to take off" the head of his annointed Sovereign, could at any 
 time feel compunction at murdering his Majesty's subjects. Gentle- 
 men, when you come to examine the evidence of this man, enquire 
 among yourselves whether he has in any material point contradicted 
 himself. For it is an established rule, that if a witness contradict 
 himself in any material part of his evidence, it discredits the whole ; 
 and so far has this wise and salutary doctrine of evidence been carried 
 that Lord Mansfield extending the rule to civil causes, has on trials 
 where one witness has given false testimony, though there were other 
 witnesses of unimpeached characters examined to the same points with 
 the prejudiced party,directed the jury to reject the wholeof the evidence 
 and find a verdict against the party producing such a Avitness. Mr. Law- 
 ler's character is fully before you and in your possession ; and permit 
 me to ask you, has your knowledge of it raised a doubt in your mind ? 
 For if it has raised a doubt, you are bound by the imperative dictate 
 of conscience, to acquit the prisoner. You are bound, I say, not to 
 convict, unless his testimony be irresistible ; and when you take into 
 your consideration, that only one witness has been produced to the 
 merits, I rest satisfied, that you will send this unhappy youth at the 
 bar, home to his parents, where his errors may be corrected and 
 his mind imi)roved, and not by a verdict of guilty deprive him of his 
 life, under the infliction of a ju<lgment the most severe that the laws 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 407 
 
 of this country, or perhaps of any other country, has adopted. I here 
 conchide. We will now call witnesses to shew you and the court, 
 that Lawler is a person of sucli infamous morals and holding such 
 impious principles in point of religion, that he ought not to be credited 
 on oath giving testimony in a court of justice — and then I rest 
 satisfied, you will reject his evidence as being unworthy of credence, 
 and give life and liberty to my client, by a verdict of — not guilty. 
 
 Samuel Gallan, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 Lives at No. 2, Crane-lane, is a grocer, has known Lawler for four 
 or five years, and does not think him a man to be believed upon his 
 oath. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Solicitor-General,. 
 
 Witness was once a hair-dresser, and has a brother who has 
 travelled to New York, last September, since these people have been 
 taken up ; there were fourteen or fifteen of them in a reading society, 
 for the information of themselves ; no books were bought while 
 witness was in the society ; they all gave what books they had for 
 the use of the society. His brother went to New York, to follow 
 his trade, as an engraver, and has been talking of going there these 
 three years. Witness never was in the Philanthropic Society, but 
 believes his brother was ; witness expressed a concern for Lawler, 
 when he heard he was taken up ; did not hear of his being taken for 
 a week after he was taken ; witness pitied him, as being accused of 
 Defenderism ; expressed his sorrow and surprise at it, as he thought 
 him incapable of such a crime ; they used to read the papers of the 
 day at the society — Goldsmith's Animated Nature, Pope's Works, 
 Chamber's Dictionary, &c — thought Lawler an innocent lad ; but 
 from witness's knowledge of his religious principles, would not believe 
 him on his oath ; witness and Lawler were both Protestants ; does 
 not know where the persons are who composed the club ; believes 
 Burke ran away ; would not believe him either on account of his 
 principles ; never knew any of the Philanthropic Society, but his 
 brother, as he himself was not a member ; never heard of Strephon's 
 religion ; never expressed his opinion, or wish for a reform. [The 
 witness declined to answer, whether he had ever expressed any 
 opinion upon government.] Witness is about twenty-four years of 
 age, and never went to any other reading"society for instructions since 
 he went to school. 
 
 Nicholas Clare, sworn Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Is a master tailor, lives at 39? Townsend-street ; knows Lawler 
 sixteen months ; would not believe him on his oath ; witness belonged 
 to a reading society with him, and one evening Paine's Age of Reason 
 was spoke of ; Lawler said he would go farther than Paine, for he 
 denied any part of the Trinity. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mi*. Saurin. 
 
 Does not know who had him admitted, nor any of the persons there, 
 but Lawler and Gallan ; has heard that the taking up of the prisoners 
 was the cause of Gallan's going ofi"; witness's reason for not knowing 
 
408 TRIALS OF 
 
 more of the society, was, that he seldom went there ; did not go above 
 four times ; never saw any of the persons accused of high treason, 
 until he saw them in court ; believes he brought his brother into the 
 society ; was acquainted with one Cox ; witness believes he brought 
 him into the society ; never knew that Lawler was called to account 
 for any offence in a court of justice ; witness quit the society on 
 account of Lawler's conduct, and advised his brother to quit it. 
 
 John Clare, sworn Examined by Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 "Was a member of the society, knew Lawler and was acquainted 
 with his general character ; would not believe him on account of his 
 abandoned behaviour, and denying a future state ; would not take 
 away the life of a fly upon his testimony. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mi'. Kells. 
 
 Is a tailor, was a member of the society six months ; the greatest num- 
 ber he ever saw there was twenty-four ; Gallan, Atkinson, Cox, Burke, 
 Lawler, witness's brother were among the number ; it was intended 
 for information ; sometimes they had a law question ; witness hoped 
 to be a magistrate some time, and liked a law question ; they had the 
 news of the day also upon which they used to argue ; Burke and 
 Lawler were for the Age of Reason being introduced ; witness is a 
 married man, thirty-six years of age, never was at such a place till 
 about three years ago ; they were to have a French master to teach 
 them French ; Lawler's getting his hand cut in a riot, was the reason 
 witness left the society ; Lawler was an impious man ; never heard 
 why Atkinson went to America, except it was to better himself — 
 nor why Gallan went — believes they went together last September — 
 never heard that counsellor Barrington took Atkinson. 
 
 William Ebbs, sworn Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Is a pewterer ; has known Lawler some time ; he and his wife 
 lodged in witness's house ; does not think he is a man to be believed 
 upon his oath ; he is a man of very irreligious principles ; worked on 
 Sundays, and did not go to any place of worship. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr Ruxton. 
 
 Lawler lodged some time in witness's house, paid his rent, and was 
 an industrious, regular man ; did express a concern at hearing he was 
 taken up, for he was an industrious man ; his wife was much alarmed, 
 and hid something in the dirt-hole ; witness searched and found two 
 bags of musket-balls ; he also found a sledge ; thought these must 
 have been intended for some wicked purpose, and wished to get rid 
 of him ; these, coupled with the other circumstances, induce witness 
 not to believe Lawler ; never offered to go security for him, but said 
 he was an honest man. 
 
 John Robinson, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 Lawler served part of his apprenticeship to the witness — was a bad 
 boy — that is twelve years since, and witness could not take upon him 
 now to say whether he was to be believed upon his oath. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 409 
 
 Cornelius Gautier, one of the jury, sworn — Examined by 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Was one of the jury upon Leary's trial ; does not recollect particu- 
 larly what Lawler swore upon that trial. 
 
 Samuel Tyndall, another of the jury, sworn — Examined by 
 
 Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 Was one of the jury upon Leary^s trial, recollects that Lawler then 
 swore, that Mr. Robinson had beaten him, for which he ran away — 
 that was the only reason as he recollects — Lawler said he was accused 
 of stealing something from Mr. Robinson. 
 
 Mr. Lysaght My lords and gentlemen of the jui-y, it is my duty 
 
 to place the best shield I can between the unfortunate youth at the 
 bar, and an ignominious and untimely death, and if my conception of 
 j the laAv applicable to this case, be just, I feel a strong hope of being 
 I able to convince both the court and the jury, that the prisoner is 
 ! guiltless of the crime with which he stands charged ; I say emphati- 
 1 cally, with which he stands charged ; for should you, gentlemen of 
 i the jury, squander much credulity on the testimony that has been 
 |i adduced, still, if you do not give entire credence to the evidence of 
 Lawler, the prisoner, however incorrect, or, if you will criminal, if 
 his crime falls short of high treason, you are bound to acquit. The 
 specific treasons charged against him are the compassing and imagining 
 t the death of the King, and adhering to the King's enemies. I shall 
 not deny, that an adherence to the King's enemies is a substantive 
 treason, and may be also laid as an overt act, which it unquestion- 
 ably is, of conspiring and imagining the death of the King ; but I, 
 with respect to the court, insist on it, that the bai-ely having in one's 
 possession without publication,* a paper containing favourable senti- 
 ments and wishes towards an enemy in a distant country, without any 
 communication or correspondence whatsoever with the enemy ; I say 
 such a circumstance cannot, on any principle of law, of authority, or 
 of precedent, that I know ; I say such a circumstance cannot be 
 ■ swelled up to the enormity of high treason. I also contend for it, 
 and I am supported by Hale and Foster, that a bare conspiracy to 
 levy war for lawless purposes, short of deposing or dethroning the 
 I King, or in any degree endangering his sacred life, is not high treason, 
 I nor an overt act to manifest the compassing his death.f 
 
 Having said so much on the law of treason, so far as it could be 
 supposed to bear on the present case, I shall have but little to add to 
 the observations which have been so forcibly urged by Mr. M'Nally, 
 on the evidence of Lawler, contaminated and damned as his credit 
 must be, from his avowed perjuries, intended assassinations and 
 felonies ; so totally divested, as he has been proved to be, of that 
 sense of religion, without which no man can regard the sanction of 
 an oath — it would, I am confident, be a waste of time to the court to 
 argue that his testimony must be thrown out of your consideration. 
 What then is to affect the prisoner's life — is it the unpublished 
 
 * Foster, 198, 3d Edition. f Foster, Discourse on Treason, chapter 2d. 
 
410 TRIALS OF 
 
 nonsense found on him ? Now, gentlemen of the jury, as to the 
 declaration, the words of it are, " I, A. B. of my own good will and 
 consent, do swear that I will be true to his Majesty King George the 
 Third, whilst I live under the same government." Surely, gentlemen 
 of the jury, " while I live under his government," may have been 
 understood by the youth at the bar, to have meant the duration of his 
 own life — there is no inuendo laid in the indictment to eke out a 
 criminal construction of this declaration ; there is nothing necessarily 
 to be inferred from it in law, in logic, or in reason, to charge the 
 prisoner with treason, or even with sedition. Gentlemen of the jury, 
 as to the catechism, I own I cannot say so much, but as it was never 
 published by the prisoner, he might, as Judge Blackstone says, " keep 
 poison in his closet," so that he did not vend or disperse it. This 
 catechism may be considered as seditious; yet courts and juries should 
 be cautious, how criminal interpretations should be given to words in 
 themselves dubious. In Fleta it is laid down, that formerly in appeals 
 for treason, the appellant was obliged to prove with the most critical 
 accuracy and perspicuity, the words and writing imputed, their clear 
 meaning and import, beyond doubt or question, and if he failed in 
 doing so, the appellee was discharged and cleared of the imputed 
 treason. But, gentlemen of the jury, I hold in my hand high 
 authority to shew — authority not expressly stating, but by fair and 
 almost necessary implication admitting, that even the administering 
 unlawful oaths and engagements, is not considered to amount to high :, 
 treason. Defenders now are what White-boys formerly were, and \ 
 the act of the 27 of the King, was needless and nugatory, if the I 
 crimes provided against by it amounted to treason ; [here Mr. Lysaght i 
 read extracts from the acts alluded to, to support his argument,] and ! 
 contended, that by this statute he was empowered to assert that the 
 King, Lords and Commons of Ireland allowed impliedly, that the i 
 statute of treasons could not legally operate against Defenderism. 
 But the prosecutions of the present day, though for the same offences, 
 were to vary from the prosecutions heretofore carried on against 
 White-boys and Right-boys, as they were then called, and Defenders 
 as they are now called. Why ? Because a general alarm was spread 
 through these kingdoms, and many good and wise men were infected 
 with it. How else account for the late prosecutions in England, the 
 result of which was the acquittal of all accused, and the ascertaining 
 that one of the supposed traitors. Home Tooke, was a gentleman of 
 the soundest and most pure principles of unshaken patriotism and 
 loyalty ! as was manifested by the evidence. My lords, I ask what 
 precedent can be adduced to support the position, that the having a 
 paper of any kind in one's possession without publication, can be high 
 treason ? 
 
 Hensey had sent forth his letter, it was intercepted, but it had 
 gone from him with intent that it should reach the enemy. Is there 
 in the case before you, and on which give me leave to say posterity 
 will comment, is there the shadow of evidence even from the infamous 
 and solitary witness Lawler, that any communication or corres- 
 pondence with the enemy was had or intended ? Must not the 
 intention be guilty ? Was Rabelais put to death for having — it is 
 too solemn an occasion to throw out such allusions, if they be not 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 411 
 
 relevant — was Rabelais put to death, even under a despotic govern- 
 ment, for writing labels on phials full of brick dust, " poison for the 
 King, poison for the Queen," &c. No, because no treasonable 
 intention could be proved against him. And will the court and the 
 juiy in this case say, without credible proof, that Eliphismatis, and 
 such trash of enigmatical or rather nonsensical import — and certainly 
 not credibly proved to be of treasonable import — is an overt act of 
 adhering to the King's enemies ? Where are his enemies ? where I 
 hope they ever shall be, distant. How did the prisoner adhere ? 
 Did he correspond with, did he send intelligence to ? Does the very 
 indictment charge that he adhered in any manner, except to use its 
 •language, " in case the French should land." I have heard of con- 
 structive treasons — here are eventual, contingent treasons — blundering 
 accusation ! Gentlemen of the jury, will you disgrace your country 
 and yourselves ? I hope not — I have for myself to lament, that I 
 have been assigned as counsel for the prisoner but this day, in the 
 place of that able advocate, Mr. Curran, who could not attend ; but 
 I confide in the wisdom and integrity of the court and jury. Mr. 
 Lysaght concluded by conjuring the court not to put too heavy a 
 weapon into the hands of justice, by multiplying treasons ; and to the 
 jury, to reflect on the infamy of Lawler, and the youth of the 
 prisonei'. Do not, gentlemen of the jury, suffer your consciences 
 to be biassed by interest or by prejudice, or your judgment to be 
 shaken by alarm. Do not superstitiously imagine, that the poor youth 
 at the bar is so unhallowed and full of guilt, that the safety of the 
 state vessel requires that he should be thrown over and perish. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sekje ANT My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, it 
 
 is with no small pain that I rise upon this occasion, to perform the 
 disagreeable task which my duty requires. No man can feel more 
 sincere compassion than I do for the unfortunate youth at the bar, 
 and no man would feel more happy at his being able to establish his 
 innocence to the satisfaction of the jury. But, gentlemen, justice 
 imposes an indispensable duty upon me, and while I am ready, with 
 the greatest candour, to allow the unhappy prisoner every advantage 
 which the ingenuity of his counsel could suggest upon the facts 
 adduced in evidence ; yet, gentlemen, I must, in adverting to that 
 evidence, be obliged to shew it in a very different light indeed, from 
 that in which it has been exhibited by the prisoner's counsel. Gen- 
 tlemen, I shall be obliged to demonstrate to you, that the facts proved 
 do fully support the charge of high treason, agreeably to the con- 
 struction of the statutes of treasons, as laid down by the learned 
 gentleman who stated the case on the part of the crown. Much has 
 been said, gentlemen, with respect to the testimony of Lawler ; it has 
 been violently arraigned by the prisonei''s counsel. But, gentlemen, 
 I must deny it is that species of evidence which it has been called ; 
 namely, the evidence of an approver, swearing to save his own life — 
 for here, gentlemen, no promise of reward ever appeared, or existed. 
 Lawler had not been apprehended, he was not in custody, he was not 
 ever charged with any crime ; and he appears to have acted solely 
 from motives of compunction. Gentlemen, suppose a man had been 
 at one period of his life of abandoned or dissolute principles, was no 
 room ever to be left for repentance, or amendment ? If the witness 
 
412 TRIALS OF 
 
 had no scruples of conscience, by listening to which, he hoped to 
 make some atonement to his country, for the mischief he was pro- 
 moting, by stopping its current before it overwhelmed the country ; 
 if, gentlemen, the witness was afraid merely of personal mischief, 
 he might have withdrawn from the scene ; he was at perfect liberty 
 to do so. No person accused him, he was not even suspected, save 
 by his accomplices ; he could have fled to America or elsewhere, but 
 his testimony has been perfectly consistent throughout the trial, as it I 
 has been during the former ones. What was his account ? He told 
 you he was appalled with horror at hearing the real intention of the 
 Defenders, which he was unacquainted with before ; he therefore 
 determined to abandon them, and if possible, to prevent the com- 
 pletion of their diabolical purposes. He disclosed the matter to Mr. 
 Cowan, who advised him to lodge informations, which he accordingly 
 did ; and it appears he did so voluntai'ily, without any apprehension 
 of prosecution, or promise of reward. Gentlemen, the circumstance 
 of being a Defender, is of itself a strong impeachment upon the moral 
 character of a man. But will it be pretended that it altogether 
 precludes his testimony, where he could have had no necessity for 
 coming forward, no fear of punishment, no promise of reward, no 
 apparent object, but what he told you himself, the prevention of 
 public calamity and general mischief. If such testimony were 
 rejected by the law, the secrets of conspirators never could be deve- 
 loped, particularly, where they had screened their intentions and 
 designs from the prying eye of justice, by the most solemn engage- 
 ments of privacy. Gentlemen, how are such offenders to be brought 
 to punishment? You cannot expect that men of I'espeetable character 
 could be acquainted with such schemes, or able to give evidence of 
 them. The law only requires that the best evidence which the case 
 admits of shall be given. Lawler was certainly a particeps criminis 
 with the rest of the party, but when he came acqviainted with the 
 monstrous extent of their designs and the diabolical plans in agitation, 
 he became appalled with horror, and only obeyed the dictate of his 
 conscience in discovering the plot. Thus, gentlemen, he has been 
 made the providential instrument of frustrating this diabolical project, 
 which if left undiscovered for a few weeks longer, would have pre- 
 vented the possibility of a jury sitting in that box this day, to discharge 
 the most inestimable privilege of our happy constitution. But, 
 gentlemen, it has been said that the testimony of Lawler is unsup- 
 ported — it is no such thing : it has been consistent and circumstantial, 
 as well now as upon the former trials. Gentlemen, his testimony is 
 uncontradicted — not a single witness adduced to contradict any one 
 fact stated to have passed at any of the various meetings, at different 
 places and at different times. He has uniformly told the same story, 
 except as to the design upon the Chancellor, which was bi'ought out 
 upon the cross-examination, and in every point where the magistrates 
 and the officers of justice have been concerned, his testimony is fully 
 corroborated down to the finding of the same identical oath and 
 catechism in the fob of the prisoner. The ingenviity of the prisoner's 
 counsel in the course of a very long cross-examination, has not been 
 able to warp the Avitness into the slightest prevarication, and no 
 attempt has been made to prove the contrary of what he has related. 
 
I THE DEFENDERS. 413 
 
 I 
 
 He has given the prisoner ample opportunity of doing that, if it were 
 in his power, by mentioning the places where they met — it has not 
 been attempted. But, gentlemen, it is said that Lawler's testimony 
 was rejected and disbelieved by a former jury. That, gentlemen, I 
 cannot admit to be the fact ; for it might be perfectly consistent for 
 the very same jury to acquit Leary upon the evidence given against 
 him by Lawler, and to find the prisoner now at the bar guilty upon 
 the evidence of the same witness. The jury in the former case, 
 might have had some doubt, as to the criminality of the man — it did 
 not appear positively, that he was present when any oath was admi- 
 nistered, and if the jury had any scruples in their minds, so as not to 
 be perfectly satisfied of his guilt, it was their duty to acquit. But, 
 gentlemen, what room is there for doubt in the present case ? The 
 actual administration of the oath has been proved, and that very same 
 oath has been found in the prisoner's possession. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serjeant then commented very fully upon the facts 
 
 given in evidence, the treasonable nature of the oath, and the zealous 
 
 activity of the prisoner, from which he inferred that no doubt could 
 
 i remain of his guilt. But, however, if, notwithstanding, they had any 
 
 I reasonable doubt, such as rational men could entertain, it would be 
 
 I their duty to acquit the prisoner. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Gentlemen of the jury, if I felt the smallest 
 1 difficulty upon the whole of the merits of this case, in proceeding to 
 deliver my opinion upon it forthwith, I would adjourn the court for 
 a short time, or until the next day, in order to take time to consider 
 : of it ; but, gentlemen, I do not feel any such difficulty ; such adjourn- 
 ! ments indeed have taken place in another country, but it is a precedent 
 which, I must confess, I do not much approve ; and in presiding 
 upon criminal trials, I will never, so long as I am able to sit, and my 
 brother judges are able to assist me, adjourn the court until the 
 i issue be finally disposed of. Gentlemen, the indictment which you 
 are now to try is founded upon the statute of Edward III. ; a statute 
 1 which has been enjoyed by the happy Constitution of these reahns for 
 f seven hundred years, and which, for one hundred years past, it has 
 [! not been necessary to call into execution in this kingdom. Gentlemen, 
 i it may be necessary to state to you what the accusation is not, in order 
 ! to disembarrass your minds from the represent tion of counsel. This, 
 [ gentlemen, is not a charge of felony, under the White-boy Act, — it is 
 I not a charge for levying war to pull down enclosures — it is not a 
 charge against the prisoner for having in his possession unpublished 
 I papers — it was not a charge for a tumultuous rising, or of merely 
 ; assembling with Defenders to commit robbery or burglary — it is not 
 a charge of merely taking, or administering illegal oaths ; but, gentle- 
 men, it is an indictment of high treason, founded in the statute of 
 Edward III., and it charges the prisoner with associating himself with 
 divers false traitors, styling themselves Defenders, and combining and 
 conspiring with them to aid and assist the persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France, at open war with the King, for the 
 purpose of overturning, by force, the King's government in this 
 country, in Church and State, thereby adhering to the King's enemies, 
 and compassing and imagining the King's death. For, gentlemen, it 
 has been truly stated by the learned officer of the crown who opened 
 
414 TRIALS OF 
 
 the case for the prosecution, that any adherence to the King's enemies 
 at open war with his Majesty, for the purpose of aiding or assisting 
 them against his Majesty, necessarily, in its obvious consequences, 
 involves the safety of the King's life and the existence of his govern- 
 ment. Consequently, gentlemen, he who is guilty of the one, is, by 
 necessaxy implication, guilty of the other. Therefore, gentlemen, it 
 is not necessary that there should be a direct attack upon the King's 
 person, or an actual levy of troops to carry on rebellion, in order to 
 support this indictment ; for if a combination, or conspiracy for the 
 purpose, existed amongst his Majesty's subjects, and if it can be 
 established by overt acts committed by them, the charge will be thereby 
 as fully substantiated as much as if the most malicious purpose of such 
 a conspiracy had been perpetrated and completed. Gentlemen, the 
 safety of the State and the Constitution itself is inseparably connected 
 with the safety of the King, who is the first soldier and the first 
 magistrate of tlie State, and therefore the law, wisely considering the 
 importance of his invaluable life to the peace and existence of society, 
 has guarded even the most distant approaches towards the safety of 
 that life with the most scrupulous caution ; for gentlemen, this is the 
 only instance in which the policy of our laws takes the intention of 
 guilt, manifested by plain, unequivocal overt acts, as adequate to the 
 completion of the crime, and inflicts the punishment accordingly for 
 such criminal intention. Gentlemen, having thus stated the law 
 arising upon the case, as far as it occurs to me to be necessary, I shall 
 next proceed to consider the charges stated in this indictment, and the 
 evidence which has been adduced in support of them. 
 
 [Here his lordship stated the overt acts enumerated in the indict- 
 ment, and then I'ecapitulated, from his notes, the whole of the evidence.] 
 
 His lordship afterwards stated it as his opinion, that all the circum- 
 stances separately and collectively considered, showed that a connection 
 with and adherence to the French Convention was the unquestionable 
 purpose of Defenderism, for the end of assisting the French in any 
 invasion of this country, and overturning the government of it ; and 
 the guilt of these designs, if the jury believed the testimony of Lawler, 
 was clearly brought home to the prisoner at the bar. Gentlemen, the 
 next object for your consideration will be the evidence of that witness. 
 How does it appear ? Certainly, not as that of an approver, as^has been 
 represented by the counsel ; he stands upon very difi*erent grounds. 
 An approver, gentlemen, is a man who, upon being apprehended and 
 charged with a crime, was encoviraged by the offer of a pardon to 
 disclose his crime and prosecute his accomplices. Gentlemen, is that 
 the case of Lawler? Certainly not. Was he apprehended upon a 
 charge of any crime ? No. Was he offered a pardon ? No. Did 
 he prosecute his accomplices out of a necessity to save his own life ? 
 No. Was there anything to prevent his escape from justice if he 
 chose it without making any discovery ? No. Had he any malice 
 to the prisoner ? Was there any dispute between them ? Nothing 
 of the kind was attempted to be proved. The testimony of the witness 
 throughout Avas clear, collected, and consistent, without any prevari- 
 cation. It was circumstantially supported by the testimony of 
 Alderman James and Mr. Carleton, and so far fi-om being contradict- 
 ed by the evidence examined, on the part of the prisoner, it was 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 
 
 415 
 
 strengthened in several respects. So far as the evidence for the prisoner 
 went, it exactly tallied and indented with the account given by Lawler, 
 but what amounted to very strong presumptive pi-oof, in support of 
 Lawler, was, that notwithstanding the various meetings particularized 
 by him at Plunket-street, at Drury-lane, at Stoneybatter, at Cork- 
 street, not a single tittle of evidence appeared to show that the prisoner 
 was not at any of those meetings ; nor did any of those persons stated 
 to have been present at those meetings with the prisoner and Lawler 
 appear to contradict him. So that, gentlemen, comparing the whole 
 of Lawler's evidence with all the other evidence which appeared in 
 the course of the trial, they indented with each other so closely and 
 consistently, without anything to contradict them, that if you believe 
 the evidence, you cannot hesitate to conclude that the indictment has 
 
 ' been fully substantiated. Gentlemen, the counsel for the prisoner 
 have endeavoured to excite your humanity in favour of the prisoner's 
 
 ( youth. Humanity, no doubt, is a commendable virtue ; but, gentlemen, 
 the attribute of mercy belongs not to a jury, when justice requires a 
 
 t verdict upon your oaths, according to the evidence. If the youth of 
 a criminal were to warrant a jury in finding a verdict against evidence 
 the most desperate conspirators against a state will have nothing more 
 
 ; to do than engage the boys of a country in their plots, and if they 
 be detected before the accomplishment of their purpose, the humanity 
 of a jury is to intervene, and to screen them from public justice. 
 Gentlemen, there is an instance in the conduct of the great Judge 
 
 i Foster, who was styled an humane judge, worthy of your attention. 
 A boy of only seven years old was tried before that judge for murder. 
 
 [ It appeared that the boy had been entrusted with the care of a child 
 somewhat younger than himself, and upon a quarrel arising, he had 
 
 ; killed the child ; sensible of his crime, and apprehensive of detection 
 and punishment, he concealed the body in a dung-hill. vSome sus- 
 picions arising from the account he gave respecting the child, the boy 
 was locked up in a room until he should tell the truth : at the end of two 
 days he acknowledged the murder, and discovered where he had hid 
 the body. He was tried, and his years were urged in his defence. 
 He was certainly of very tender years ; but the learned judge observed 
 that his hiding the body, and his prevarication in the account he gave, 
 all marked his sense of the wickedness of the crime. The jury con- 
 victed him — ^he was not indeed executed, but respited from time to 
 time, until at length he died in prison. Now, gentlemen, if, in the 
 present case, you believe that the prisoner at the bar is so young or 
 so silly as not to understand what he was about* in the proceedings 
 charged and proved against him ; or that he was cajoled or enticed to 
 swear oaths, and administer them to others, and to attend meetings of 
 Defenders, for the purpose of seizing arms to assist the French, and 
 all this through mere simplicity, inadvertence, or ignorance of the 
 guilt ; there, to be sure, his youth would deserve consideration. But 
 this is scarcely possible to conceive. You must, therefore, gentlemen, 
 throw all false and partial considerations out of your mind — you must 
 arm your judgments with manly feelings, and if you have no doubt, 
 such as rational men may entertain, you will do your duty like con- 
 scientious men, and find the prisoner guilty. But, if on the contrary, 
 you should entertain such a reasonable doubt, it will be of course your 
 
416 TRIALS OF 
 
 duty to acquit him. The verdict will be yours, not that of the court, 
 and upon your consciences it will rest. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain, and Mr. Baron George declined adding 
 any observations to the jury. 
 
 About two o'clock in the morning of the 23d, the jury retired, and 
 after deliberating for twenty minntes, brought in a verdict of Guilty ; 
 but recommended the prisoner as an object of mercy, on account of 
 his youth. 
 
 The court then adjourned to ten o'clock on Wednesday morning. 
 
 Wednesday, Februaiy 24. 
 
 Patrick Hart was this day put upon his trial, upon an indictment 
 similar to that which is set forth in the case of Thomas Kennedy, and 
 therefore it is thought unnecessary to state it particularly. 
 
 The following Jury were sworn, 
 
 Nathaniel Trumbull, jun., Francis Kirkpatrick, 
 
 William French, Thomas Black, 
 
 William Lancake, George Simpson, 
 
 Thomas White, Matthew Nixon, 
 
 George Pillsworth, J. Hawthorn Grier, 
 
 John Ferns, John Thompson.* 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General. — My lords and gentlemen of the jury, 
 though called on at the instant to state this case, I will not make an 
 idle affectation of being unprepared. Instead of forgetting at this 
 time, so soon after the late trials on the same subject, I doubt, whether I 
 ever shall forget the important facts which this trial, like the former, 
 will produce. They are not novel to me, though they must again be 
 explained to you — but conscious as I am of the extreme fatigue which 
 your lordships ha\e already undergone, I shall endeavour to bring 
 the case within as narrow a compass as possible. It is very likely, 
 gentlemen, that you may have heard a great deal before you came 
 into the box, but I will caution you, not to suffer your minds to be 
 influenced by anything but what shall appear on the pi^esent trial in 
 evidence upon the several charges in this veiy serious accusation 
 against the prisoner. Gentlemen, the indictment is of considerable 
 length. It has been deliberately and correctly read by the officer. 
 Therefore, it is only necessary for me, in order to direct your attention, 
 to state, that notwithstanding the length of the charge and the diffi- 
 culty that might apparently be attendant upon an investigation of an 
 indictment of such long and complicated formation, the case may be 
 
 * In swearing the jury, several challenges were taken on the part of the prisoner, 
 for want of freehold. Some doubt was entertained, whether this was a good 
 cause of challenge in the city of Dublin. The Attorney-General declined making 
 any point, or arguing the objection, and the court directed the persons challenged 
 to be sworn, to answer whether they had freeholds in the city, and such as 
 answered in the negative, were not sworn upon the jury. By the 3 and 4 William 
 IV. c. 91, s. 20, it is specially provided that if a person be otherwise qualified 
 according to the requisitions of the Act, want of freehold shall not be accepted 
 as good cause of challenge either by the crown or by the party, nor as a cause 
 for discharging the man so returned upon his own application. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 417 
 
 simplified to two charges, which, if proved, will bear upon tlie 
 prisoner. Gentlemen, under that remarkable statute of 25 Eldward 
 I the Third called the Statute of Treasons, which although it has been 
 ' acted upon for many centuries in England, has not been brought 
 into familiar notice in this country, till modern times — I say 
 under that statute of Edward the Third, we are now regvilated, 
 not only in framing the accusation in cases like the present, but we 
 are directed in the course of evidence necessary to bring home guilt 
 to the party accused under that statute, and by cases solemnly ad- 
 judged upon trials of a similar nature. True it is, gentlemen, 
 that the crime of which the prisoner stands charged, is peculiar in its 
 nature, and different from other crimes known to the law, because 
 under the statute which I have mentioned, the bare imagining-, and 
 intending of such crime as is alluded to, is the completion of the crime, 
 if that intent be manifested by overt acts laid in the indictment, and 
 sufficiently established by evidence Avithin the statute. Gentlemen, 
 it is unnecessaiy for me to labour the point to shew you, with 
 reference to a person charged with adhering to the King's enemies, 
 that if the person so accused can be shewn to have seconded the 
 endeavour of the King's enemies, at open war with the King, in 
 such a manner as to have invited them to invade the kingdom, to 
 have associated with others, and enlisted men to raise an armed 
 force, to second the invaders when they should arrive, he is manifestly 
 guilty of such adhering. It is settled law, that such a case will not 
 only go to establish the treason of adhering to the King's enemies, 
 but will in its consequence go to prove the other charge of compassing 
 the King's death ; because the enemies of the King being invited to 
 invade the kingdom with an armed force, and a force being raised 
 1 here with a view of forwarding their purposes, to dethrone the King 
 land overturn his government, that necessai'ily calls after it the 
 I death of the King, vmder whose auspices, as head of the state, and as 
 supreme executive magistrate, this constitution and government is 
 preserved, and we possess and enjoy our liberties and existence. So 
 much, I should hope, will be enough, as to the general heads of the 
 accusation. But in order to establish those general heads of accusa- 
 ! tion, it has been necessary also to lay certain overt acts — eight of which 
 are set forth in the indictment, in order to bring home guilt to the 
 prisoner at the bar. Of these overt acts, gentlemen, the one to which 
 I shall direct your attention in the first instance, is that of associating 
 with a body of men called Defenders — confederated together with an 
 armed force to second the invasion of the French, at open war with 
 the King ; and in case they should invade this kingdom, to forward 
 their attempts in overturning the established government of the 
 country. Another distinct overt act is that of enlisting certain 
 I)ersons to promote that first purpose I have mentioned, and is a 
 necessary corollary to it, by which leading primary intention, both 
 are connected and combined for the purpose stated in the indictment. 
 Another ovei't act to which I shall direct your attention, is that of 
 administering an oath, which oath, together with a catechism (for I 
 take them together as one instrument) upon the face of them, shew, 
 that the other purposes and overt acts which I alluded to, will rest 
 not merely upon parol testimony, but will be established by written 
 
 2 E 
 
418 TRIALS OF 
 
 and irrefragable proof, so as to give demonstrable certainty of the 
 great feature of the case, the decided existence of a foul, horrible 
 treason, which is the subject matter of your enquiry. Gentlemen, it 
 will establish this fact beyond controversy, in the first instance, namely, , 
 that the treason did exist ; and secondly, that the prisoner participated, , 
 and was an active sharer in the guilt. You are aware, gentlemen, 
 that in taking this line, I am shortening the course of your investi-- 
 gation, in order that your attention may be compressed as much as ■ 
 possible to this point, to which the evidence is immediately applicable. 
 I come now, gentlemen, to another part of the case, and that which i 
 falls more immediately within your province to investigate, and decide 
 upon — I mean the nature of the evidence which will be brought for- 
 ward to establish the guilt of the prisoner at the bai\ Gentlemen, it 
 will appear to you, that this infatuated and deluded man, and if I am 
 rightly instructed, that unfortunately wicked person at the bar, had . 
 his mind so heated, so perverted, so contaminated by the treasonable 
 pursuits in which he was engaged, that he had confederated himself I' 
 with that body of men called Defenders, who have infested this 
 country for four or five years past, under that particular denomination 
 which has brought shame and disgrace upon this kingdom — so that 
 nothing but the wholesome administration of jixstice, can induce any 
 man to reside here, or ever make you worthy again to invite strangers 
 to hold commercial connexion with you, by giving stability to your 
 credit or security, for the enjoyment of the sweets of honest industry. 
 I understand the prisoner at the bar is nearly connected with people 
 of business in this metropolis, and has been bred up to the trade of a 
 skinner. It will be proved that within this, your metropolis, there 
 have existed within this short time past, a number of societies all 
 co-operative to one abominable mischief ; who, through their ditFerent 
 gradations of guilt, at last concentred the carrying into execution 
 their wicked and traitorous intentions in that body of men called 
 Defenders, of whom the prisoner was one — not a passive member 
 submitting to the directions of others, but taking that leading, decisive 
 and commanding part which belongs to a committee-man, and a leader 
 in their discipline and counsels — an office Avhich he held under the 
 treasonable sanction of his engagements, formed upon the systematic 
 plan of these societies, confederated for purposes the most horrid, and 
 most formidable to the safety of the community. It will appear \hat 
 this body of men, under the combined efforts of the malignant inter- 
 vention of foreign missionaries — of domestic disaftected men — of^the 
 industrious assiduity of persons engaged for some years past in attempts 
 to overturn the state, and to bring destruction upon those men who 
 wish well to the good order and law of the country. This unfortunate 
 man at the bar having embarked in the guilty purposes, and heated 
 and infiamed with all the abominable miscliief growing out of the 
 circumstances I have mentioned, exerted himself with such activity, as 
 to be entitled to that denomination I have stated — that of a committee- 
 man. It will appear that these persons called Defenders, of whose 
 confederation you will have decisive evidence from the oath and the 
 catechism, could have nothing else in view than the object of embody- 
 ing with France, and to deluge the country with blood and confusion. 
 The oath and the catechism specially pi-ove it. The association met 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 419 
 
 at several places, they enlisted men under the perverted sanction of a 
 sacred oath — appealing to God, and binding themselves by an engage- 
 ment, they laboured most assiduously to increase their numbers — they 
 met in several places — they had their assemblies, their laws, their 
 courts-martial, and their committee-men — subscriptions of money — 
 arms provided by plunder — and by those means endeavouring to carry 
 into eifect their guilty purposes, so as not to leave the possibility of a 
 doubt upon your minds as to the general intent. The prisoner Hart, 
 appears to have had more than a common share, even as a leader and 
 committee-man. The Avitness who will be brought forward to support 
 this charge, has been already examined in the course of several trials. 
 The same witness upon whose testimony the case will principally 
 turn, will be now brought forward, and will prove the numerous 
 meetings at which Hart attended — that he appeared at the head of 
 some of them as an authoritative person, announcing to the whole 
 body, what the guilty purpose was. At some meetings powder and 
 ammunition were provided. Hart will appear to have been an active 
 man in swearing individuals, one of whom was reluctant, until he 
 heard the purpose of the engagement. The meeting at which that 
 transaction took place was at Stoneybatter, and there a person was 
 brought in to be sworn — Hart was presiding as a committee-man. 
 He told the novitiate that the object of engagement was to aid the 
 French when they would land, and for that purpose they were to 
 plunder the country of arms to be prepared for their arrival — ^you are, 
 said Hart, to obey all the mandates of the committee, and to be con- 
 federated with us upon oath — which oath he accordingly administered. 
 Gentlemen, at that very meeting at Stoneybatter, an engagement was 
 entered into, upon a difficulty appearing whether they were sufficiently 
 armed to go out and plunder. " You must go back," said he, " and 
 fetch your arms." Then a delay took place, some did not return, and 
 it appearing there was not a sufficient number attending. Hart called 
 upon those who were in the room, and desired them to lay their hands 
 upon the table, and swear by their solemn engagement to attend 
 the next night, to be fully armed for the purjiose of plundering the 
 houses of the peaceable inhabitants in the confines of Dublin. It has 
 appeared, that upon that very night when the confederation was 
 entered into, a robbery was committed at a neighbouring house, which 
 was plundered of arms, and those arms were found in the possession 
 of Hart, when he was taken up. Those arms wei"e plundered for the 
 pui'pose of assisting the French, when they should land. Gentlemen, 
 there is another alarming circumstance, which will come out in proof, 
 and therefore I state it, though I wish to be relieved from the pain 
 of it. It is so horrible in its nature, that we do not wish to impute 
 it to the body of the Catholic persuasion ; but there have been men 
 abandoned enough to inflame and exasperate religious prejudices, and 
 that wicked principle is imputable to the prisoner, who out of his own 
 mouth must be judged. It will appear, gentlemen, that at one meeting 
 of Defenders, associated for the serious purpose of enlisting, embodying 
 and becoming formidable by militaiy array, a conversation arose,in which 
 the witness wanted to know all the purposes of the association, which 
 Hart, as a confidential committee-man, avowed himself entrusted with 
 — upon that occasion Hart told the witness, " our intention is to get 
 
420 TRIALS OF 
 
 arms from those who have them, and after we are thoroughly prepared, 
 to massacre and put to death the Protestants of the country." Here 
 he avowed the horrid scheme. Gentlemen, I have thought much 
 upon this subject, and I cannot bring my mind to suppose, that so 
 atrocious a malignity could exist in the minds of any body of men, as 
 a deliberate purpose of murdering their Protestant bi'ethren, and at 
 this time, when we are receiving with open arms, by every act of 
 kindness and participation of benefit, the whole of our Roman Catholic 
 fellow Christians ; yet, some there are, who would make religious 
 enthusiasm an excuse for the foulest crimes, with that horrid malignity 
 with which Hart's mind was inflamed and was full. Much industry 
 has been used to pei-suade the bigotted and uninformed Roman 
 Catholic, that his situation is such as calls for outrage as justifiable, 
 because that he cannot accomplish abolition of tithes and reform in 
 parliament : but there is no sensible Roman Catholic that must not 
 be convinced that he is in the full enjoyment of every blessing Avhich 
 the constitution can give ; and that it is high time to teach the con- 
 spirators against that constitution, that every honest man of every 
 religious persuasion, joins to suppress that spirit of delinquency and 
 outrage. Gentlemen, I shall now state the papers very shortly, 
 which were found on the prisoner, and which speak trumpet-tongued 
 to your understandings. The evidence, if established, is in its nature, 
 not fallible ; it consists of written documents, found in the possession 
 of the prisoner, and are not subject to those objections imputable to 
 evidence of another kind, where the fallibility of memory could 
 deceive. 
 
 One of these papers begins in these words, " I do swear that I will 
 be true and faithful to the present United States of F. and I. and 
 every other kingdom now in Christianity, as far as in my power lies, 
 without hurting my soul or body, as long as they prove so to me." 
 Then it goes on, " And more I do swear, that I will be true to my 
 committee and brothers, that is to say, in supporting the right and 
 privileges of the United States of the kingdom, now in brotherhood." 
 " More, I swear, that I will not come as an evidence against any of 
 my brothers, in any cause whatsoever, except on a court-martial, held 
 by our committees on pain of exclusion, or death whichsomever is 
 deserving." The dreadful tendency of those engagements will be 
 matter for your consideration. These papers were found in the pri- 
 soner's box — in another box was found a blunderbuss, and several 
 rounds of ball cartridge, so that he appears to have had arms in one 
 box, dangerous papers in another, and treason in his heart. Gentle- 
 men, you will consider the whole of this case, and if there be a hinge 
 left to hang a doubt on, I join in the recommendation to acquit the 
 prisoner. If you find Lawler, the witness, trip or equivocate in any 
 one point or circumstance, you should never find the party accused 
 guilty. But, gentlemen, if you find the witness perfectly consistent, 
 and if the learned counsel, whose duty it may be to cross-examine 
 him, cannot, under all the advantages of former disquisition involve 
 him in inconsistency, and if he shall be supported, as I am bold to say 
 he will be, by a train of corroborating facts which could not exist 
 were not the principal charges well founded, it then only remains for 
 you to perform that duty which your country has a right to demand 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 421 
 
 at your hands, and I trust that no consideration will warp you from 
 the important obligation which you are bound by your oaths and on 
 your consciences to discharge. 
 
 William Lawler, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Kell's. 
 
 The general tenor of the witness's testimony being the same as upon 
 the former cases, it is omitted, to avoid repetition. The additional 
 matter was the private conversation with Hai't, the prisoner, which was 
 inadmissible evidence, as against the former prisoners. 
 
 He said, he met the prisoner at Nowlan's, in Druiy-lane ; it was 
 on Sunday the 23d of August, after the meeting at Stoneybatter ; it 
 was a society of Defenders ; there were more than twelve at the 
 meeting ; it was about seven in the evening. The prisoner asked 
 witness if Coffey and Dry were not Protestants — witness answered, 
 he believed they were ; the prisoner said he would not sit in company 
 with them ; the reason the prisoner asked him was because he was 
 acqviainted with them both. The prisoner asked witness what religion 
 he was of ? — witness answered he was a Roman ; the reason he said 
 so was, because Brady told him when he went to be sworn, to say he 
 was a Roman, for that they had an objection to admit Protestants. 
 Witness asked the prisoner his reason for asking the question so many 
 times ; prisoner said because he would not sit in company with a 
 Protestant. That the night before, the Defenders were to have risen, 
 but on account of the harvest not being got it, it was deferred ; for if 
 the harvest should be destroyed, they would be starved, but as soon 
 as it was got in, they would rise upon the Protestants, and put them 
 to death, and that the forts would be attacked at the same time ; he 
 meant by the forts, the different garrisons in Ireland. The prisoner 
 said he would call a committee of twelve men, and that Lockington 
 should be made a prisoner, and they Avould then consult what death 
 they would put him to, for having brought Protestants among them ; 
 the prisoner was then called to order by Coffey, who was in the chair ; 
 Coffey wanted to know what number of Defenders there were in 
 Dublin, that they might be officered ; the reason the prisoner and the 
 witness were called to order, was because they were from the table, 
 and at the window ; witness met the prisoner on the following day 
 in the Liberty, there was a young man with him, who the prisoner 
 said was a Defender ; he shook hands with the witness and pressed 
 witness's hand with his thumb, which was a sign that he was a 
 Defender ; the pinsoner asked witness if he had any ball at home, or 
 if he knew how to make ball cartridges ; told him he did, and that 
 he had ball at home ; prisoner gave witness some gunpowder, about 
 half a pound, and desired him to make cartridges, and let him have 
 them in the evening ; witness asked the prisoner if there were four 
 hundred Defenders in Dublin ; he said there were four thousand if 
 they were got together ; they then separated, and witness went to 
 Dry's in Cork-street. 
 
 The oath and catechism found upon Kennedy were read, after 
 which the witness said, he wished to mention something to the court. 
 One of the witnesses, said he, who appeared on the last trial, was the 
 man who lent me the case of pistols Avhen I went to the watch-house, 
 and when I went to Stoneybatter. 
 
422 TKIALb OF 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — What is the name of that man ? A. Gallan, 
 of Crane-lane. He lent me a pistol when I went to Stoneybatter. 
 Q. Who has that pistol now ? A. It can be got by sending for it. 
 Whereupon the pistol was sent for. 
 
 Cross-examined by JSIr. Lysaght. 
 
 Witness saw another person who came to discredit his testimony, 
 who did not lend him a pistol ; could not say anything of the man ; 
 his wife told him he was the person who melted down the bullets ; could 
 not say Mr. Robinson was a good man ; he used witness more like a 
 servant than anything else ; was not taken by him through charity ; 
 last saw his father in England, his father was not a member of any 
 of the Corresponding Societies ; witness had been frequently in 
 company Avith the prisoner. It was said at Hoey's-court, when they 
 should rise, that the first persons they should put to death would be 
 Jackson's juiy. There was a society met at witness's room, and at 
 Gallan's ; Strephon and witness were the principals who induced 
 them to go there ; never said there was no God ; Burke wanted the 
 members to believe there was no Saviour ; never heard that the 
 society dissolved in consequence of witness's blasphemous expressions, 
 for he never made use of any. When the petition of the London 
 Corresponding Society was refused, some of them said, they ought to 
 go to the throne with arms, and have what they wanted. One Baxter 
 in London, asked witness if he had room for an hundred arms, and if 
 he would meet some of the members at Turnstyle, Holborn, and learn 
 his exercise, as the Sheffield members did. Witness administered 
 oaths to some people, but they were not children ; some of them were 
 apprentices ; could not say how old the little boy was that he swore 
 in Castle-street ; was more than ten years of age ; if he were pro- 
 duced, he might guess ; did not know his name ; the youngest he ever 
 swore was seventeen years of age ; it was a rule not to admit any 
 members under eighteen ; there was one James Steward, who used 
 to cai'ry about the books ; never swore a boy with a pistol to his 
 breast ; was asked before about it, but it was not true ; witness did 
 venture to deny it upon a former trial ; heard the Telegraphic and 
 Philanthropic Societies consisted of one hundred ; could not tell how 
 many Protestants ; there were Protestants and Romans in the Philan- 
 thropic Society ; witness used frequently to work on Sunday ; did not 
 attend church, when he thought it no crime to kill the King ; did not 
 go to church at the time the pistol was fired into the watcli-house ; 
 there was an intention of liberating the recruits in a crimping-house 
 at the corner of Bull-alley ; did not know how much bounty he got, 
 when he enlisted ; witness's brother changed his name to John Wright ; 
 is now in Chester ; witness liked the prisoner as a Defender when 
 he belonged to them ; never declared, since he was taken up, that he 
 would rather hang the prisoner than any of thera. The members 
 of the Philanthropic Society were divided into four divisions, and 
 there Avere thirty-five in each division ; did not believe the prisoner 
 was a member of the Philanth»opic Society. 
 
 Alderman James, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Prime-Serjeant. 
 Granted a warrant against the prisoner, to Mr. Philip Henry 
 
THE DEFENDEKf. 423 
 
 Godfrey, grounded upon informations from Lawler, who gave a 
 description of the ditFerent persons and where they would be found. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Took Lawler's examination upon the 27th of August. Atkinson 
 was arrested upon the 24tli ; witness went to the Liberty, where he 
 saw near three thousand people, Avho dispersed upon seeing him and 
 the army. Had information there was an intention to attack the 
 castle and the bank ; had information from Lawler and other persons ; 
 did not take the information of those other persons upon oath, because 
 they did not wish to have their names made public ; their information 
 agreed with that given by Lawler ; Lawler did not say, he was one of 
 the party to attack the Chancellor. 
 
 Philip Henry Godfrey, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Worthington. 
 
 Received a warrant from Alderman James, to apprehend the 
 prisoner and several others, and accordingly went to the house where 
 the prisoner lived ; bro_ke open the street door with a sledge, went up 
 stairs, found the prisoner and another boy in bed ; took a paper, or 
 parchment out of the prisoner's breeches pocket ; knew they were his 
 breeches, fi'om his having told the witness so ; they wei'e not the 
 breeches which the prisoner put on ; found some parchment and 
 papers in a box in the room ; a broken blundei'buss, and about twenty 
 rounds of ball cartridge ; witness did not inquire whose the box was ; 
 nor did he know. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Lysaght. 
 
 Did not know of any threat, or promise held out to the prisoner ; 
 witness did not hold out any ; would not answer for what the persons 
 about the prisoner might have done. On the way to Newgate, the 
 prisoner told the witness that the breeches were his ; he also said he 
 was a sworn Defender, but was sworn by compulsion, and had the 
 parchment forced upon him ; witness did not know, nor could he form 
 a belief, whether Lawler visited the prisoner at the house where he 
 lived. 
 
 [Here the parchment found in the breeches pocket was read, and was 
 
 as follows : — ] 
 
 " I, A. B., do in presence of God, swear of my own free will and 
 
 accord, that I will be true to the present United States of F and 
 
 I and every other kingdom now in Christianity, as far as in my 
 
 power lies without hurting my soul or body, as long as they prove so 
 to me : and moi'e I do swear, that I will not go with any robber or 
 thief, or any person that is suspected to defame our society in any 
 character whatsoever, or keep such people company, if to my know- 
 ledge I know it : and more I do swear, that I will be true to my 
 committee and brothers, that is to say, in supporting the rights and 
 privileges of the united states of the kingdom now in brotherhood, or 
 may be hereafter, and that I will not wrong any of my brothers to the 
 value of twopence sterling, to my knowledge : and more I do swear, 
 that I will not come as an evidence against any of my brothers in any 
 
424 
 
 TR1AI.S OF 
 
 cause wliatsoever, except on a court-martial held by our committees, 
 on pain of exclusion or death, whichsomever is deserving : and more 
 I do swear, that I will not strike or ill use a brother in any respect ; 
 and that if I see a brother struck or ill used, I will aid and assist him 
 as far as in my power lies, if in a just cause, if to my knowledge he 
 is a brother ; and all brothers is to live lovingly and friendly together, 
 and to have no quarrels or disputes whatsoever, and he that does, is 
 to be excluded as long as the committee thinks proper, and to avoid 
 such things, you are not to play at any sort of gaming with any 
 of your brothers for more than sixpence sterling at one time : and 
 more I do swear, that I will help to support a lawful well inclined 
 bi'other in all distresses whatsoever as far as in my power lies, without 
 hurting myself or my family, and that I will meet when and where 
 my committee thinks proper, and spend what is agreeable to my 
 committee and company, and that monthly or as the committee thinks 
 proper, and this article is according to the united states of the 
 kingdom." 
 
 Signed by order, or of the 
 
 head committee of F. & I. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally objected to the reading of the papers found in the 
 box ; they were not proved to be the prisoner's hand-writing, nor was 
 the box proved to be his property. 
 
 The Court said the papers found in the box could not be read. 
 
 Oliver Carleton, Esq., sworn — Examined by Mr. Ruxton. 
 
 This witness repeated the testimony he had given in the former 
 cases. 
 
 Evidence for the crown closed. 
 
 Mr. Lysaght — My lords and gentlemen of the jury, I have been 
 very suddenly called on to-day (as I was also on the last trial) to 
 defend the unfortunate prisoner at the bar ; the very able and elo- 
 quent advocate, who had been assigned one of his counsel, having 
 been prevented by avocations elsewhere, I presume, or some other 
 justifiable reasons from attending. And I feel this disadvantage the 
 more strongly, inasmuch as the facts charged against the prisoner 
 at the bar, are of a very different nature from the facts charged against 
 those for whom I had been originally assigned counsel. I likewise 
 feel much discouragement in my own mind, and am diffident of its 
 executions from reflecting that I have the misfortune to differ in some 
 degree from the Bench, in my conception, both of the nature of the 
 evidence, and the law, applicable to the facts which were thought to 
 have appeared on the last trial — the trial of Kennedy. 
 
 I feel all due respect for the bench, and trust it is not inconsistent 
 with that sentiment to say, that their lordships are to fulfil a very 
 important and awful duty ; they are to decide the law and to be 
 adjudged by the present generation, and by posterity for such decision, 
 on cases of singular nicety and acknowledged novelty. As to matters 
 of fact, you, gentlemen of the jury, are to be assisted and advised, but 
 by no means governed or controuled by their lordships. The court 
 which I have the honour to address, will tell yon that by our happy 
 constitution, you are to determine matters of fact, as they are to 
 
THE DEFENDEKS. 425 
 
 determine points of law resulting from, or arising out of the evidence ; 
 therefore, should any judge on any trial, labour hard for hours, and 
 argue strenuously to make strong impressions on your minds, analyze, 
 sift, doubt, question and consider fully such argumentative charge ; and 
 should you feel a different persuasion from that sought to be stamped 
 on you — away with all false delicacy and culpable veneration for the 
 bench. Judge for yourselves — prefer your own judgments — assert 
 and vindicate, and maintain the undoubted rights of juries. In this 
 respect, I mean the authority and supremacy (if I may use the 
 expression) of juries, the wisdom of the law is manifest. Judges of 
 the land are enveloped in abstract studies ; their minds pure and lofty, 
 are filled with lucubrations of twenty years, and incessant contem- 
 plations on the book of science. You, gentlemen, are conversant 
 with the transactions of ordinary life, and have daily opportunities of 
 reading every diversified page of human disposition, habit, and 
 character ; and ai"e, (I say it with great respect to the court) more 
 competent than a jury composed of twelve judges could be, to try 
 matters of vulgar incident and grovelling fact. 
 
 Gentlemen, having said thus much, I shall concisely and strictly 
 consider the facts which have appeared in anything like credible 
 proof this day against the prisoner at the bar — the Solicitor- Genei*al, 
 who stated the case for the crown with great candour — has told you 
 that the evidence on which only you should convict the prisoner, 
 ought to be such as could leave not a hinge to hang a doubt on — the 
 expression does him honour — meet that idea gentlemen, and even 
 enlarge by your commentary on it, and add, that the doubt should be a 
 reasonable one, such as a rational mind should give reception to. Go 
 thus far and regulate your decision by that criterion, and I trust, that 
 I need ask no more, I trust, that I shall fill a reasonable mind with 
 rational doubt as to the prisoner's guilt. I shall not arrogate more to 
 my humble talents — a more eloquent advocate could illustrate his 
 innocence. My lords, and gentlemen of the jury, the unfortunate 
 child at the bar, is indicted for two species of high treason, for com- 
 passing and imagining the death of the King, and for adhering to the 
 King's enemies : — all of anything like credible evidence to support 
 the indictment, is a paper said to be found in the prisoner's room, 
 importing that the person reciting it, is to be true to the united states 
 of F. and I. — F. and I. are stated by counsel to mean France and 
 Ireland. The evidence, which I shall beg leave to call utterly 
 incredible, is the testimony of Lawler. Now, gentlemen, in my 
 humble apprehension, the barely having in one's possession, without 
 publication, such a paper as that found in the prisoner's room, is not 
 an overt act of adhering to the King's enemies, the paper contains 
 no intelligence, there has been no attempt at proving any intended 
 correspondence or communication with the enemy. Where do the 
 prosecutors look for treason in this case, they are driven to explore 
 the foulest place, the breast of an inftmious witness — exclusive of the 
 testimoy of Lawler, nothing has appeared to fix treason or felony 
 under the White-boy acts, or Defenderism, or even sedition upon the 
 prisoner. The Solicitor- General, in stating, that the prisoner declared 
 to Lawler, that his wish and design was to massacre all the Pi'otestants ; 
 said it shewed such malignity, that he could not believe it existed 
 
426 TRIALS OF 
 
 in the minds of many men of this country. Merciful God, is such a 
 witness as Lawler to be credited when he imputes such a sanguinary 
 disposition to any person, to a boy of tender years ! No ; gentlemen, 
 youth is not the season when that depravity seizes the heart. The 
 poor prisoner must have been a fiend trom his birth if he harboured 
 such a thought. He must have been suckled by a tigress or hyena, 
 and have served his apprenticeship among the cannibals in the human 
 butcher's stall! No; gentlemen, the wretch who perjured himself 
 for the paltry bounty-money given to recruits, is more likely to invent 
 a falsehood under the influence of sanguine expectation of gi-eat 
 reward, than a young boy of reputable connexions and good education, 
 is to form the horrid scheme of murdering all the Protestants. 
 Lawler told you the prisoner said he quitted one club because there 
 were Protestants in it, yet he swears the same Protestant-hater got 
 into another club, in which there were more members Protestants 
 than in the former club. Lawler confessed that he fired a loaded 
 pistol into a watch-house full of watchmen, and that he thought it no 
 crime to murder his King. Is it not likely therefore, gentlemen, that 
 this nefarious wretch, stained with perjuries, felonies, and treasons — 
 insatiate of blood like the Renault of the poet and the Robespierre 
 of inhuman memory — ^is not likely, I say, that the caitiff who would 
 murder his King in the speculation of power, would invent the horrid 
 tale of intended massacre, to facilitate the murder of a subject in the 
 speculation and chance of reward. His consistency has been men- 
 tioned — yes, he is very consistent ; for the printed trials of Weldon 
 and Leary were probably in his hand, till he came into court — in his 
 perjuries and execrable treachery he is consistent. Weldon is to die, 
 by the evidence which a jury disregarded, though it was thus con- 
 sistent on the trial of Leary. Kennedy has been convicted by another 
 jury, who with great respect to them, I say it, possibly did not reflect 
 that a witness of veracity might not be so minute in the detail, so 
 circumstantial and consistent — in his insatiable thirst for blood he is 
 consistent — I know not what measure of it will glut him, if you do 
 not act with caution and mercy. Titus Oates was not less consistent 
 — numbers of false witnesses have been as consistent — deluded juries 
 and judges have been abused by their apparent consistency, and 
 numbers of innocent men have fallen victims to it. 
 
 Gentlemen, you are not, I hope, to be misled by any description of 
 the distracted state of the country, to give an unwarrantable, pre- 
 cipitate verdict of guilty, on a charge of high ti*eason. If there be. 
 Defenders, there are statutes in force against them amply sufficient to 
 curb such offences, and the punishment in many cases of Defenderism 
 is death. Will you libel the nation by magnifying outrage, riot, or 
 felony into treason ? Do not preclude the reformation of the lower 
 classes, by infusing into then- minds a distaste for our invaluable con- 
 stitution, which they indubitably will feel if the administration of 
 justice be not pure, temperate and just. 
 
 I shall call witnesses of unimpeachable character to shew that 
 Lawler deserves no credit on liis oath in a court of justice. He has 
 not particularized dates ; we therefore cannot produce witnesses to 
 prove an alibi — consider, gentlemen, the avowed infamy of the wit- 
 ness, and the extreme youth of the prisoner — in the case of William 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 427 
 
 Yorke adverted to on another trial, the murder spoke for itself and 
 established criminality with a crying fact — but the crime imputed to 
 the prisoner is a crime of intention, the proof of it is resting on the 
 testimony of an infidel felon. Gentlemen, I have done, remember 
 that the God Avho gave these favourite kingdoms so blest a constitu- 
 tion, delights not in human sacrifices. 
 
 William Rochfort, sworn. — Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Knows Lawler six or seven years ; his brother served his time in 
 the same house with the witness, and went by the name of Wright, 
 before he went to England. Witness never belonged to any club, or 
 society. 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Had been summoned to attend the court — he attended in conse- 
 quence of an indictment against him, at the suit of John Giffard, for 
 publishing a print, entitled " Kennelling of the Dog." 
 
 Nicholas Clare, sworn. 
 Gave the same evidence as in the former case. 
 
 William Ebbs, sworn. 
 
 Gave the same evidence as in former case. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — My lords and gentlemen of the jury, it is not usual 
 for counsel to have permission to address a jury on a matter of evidence, 
 or even to state a case in the defence of a man on the trial of his life 
 for a capital crime ; for so rigid is the ancient rule of the common law, 
 that except on collateral points of law, the court never assigned 
 counsel. But the legislature, gentlemen, has by a humane and indul- 
 gent statute in favour of the people relaxed that rigour, and has given 
 to a prisoner, who is charged with the crime of high treason, a privi- 
 lege to demand the aid of counsel, who ai"e in such cases assigned by 
 the court. It is by the authority of that statute, gentlemen, that I now 
 have the honour of addressing you on the part of the pi'isoner at the 
 bar. But, gentlemen, I have to regret that the act to which I have 
 alluded, has not in every particular and provision followed the whole- 
 some English statute for regulating trials for high treason, of which 
 it is but merely a short abi'idgment ; for if the Irish act followed the 
 English statute, I should not now have any occasion to address you on 
 the part of the unfortunate youth standing at the bar ; for, by the 
 English statute it is provided, that in all cases of high' treason, where 
 corruption of blood is the consequence of a conviction, there can be 
 no verdict of guilty unless there be at least two witnesses produced by 
 the crown to support one overt act of treason, or one witness to one 
 overt act, and a second witness to another overt act of the same species 
 of treason, so that in the present case, if the English statute had been 
 fully adopted by the Irish legislature the prisoner at the bar must 
 be acquitted in point of law, as there is but one witness produced to 
 support the overt acts of treason charged against him in the indictment. 
 God forbid! gentlemen of the jury, that I, or any Irish lawyer should 
 dare to insinuate that English statutes should have authority in Ireland 
 without the sanction of the Irish parliament. But principle is immu- 
 table ; principle is the t^ame in both countries, and I trust I ha\ e a 
 
428 TRIALS OF 
 
 riglit to tell you, that in considering your verdict this day, it will be 
 your duty to apply the principle of English jurisprudence to the present 
 case. A great and a learned writer has laid down the principle, that 
 makes two witnesses necessary in cases of high treason. Gentlemen, 
 I will give you his words. He says, " in cases of treason, there 
 is the accused's oath of allegiance to counterpoise the information of 
 a single witness, and that may perhaps be one reason why the law 
 requires a double testimony to convict him ;" though " the principal 
 reason," continues the learned commentator, " undoubtedly is to 
 secure the subject from being sacrificed to fictitious conspiracies which 
 have been the engines of profiigate and crafty politicians in all ages." 
 Gentlemen, I do not mean to apply the words " crafty politicians" in 
 the same manner they are applied by the learned judge, whose words 
 I have just quoted. I do not mean to apply them to any of the 
 persons carrying on the business of government in this country. No, 
 gentlemen, the " crafty politician," whom I intend to make the object 
 of your serious consideration, as I am well convinced he is of your 
 abhorrence, is Mr. William Lawler, the witness who has this day 
 made his fourth appeai'ance in this court. Gentlemen, it is clear that 
 he is the "crafty politician" who was well versed in acts of deceit 
 before he left England. It was there he became tutored in vice — it 
 was there he noviciated in the acts of hypocrisy and dissimulation, 
 and from thence he returned into this, his native countiy, a corrupter 
 of our unsuspecting and unwary youths. Like Satan who scaled the 
 gardens of Eden, and having instilled the poisons of sin under the 
 pretence of communicating knowledge into the ears of innocence, 
 abandoned the deluded victims of his diabolical subtility and deceit, 
 to death and perdition. Gentlemen, as we have adopted the English 
 constitution, Ave have a right to decide upon its principles. In 
 England, one witness, though immaculate as an angel, could not 
 convict a person charged with high treason, and will you, gentlemen, 
 establish, by a verdict of guilty, that in Ireland the tainted breath of 
 a fiend, which in England could not agitate a feather in the scale of 
 justice, shall start and blast from the face of the earth one of God's 
 creatures ! It may be asked what could have been Lawler's motive ? 
 I answer — God, the seai'cher of hearts, can only know the motives of 
 this devil, in first seducing his proselytes, and then betraying them to 
 death. He has said, repentence was his motive, but I rather conceive 
 it ai'ose from the impulse of fear. Gentlemen, his object for instituting 
 societies however is plain. The bank was one of his objects — so says 
 Alderman James — could he have but persuaded those that he had 
 seduced to have assisted him in plundering the bank, his object would 
 have been fvdfilled, and under another fictitious name he would have 
 fled elsewhere to enjoy his plundei*, and meditate on fresh enormities. 
 Gentlemen, permit me to trespass a little further on your indulgence, 
 permit me to solicit your serious attention to Mr. William Lawler, the 
 prosecutor, and to the prisoner. In the one you see an adept in 
 wickedness, which could only result from a polluted heart and spotted 
 soul. In the other, you view a boy who from his youth must appear 
 to you a novice in politics and in offences ; and if you should believe 
 that he has been misled and fallen into error, surely you will not visit 
 the sins of the seducer upon the head of the seduced. I will venture 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 429 
 
 to argue, gentlemen, that from legal principle you ought not. 
 Gentlemen, you have heard the confession made by Mr. Lawler, the 
 witness. What confessions have you heard him make ? You have 
 heard him confess to the commission of felonies, of conspiracies, and 
 of perjuries. Now, gentlemen, I maintain, that by the law of the land 
 if Lawler had been convicted of even one felony, one conspiracy, or 
 one perjury, by producing the I'ecord of conviction of either of those 
 crimes, the court would be bovuid to prevent him from giving evidence 
 on the ground of incompetency arising from infamy, and you woidd 
 be bound to acquit the prisoner for want of evidence. Competency is 
 a question of law, it is to be determined by the court, but after the 
 court have determined upon the competency, and the witness is sworn, 
 then arises the question of credit, and that question depends solely on 
 the determination of the jury. From these premises I draw conclu- 
 sions, which I submit to your deliberation. I submit that every juror 
 amongst you must from the perception of your own reason, consider 
 Lawler in no other light than as a convict — you must from the evidence 
 of your own senses, for you saAv and you heard him, consider him as 
 convicted on his own confession, the strongest evidence the law knows 
 when applied against the party confessing, though the weakest and 
 most suspicious when made use of against a second person. I say, 
 that Lawler, on his own confession, stands a convict before you of one 
 felony in attempting to murder a watchman, by discharging a loaded 
 pistol into the watch-hovise — of one conspiracy to murder the Lord 
 Chancellor, and of one other to murder a witness who was to give 
 evidence on the part of the crown. Perjuries are also recorded in the 
 black schedule of his crimes, and of those you are also in possession 
 by the strongest proof possible — his own confession. If, then, gentle- 
 men, you believe this witness guilty of those crimes which he has 
 himself confessed, does he not stand before you as a convicted felon, 
 and of course as infamous and as villainous as if he had been regularly 
 tried and found guilty by any other jury ? I repeat it, gentlemen, if 
 this miscreant had been convicted by another jury, you, gentlemen of 
 the jury, could not this day have heard his testimony, the law would 
 have arrested his evidence, for the court could not legally, and there 
 fore would not have submitted him to have imdergone an examination ; 
 and I say, it follows of course, that if you are bound to hear his 
 testimony, he not being an incompetent witness, yet you are also 
 bound to reject his evidence, he not being worthy of x^redit ; for the 
 same principle that rules the court on the question of competency, 
 should, from analogy and principle, rule the judgment of a jury on 
 the question of credit. 
 
 Gentlemen, three witnesses have been produced on the part of the 
 prisoner, and they, from a knowledge of the general character of Mr. 
 Lawler, the witness, from a knowledge of his impiety and immorality, 
 have positively deposed, that he is a man of so infamous a character, 
 that he ought not to have credit on his oath, giving evidence in a 
 court of justice. Gentlemen, an attempt has been made by the counsel 
 for the cro^vn to impeach the testimony of those witnesses, it has been 
 shewn on a ci-oss-examination that one of them was a member of the 
 Telegraphic iSociety at a time when its pvu'poses were merely confined 
 to reading ; but does that aifect his credit ? or if it did, are there not 
 
430 TRIALS OF 
 
 twelve othei' witnesses wlio do not belong to any society, well 
 acquainted with his general character and infamy? Gentlemen, the 
 twelve witnesses I speak of are yourselves. Gentlemen, let me entreat 
 of you when you retire from your box to deliberate on your verdict, 
 to ask each other, whether this fellow is not of a most infamous 
 character ? Whether you have not full evidence before you from out 
 of his own mouth, of his infamy, and whether you, as jurors upon 
 your oaths, with the internal knowledge of his guilt in youi' minds, 
 can give evidence to the testimony of so abandoned, so infamous, and 
 so impious a wretch upon his oath ? 
 
 Gentlemen, you have heard a great deal of the consistency of this 
 witness. My learned friend, Mr. Lysaght, has made several pointed 
 and judicious animadversions on this subject ; I shall, therefore, only 
 ti'ouble you with one or two more. From what cause does this con- 
 sistency proceed ? Is it the emanation of a cool, collected, ingenuous, 
 and virtuous mind ? No ! An honest man in giving evidence to 
 affect the life of his fellow -creature, to affect the life of a boy, whom he 
 had described as having been once his confidential friend, would evince 
 compunction and feeling, he would give his evidence with trembling, 
 and apprehension, he would not have shown a promptitude to answer, 
 an eagerness to explain and connect, arising from a pre-determined 
 intention to convict. Gentlemen, the witness is well-experienced and 
 perfect in tlie part he has this day acted on the table. He has been 
 examined on the different trials, these trials have been printed — he 
 has read them with attention, he has studied his vade mecum of 
 evidence, and now comes into court fully instructed and prepared 
 from his printed briefs. I will now show you in what Mr. Lawler has 
 not been consistent. He has suppressed and he has extended his 
 evidence to answer his views. He has this day gone further before 
 the court than he ventm-ed to go when he gave his informations before 
 Mr. Alderman James; he, on that occasion, suppressed the intended 
 assassination of the Lord Chancellor, he suppressed the intended 
 assassination of Cockayne, and would still, no doubt, have suppressed 
 his knowledge of those diabolical conspiracies if I had not extorted a 
 confession from him on his cross-examination on a former trial. 
 Gentlemen, his suppression of dates is most material, for except in 
 one instance, this witness of extraordinary memory has recollected 
 but one date. The intent of this cunning is manifest. Had he sworn 
 to dates the prisoner might have proved an alibi, that is, gentlemen, 
 he might have shown that on the day sworn to by the witness, he, the 
 prisoner, was in another place ; but the witness, by artfully omitting 
 the day, has precluded the prisoner from defending himself from any 
 charge depending on time or locality. 
 
 It is unnecessary for me, gentlemen, to engage your time by enter- 
 ing at large into the law of the case, the court will fully instruct you 
 on that head, but the determination lies with yourselves, for I venture 
 to say, that no lawyer will controvert the right of the jury to determine 
 on the law as well as on the fact in a criminal case ; to take both 
 together into their consideration, to determine upon both together, 
 and to found their verdict on both is the established and indubitable 
 right of a jury. This leads me, gentlemen, to take a slight view of 
 the indictment, in doing which, I shall anticipate an observation that 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 431 
 
 may be probably made this day, because it was made by the counsel 
 for the ci'own on a foraier occasion, and the case of Doctor Hensey, as 
 convicted in London for high ti'cason, was mentioned to support it. 
 
 Gentlemen, the indictment which you have heard read, and which 
 you are to decide on, consists of two species of high treason. It first 
 charges the prisoner with compassing the death of the King ; and 
 secondly, it charges him with adhering to the King's enemies. As 
 to the tirst charge, I conceive it has not been supported. And as to 
 the second, as I presume, the counsel for the crown rely upon it, to it 
 alone will I call your attention. The overt acts in this species of 
 treason to be found in the books, are these : giving intelligence to the 
 enemy ; selling them provisions ; selling them arms, or surrendering 
 to them a fortress.* In every trial I have seen on this species of 
 treason, there has been evidence of a connection, a reciprocity 
 between the parties charged as traitors and the enemy, but you have 
 not had a scintilla of evidence laid before you to shew the slightest 
 commimication between the pi'isoner, or between the persons denomi- 
 nated Defenders and the King's enemies, " the persons exercising the 
 powers of government in France," nothing even like agencies has 
 been given in evidence. In Florence Hensey's case, quoted by the 
 Chief-Justice on a former trial, there was actual evidence given of 
 Jiis correspondence with a minister of France. In De la Motte's case, 
 it was proved, that through the medium of agency he communicated 
 intelligence to the enemy, and in that case it was said, that the 
 prisoner by entering into a conspiracy, to send intelligence to the 
 French, was not guilty of high treason, but that the intelligence 
 which was sent must be laid before the court by legal evidence. 
 Now, here the evidence goes no further than a bare conspiracy. In 
 Jackson's case, recent in eveiy man's memory, letters delivered at 
 the post-office, intended to be transmitted to foreign parts, containing 
 a description of the situation of this country for the use of the enemy, 
 were arrested in their progress in the post-office. Gentlemen, have 
 you any evidence similar to this in the case before you ? No ; in aU 
 the above cases the treason was consummate. In the case before you, 
 the treason is inchoate. In the offence of compassing and imagining 
 the King's death, wise and eminent lawyers have certainly held that 
 evidence of the intent substantiated the crime, but .no lawyer has as 
 yet ventured to advance, that an intent to adhere to the King's 
 enemies substantiated the offence of high treason, and gentlemen, I 
 do insist, that should you believe every word Lawler has sworn, and 
 the construction the King's counsel has put upon the papers produced, 
 an intent to adhere, or a conspiracy to adhere, and no more, has been 
 given in evidence. I will go further ; I will venture to maintain, 
 that the indictment does not charge a substantial treason. Gentlemen, 
 attend to the overt act. It charges that the prisoner, in order to 
 enlist William Lawler, a liege subject of the King, to be aiding and 
 assisting the persons exercising the powers of government in France, 
 being enemies, in case they should invade, or cause to be invaded, 
 this kingdom, administered or caused to be administered, an oath to 
 
 • Foster states the circumstances which will amount to an adherence to the 
 King's enemies; Crown L. 217. 
 
432 TRIALS OF 
 
 said Lawler, and swore said Lawler to a certain profession, declaration 
 or catechism, to the puq^ort following, &c. Now, gentlemen, this I 
 say, goes no further than to shew an intent to commit treason, there 
 is no positive adherence to the King's enemies shewn by this overt 
 act ; the woi'st that is shewn is an intent of conspiring to assist 
 them on the completion of an uncertain event, the event of their 
 invading or causing to be invaded, this country, an event which I 
 trust in God, never will take place, or if such an attempt should be 
 made, that it will be rendered abortive by the spirit of Irishmen and 
 the discomfiture of the foe. 
 
 As to the papers, I am well aware, you will hear much on their 
 meaning from the learned counsel who is to reply on the part of the 
 crown, but whatever constructions he may put upon their contents, 
 or whatever constructions you may apply to them, it will be your duty 
 to recollect, that they were permitted to be read, not as evidence 
 connected immediately with the prisoner, but as evidence to shew an 
 existing conspiracy, and the existence of a conspiracy is not of itself 
 legal evidence of treason or of guilt against the prisoner ; nor is 
 there any evidence before you that he had any knowledge of these 
 papers, they are not offered as being in his hand-writing, they are 
 not offered as being found in his possession. But the parchment was 
 found in a room wherein Mr. Godfrey, constable of police, swore the 
 prisoner lay. How is that accounted for ? Mr. Godfrey told you he 
 spoke to him on the subject, and that he had been sworn by com- 
 pulsion. If you take what he said to Godfrey as a confession, you 
 must take the whole of that confession, and in doing that, you must 
 take such facts and circumstances as make for the prisoner as true. 
 Gentlemen, it must be known to some of you, that persons of the first 
 character in the country have been compelled to take the Defender's 
 oath, at the risk of loosing their lives if they refused, and thei-efore 
 there can be nothing fanciful or ridiculous in my asserting that it is 
 not impossible, but the prisoner was forced against his will to take an 
 oath, and that at the same time the parchment produced, was put 
 into his hand. You must have observed that Mr. Lawler is blessed 
 with a most accommodating memory, he can extend or contract it at 
 pleasure ; with the most extraordinary tenacity he remembers every 
 conversation he held with the prisoner, not forgetting a single inter- 
 rogatory, or answer. I say, he has a recollection for all occasions to 
 serve him when necessary, to revive, to come, to go at pleasure. He 
 perfectly recollects swearing an infant, but he cannot remember either 
 ins age or name. He perfectly recollects administering an unlawful 
 oath of secrecy to him, but he cannot remember, whether he admi- 
 nistered the oath with a pistol to the boy's breast. He cannot 
 recollect whether this boy was ten or eleven years of age, but he 
 could tell his age if he saw him, and then, forgetting this circumstance 
 for the purpose of injuring the youth at the bar, he cunningly swears 
 he never administered an oath to a man of less than seventeen years 
 of age. Gentlemen, if I do not go fully into this case, it is not from 
 want of zeal or attention to my client: this is the fourth time I have 
 had occasion to address a jury on the subject of Mr. Lawler and his 
 enormities. The human mind becomes languid by repeatedly thinking 
 on the same subject, and when the subject is like the present, the 
 
THE DJirKJNDEHj. 433 
 
 miiul becomes disgusted. Indeed, gentlemen, I liad forgot this is tlie 
 lirst time I liave had the honoui* of addressing jou, and from an appre- 
 hension of wearying your patience, will probably leave unobserved, 
 many material points. But, gentlemen, I feel consolation when I 
 look to that bench, because I know the great and enlightened 
 characters who preside there Avill not leave untovxched an iota of 
 evidence that has appeared to them favourable to the prisoner, but 
 will address you in a mild and constitutional charge. Gentlemen, 
 judges are the representatives of his Majesty, and in the discharge 
 of their judicial duties will follow that sacred obligation which his 
 Majesty enters into with the people, when he assumes the reins of 
 executive government. I allude to the coronation oath, by which the 
 father of his people swears and undertakes to administer "justice in 
 mercy," he is the fountain of mercy, and the mandate of his divine 
 attribute should floAV through the bosoms of every magistrate acting 
 under his delegated authority. 
 
 The Solicitor-General, in a strain of candour which does that 
 learned advocate much honour, urged an observation, that I trust is 
 strongly impressive upon your minds. He told you emphatically, " If 
 there be an hinge left by the witness to turn a doubt upon, you ought 
 to acquit ;" and, gentlemen, the bench will lay down the same rule 
 when they come to give their charge. They will tell you that no 
 man ought to be convicted in an Irish court of justice on facts which 
 are not indubitable. Where the witness is weak, there must be a 
 doubt ; and vvhere there is a doubt there must be an acquittal. Such, 
 gentlemen, I say, is the merciful rule of the criminal law in this 
 country, that though the conduct of a party accused, even of the 
 most heinous offence, should not appear perfectly innocent, yet he is 
 entitled to a verdict of acquittal ; for if there be a doubt on the minds 
 of the jury, this benign rule of clemency becomes imperative, and 
 you will implicitly submit to its authority, for there is an old and 
 wise maxim, better that ninety and nine guilty men should escape 
 punishment than one innocent man suffer. Gentlemen, I shall here 
 conckxde, imploring you to take into your consideration, that though 
 you should acquit the pi'isoner in error, and hereafter make the 
 discovery, as that error will be founded on mercy, mercy originating 
 with God, and constituting the benign prerogative of the crown, the 
 discovery will neither distui'b your sleep, nor injure your Avaking 
 moments, you will lie down in comfort, you vvill rise Avith.cheei-fulness, 
 you will walk abroad in peace with placid consciences. But, gentle- 
 men, should you convict in error, how would your hearts feel here- 
 after, how would your minds suffer from such a horrid discovery ? 
 Would not appalling fear shake every nerve, would not bitter remorse 
 and repentance be the consequence when you heard the voice of an 
 innocent victim in the language of the Scripture, shrieking from the 
 grave, " Oh earth cover not thou my blood ?" 
 
 Gentlemen, one observation moi'e. As to what has fallen from the 
 counsel for the crown. It has been asked, and the question conveys 
 a strong conclusion should it go unanswered — it is asked who so likely 
 to give information of treasons as a traitor ? I answer with another 
 question — who so likely to swell minor offences into crimes of the 
 first magnitude as the traitor, who, with reward in view, insinuates 
 
 2f 
 
434 TRIALS OF 
 
 himself into the conlidence of others, for the purpose of making the be- 
 traying of their secrets, or the invention of chimerical conspiracies, the 
 means of ensuring that reward ? Gentlemen, such a wretch is Lawler 
 
 Mr. Saurin followed, on part of the crown.* 
 
 Lord Clonmel,. — Gentlemen of the jury, Patrick Hart, the prisoner 
 at the bar, stands charged with high treason on two distinct species of 
 treason, ascertained by the statute 25 Edward III. This is a statute 
 which has not been passed in the heat of tumultuous time, or the ardour 
 of irritated contention. It is a part of the constitution, wlaich, while it ' 
 defends the prerogatives of the crown, and protects the safety of the 
 royal person, is a shelter to the liberties of the subject, by stating : 
 with clearness and with caution what acts shall be considered high 
 treason ; not leaving it to tyranny or caprice, to assume to itself, as 
 in other countries, to deliver a distinct opinion on vague and uncertain 
 charges, in order to lay the ground- work of the destruction of indivi- 
 duals, in consequence of the constitution not having been explicitly 
 defined. The first species of treason with which he is charged, is 
 having compassed the King's death on the days and at the places set 
 forth in the indictment. It has been said at the bar, and the law is 
 so, that whoever endeavours to destroy the monarchy by force, makes 
 an attempt to take away the life of the Monarch ; and one observation 
 shall not be concealed from you, which is, that adhering to the King's 
 enemies has never been doubted as an explicit manifestation of an 
 intention to take away his life. To support this charge several overt 
 acts stated to have been committed by the prisoner indicative not 
 solely of this treasonable intention, but also ascertaining the means 
 by which it should be carried into execution, are laid in the indict- 
 ment. The same overt acts are laid to support the second charge in 
 the indictment, and to this second charge I shall particularly direct 
 your attention ; you have heard these acts read from the indictment 
 by the clerk, and I shall also take notice of them : — the first is, that 
 during an open and public war, of which common notoriety is sufficient 
 evidence, carried on by the ruling powers of France and the King of 
 these realms, the prisoner at the bar is charged, first, that he as a foul 
 traitor against his Majesty, King George the Third, &c. [Here his 
 lordship stated the several overt acts.] Gentlemen, as part of this 
 evidence adduced in support of this indictment is written and part of 
 it oral, I shall first state the written vidence. [His lordship then 
 read the oath and the catechism.] 
 
 These are two of the papers ; you will see from your notes whether 
 I state them correctly — these are the papers sworn to be the bond of 
 Defenders in genei'al. I shall ofl^er some observations on these papers, 
 in order to explain the matter as clearly as I can, which is aU I desire, 
 and which is all my duty calls on me to do ; you are the constitutional 
 judges, and you alone are to decide upon them ; though a gentleman at 
 the bar stated he differed from the judges ; if the diflference related to 
 the situation of his client, I am not surprised at it ; but on that situation 
 I shall deliver no opinion — I have heard it said that judges make 
 very bad jurors — ^to your consideration, I am happy to say, the cause 
 is referred by law, the verdict must be yours and not mine. 
 
 * The present Editor has not been able to discover anv note of his address. 
 
THE DEFENDERS 435 
 
 Gentlemen, the first position for you to consider (for that we are at 
 war with France is obvious,) is whether the society denominated 
 Defenders did exist ? Next, whether the prisoner was a member of 
 this society ? And whether he was guilty of all or of any of the 
 overt acts laid in the indictment. 
 
 I cannot pass these papers without observing upon them, it is for 
 you to consider, whether this engagement is not to submit to a com- 
 mittee, and pay obedience to its commands in contradistinction to the 
 laws of the land. The association Avas formed so far back as the year 
 1790. The oath professes to be an oath of allegiance to the King, 
 qualified with the expression " so long as I shall continue under his 
 government ;" you are to decide whether the person who swore it, 
 thought himself bound longer, and how far it is explained by the 
 assertion of Weldon, that " if the King's head were to be taken off 
 to-morrow, the obligation of this oath would be at an end." You are 
 to consider whether the " National Convention," means the convention 
 of France. You are to consider what is intended, when the question 
 is asked " with whom are you concerned ?" and the answer returned, 
 "the National Convention." The words "to queal all nations and 
 dethrone all Kings," you are to decide whether they manifest the 
 intentions of the association. 
 
 Another part of the written evidence is the parchment sworn to 
 have been found in the possession of the prisoner. This parchment 
 contains the following form of oath : " I, A. B., in the presence of 
 God, do swear of my own free will and accord," [his lordship here 
 stated the oath verbatim.^ You are to determine whether obedience 
 to the laws means the laws of the land, and whether courts-martial are 
 such as are recognized by law ? Part of this oath throws a light on 
 some of this mysterious system, and explains, in my mind, the purpose 
 of the signs used by Defenders — ^for these signs must be understood 
 that the members of this association may be able to discover themselves 
 to each other. You, gentlemen, are to determine what F. and I. 
 mean, and what interpretation reason must deduce from the substance 
 of this parchment. 
 
 Having disposed of these parts of the evidence, which support the 
 charge of adhering to the King's enemies, I will take up the first wit- 
 ness who appeared — I will read the evidence, you will not take it 
 explicitly from me, but you will compare it with your own notes, and 
 adopt it merely where it is conformable to them, and consistent with 
 your own recollection. In stating it I shall meet with the assistance 
 of my brothers ; and if I am incori'ect, I entreat you to set me right. 
 
 The first witness is William Lawler, he is a native of Ireland, &:c. 
 [Here his lordship read the testimony of the witness.] 
 
 He next saw the prisoner at Stoney batter with a society of Defenders. 
 Hart introduced a young man in order to swear him a Defender, he 
 explained the principle of the society, and told him the intention of it 
 was to assist the French when they should land. K you believe that 
 the prisoner was at this meeting, that their designs were such as the 
 witness described, and that prisoner swore this young man according 
 to the forms of the society, it supports a substantial count in the 
 indictment, and you must find him guilty. It is proved that Hart 
 pulled a book out of his pocket, that he laid a paper on it, that he 
 
436 TRIALS OF 
 
 administered the oiith, that he shewed the signs and described the 
 meaning of them. Wliat these signs are you have seen, tlie witness 
 learned the signs before from Weldon, when he swore liim a Defender, 
 and these were the same signs which Hart made use of on that occasion. 
 The witness swore — [his lordship proceeded to recapitulate the 
 evidence.] 
 
 Gentlemen, you have been desired to look at the prisoner at the bar, 
 and to consider, whether from his youth, he was likely to commit thei 
 crime with which he stands charged. I also desire you should look 
 at him, and as to the circumstance of youth, I shall read you a case 
 from one of the most respectable avithorities, which elucidates that 
 maxim of our law, that youth shall not be admitted to excuse those 
 acts, the commission of which is attended with a malicious discretion. 
 From Judge Foster's report, a man who has done honour to himself 
 and the profession, I shall read you the case of Yorke, who, at the 
 age of ten years was convicted of murder. 
 
 [Here his lordship read the case, with the opinion of the judges, &c.] 
 
 The principle I lay down is this, that if you believe that boy was 
 capable of judging of the conduct, which he is proved to have pursued, 
 there is not a single act which is not tarnished with a malicious, 
 a treasonable discretion. He knew he was to support the French 
 Convention, in case they should cause this country to be invaded ; he 
 was entrusted with the flagitious importance of admitting Defenders, 
 as a committee-man ; he was sufficiently zealous in the cause, to I 
 prevail on the members of his society to bind themselves by oath to j 
 meet in ai'ms on the night wliicli he appointed. Every act of this 
 kind is not the act of puerile indiscretion, but bespeaks the compe- 
 tency of a sensible mind, equal to the treason with which he is charged. 
 You are to consider also, whether these facts are not strongly in favoiir 
 of his innocence, if you believe the testimony you have heard to be 
 the consequence of a wicked and malevolent intention to take away 
 his life. If you shall be of this opinion, you must acquit him. It is 
 said, that judges are very bad jurors ; you, gentlemen, are the judges 
 in these cases, entrusted and constituted by the laws of the country ; 
 I love to see the freedom of the country manifested in the discharge 
 of every trust. It is the duty of the court to be counsel for the 
 prisoner, you are the judges of the fact, and you know (I mention it 
 in consequence of an assertion at the bar,) whether or not the prisoner 
 has had fair play. It is by fair and candid observation, that a client 
 must be defended, and if you should be base enough to suiFer your 
 judgment to be swayed by the direction of the court, as jurors I 
 should despise you, as much as I revere the intitution. 
 
 It is true, that Lawler is an accomplice ; if he were not, lie never 
 could have discovered what he explained of the pi'inciples of a society, 
 bound by oath to secresy. How can conspiracy be so totally disco- 
 vered as by the evidence of a conspirator ? Yet the stability of his 
 credit remains subject to the observation, that lie was himself an I 
 associate in the guilt, which was dicovered by his information. If 
 the testimony he gave were false and unfounded, it might have been 
 easily overthrown. He states places, houses, names, numbers, socie- 
 ties, days ; if the prisoner be innocent, what has prevented his having 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 437 
 
 recourse to the common defence of an alibi ? Why did he not sliew, 
 pthat he was absent from any one of these meetings, by proving that he 
 was engaged in any specific business, that he was sick, or in the country, 
 or employed in any other possible manner ? What account is given of 
 the prisoner ? I am afraid to trust myself with the evidence, but I 
 trust I have explained it in the most moderate, and dispassionate 
 manner. The witness is not a pretended, or a careless accomplice, he 
 has appealed to coroborated facts for every circuinstanee of his con- 
 duct, and assigned his reasons on every point of his informations. 
 
 But the case does not rest on the testimony of Lawler. Alderman 
 James, swore he found every circumstance coinciding with the disco- 
 very he had made, not only consistent as to the past or the present, 
 but confirmed by what Lawler told him was to happen in future. He 
 found a meeting in the Liberty, the purpose of which was explained. 
 He also meets an association or mob at Crumlin, on the day on which 
 Lawler informed him it was to be assembled. Godfrev, on arresting 
 the prisoner, found a blunderbuss and twenty ball cartridges in his 
 bed-chamber. You, gentlemen, will ask yourselves, what this boy had 
 to do with a blunderbuss and ball cartridges. 
 
 A juror asked, whether the uncle or any friend of the prisoner 
 was in court. 
 
 Lord Clonjviel, — I do not find that he is, and if he were, the 
 prisoner's counsel would have known whether they should produce 
 him. Where is there any person to give an account of this transac- 
 tion ; or even to prove that the prisoner spent his time at home, and 
 went regularly to bed? 
 
 Here Patrick Hart was called, and the Solicitor-General having 
 waived the objection against producing a witness at this stage of the 
 prosecution, he was sworn. He said, he believed the prisoner was 
 his nephew, that he was his apprentice, was a boy of a good and 
 loyal disposition, and he did not think him capable of committing the 
 crime of high treason : the prisoner was never from his house later 
 than eleven o'clock, the witness himself was seldom from home. 
 
 The juror observed, he made the inquiry merely from motives of 
 humanity, because he was led to think the prisoner was left friendless 
 and destitute at that hour of the night. 
 
 Henry M'Cormick was then sworn: he follows the tin business, he 
 knew the prisoner and his family, he knew him since he was appren- 
 ticed, he never heard anything bad of the prisoner until this charge ; 
 his character has been remarkably good ; if anything material had 
 occurred to its prejudice he should have heard of it ; he knew the 
 prisoner these three 3'ears, and was well acquainted with his father, 
 who lives in the county Meath. 
 
 Lord Clonmel My wish to indulge the humane curiosity of the 
 
 jury, and the youth of the prisoner have induced me to yield to the 
 production of witnesses at this period of the trial. Had the prisoner 
 been a man I should not have done so, as there is nothing which 
 would establish a more dangerous precedent, than the general admis- 
 sion of evidence to patch up a defence. 
 
 There are cases where evidence to character is of importance, 
 when a fact is disputed, and where oath is contradicted by oath, a 
 general good character should often prove di'cisive. But in this case. 
 
438 TRIALS OF 
 
 is there a single fact sworn to by Lawler, which has been controverted ? 
 It is for you to consider the nature of that system of depravity, which 
 has been proved ; if you believe there is no such association, that 
 there have been no oaths, that imputation has been cast where there 
 is no ground for it, you are not like bigots and zealots, to say to 
 yourselves, we are Protestants, and we are the persons who have been 
 marked out for extermination. You should not give way to such 
 impressions, but doing justice betAveen God and your country, you 
 are to judge, whether there was such an association ; whether those 
 papers existed ; whether with a traitorous intention the prisoner was 
 a member of the society of Defenders. You must decide in your 
 consciences what is the meaning of this test. This parchment was 
 found in the possession of the prisoner ; but do not therefore risk the 
 conviction of a boy on a hasty conclusion of a treasonable design ; 
 banish all such ideas from your minds ; but as rational men, do not 
 get rid of your understandings. If you believe the prisoner guilty 
 of all, or any of the overt-acts laid in the indictment ; if you believe 
 that this association existed, and that the prisoner was one of its 
 members, and that he acted the part he is sworn to have acted, you 
 must find him guilty. It is the verdict of your conscience ; it is an 
 obedience to your oath. If you believe, that he had this parchment 
 without knowing that it was in his possession, if you believe that it 
 was found upon him, if joxi can consider it innocent, if you believe 
 that it will not bear the meaning which has been affixed to it, if you 
 believe that from any reasonable consideration Lawler is not entitled 
 to credit, you ought to acquit the prisoner. If this be a case where, 
 after all the observations which have been made on it, you are still 
 in suspense, under such a circumstance you ought to acquit him. The 
 benignity of the law imposes as a duty upon the jury, when the 
 balance is equal between the guilt and innocence of the accused, 
 that they should indulge the sentiments of mercy. If under all the 
 circumstances of this case, your minds remain suspended in doubt, 
 let your verdict be a verdict of acquittal. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain — Gentlemen of the jury, on conside- 
 ration of the evidence which has been laid before you, I must confess, 
 that it is with pain I address you. You have been told, that the 
 prisoner stands charged with two distinct species of high treason. 
 You have been informed, that adhering to the King's enemies amounts 
 to compassing his death. He is not only bound from interest, but he 
 is also bound by oath, to support and maintain the laws and constitu- 
 tion of the country. You know, as men possessed of common 
 understanding, that adhei'ing to the King's enemies manifests an 
 attempt to dethrone the King, and by construction amounts to an 
 intention to take away his life. I shall therefore confine myself to 
 the charge of adhering to the King's enemies. I shall not attempt 
 to define this species of treason ; but I do not know any act more 
 explicit, than that laid in the indictment. It is impossible to conceive 
 a plainer illustration of it, and instead of defining the offence, I shall 
 point out the facts, as the best substitute for a definition. I hope I 
 do not differ from the gentlemen concerned for the prisoner when I 
 state, that adhering to the King's enemies is treason, tliough the 
 intent should prove abortive. Thus an intercepted letter is evidence 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 439 
 
 of a treasonable purpose, as was determined by the court of King's 
 Bench, in the case of Jackson, whose treasonable designs were not 
 accomplished. If nothing could be considered treason, which did not 
 succeed, no man could be brought to punishment until the govern- 
 ment of this country be subverted, and it would be then too late to 
 call him to an account for offences committed against a system which 
 was annihilated by his exertions. In this case, taking the evidence 
 to be true, it amounts to plain, obvious, explicit treason, as ever 
 entered into the head of man. The charge is adhering to the King's 
 enemies ; I think the whole of the evidence comes to this, that the 
 pi'isoner associated with Defenders for the purpose of dethroning the 
 King, and affording assistance to the powers of France. Did not the 
 prisoner become a Defender for the purpose charged in the indict- 
 ment ? The first point you ought to consider is, what are the motives 
 of this association ? You have heard two papers read in evidence on 
 the tendency of which you are to decide. Lawler swears, that they 
 were the instruments exhibited, when he was sworn a Defender by 
 Weldon. You may observe, that one of them is a general precedent; 
 it binds the person, who swears to observe it, to be obedient to all 
 committees, in all lawful matters ; part of it professes to be an oath 
 of allegiance to the crown, and as it has been observed at the bar, that 
 every subject is bound in allegiance by the ties of natural justice, this 
 oath, far from ascei'taining that the allegianse of the subject to the 
 King should continue as long as they both shall live, abridges the 
 duration of it, by the words " so long as I shall live under his govern- 
 ment." If there be anything ambiguous in it, you will find the 
 explanation in the catechism, the question is, " what ai-e your designs? " 
 the answer, " to quell all nations and dethrone all Kings." It would 
 be a farce to say, and it has not been attempted to be denied, that a 
 profession of this kind is an act of adhering to the King's enemies 
 and assisting the powers of Erance. It is true the prisoner was not 
 present when Lawler was sworn, but it has appeared, that he gave 
 him the signal similar to that which the witness has been taught by 
 Weldon, when he was made a Defender. This is some evidence to 
 shew you that Hart was privy to the designs of this association, and 
 it is a reasonable conclusion, that every man entering into a society 
 is acquainted with its principles. It is plain from the parchment, 
 that the Defenders were associated with the powers of France. See 
 what it is, " And I of my own free will and consent, do swear to be 
 true to the present united states of F. and I." From the context it is 
 impossible that this should mean anything else than France and 
 Ireland. Gentlemen, in whose minds are France and Ireland united? 
 You know they are at actual war ; you must see they were united only 
 in the breasts of traitors ; no man, without the consent of the crown 
 can unite them, and if this be the test of Defenders, they must all be 
 traitors. 
 
 Gentlemen, at a period when the country is involved in a most dis- 
 tressing war, for what purpose can those men unite to take away 
 arms from those who would defend the kingdom, in case of an in- 
 vasion, except for the design of murder or of treascn ? It is wasting 
 time to prove the conduct of the prisoner to be treasonable, and if 
 Defenders collected arms with the intent of contriving to wage war 
 
440 TRIALS OF 
 
 against the King, it is impossible that any rational man should hesi- 
 tate to say that they must be traitors. 
 
 The question for your consideration is, whether the prisoner was 
 a Defender, and whether he became such for the purpose of adhering 
 to the King's enemies. This depends in a great measure on the evi- 
 dence of Lawler, and you must be positive that the prisoner was aware 
 of this intention — Lawler is not positive that Hart was at the meet- 
 ing in Plunket-stveet — he was at Stoneybatter, where he brought a 
 young man and swore him a Defender, declaring, when he adminis- 
 tered the oath, that the principle of the association was to assist the 
 French when they should land. At this meeting it was, that he 
 bound the members by oath to assemble in arms on the succeeding 
 night. In fact, he appears perfectly possessed of their secrets, and 
 acquainted with their proceedings. The second meeting was in the 
 Liberty, where he had a young man whom he told the witness was a 
 Defender : on this night he gave powder to the witness, and desired 
 liim to make it into ball cartridges. At Drury-lane he spoke of the 
 Defenders intending to rise, in order to massacre the Pi'otestants, so 
 that, if you believe the evidence, he was not only conscious of the 
 scheme, but entered sincei'ely into the project. This will also be 
 material in obviating the objection of youth ; it bespeaks a craft and 
 treachery beyond his years, and proves him to be capable of a treason- 
 able discretion. If you believe Lawler, the prisoner was a Defender, 
 and conscious of their designs. But the case does not rest here ; he 
 told Godfrey he was sworn a Defender by force, and had the parch- 
 ment put into his possession against his consent. If a man be way- 
 laid and trepanned, God forbid his conduct should be criminal ; but 
 if you believe the evidence, you will find it as certain, that he was a 
 party to the cause, and acquainted with the design. 
 
 If he had proved by evidence that he was sworn by force, it would 
 be conclusive of his innocence ; but the conduct of a man sworn by 
 force would be, that he v/ould immediately disclose the circumstance 
 to a magistrate. Perhaps it may be imagined that from the youth of 
 the prisoner, such an idea would not arise in his mind ; but would he 
 not at least, have complained to his uncle of the outrage which was 
 offered him, and been able to give evidence of the circumstance on 
 this trial. I recollect that his uncle was produced, and no question of 
 the kind was asked him. You are to judge whether the blunderbuss 
 found in the bed-chamber of the prisoner, was in his possession, and 
 if you think so, the circumstance looks suspicious. These are the 
 most material considerations for you to attend to in this part of the 
 case, namely, whether the prisoner was sworn by force ; and you will 
 also observe how far his conduct is consistent with this idea. If you 
 believe he was voluntarily sworn a Defender, and that this parchment 
 was entrusted to his care, it is persuasive evidence of the truth of 
 Lawler's testimony, and the case will not rest on the oath of an un- 
 corroborated approver. I admit it may be perilous to convict on the 
 unconfirmed testimony of an approver, but Lawler is not a witness 
 of that description ; it is true he was an accomplice, who made a 
 voluntary discovery ; and the history of all conspiracie.* informs us, 
 that conspiracy cannot in general be detected, except by the infor- 
 mation of a conspirator ; nor is there anything unnatural in the 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 441 
 
 position, that those who betray the state, will be ever ready to betray 
 each other. Whenever, therefore, the evidence of an accomplice is 
 confirmed by circumstances, its sufficiency is inconti'overtible. Under 
 the law of England, which requires two witnesses in cases of high 
 treason (whether the law of Ireland differs in this respect from the 
 law of England, is a question on which I shall deliver no opinion), 
 the evidence of two accomplices is sufficient to convict ; and, in my 
 judgment, the evidence of one accomplice, corroborated by circum- 
 stances, affords a more rational groixnd for conviction. If you think 
 the prisoner so extremely young, that he was ignorant of the nature 
 of his conduct, you ought to acquit him, and if you shall do so on this 
 principle, I think you would do well to mention it. If you think that 
 his having been forced to become a Defender is a falsehood, the de- 
 fence itself is evidence of craft, and you ought to find him guilty. 
 If any doubt remains in your mind, it is your duty to acquit him. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — Gentlemen of the jury, I shall trouble you 
 with very few observations. I shall only remark on the chai'ge 
 against the prisoner, of adhering to the King's enemies. If you be- 
 lieve he became a Defender with an intent of assisting the King's 
 enemies, and dethroning the King, or for either of these purposes, you 
 ought to find him guilty. As to the species of treason he is sworn to 
 have committed, I shall observe that the Defenders were associated 
 for treasonable purposes, and that the prisoner became a member of 
 their society with full knowledge of their designs ; that these designs 
 wei'e treasonable, you will find from the papers which were read in 
 evidence ; from one of them you will discover, that the Defenders 
 were associated with the French Convention to dethrone all kings ; 
 you will find the origin of this society so far back as January, 1790. 
 It appears they had committees and officers whom they were sworn 
 to obey. From the parchment you will find them bound by oath to 
 be true to France and Ireland ; you will find them bound not to as- 
 sociate with robbers, and still more, not to give evidence in a court 
 of justice against a member of their own society. If they were not 
 associated for robbery, where is the necessity for secrecy ? If it be 
 plain they were not associated in order to commit robbery, you then 
 will ask yourselves whether they were not united by treason ? All 
 the legal powers of France and Ireland are at war, and the two 
 covmtries are united only in the bi'easts of traitors. If you are satis- 
 fied that the society of Defendei's is a treasonable association, you are 
 next to consider whether the prisoner was one of that association. 
 The testimony of Lawler and Godfrey, corroborated by written evi- 
 dence, has been laid before you. There is no doubt that the evidence 
 of an accomplice ought to be received with cavition ; but whenever a 
 jury is satisfied with the truth of it, it is sixfficient to convict ; but it 
 ought to be received with circumspection, as it is often admitted from 
 necessity ; because if no such evidence could be adduced, the greatest 
 crimes might be committed with impunity, and no nation could be 
 secure from treason, which shuns the light and is fostei-ed in obscurity. 
 Some reflections have been cast on the moral character of Lawler ; 
 surely no man who obeys the dictates of religion can be a traitor, and 
 calling this man infamous is stating no more than what he himself 
 has admitted. Still there is something particular with respect to the 
 
442 TRIALS OF 
 
 testimony of this witness, which adds a degree of credibility not annexed 
 to the testimony of an accomplice. The counsel for the prisoner have 
 been instructed in every circumstance of what he has proved, because 
 the evidence of this man, given on a former trial, almost similar to the 
 present, has been published, and yet no man can be found to contro- 
 vert what he has sworn. His testimony was disclosed months before 
 the prisoner was put on his trial, and yet it remains uncontradicted. 
 Consider whether it is within the compass of ingenuity to fabricate 
 such a system, and to support it with consistency ! This should be a 
 circumstance for your consideration, if his evidence stood alone on 
 its own credibility, uncorroborated by circumstances, but it is con- 
 firmed by subsequent facts corresponding with his information. Wlien 
 Godfrey went to arrest the prisoner, he received directions to search 
 him, and in his pocket he found the parchment which has been read. 
 You will consider whether he became possessed of it in consequence 
 of the accident which he stated ; you must consider how far it is pro- 
 bable, that a man never from home at a later hour than eleven o'clock, 
 should be seized by force and sworn in the manner he described, 
 and have this muniment of treason entrusted to his discretion. An 
 honest man might be involuntarily sworn, but the obligation of such 
 an oath is nugatory and vain, and it would be not only the duty, but 
 the inclination of any honest man to withdraw himself from such an 
 association, and to manifest by his future conduct, an abhorrence of 
 its principles. It appears suspicious, that in the bedchamber of the 
 prisoner were found implements with which that oath was to be car- 
 ried into execution. This circumstance gives an additional weight 
 and probability to the evidence, which it would not otherwise possess. 
 You are to receive the testimony of Lawler with caution, but you are 
 not at liberty to reject it. You are bound by every duty, human and 
 divine, to investigate the truth. You are to consider the truth and 
 the justice of the case. Other considerations are in other hands. You 
 have a sacred trust to discharge to the public. If no doubt remains 
 in your minds, you must find the prisoner guilty ; if you have any, 
 you ought to acquit him. 
 
 The Jury retired at half-past one o'clock on Thursday morning, 
 and, in about ten minutes, returned with a verdict, finding the prisoner 
 —GUILTY. 
 
 Friday, February 26th. 
 
 Edward Brady was put to the bar for the purpose of being tried 
 upon the indictment for high treason found against him ( Vid. ante, p. 
 348.) — After the pannel was called over, it was intimated to the 
 Attorney- General that the prisoner was disposed to acknowledge his 
 offence, and throw himself upon the mercy of the crown. 
 
 Mr. Attornet- General. — My lords, I understand that the pri- 
 soner looks to the crown for mercy. Sure I am that nothing can fill 
 the royal breast with more true delight than to extend mercy where 
 anything like repentance appears ; and the officers who prosecute for 
 the crown will feel much pleasure in assisting its benignity under 
 such circumstances. The prisoner had early manifested a disposition 
 to repentance ; but now and again his wavering mind fell back, and 
 did not adopt any settled determination. My lords, I shall not pro- 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 443 
 
 ceed upon this trial, and therefore move your lordships that the 
 prisoner be remanded. 
 
 The prisoner was accordingly remanded, and directions were 
 given the sheritf, that he might be without irons, if he coidd be safely 
 kept. 
 
 Upon a subsequent day the prisoner was brought up and his 
 counsel moved, that his trial be postponed until the next commission. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General. — My lords, I consent to this motion, 
 and that the object of it may not be misunderstood, I mean to have 
 a pardon made out for the prisoner, so that he may plead it at the 
 next commission. 
 
 Saturday, February 27th. 
 
 The grand juries of the city and county of Dublin were called over. 
 
 Thomas Kennedy and Patrick Hart were put to the bar. Their 
 indictments were read and they were severally asked, why judgments 
 of death and execution should not be awarded against them according 
 to law? 
 
 Thomas Kennedy I hope from the recommendation of the jury 
 
 that you will have compassion upon me, and I hope for a long day. 
 A man who was not recommended had twelve weeks. 
 
 Patrick Hart You have been so merciful to Brady, who is charged 
 
 with the same offence, that I hope for mercy. 
 
 Lord Clonmel You, Thomas Kennedy, and you, Patrick Hart, 
 
 and each of you stand convicted upon indictments for high treason 
 under the statute 25 Ed. III. in compassing and imagining the death 
 of our most gracious Sovereign Lord the King ; and also adhering to 
 the King's enemies. A plain overt act of the intention of levying 
 war, or bringing war upon the kingdom, or of inducing the enemies 
 to invade it, is settled to be an overt act of compassing the King's 
 death. Acts such as I shall mention, which appeared from the evi- 
 dence to have been committed by you, never have been doubted to be 
 overt acts of treason ; — nor is it necessary, that you should have 
 carried your schemes into execution, because that would have defeated 
 the justice, by which you have been brought to trial. You have each 
 been found guilty by separate juries of the most respectable citizens 
 in this metropolis. You have, each of you, taken all the advantage, 
 that the peculiar beneficence of our law has granted to persons in 
 your situation, and you have challenged such persons, as either from 
 secret knowledge, or personal dislike, or any other motives, you 
 objected to. You have had counsel assigned to you of your own 
 choosing, and you have had a long time to prepare for your defence. 
 You have had the assistance of your counsel in the amplest way. 
 You have been prosecuted as your own counsel have admitted, with 
 moderation ; with moderation, decency, and temper. You have been 
 tried I hope, with calmness ; with patience ; with humanity ; and 
 justice by the court ; with every advantage to each of you, which the 
 law and constitution of the country allow, and every indulgence 
 which the coui't could extend, or which you desired, during the course 
 of a long examination, which was observed upon with the utmost 
 latitude by counsel. 
 
444 TRIALS OF 
 
 The evidence upon which you have been found guilty left not the 
 least doubt in the breasts of either of these juries. If there had 
 been a doubt in either, they were expressly charged, in case of such 
 doubt, to acquit ; and the recommendation they gave shews the 
 humane temper of their minds ; — for they have annexed their 
 reason that it was not on account of any doubt of the guilt, but of 
 your youth. 
 
 You have been found guilty, each of you, of uniting yourselves 
 with a treasonable association in this country ; the objects of which are 
 avowed, open, and plain, to persons of the most inferior understanding ; 
 of one infinitely less than you have disclosed in the few words you 
 have uttered. Upon each of you was found written evidence, which 
 cannot be doubted ; written evidence that proves your guilt, and 
 speaks for itself. It professes to be a voluntary oath taken to support ; 
 not the law of the land — but the National Convention of France, for 
 so the jury have found it. The object of it was to destroy, not only 
 his Majesty, but all kings ; to be true only to their own association. 
 These two papers, the oath and the catechism, carry upon the face of 
 them intrinsic evidence of your guilt, and shew clearly what your 
 object was, that it was to support a French invasion, if the French 
 should invade this country. It was proved to the clearest conviction 
 of the court, not one of whom ever mentioned an opinion before while 
 it was possible it might do you harm with the jury, that you were 
 first members of the Telegraphic Society ; you then passed under 
 another denomination, grounded on the affectation of philosophy, the 
 Philanthropic Society. Then you became Defenders, and you dis- 
 closed their object. It is manifest, that you knew by what ceremonies 
 they were instituted ; you knew they must continue, if at all, by 
 robbery ; by house-breaking ; by plunder ; by treachery ; by murder 
 and by treason. All these wicked, and flagitious offences are com- 
 prehended under the name Defender, as is manifested by what is proved 
 upon you. Your system was to go out with such arms as you could 
 get, or had got by robbery, or other means, to plunder houses in the 
 dead of the night and during the innocent sleep of the inhabitants. 
 You bound people by oaths to bring their arms, for the purpose of 
 procuring more. It has been proved, that you made subscriptions to 
 buy gunpowder for the same purpose, and when you had collected 
 arms in this mannei", it was proved, that you intended to assist the 
 French, now at open war ; that you intended to assist them in the 
 invasion of this country, when they should attack it ; and it was proved 
 upon you, that the pvirpose of the association, wicked, and flagitious, 
 and rebellious as it is, formed in the very bowels of this coimtiy, was 
 to have made a general rising ; to have massacred the Protestants of 
 this country ; to have taken the corn and provisions ; to have taken 
 the forts ; plundered the banks ; seized the arsenal ; and made an 
 attack upon every fortress in the kingdom ! To assist the French in 
 the invasion of this your native country, and you were to become the 
 masters of the island. It was proved upon you in the clearest way 
 and in the most consistent, I ever heard. You were assembled, not 
 accidentally, in this place, or the other. It was proved, that you 
 were in Cork-street ; that you were at the assembly in Drury-lane ; 
 that you were at Stoneybatter ; that you were in Bari-ack-street ; at 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 445 
 
 Plunket-street ; tit Crumlin. In all these several places described 
 with accuracy, and pointed out with such clearness, that there was 
 scarce a tittle stated by Lawler, that might not be contradicted, if not 
 founded in fact, and that is not fortified by such circumstances, as 
 scepticism cannot disbelieve, nor rational men deny their assent. 
 Twenty-three are stated to have been at one meeting ; more at 
 another It was sworn, that one of you declai-ed there were 4000 
 Defenders in Dublin, and the use was to have been made of them 
 justifies the assertion. If you could collect them, the system was artful, 
 and practicable, and too likely to succeed. Numbers of your age 
 were selected, I take for granted, and even that appeared, by persons 
 elder than yourself; you wei-e made committee-men to give you a 
 consequence in your own minds ; you were empowei'ed to swear new 
 Defenders, to give you a degree of active importance. You, and 
 each of you were active persons in that part which was most fitted 
 for you ; you could read, and write, and you were under the conduct 
 of Burke, a man notoi'iously of infamous character, who had circu- 
 lated his doctrines to his own disgrace, but not yet distruction, 
 publishing with his name atheistical treatises to justify his conduct. 
 And this was the artful expedient made use of, by instructing you not 
 to believe the power of the Almighty, or the doctrine of rewards and 
 punishments, to make you as wicked as human creatures are capable 
 of being, and then alleging, that you are not to be believed, if one 
 of the party should give information against the others. The system 
 was conformable to the French philosophy ; " I will debauch their 
 principles and their minds, and if any man be weak enough, or in 
 the general sense of mankind honest enough, to betray us, we will 
 shew he is not to be believed upon his oath, having denied the exis- 
 tence of a God, which we had taught him to do," and thus you would 
 protect one piece of wickedness by another. 
 
 Again, see another dangerous part of the system. They resorted 
 to the youngest pei'sons they could find, active and fit for their pur- 
 pose. " We will put them," said the advisers, " into the departments 
 that will gratify their young pride, and the unthinking youth shall be 
 made committee-men ; they shall consider themselves oflicers, and if 
 they be detected, their tender years will melt the hearts of the j ury, 
 who will sacrifice justice to the known humanity of the country." 
 
 Here, then, was the second part of the artful and wicked wisdom by 
 which this system of treachery was carried on. Burke was to be one 
 of ten ; it was proved that each of the ten was to levy ten, and each 
 of the last ten was to levy five more, thus to make a body of six 
 hundred : each man was in some degree, in point of justice and good 
 faith, responsible for the persons levied by himself. It was sworn to 
 the satisfaction of the court and jury, that the design was, that by 
 dressing these men, to the amount of one hundred, in scarlet uniforms, 
 to persuade the citizens into a belief that the army was with the 
 insurgents, and by this imposition and craft to plunder the bank, and 
 secure the arsenal. Was that absurd ? No such thing. What did 
 you want to effect it ? Nothing but ammunition and arms. It was 
 sworn that you tried other means, that of robbing the houses of indi- 
 viduals ; and, as the strongest proof against you, upon you, Kennedy, 
 were found the oath and the catechism ; and upon you, Hart, when 
 
446 TRIALS OF 
 
 surprised early in the morning, was found a parchment writing, be- 
 ginning, " I, A. B., do swear to be true to France and Ireland," for 
 so the jury have interpreted it, and then it proceeds in the same 
 traitorous language as those found in the possession of you, Kennedy. 
 A blundei'buss and twenty ball cartridges were also found. 
 
 But it is said, why, this is impossible, to make a rebellion of boys. 
 See what the answer plainly is. It is admitted that there has been 
 a conspiracy ; that it has consisted of great numbers, and yet, hitherto, 
 few or none have been secured, through the influence of these illegal 
 and detestable oaths, administered by boys. Does it not, then, bring 
 this unhappy reflection painful to every mind, that it is a con- 
 spiracy from which we cannot preserve the youth of the kingdom. It 
 has gone so far as to corrupt our apprentices ; and it is not poverty, 
 distress, or oppression, which has given rise to it. There is not a 
 man sworn against as forming this conspiracy who does not appear 
 to have had a trade and means of living — a trade and means of 
 living, depending upon the elegancies of elevated life, and not by 
 the necessities of society. One appeared to be a carver, another a 
 gilder, another a glass-cutter, &c. There have been others of more 
 adult years, connected with societies, not a great way removed from 
 guilt in their breasts and minds, though not indicted for what you 
 have been tried, and found guilty. This is not a subject taken up on 
 a sudden : you have had the same able and legal assistance, as to 
 one of your counsel, whom you named four months ago. There was 
 not a word of Lawler's evidence which was not known for some 
 months ; it has even become the subject of publication. Yet not one 
 word of it has been contradicted to this hour by any man, by friend 
 or parent. It appears you are not abandoned children, or forlorn, 
 without some persons to look after you. Your guilt has not depended 
 upon the mere assertion of one man. On the contrary, his evidence 
 stands supported by circumstances and facts, that cannot mislead any 
 mind in the progress of truth. It appears that Lawler said, "go 
 take Kennedy ; you will find the Defender's oath and catechism in 
 his pocket." He had seen it frequently before, and thought it pro- 
 bable it might be found where he saw it deposited ; and there is no 
 attempt to show any sort of compulsion or contrivance, by which 
 those papers were put in by Lawler, or any person for him. When 
 you, Kennedy, were arrested, these papers were found upon you ; so 
 that not only what Lawler said, as to the past tense but also the 
 present, is fortified by diflerent facts. And when you. Hart, were 
 arrested, this parchment was found in your possession ; not, indeed, 
 from any information given by Lawler — it does not appear that he 
 knew of it — but it is evidence to establish one of the facts charged 
 against you as a Defender, which the jury have found you to be. 
 
 I shall speak a word of your age. From the necessity of support- 
 ing human society, and of preventing flagitious crimes from being 
 unpunivshed, when perpetrated by youth, coiu'ts have resorted to 
 printed cases, where judges have determined that younger persons 
 than you, perpetrating crimes, ought to be punished. In the case of 
 murder, a person of the age of ten years was sentenced to capital 
 punishment, and the reasoning of that case will go down to the 
 lowest age, where a malicious mischievous intention appears. And, 
 
 I 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 447 
 
 in ti'uth, it would be absurd if it were otherwise. It would be to 
 say, that certain classes of people in society are able to commit the 
 worst offences, and yet the law cannot I'each them. By your industry 
 and activity, if the evidence be true, as the jury have sworn they 
 thought it, and we have no reason to doubt it, it is now to be taken 
 for granted, that you thoroughly understood every part of the wicked 
 treason you were embarked in. I mention this to show, that there 
 is no part of society that is not the object of legal punishment, even 
 to the forfeiture of life. 
 
 This being a short view of the facts, recapitulated in the manner 
 usually stated by persons in my situation, I must now put you in 
 mind of the horrid offence and wickedness of which you have been 
 guilty. I suppose there is no rational creature that has heard what 
 I have stated, who will not go away convinced that the evidence is 
 plain, clear, and coercive. There has not been a single fact contra- 
 dicted, or explained in your favour, and that the matter of these 
 papers found in your possession is most flagitious and detestable, can- 
 not be denied. 
 
 The salvation of this kingdom has, under the providence of God, 
 been secured by the information given by one of yourselves, by which 
 your bloody and treasonable designs have been defeated and pre- 
 vented. For if you had succeeded in your abominable projects against 
 this kingdom, instead of its having been, in the time of a ruinous and 
 calamitous war to every other part of the earth, the most fortunate 
 spot on the globe until 1790, it would have been"the miserable scene 
 of carnage, like France, the place from whence you expected friends 
 and assistance. 
 
 The pmiishment of our benign law not being for vengeance, but to 
 deter others by example, has led me to expatiate upon the evidence 
 and the nature of your crime, your situation and circumstances, and 
 the danger to which the kingdom was exposed, if the design had not 
 been providentially revealed by the information of the prosecutor, 
 more at large than, perhaps, I would have in another case. But it is 
 right, that in the publication of this trial, the eye of the public should 
 be open to a full view of their own situation. Persons who have 
 been involved in these conspiracies should guard themselves against 
 the mischiefs of high treason, by being publicly apprised of the 
 punishment attending upon it. 
 
 You have, in another instance, wounded the peace of society ex- 
 tremely. You have, in the progress of your wretched and treasonable 
 pursuits, thrown a cloud of suspicion over your connexions and your 
 associates, which can never be dispelled but by their most explicit 
 good conduct ; for if any person formed the most distant conjecture 
 of your views, every such person has been guilty of a gross misprision 
 by not disclosing them, so that they might be best guarded against, 
 defeated, or prevented. 
 
 It is a painful part of my duty which yet remains, and that is, to 
 pronounce the dreadful judgment of the law upon you, which has been 
 considered by the court. 
 
 [His Lordship then passed sentence upon the prisoners, in the 
 manner usual in such cases, after which, the prisoners were remanded.] 
 
448 TRIALS OF 
 
 After the prisoners were removed, his Lordship addressed the 
 grand j uries. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Gentlemen of both grand juries, in addressing 
 you, I mean only to give you that preference which the law has 
 given you, by thinking you the first auditors of what has passed. 
 What I said, and mean to say, if I did not think the occasion called 
 upon me to speak to you, and through you to the people now assem- 
 bled, I might well be excused from this trouble. It is a painful 
 task. I hope in God it may be attended with the consequence I ex- 
 pect. I thought it might involve considerations of too great extent, 
 to comprehend it in the lessons I was obliged to give the prisoners. 
 I, therefore, restrained myself, meaning to address you. Many are 
 here collected of different ages and various degrees ; some entrusted 
 with the highest places which the constitution knows. I thought if 
 anything could be done, by calling them to a sense of their situation, 
 this would be the most useful hour of my life. This subject, of which 
 you have heard so much, is a prosecution, conducted by the servants 
 of the state, in the manner which you have observed, and involved 
 in the length of time you have perceived. My objects are two-fold. 
 First, to shew what I think (and it is a satisfaction to find that my 
 ideas correspond with those of my brethren) of the probability of the 
 charge made by Lawler ; and next, if I can, to exhort you to a manly 
 exercise of your duty as magistrates and subjects. 
 
 Gentlemen, as far back as the year 1790, and several years pre- 
 ceding, I suppose there was not a country upon earth, that felt itself 
 in so fortunate a progress of prosperity and advancement as Ireland. 
 At that period commenced, and it is so stated by written evidence, 
 the institution of Defenders, though, perhaps, under another name, 
 for the oath states their institution in 1790, with improvements since. 
 The country has been since involved in three of those calamities, that 
 each of you, who do your duty to God, pray to be delivered from, 
 namely, from " sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion." 1 am 
 speaking of facts and notoriety. It began with sedition, and the 
 simple and inspired line which I have quoted, with a knowledge of 
 the human heart, makes the other two follow, viz., privy conspiracy 
 and rebellion. It is from these I hope God will deliver you. At that 
 time, a fugitive traitor, Hamilton Rowan, who had for sedition been 
 imprisoned, and was connected with that self-executed traitor, Jack- 
 son, and some other fugitive felons, whose names it is not necessary 
 to mention had begun to vitiate and debauch the minds of the country, 
 and from that time to this it has never rested — French names and 
 pi'oceedings were adopted — treason was the object — murder the means. 
 In 1791, William Lawler, who has since appeared as a prosecutor, 
 having learned a trade, by which he appears to have got a reasonable 
 and comfortable subsistence, left this country and went to England, 
 where his father had been ; he enlisted as a soldier, and having de- 
 serted from that situation, changed his name. I will shew you, that 
 love of life, the dearest object of human creatures, has been the origi- 
 nal director of this man's conduct ; that he discovered his crimes to 
 save his life, and not before he thought his life was in danger, and 
 that not from the law, but his own associates. 
 
 He went to London, and there under the name of Wright, he got 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 449 
 
 into one of their treasonable corresponding societies. I speak from 
 his own description of it. I am not a judge of that country, nor am 
 I to try any of them. But his description was, that they Avere to 
 force a reform by arms brought to the throne. He was asked, if he 
 had room to conceal one hundred arms, for that it was as necessary for 
 them to learn the use of arms as well as the society of Sheffield, who 
 had it in contemplation to force a radical reform. 
 
 Now take up the first part. Is it improbable, that men in the 
 army should be resorted to? The thing speaks itself. Is it improbable, 
 that a man, who desei-ted, should change his name to prevent his 
 being detected ? The thing speaks itself. While in London, he is 
 directed to a man of notorious name, Daniel Isaac Eaton, who recom- 
 mends him to Rowan, at that time not thi'own into gaol. Lawler 
 got a letter under the name of Wright to Eowan, to whom he told 
 his real name, and the very masque was a sort of recommendation to 
 such a man as Rowan. I speak without reserve of a man, who has 
 quitted the kingdom, and stands outlawed and attainted of treason. 
 Was it likely he should object on account of the fiction of name ? 
 He makes Lawler a present ; of what ? Of a print of Thomas Paine, 
 the saint of rebellion, anarchy and murder ! Proud of his present, 
 he follows Rowan into the gaol of Newgate : — there Rowan discourses 
 with him upon the propriety of having corresponding societies here, 
 similar to that in London. Is there a tittle of that inprobable ? — or 
 at which the mind revolts ? That a person, coming into this country 
 should endeavour to circulate those opinions and principles he adopted 
 there. " Get six staunch men," says Row^an, " whom you can depend 
 upon. I would rather have them than six hundred others ; see what 
 has happened to me ; I have been discovered by those who were not 
 staunch."* If this was idle talk, founded in imagination and wicked 
 lies, it might be contradicted by those who then attended Newgate. 
 Lawler next becomes a member of a society, called the Telegraphic, 
 which opens, by degrees, more largely into the Philanthropic. These 
 were headed by whom ? By Burke ; a man, notoriously of infamous 
 character, expelled from the university for abominable blasplicmy 
 and impiety. Where is Burke ? Why not contradict what Lawler 
 said ? No person pretends to say, he is not in existence. But it may 
 be said, he is afraid. Why is he afraid ? — he ought not to be afraid, 
 if he be an honest man. If he be an honest man, why not contra- 
 dict this account ? But it does not depend upon Burke alone. Lawler 
 states a number of persons by name. He was himself a zealous 
 Defender; his religion Protestant, and he frequently attended the 
 Methodists. He was apparently an enthusiast to his purposes ; going 
 as far as the Defenders did ; and for what ? In order to establish a 
 Republic. He was employed to levy forces ; he did levy them. He 
 levied his ten men. Was this improbable ? He had been a soldier ; 
 he enlisted his ten men, according to his promise to Burke. Is there 
 anything in that at which the mind revolts ? 
 
 • Any one who has read the report of A, H. Rowan's trial must see that this 
 was entirely false. He was convicted on the evidence of Lister who could not be 
 said not to be " staunch," for he never was an United Irishman or Volunteer, nor 
 was he ever involved in the designs of Rowan. He was a man of bad character 
 in most particulars, but he did not add treachery to the number, as he never par 
 ticipated jn the secrets or objects of Rowan's party. 
 
 2 G 
 
450 TRIALS OF 
 
 What is next to be done ? they collect together, not in one place 
 only, or secretly, but in several. He attends ; he describes the places J 
 most accurately. Twenty-three met in one place ; he mentions most * 
 of their names, Cook, Dry, CoiFey, Gallan, Atkinson, &c. These 
 were my associates. Were they ? They are fugitives in guilt, and 
 conscious traitors ; why do not some of them come, and contradict 
 what this man has sworn ? What is next done ? After he stated who 
 were at Dry's, he mentioned several other places, and particularly 
 Plunket-street where Defenders met, and where subscriptions were 
 made for buying gunpowder ; the waiter was a Defender, and there- 
 fore took care, not to let strangers in. Is there any man to contradict 
 this ? Honest men need not be afraid to allege the contrary, if the 
 facts were not so — any of the family could prove it, if it were false. 
 The prisoner might say (if the fact were so), " I was in bed, and will 
 shew it ; we were not at Dry's, or we were only three in number." 
 The witness mentioned several house-keepers ; is it not a challenge 
 to the whole city of Dublin to give evidence against these assertions ? 
 *' Let me see, if there be any man to contradict me." What does he 
 say next? — he uses language that must bring certainty to every 
 mind ; " I liked the prisoner as a Defender." Thei'e is no evidence 
 to shew he had any quarrel with these people. He was himself a 
 faithful Defender, as they thought. One of them told him, if he was 
 asked what religion he Avas of, not to say he was a Protestant ; accord- 
 ingly he said he was a Roman Catholic. Upon that confidence, Hart 
 calls him into a window, when they were assembled at Drury-laue, 
 and says, " you know that Coffey, the chairman, what religion is he ? " 
 " Why do you ask me," said Lawler ? — " because," replied the other, 
 " if I thought he was a Protestant, I would not keep him company, 
 and I tell you, that the intention was to make a general rising on 
 such a night, but we considered, that if we did it, before the harvest , 
 was got in, we might be starved, but as soon as that is done, we will 
 make the attack." Then indeed, it behoved Lawler, who had changed 
 his name to save his life, to take care of himself — " they will find 
 out that I am a Protestant, and it is necessary I should save my 
 life." Is there anything improbable in that ? Let me be understood 
 to say, that they were to be destroyed by Defenders and ruffians, 
 traitors, and rebels. Does this cast reflections upon the good subjects 
 of the kingdom ? No such thing ; God forbid ! I wish to make 
 every man zealous, bound in point of honour as well as conscience to 
 support the cause of justice and of his country against ruffians, against 
 plunder, violence, murder, and treason ; and if you adopt the means 
 which I shall suggest, I will shew, that in a month, if you do your duty, 
 there will be an end of Defenders and of treason. It is a bold promise. 
 It is a promise founded in my conviction of the integrity and spirit of 
 Irishmen and all classes of them. Let me proceed, however, with 
 the conduct of these men. With respect to Kennedy, the Defender's 
 creed is found in his pocket ; it was found where the witness had 
 previously said it was. Why, to talk of his not deserving credit 
 after that, would be to suppose men were made up of idiocy, and 
 phrenzy. If you lind your watch in a man's pocket, would you dis- 
 believe the man who had previously told you it was there. To doubt 
 then the evidence as to Kennedy would be to make you the most 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 451 
 
 stupid animals without sense, or motion. Then what is found upon 
 Hart ? — not indeed what Lawler knew to be there ; but there is found 
 in Hart's pocket, at his uncle's house, in a room up stairs, this notable 
 Magna Charta of Defendei'ism and treason, in more strong expres- 
 sions than either the oath or catechism. It speaks as treasonably, as 
 rebellion, or treason could make it. France and Ireland are called 
 United States ! It was well observed by one of my brothers upon the 
 trial, " how united but in treason ? " You may as well unite fire and 
 water. The two nations are at war, and can only be united in a 
 bond of wickedness and blasphemy, rebellion and treason. So that 
 finding this paper upon Hart would alone shew, that every word said 
 respecting him was true. But does it rest there ? No : for in the 
 chamber of these infants, as they are called, dressed out so for the 
 occasion, there are found a blunderbuss and twenty ball cartridges ! 
 Then it is said, will you pass sentence on infants ? I have known juries 
 long ; I have never known above three instances where they were 
 mistaken. How are these juries taken ? — from the body of the city. 
 Was it a parcel of grandees ? — no such thing. Each of these boys, 
 by industry and diligence might in the course of a few years, be as 
 great and as grand as any of those who tried him. What then was 
 found ? A blunderbuss and twenty ball cartridges I Is this the innocent 
 skinner's apprentice, with a blunderbuss and twenty ball cartridges in 
 his box ! Gentlemen, parents do not do their duty. Magistrates do their 
 duty ill. Masters still worse. Neither their duty to God, their con- 
 sciences, or the public. Did they but see where their apprentices 
 and those employed about them consumed their time, and wliat 
 company poor lads, taken from their parents, and left with those who 
 should teach them religion as well as trade, frequented, the mischief 
 might be prevented. Can it be imagined, that if masters did their 
 duty, such a system as now prevails could continue for a week ? 
 No. But what do the masters come here to say? — not to contradict 
 the witness, but to say, they do not believe him. One man was a 
 member of a reading society, a master tailor, thirty six years of age, and 
 a father of a family, reading Pope's works and a dictionary of sciences ! 
 " I attended a reading society ; it became the Philanthropic Society, 
 and Paine's Age of Reason was the object of our studies." Is this 
 the way in which the honest and well deserving tradesmen and arti- 
 ficers of the city of Dublin should be employed ? If masters were 
 employed as they ought, would apprentices be employed as they 
 ought not ? Another witness produced on behalf of the prisoner was 
 a man of the name of Robinson, and, very unfortunately, I find an 
 indictment against him. I do not presume him guilty ; — but he is 
 indicted ; for what ? For publishing carricatures ; an odious mode of 
 obtaining a livelihood. Who is the next witness produced? The 
 landlord, who found him honest, industrious, and diligent, but said 
 he did not deserve credit, because he used to work upon Sunday, and 
 did not go to church. Who is the next person brought to impeach 
 Lawler ? Gallan, who became a grocer from a hair-dresser, and who 
 Lawler proves had given him a pistol, knowing what use was to be 
 made of it. The pistol was brought into court. My God, then is it 
 necessary to go into a deep and laboured refinement to satisfy you 
 that everything which has been said hitherto is deserving of credit ? 
 
452 TRIALS OF 
 
 It is said, and it was argued upon ingeniously, that a man having 
 no sense of religion, who thought of putting the King to death, who 
 deserted, who was charged with petty thefts, and was faithless to his 
 own people — are you to believe him ? The answer is plain — ^you find 
 that the man entered into a wicked association, and when it came to 
 touch his own life, he quits it. Under what circumstances ? Not as 
 an approver. He was not sworn against. Not a man of the whole 
 gang was sworn against. He came and gave information to him in 
 whom he thought he could confide. He then goes to Alderman James, 
 tells him of the situation of affairs. An assembly was to be had ; and 
 their object was communicated. The magistrate meets three thousand 
 people. In answer to a question, put by the prisoner's counsel, he 
 says, he believes their object was to attack the bank, plunder it, and 
 take the arsenal of the castle. Is that a reason why Lawler is to be 
 disbelieved because he is confirmed by a magistrate of the city of 
 Dublin as to part of the information he has given ? 
 
 Again as to Crumlin ; a meeting of Defenders is held there — that 
 will be the time, says Lawler, to rescue me — and that is the time he 
 first openly abandons the association. If he were a liar, is there any- 
 thing more certain than that he could not muster three thousand 
 people? What then prevents you from yielding to every rule of 
 probability, confirmed by testimony that cannot err ? For so it is with 
 respect to what has been deposed by Carleton and Godfrey ; all confirm- 
 ing every tittle and every circumstance passing from this man's lips. 
 
 See it in another light. It is said he concealed part of what he 
 should have discovered, namely, the abominable design against the 
 Chancellor. He did so ; but it appears there was such a design. To 
 be sure, a man who was not shocked at the idea of destroying the 
 King, would not be shocked at the scheme of destroying the Chan- 
 cellor ; but he was shocked at his own danger. And is this improbable, 
 that they designed mischief against that great magisti'ate, whom they 
 afterwards attacked, and were near destroying in the open street ?* 
 Therefoi'e, you see that probability follows this witness as a shadow 
 does the substance, fully establishing the truth of his narration. 
 
 Now as to another part of the case. One of these Defenders was 
 tried three months ago. The evidence was very neax-ly in terms the 
 same, with regard to the Defenders, as has appeared against these two 
 boys. Three judges attended upon that occasion ; — men, whose 
 characters, if some of them were not present, I would minutely 
 describe ; men of temper, of high reputation even before they got 
 upon the bench ; they try and approve of a verdict against Weldon. 
 One jury acquitted Leary. Why ? Because the only time he went 
 among them he was drunk. In such a state, any man might have 
 
 * The Chancellor in his carnage was assailed ; he received the blow of a stone 
 which with somewhat more force would have rid the people of their enemy. His 
 house was attacked ; the populace were determined to destroy him, and were 
 proceeding to execute their intentions. At that moment their rage was most 
 fortunately diverted by the address of his sister, Mrs. Jeffries, who, unknown, and 
 at great risk, had mingled in the crowd ; she misled them as to the place of his 
 concealment. Disappointed of their object, they then attacked the Custom-house, 
 where Mr. Beresford first commissioner of the revenue resided. Dreadful results 
 were, with reason, apprehended — See Harrington's History of the Rise and Fall 
 of the Irish Nation, p. 425 (Duffy's Edition^. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 453 
 
 done the same. But then a clamour is made through the country, 
 « are the lives of subjects to be taken away upon the oaths of Atheists ? 
 A fly's wing ought not to be hurt by his testimony." See what was 
 done: The judges postponed the execution of the man, to let in 
 time as much as possible to see whether subsequent events would 
 produce any different evidence. Time is given, assistance is had, and 
 every opportunity upon earth is allowed to bring light upon the subject, 
 and discover whether the witness was a liar. What is the result ? A 
 confirmation of every tittle. But there is another circumstance : Two 
 or three of the juxy in the latter cases were upon the jury who acquit- 
 ted Leary ; it was to their honovir — though, perhaps, in such cases 
 honour should not be spoken of; but it so happened that some of the 
 jury who acquitted Leary, were upon the jury who found Kennedy 
 guilty. So tliat with every prejudice which they might have derived 
 from Leary's case upon their minds, after a trial which took up 
 thirteen or fourteen hours, they came back in ten minutes satisfied 
 that Kennedy was guilty. 
 
 Again, I had the good fortune to be assisted by two of the judges 
 who presided in the former cases ; they brought their notes into court 
 with them, and, as was their duty, compared those notes with what 
 appeared upon the latter trials, in order to discover whether there 
 was any inconsistency. It is the fashion noAV to publish everything. 
 The former trials were published ; eveiything met the public eye ; 
 and still everything is confirmed. What was sworn to before, was 
 sworn to again ; and no part is contradicted. 
 
 I shall take leave of this part, convinced in my mind and satisfied 
 in my conscience that the information of the witness upon every part 
 material to the trials was founded in truth. I shall end this part with 
 this observation : It was sworn that they intended to have put to 
 death the jury who found Jackson guilty. It was not improbable that 
 they who designed to murder the King and the Chancellor would have 
 murdered a jury. When the last jury heard what the witness said, 
 it required manliness to find a verdict of conviction after such a 
 menace ; they were convinced by facts, and they scorned to entertain 
 any fear. They heard what might have alarmed weak minds, little, 
 weak, traitorous minds. A juror might have said, " I will not put 
 myself into that situation ;" on the contrary, they came in manfully, 
 in ten minutes, finding a verdict of guilty, upon their oaths and their 
 consciences. 
 
 But after that, 6ach jury did recommend the prisoners as objects of 
 mercy ; and assigned their single reason, that it was on account of 
 their youth. I then said what I now repeat, that I would communi- 
 cate that recommendation to government. I lost no time in it ; I 
 stated it in the very woi-ds of the jury, without adding a word of mine 
 upon the evidence ; being of opinion that I should not serve the pri- 
 soner if I did. The consideration of mercy is whei'c it ought to be, 
 untouched by me. It will be exercised or not, for anything I know ; 
 I form no conjecture upon it. 
 
 I now take leave of this man, and the general opinion circulated 
 about him, that he is not to be believed upon his oath. If there be any 
 man in court of a diflferent opinion, he is of different materials in 
 heart and understanding from any I know of. 
 
454 TRIALS OF 
 
 Is it of consequence, or not, that tliese trials slioulcl go into the 
 country truly ? I think it is. It was alleged, that the verdicts were 
 founded upon the extravagant assertions of a wretch, who should not 
 be believed. If there be any man, who think that way, I desire no 
 longer to discourse with him upon any subject. 
 
 Having made those impi'cssions upon your minds, which I trust I 
 have, with regard to the credibility of this witness, let me mention 
 what is of more consequence to vis all, and if you treat it with neglect, 
 you do not deserve what the constitution and your oaths suppose you to 
 possess, nay, the heads you wear. We have been labouring five 
 years under the evils of sedition, coupled with privy conspiracy, and 
 rebellion. One springs from the other, but fortunately as they grow 
 up, they crumble by the weight of their own enormity and could not 
 exist but from one cause, and that is, the criminal torpor, which pre- 
 vails among you. I have observed a criminal disregard, indolence 
 and inattention of the most apparent duty of the subject, for some 
 time past, to such a degree as has been productive of the most serious 
 mischief. 
 
 Here I cannot avoid obtruding a Avord upon you with respect to 
 myself. The history of my life has been a history of toleration. 
 By education, by nature and the habits of my life, I have been led 
 to indulge toleration. I never discouraged enquiry. Bold, open 
 debate, open argument, honest opinions, only guarded by the princi- 
 ples of charity, morality, good order and decency ; so guarded, let 
 your argument be as free as wind, and your words as comprehensive 
 as language can speak. If I have misrepresented myself, I call upon 
 the community to be witness against me. Every man feeling any 
 regard for the common welfare must acknowledge, that the present 
 moment is sufficient to raise suspicion, Avhich is ever considered as the 
 best sentinel of wisdom. I am now speaking before a number of people 
 who have made fortunes ; who are remarkable for industry ; who 
 never forgot the common good in pursuing their personal interest. I 
 ask them, whether this be not a moment for alarm ? What, that you 
 should have a club of traitors in the bowels of your country ? And 
 have found none of them but a few boys and a soldier ! Why 
 do you not exert yourselves ? You acknowledge that there is a set of 
 people called Defenders, they come in the night ; they take arms, 
 and get money, but they mean no mischief! They take arms : Why 
 do you suffer them ? " Why, really," answers one of these supine 
 men, " I do not know : one would not wish, to be sure, to make 
 enemies." And what do you expect ? — " Why that I shall not be the 
 first whose tlu'oat will be cut." But if you should not be the first, 
 you will be second ; and if not the second, you will be the third. 
 See what has been the case in France : what a succession of persons 
 have been mowed down by the populace ! The Duke of Orleans 
 came to the block under the hands of the persons, whom he himself 
 had raised into consequence. That may be the case here. 
 
 Another excuse is urged. " If I enquire after those who take my 
 arms, they will cut my tliroat." I am not now talking lightly. What 
 did Swift, who was a man of much political sagacity ? This country 
 liad been greatly infested by a nest of robbers ; by one spirited paper, 
 teaching, that each honest man liad strength enough to root out the 
 
 I 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 455 
 
 mischief, lie obliged them, in a manner, to do that which as members 
 of society they ought. They were pursued, laid hold of, the arms 
 were taken from them. What is attributed to one of the Mount- 
 morress family? With one sword he subdued seven, and brought 
 them to the gallows. I saw the man's picture, with blood upon his 
 face : — glorious picture ! And glorious story to be told ! If you have 
 minds and spirits entertaining any regard for your parents, your chil- 
 dren, or the constitution, which you hold dear, can it be doubted, that, 
 with the assistance of government, the power and the sinews of 
 government, if individuals exerted themselves for a month, these 
 conspiracies must be suppressed. Every sensible man of every deno- 
 mination should step forward ; I mention not names ; I call upon all 
 ranks, whether protestants, or not ; — I call upon all classes of religion 
 to stand up and do their duty, and suppress a common evil. Who 
 have been the instruments of it ? Men who have fled fi'om the law, 
 or who have sutfered under it. Can it be doubted then, when you 
 have every man of propei'ty to watch, and detect abuses of so mis- 
 chievous a nature, that they could not be suppressed ? Take notice of 
 every person within and without your houses ; observe what their 
 opinions and occupations are ; where they spend their time, and how 
 they are employed. I am not talking now to infants, or boys ; — if due 
 vigilance be exerted for a month, a Defender covild not exist for a 
 month within forty miles of Dublin. These are either servants, or 
 apprentice boys ; or workmen. Look then into your houses, and 
 see how your tenants, domestics and others are employed ; examine 
 public-houses ; see what the general conduct is, that people do not 
 lose their senses by excess. Want of morality becomes a necessary 
 consequence of want of sense in such cases. We see in this great 
 town, swarms at every lane, debauching the morals of its inhabitants. 
 Men have been punished by the pillory, for what ? — for endeavouring 
 to corrupt the minds of the youth by obscene pictures, and yet I have 
 seen twenty men, with smiles and smirks, as if they were pleased 
 and delighted with scandalous representations. What are magistrates 
 for, if these abuses be tolerated ? Point your minds to Scotland : — she is 
 a model of temperance, of understanding, of wisdom, of religion of de- 
 cency to all the world, and she has thriven accordingly. It is not, that 
 the Scotch are a foi-tunate people. No, it does not depend upon fortune ; 
 it is good sense, and good conduct. There is not a drunken creature to 
 be met with there in a month. Whereas here, I am- sorry to say, 
 that I have more pain in keeping my horse from trampling upon 
 drunken people of a Sunday than from any care of myself; in defi- 
 ance of all decency, they seem to have come drunk into the world, 
 and they determine to go drunk out of it. 
 
 But see the consequence of this : people are rendered ripe for any 
 mischief. Exert yourselves then to stop this evil. Call for aid in 
 this undertaking, and if you find the magistrate or the friend disregard 
 you, mark that man, no matter what his religion, or tenets may be, 
 whether he carries the prayer-book, or the breviary, the Koran or 
 Confucius, if he do not assist you when he can he is a Defender, 
 and treat him as such. 
 
 Make men give an account of their conduct. See what is done, 
 and declare Avhat ought to be done. Any act which makes a man 
 
456 TRIALS OF 
 
 accessary in felony, makes liim a principal in treason. If he comforts, 
 and abets a traitor, knowing him to be such, he becomes a principal 
 in treason ; therefore it behoves him to take care how he keeps in his 
 mind the knowledge of a man being a Defender. Every man who 
 protects, who assists, or abets, upholds, or harbours a traitoi", knowing 
 him to be such, is in the eye of the law and common sense a traitor, 
 and liable to the penalties of treason. The next oifence is misprision 
 of treason, and that is, where a man knows a person to be a Defender, 
 and'conceals it ; there he is guilty of a misprision of treason, which is 
 punished with the forfeiture of goods and chattels, and imprisonment 
 for the life of the party. 
 
 I am stating this in the presence of many knowing the profession. 
 If I mis-state, let me be corrected. I am speaking before an auditory 
 consisting of hundreds. Is it not probable, that many of those who 
 hear me are trembling at the idea of having assisted Defenders, or 
 having been guilty of misprision in not discovering them ? It is 
 therefore time to watch their own conduct. I have given them fair 
 warning. I have told them the law, as it was my duty to do, at an 
 important and alarming period. I scorn the consequences so far as 
 they may affect my own person. If this infamy is to disgrace your 
 country (an infamy which it has escaped for an hundred years, for 
 Jackson was the lii-st traitor tried here for a century, and you see 
 they are thickening and increasing), so may God judge me as I had 
 rather die to-morrow. I am not speaking for myself. I have means 
 of protection, which many have not. But your spirit and integrity 
 is your best protection — it is the protection of the humblest among 
 you. Honest virtue and spirit triumph over all the vices of the 
 earth. 
 
 Adopt as many of these sentiments as come home to your hearts, 
 and the situation you are in. I hope I have, in thus addressing you, 
 done some good ; I certainly did not mean to do any harm. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General,. — Is it your lordship's wish to mention 
 any day for execution to be done upon these men ? 
 
 Lord Clonmex,. — Mention the day yom'self ; we wiU adopt your 
 sentiments. 
 
 Mr. Attornet-Generai,. — I had no particular day in contempla- 
 tion. We wish nothing more than that of making these prosecutions 
 have the effect which was intended, namely, the effect arising from 
 example. 
 
 Lord Clonmel You can have no other object. One of the 
 
 prisoners mentioned with some sharpness, that a man not recommended 
 had ten weeks. Do you tliink a month will do ? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My lord, I have no other object, than 
 what I mentioned. But the compassionate course to be taken is to 
 make examples as soon as may be consistent with humanity — to shew 
 the people, they cannot escape punishment, and thereby prevent other 
 fellow ci'catui'es fi'om following the like crimes. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Suppose we appoint this day fortnight. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General My lord, that will give time enough 
 
 for those who have power to extend mercy, if they choose to do so. 
 But the prisoners should not entertain such an idea themselves. I 
 wished the day not to be too distant, lest the prisoners might indulge 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 457 
 
 expectations, wliich were not afterwards to be gratilied, and at the 
 same time not to encourage those who are taught by every possible 
 means, that government is disinclined to execute the law. Every 
 person in court has discharged his duty with coolness, deliberation, 
 and impartiality, and my only desire is, that the prisoners may not be 
 impressed with an idea that they are not to suffer, which might be 
 fatal to them hereafter. And people should not go away with an idea, 
 that there is a weakness in the government. If any man mistake me, 
 I cannot speak plainer than I have done. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — From what has happened this day, I 
 think my brother George and I should mention why Ave appointed a 
 distant day for Weldon. I declare most solemnly, that it was not 
 from any doubt of the propriety of the verdict, but the circum- 
 stances were very particular at the time of the sentence. One jury 
 upon Lawler's evidence convicted "Weldon. Another jury upon the 
 same evidence had acquitted Leary ; and it was clear, that the same 
 Lawler would be again produced at this commission. We could not 
 foresee what would happen ; and if it had happened, that Lawler was 
 discredited by a jury, it would be our duty to recommend Weldon. 
 Therefore a day was appointed for his execution, after this commis- 
 sion, for the purpose of ascertaining to the public satisfaction, whether 
 Lawler was deserving of ci'edit or not ; and that was the only motive. 
 We should be deserving of public censure, indeed we should receive 
 our own censure, if v^^e sentenced Weldon and allowed him to suffer, 
 and afterwards Lawler should be discredited. I mention this, because 
 in every case of this kind, it is highly essential, that the public should 
 be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Baron George. — As Judge Chamberlain has mentioned, that 
 there was no doubt in the minds of the judges who presided upon 
 Weldon's trial, as to his guilt, I think it proper to declare, that I 
 myself have no doubt of his guilt. But fi'om the circumstance of 
 Leary having been acquitted, we thought the ends of justice required, 
 that the progress of justice should go forward in such a manner, that 
 no event should arise to discredit that justice. It is not only necessary 
 that judges should be satisfied; but we thought the ends of justice 
 required, that occasion should be given to prove the guilt of those 
 persons to demonstration. The infliction of such severe punishment, 
 as is denounced upon crimes of this sort, ought to be done with the 
 utmost deliberation, more especially where the crown, for the safety 
 of the state, is the prosecutor. There should be nothing hasty, 
 vindictive, or passionate, that people may see government intends 
 nothing more than the distribution of justice in mercy. For these 
 reasons, and as in cases of this sort, nothing like mistake should 
 intervene, we postponed the execution of Weldon, that every man in 
 the kingdom might see the nature of the evidence. But it was not 
 in consequence of any doubt whatsoever that rested in the minds of 
 any of the judges. This was the opinion of Mr. Justice Finucane, 
 who is now absent. If he were here, he would declare the same 
 better than I can for him. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I am apprehensive what I said was 
 not perfectly understood. I had no objection to a distant day ; and 
 so far from it, that if my humble opinion were necessary, I did approve 
 
458 TRIALS OF 
 
 of the delay ; and if my opinion had been desired, I would have 
 recommended a postponement. 
 
 Saturday the 12th of March was appointed for the execution. 
 
 Hugh Crotheks, Esq., foreman of the city grand jury, addressed 
 the court and read a resolution passed by the grand jury, expressing 
 their sincere thanks to Lord Chief-Justice Clonmel for his able and 
 spirited address to them, and requesting his lordship's permission to 
 have it printed. 
 
 Lord Clonmel said he acknowledged the favour and was grateful 
 for the compliment conveyed by the grand jury. He hoped what he 
 said made a due impression upon their minds ; but was sorry he could 
 not comply with their request, as he had not prepared any notes for 
 the occasion. 
 
 The following day the High Sheriff of the county communicated to 
 his lordship a similar resolution of the county grand jury, to which 
 his lordship returned a similar answer. 
 
 Weldon was executed at the front of Newgate pursuant to his 
 sentence. 
 
 Kennedy and Hart were respited until the 19th of March, when 
 Hart was executed. A further respite has been granted to Kennedy. 
 
A EEPORT 
 
 OF A 
 
 TRIAL FOR A COJNTSPIRACY. 
 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 Monday, February 22, 1796. 
 
 The Grand Jury having found the following indictment, the persons 
 therein named were this day arraigned. 
 
 County of the City of \^'' The jurors of our Lord the King upon 
 Dublin, to tvit. J their oath present that Andrew Glennan, of 
 the city of Dublin, yeoman, Philip Kane, Owen Reilly, Charles 
 Soraghan, Patrick Kinshela, Michael Sleaven, John Connor, Hugh 
 Byrne, Michael AValsh, John Ratican, James Carmichael, James 
 Connor, and James Dempsey, of the said city, yeomen, being persons 
 of evil name and dishonest conversation, on the 31st of Janviary, in 
 the 36th year of the reign, &c., at Suffolk-street, &c., contriving and 
 intending one John Hanlon wrongfully to oppress and aggrieve, and 
 him to death and final destruction to bring and cause and procure to 
 be brought on the same day, year and place with force and arms, &c., 
 unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously did conspire, confederate, and 
 agree the said John Hanlon feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice 
 aforethought to kill and muxxler, to the evil and pernicious example 
 of all others in the like case offending, and against the- peace of our 
 said Lord the King, his crown and dignity. 
 
 The prisoners severally pleaded Not Guilty ; and a jury being 
 sworn, the prisoners were given in charge. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, — My lord and gentlemen of the jury, 
 this is an indictment against the prisonei's, for conspiring to put to 
 death John Hanlon, a soldier in the Artillery. Gentlemen, the men- 
 tioning of such a crime alone must impress every mind with horror, 
 and I am sorry to be able to state, in the hearing of my fellow-creatures, 
 that the crime is growing too familiar in the lower orders of the 
 people. I do not say this with a desire to see conviction pass upon these 
 people but to show how necessary it is to examine into the matter with 
 all possible attention ; that if the prisoners be guilty, they may be found 
 so, and examples made to deter others from offending in like cases. 
 
 Gentlemen, the circumstances of this case are very few. It is known 
 very well that seditious conspiracies have existed within this kingdom 
 
? 
 
 460 TRIALS OF 
 
 for a considerable time ; they have been entered into by persons asso- 
 ciated as Defenders. Several persons have been brought to trial, and 
 some have been punished for their offences, amounting to high treason. 
 Some who have been accused and arrested yet remain to be tried. 
 In the town of Naas there at present remain several persons, some 
 indicted at the last assizes, and some have been apprehended since — 
 all charged with some species of crime or other, which fall under the 
 general denomination of Defenderism.* Among these men, remain- 
 ing in a gaol at Naas, is a man of the name of Gavacen, who lived 
 near Kilcock. He stands charged with several offences, and will be 
 brought to trial next week.j" He is brother-in-law of Glennan, the 
 prisoner. Gentlemen, the prisoner, Glennan, is a dairy-man, and 
 lives in Bow-street, in the city of Dublin. It has been the diabolical 
 policy, adopted by these people, to prevent their associates from being 
 brought to justice when apprehended, by assassinating the persons 
 supposed to be witnesses against them. Glennan conceived the design 
 of assassinating John Hanlon, whom he supposed would be a witness 
 against the prisoners in Naas, and amongst the rest his brother-in- 
 law. A man of the name of Thomas Smith is a gunner in the 
 Artillery. He was known to Glennan for some time, and was high 
 in his confidence. Smith had, in a way that he will describe to you, 
 associated himself at a distant period back with some persons who had 
 entered into these conspiracies. He had remained with them but a 
 short while, when he became sensible of the situation in which he 
 stood, and made known to Government the conspiracy which existed 
 against it. Glennan being desirous to procure the acquittal of 
 Gavacen and the others in Naas, conceived, that through Smith, the 
 soldier in the Artillery, he might easily effect the assassination of 
 Hanlon, whom he supposed would be a witness against the prisoners 
 in that town. Gentlemen, in order to bring to effect this purpose, 
 some time in the beginning of January he sent for Smith to come to 
 his house. Smith obeyed the summons, and on Sunday, the 3d of 
 January, he came to the house of Glennan, at Bow-bridge. Glennan 
 there told Smith that there were several Defenders remaining for trial 
 in the gaol of Naas, and asked him if he knew Hanlon, who had some 
 time before enlisted. Smith said he did. Glennan then said, he was 
 to be a witness against the Defenders in Naas, that he must be 
 murdered, and he told him that he expected through the means of 
 Smith to be able to effect his purpose. After some further conver- 
 sation it was agreed that a meeting should be had at the house of 
 Carmichael, who keeps a public-house in Thomas-street. A meeting of 
 the " boys," as they denominated it, took place upon vSunday, the 24th 
 of January, in order to confer upon the means of effecting their plan. 
 Upon the 24th, Smith came to the house of Carmichael, and there he 
 met Glennan and several of the persons now at the bar, and there 
 
 * At the Spring Assizes for Kildare, 1796, three persons who had been indicted 
 for high treason submitted, and three indicted for administering unlawful oaths 
 were found guilty upon the testimony of Hanlon. Three men were found guilty 
 for being concerned in shooting at Mr. Ryan, and two others, indicted for the 
 same oifence, submitted. 
 
 t Gavacen was afterwards convicted of administering an unlawful oath, upon 
 the testimony of one Kelly. 
 
' 
 
 THE DEFENDERS. 461 
 
 they did confer together upon the means of assassinating Hanlon. 
 They desired that Smith should prevail with Hanlon to come to town 
 upon the ensuing Sunday to Carmichael's, where they would meet 
 Glennan and the rest of the associates, that they, would accompany 
 Smith and Hanlon hack again, and throw him into the Liffey, as they 
 walked along the path. Smith communicated this scheme to Serjeant- 
 Major Lane, of the Artillery, at Chapelizod, who directed Smith to 
 go to town according to the appointment, and to hring Hanlon along 
 with him. Accordingly on Sunday evening they went together, 
 Hanlon accompanying Smith. In their way to town Hanlon asked 
 Smith for what purpose they were sent to town at that hour in the 
 evening ; upon which Smith disclosed to Hanlon the purpose for which 
 they were sent. Hanlon then hesitated to go, but Smith told him he 
 was safe, for that Alderman Alexander and Alderman Tweedy were 
 informed of the whole transaction — that a party of the peace-officers 
 were assembled at Watling-street, near the house of Carmichael, and 
 it was agreed that a person should be sent in to give a signal when 
 the party were assembled, that they might be arrested. 
 
 Smith and Hanlon then proceeded to town, and in their way the 
 former stepped into the house of Glennan who expressed his happiness ; 
 said he was glad to see the " lad," desired them to go to Carmichael's, 
 and the "boys" would follow. Smith and Hanlon accordingly went 
 to Carmichael's ; there they found two or three, and presently were 
 joined by others, and addressed Smith as if he had not seen him before. 
 They talked together for a while, and whispered somewhat about the 
 design, but not in the hearing of Hanlon, though in his view, so that 
 he could not go away without being perceived. The signal was then 
 given — the party came in — the persons at the bar were all arrested, 
 and instantly committed. 
 
 This, gentlemen, is a state of the facts which will be proved, and 
 if you believe them, they necessarily draw the conclusion, that the 
 prisoners are guilty of the offence charged against them. Some other 
 incidental circumstances will come out, but they do not go directly to 
 the facts charged, though they go to establish them ; they will be told 
 by Smith, and they give credit to his evidence, if he required corro- 
 boration. Gentlemen, he is not an accomplice ; he had no intention 
 to commit the crime ; his object was to prevent it, if he could. It will 
 appear, when the magistrates came, these people pulled papers from 
 their pockets and threw them under the seat— papers directly evincing 
 their intention of committing high treason. One of those papers was 
 the Defender's Catechism, in expi-ess words declaring their reliance 
 upon the French Convention, and that their object was to dethrone all 
 kings. Upon some were found papers of a like tendency. This 
 shows clearly their intention to commit the crime. Smith will be 
 corroborated by the evidence of the magistrates and other persons. 
 When the facts shall be proved, there can be no doubt of the prisoners' 
 guilt ; and if they be guilty, we can only lament that crimes of the 
 deepest dye can be punished but as a misdemeanor. 
 
 Thomas Smith, sworn. — Examined by the Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. Do yovx recollect the 3d of January last? A, I do. 
 
 Q. Do you remember to have called upon anybody that day ? A. 
 
462 TRIALS OF 
 
 At the house of Andrew Glennan, No. 7, Bow-bridge: there he is 
 (pointing at the prisoner in the dock). 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with him ? A. Yes : he treated me 
 
 to a beef-steak, and then took me out, and gave me two pots of porter. 
 
 Q. What conversation had you with him ? A. The first person 
 
 that broke the discourse was Glennan's wife. She asked me if there 
 
 was a recruit in the Artillery of the name of Hanlon. 
 
 Q. What answer did you make ? A. I told her I did not know 
 him, nor did I at the time ; I then recollected and said, I did know 
 him, that he lived a few doors from me. Glennan said you are the 
 very man the business lies u]3on. He must be settled. I shall way- 
 lay him and kill him. 
 
 Q. Did he assign any other reason ? A. Glennan said there was 
 to the amount of eleven Defenders in Naas, one of whom was bro- 
 ther-in-law to him (Glennan), and Hanlon was to prosecute them at 
 the next assizes. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Did he say what they were in for ? A. For 
 Defenderism.) 
 
 Q. You said one of the persons confined was Gavacen ? A. Yes : 
 he was brother to Mrs. Glennan. 
 
 Q. How came you to be in terms of intimacy with Glennan ? A. ■ 
 I was sworn in January 1795, as a Defender, in James Doyle's house, I 
 George's-quay, and Glennan and Doyle stood by, as commanding 
 officers of the regiment. 
 
 Q. That connection subsisted ? A. Yes, it did. 
 
 Q. After the conversation terminated, was any appointment made ? 
 A. Yes : I was to come as conveniently as I could, and to make up an 
 intimacy with Hanlon in the meantime, and bring him to Glennan's 
 house. 
 
 Q. You belong to the regiment of Ai-tillery ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. You were then in that regiment ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Did you inform any person of this conversation ? A. When I 
 came home and found Hanlon was to be murdered, next morning 
 upon parade I called Serjeant-Major Lane aside, and told him the 
 whole. I told him I was to set Hanlon, and Glennan was to murder 
 him. I met Glennan afterwards, when I went to George's-quay, 
 and William Keeling, and James Ward, Defenders. They go by so 
 many names, it is hard to know them. 
 
 Q. Did you go anywhere ? A. Yes, they brought me into a pub- 
 lic-house. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — They were Defenders ? A. Yes.) 
 
 Q. What passed ? A. Glennan opened the discourse, and informed 
 the other two that I was the man who could set Hanlon, and bring 
 him forward to be murdered. 
 
 Q. You mean Glennan, the prisoner ? A. The present man there. 
 
 Q. What further did he say ? A. I was to meet him as soon as 
 possible again. 
 
 Q. Was that part of the conversation ? A. On that day it was, 
 and on or about the 24tli of January. 
 
 Q. For the same business ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How soon after did you meet them ? A. On the 24th of 
 January. 
 
THE DEFENDEUS. 463 
 
 Q. Did you see Ilanlon between that day and the former day ? 
 A. I saw him upon duty, but had no conversation with him. 
 
 Q. Did you see him upon the 24th ? A. I do not know the exact 
 day : but I had no conversation with him. I had no conversation 
 Avith him tliree times in my life, until I was sent to have him murdered, 
 
 Q. AVhat happened upon the 24th ? A. I went to Glennan's upon 
 Bow-bridge. Word was left that he was gone to Carmichael's, 21, 
 Thomas-street. 
 
 Q. Mention whether you met Glennan at Carmichael's ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Is Carmichael at the bar ? A. He is. There he is (pointing 
 to him.) 
 
 Q. Who else was there ? Was there any other ? A. Yes : 
 Patrick Kinshela, Michael Sleaven or Shanagan — to the best of my 
 knowledge he was there. 
 
 Q. Are you certain whether he was there or not ? A. I am 
 positive. 
 
 Q. Do you see anybody else who was there ? A. Yes, a good 
 many — no not that day. 
 
 Q. What conversation happened in the presence of these you have 
 mentioned, upon the 24th ? A. The conversation that happened that 
 day with Kinshela, Sleaven and Glennan was for me to bring in Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Was Carmichael present ? A. No : he was attending his 
 business in the house. 
 
 Q. Was he present at any part of the conversation ? A. Not 
 belonging to Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Now mention the conversation between the other persons upon 
 that day ? A. I was to bring in Hanlon, and they were all to murder 
 Hanlon upon the Long INIeadows, going down from Bow-bridge. I 
 was asked could I bring Hanlon next Svmday. I said, I did not 
 know, the duty being severe, and perhaps I might be on duty myself, 
 or he might. Sleaven said " you must bring him in, I have been 
 watching a week for him, and if I wait until Sunday it will be a 
 fortnight; if another Sunday, it will be three weeks." I said I would 
 call upon Glennan on Thursday, and let him know Avhether I could 
 bring in Hanlon on Sunday or not. 
 
 Q. Did any conversation happen about what they were to do with 
 Hanlon ? A. To murder him upon the Long Meadows, and throw 
 his body into the river. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — How many knew that purpose ? . A. Glennan, 
 Kinshela, and Sleaven. 
 
 Q. Anybody else at the bar ? A. Nobody else at the bar.) 
 
 Q. You undertook to come in on Thui'sday, did you come in ? A. 
 I did. 
 
 Q. AATiom did you see ? A. Glennan, at his house. 
 
 Q. What happened ? A. He told me he saw Kinshela, and asked 
 me if I could bring in Hanlon — I told him I could — he told me, 
 before he would eat his breakfast next morning he would be with 
 Kinshela, and give him word, and they would be fully px'epared for 
 the murder of Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Did you bring Hanlon the next Sunday ? A. I did, by order 
 of Serjeant-Major Lane, from parade. 
 
 Q. Then during this time you had frequent communications with 
 
464 TRIALS OF 
 
 Seijeant-Major Lane? A. I had everyday; as anything passed, 
 when I came home I let Serjeant- Major Lane know it. 
 
 Q. You came on the Sunday following ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. To the house of Glennan. 
 
 Q. Hanlon walked with you ? A. He did till we came half way 
 through the fields when he stopped and said, " now, Smith, where 
 am I going." 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — Where was that ? A. About half-way be- 
 tween Island-bridge and Bow-bridge. 
 
 Q. In the Long Meadows ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What hour of the day ? A. It was coming the dusk of the 
 evening ; we were at Glennan's at night-fall, and at this time we were 
 half-a-raile from his house.) 
 
 Q. What answer did you make to Hanlon ? A. I told him he was 
 going to be murdered. He made a halt and said he would not come. 
 I told him he should come, and, with the help of God, I would bring 
 him home safe. 
 
 Q. Did he consent ? A. He came forward and said, " take care, 
 perhaps they might poison me unknown to you." 
 
 Q. (By the Court Who did he mean by they ? A. I told him 
 
 the secret ; the whole business from beginning to end, as we were 
 going through the fields.) 
 
 Q. You satisfied him ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. You came to Glennan's ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was he at home ? A. He was after dining ; there was a man 
 standing in the floor with him, with the appearance of a gentleman 
 with boots and good clothes ; I do not know who he was. 
 
 Q. Did the gentleman in the boots say anything ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did Glennan say anything ? A. He did ; he asked me " had 
 I Hanlon." I told him I had. 
 
 Q. Did he ask it in the presence of the gentleman ? A. He did, 
 out plump before him. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Where was Hanlon at that time ? A. He was 
 outside of Glennan's house.) 
 
 Q. Did Glennan make an answer when you told him ? A. Glen- 
 nan said, " wheel him up to Carmichael's, and all the boys will be up 
 after you, by and bye." 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — Did you understand what the boys meant ? 
 A. To be sure, the party that was to murder Hanlon, that Glennan 
 was to bring. 
 
 Q. In the dusk of the evening ? A. Yes.) 
 
 Q. You went up to Carmichael's ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What happened there ? A. We had two pots of threepenny. 
 
 Q. Who ? A. Hanlon and I ; nobody else had come there : Glen- 
 nan had ordered me to call for what I liked, and not to spare cost ; 
 when we called for the threepenny, in walked Patrick Kinshela. 
 
 Q. Who else came in ? A. There came about six in all. 
 
 Q. Mention their names ? A. I cannot give their distinct names. 
 But I can shew them. 
 
 Q. Point them out ? A. I do not know their names ; Philip Kane 
 was the man who came forward to the counter, and said " he was 
 the man who would do for Hanlon !" Andrew Glennan was there ; 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 465 
 
 Owen Reily was there : I was often in his company as a Defender. 
 Byrne said he would convey Hanlon a piece of the way home. The 
 prisoners are all in different appearances fi'om what they were in at 
 the time. I have no call to say to Carmichael whatsoever, as to the 
 murder of Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Did they all come at once ? A. Kinshela came with the first 
 party, and then the other party came in. 
 
 Q. Did they converse together ? A. The word was this, they were 
 to ask " who was with me ;" I was to answer, " Hanlon a recruit, a 
 friend of mine, who came in to take a drink." 
 
 Q. Did they ask you ? A. They did, and I told them ; we were 
 sitting in Carmichael's front tap-room, opposite the fire ; as you go in 
 you turn to the right ; we were sitting there when they came in. 
 Kinshela and the party moved to the centre tap-room when they came 
 in, and they called for two large jugs of punch, and some beef-steaks. 
 The jugs held two quarts, or three pints ; we drank until such time 
 as Glennan and his party came in. 
 
 Q. When Glennan and his party came in, was there any further 
 conversation ? A. The same as before. 
 
 Q. Did Glennan ask you as the other had ? A. Surely ; they all 
 shook me by the hand, and I thought they would force my arms from 
 my shoulders. I wanted to be near, and got near the door ; Alder- 
 man Alexander's man was in the front tap-room drinking with an- 
 other person. 
 
 Q. He was there you say ? A. He had been with me there the 
 night before ; I shewed him where to sit privately, and how to act 
 for taking these people. I told him I would give him a signal, when 
 to take the people. 
 
 Q. Do you know his name ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How long did you sit before the signal was given ? A. "We 
 were not sitting long ; some made me sit on their knees ; Sleaven was 
 running about like a distracted man, and he said, " when this business 
 is completed, I will bring 18,000 men to Dublin on the fol- 
 lowing." 
 
 Q. Did Glennan hear ? A. Certainly, and Kinshela too. 
 
 Q. Did Alderman Alexander's man hear ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You talked about a sign, what sign ? Was it a Defender's 
 sign ? A. No ; I was to take off my hat, to scratch my head, and 
 give a cough : I did so, and Alderman Alexander's man went out for 
 the party. 
 
 Q. Was there any further conversation between you, relative to 
 the party ^ A. None ; we sat down, and the second toast we drank 
 was, " bad luck to all bad Defenders." 
 
 Q. Was that so loud as that all the company could hear it ? A. It 
 was ; the whole house could hear it — it was not hid in a bushel. 
 
 After that, did anything remarkable happen ? A. I do not know 
 what happened between Hanlon then, because I went to the door, 
 near the front tap-room ; but I had my eye upon Hanlon, for fear of 
 any danger to him. They were all so fond of me, some shaking me 
 by the hand, and almost pulling my arms off. 
 
 Q. How soon after did the guard come ? A. I had not time to 
 take a glass of pixnch before they came. 
 
 2 H 
 
466 TRIALS OF 
 
 - • Q. What happened after ? A. Colonel Alexander came in, and 
 that gentleman (Alderman Tweedy). 
 
 Q. What did they do ? A. They desired the constable to make 
 me prisoner, and take me one side, out of their company, for fear 
 they should hurt me. The Alderman then took the prisoners one 
 after another, and desired me to pinch his arm as any of the party 
 passed ; a man was then put upon each side of the prisoners, until 
 they were brought to the office. 
 
 Q. Were they searched ? A. They were. 
 
 Q. Did you see any paper ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Hanlon was there that time ? A. He was all the time, and 
 can tell what passed. There was a paper taken out at Alderman 
 Alexandei*'s office, and read. 
 
 Q. Out of whose pocket. A. I do not know. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. M'Nal,ly. 
 
 Q. How long have you been in the Artillery? A. Since the 15th 
 of April, 1795. 
 
 Q. Was it before, or after you were enlisted, ■ you were sworn a 
 Defender? A. Before. 
 
 Q. Were you intimately acquainted with Glennan before you went 
 into the Artillery? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Did Glennan hold any conversation with you about going into 
 the Artillery ? A. I'll tell you the reason I went in. I was a Pro- 
 testant all my life, and so was my father and grandfather since King 
 William's time. I was obliged to hide my bible and prayer-book, 
 and I consulted with my wife, and determined to go into the army, 
 to practice my profession as usual. I was obliged to make my 
 daughter deny that she was a Protestant born, and make her say, she 
 went to mass. 
 
 [Here the witness was examined by the Court.] 
 
 Q. Wlien did you hear of their intentions ? A. In February 1795. 
 
 Q. What did you hear ? A. They were talking in Connor's house 
 — we expected every day a massacre and rebellion was to break out — 
 no Protestant was to be left alive. We were to serve under Sir 
 Edward Bellew, and were sworn to that. The oath was to serve 
 under James Cole, Sir Edwaixl Bellew, Napper Tandy, and Hamilton 
 Rowan. There were sheets of paper and they swore to it, as they 
 said. I gave information. They were to have no King ; they said 
 " we will recover our estates, sweep clean the Protestants, kill the 
 Lord Lieutenant, and leave none alive." There were a good many 
 more there. 
 
 Q. What do you say were their determinations, as you can recollect 
 them ? A. The oath was to serve Sir Edward Bellew, James Cole, 
 Napper Tandy, and Hamilton Rowan — to serve France and Ireland. 
 
 Q. What did you say about the Lord Lieutenant ? A. We were 
 one morning at Connor's, Glennan, Dempsey, and others ; we came 
 to a resolution of shooting the Lord Lieutenant. 
 
 Q. Upon what day was that ? A. I do not know ; it was upon a 
 Sunday, as he passed through the Park. We were to take the 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 467 
 
 Magazine in the Pai'k, the Castle of Dublin, and put all the nobility 
 therein to death. 
 
 Q. You said you were in constant expectation of something ? A . 
 Of the I'ebellion breaking out. 
 
 Q. Where? A. In Dublin. 
 
 Q. When did that commence ? A. Last April, 1795. 
 
 Q. How do you know it was in April last ? A. It was sometime 
 about April, or March ; it was about that time I listed ; I gave 
 information so often to Captain Burgh and to the noblemen in Dublin 
 and Ireland, and seeing no notice taken of it, I was sure I would 
 come to a bad end. 
 
 Q. To whom did you give information beside Captain Burgh ? 
 A. I was brought to the Castle and saw three or four lords with 
 stars. I do not know who they were ; Captain Burgh knew who 
 they were. 
 
 Q. You gave information you say early in 1796? A. I did in 
 January, 1795. 
 
 Q. To whom? A. To Captain Legge and Captain Burgh, and 
 other gentlemen, I do not know them. 
 
 Q. You said you saw persons with stars ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Do you remember how many ? A. To the best of my know- 
 ledge three or four. 
 
 Q. What part of the Castle? A. As you go into the upper 
 Castle-gate, from the lower, on the left there is a door in the corner, 
 I went in there. 
 
 Q. Were you examined? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Who examined you ? A. The gentleman there. 
 
 Q. Were there any gentlemen of the bar there ? A. I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. What hour of the day or night was it ? A. It was early ; in 
 the month of April. When I spoke of January, it was in the 
 evening. 
 
 Q. Were you examined another time ? A. Yes, I saw Captain 
 Burgh there. 
 
 Q. Wlio do you mean by noblemen ? A. The noblemen I saw 
 there. There was another gentleman with Captain Burgh there. 
 I did all I could to get forward, but could get nothing done. 
 
 Q. In what situation were you ? A. I kept a porter-house in 
 Garden-lane. 
 
 Q. You were twice examined at the Castle ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Consider before you answer ; by vii'tue of your oath, was there 
 any person there dressed like a lawyer at any time you were 
 examined ? A. There was a person dressed in black, but I did not 
 know whether he was a lawyer. 
 
 Q. Do you know him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. How many were there ? A. Three or four. 
 
 Q. Where did you see the people with stars ? A. In that room. 
 
 Q. Did you know any of them ? A. There was a gentleman with 
 a small black patch upon his face, I did not know him. 
 
 Q. What was the last time you were examined in the Castle ? A. 
 In the month of April. 
 
 Q. First in January ? A. Yes. 
 
468 TRIALS OF 
 
 '* -Q. Were the same persons present the last time as at first ? A. 
 No : first there was Captains Burgh and Legge and a gentleman, I 
 believe the secretary of the Board of Ordnance. 
 
 Q. "VVlio the second time ? A. The gentlemen with stars, and 
 Captain Burgh was called upon to see whether I had told him before. 
 
 Q. He is alive ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was he pi-esent at the examination ? A. No, but he came 
 forward being sent for, and specified that I told him before. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. 
 
 Q. You in order to preserve to yourself the free exercise of your 
 religion, went into the Artillery ? A. In order to preserve a free 
 life, and the exercise of my religion, and to save a number of innocent 
 persons in the kingdom. 
 
 Q. Before you went into the Artillery, you had been an old 
 Defender ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. But you became so frightened at the wickedness of that society, 
 that you went into the Artillery ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. How soon after you were sworn, did you come to the resoltuion 
 of shooting the Lord Lieutenant ? Did you give information ? A. 
 That was before I went into the Artillery. 
 
 Q. Did you give any information of the intention to shoot the Lord 
 Lieutenant until you went into the Artillery ? A. I did. I hired a 
 chair, and paid eighteen pence for it to go to Burgh. 
 
 Q. How long after the resolution was taken ? A. At that time 
 but a day or two aftei*. I lost no time, but went immediately after. 
 
 Q. Did you immediately on its occurring to your mind that your 
 religion and life were in danger, give up your connection with 
 Defenders ? A. I did till they followed me to Chapelizod. 
 
 Q. Did you not go to the house of Glennan ? A. But it was a 
 long time before that they followed me to Chapelizod. 
 
 Q. You followed him to Bow-bridge ? A. Yes, but he and many 
 others followed me first. 
 
 Q. Did you assign any reason for going into the Artillery ? A. 
 I did : I went for poverty. They asked me why I did not apply ? 
 I said I would not ask any friend. 
 
 Q. Is not the Artillery known to be a Protestant corps ? A. It is 
 a free corps for any man who conducts himself well, and promotion is 
 free for any man. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see an advertisement for recruiting in the 
 ArtiUery? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Do they not state that the men must be Protestants, and 
 of good character ? A. That time was, but now they take any 
 men in the way, and if they conduct themselves well may be 
 promoted. 
 
 Q. Was not the qualification inserted in the last advertisement ? 
 A. I did not see one these five years. 
 
 Q. Is it not the custom to insert it down to this day ? A. I do 
 not believe it — of a Sunday, when we parade at Chapelizod every 
 man is dressed and when church-bell rings, the drum beats, and those 
 who go to mass, turn to the left, and it is free for the exercise of 
 religion, every man does as he pleases. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 469 
 
 Q. You and Glennan have been acquainted for a considerable time ? 
 A. From the 1st of January, 1795. 
 
 Q. You kept a porter-house in Garden-lane ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did Glennan resort to your house there ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did you at that time go to any place of worship ? A. No. I 
 went two or three times with them to mass, but never went withinside 
 a church door. 
 
 Q. You became a Defender in 1795 ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. And you continued down to April, the time you enlisted? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Do you not believe that your entering into the Artillery inti- 
 mated to these people that you were a Protestant ? A. No ; I am 
 positive it did not. 
 
 Q. Did you continue to deny your religion after ? A. No ; I went 
 to church freely as any other man. 
 
 Q. After that did you visit Glennan and the others as a Defender ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. When they followed you, as you say, to Chapelizod, had you 
 no apprehension that these men, who were to sweep the Protestants, 
 would sweep you ? A. I had apprehensions of it, and seldom expected 
 anything else. 
 
 Q. And did you not go alone to the house of Glennan ? A. I did 
 with Hanlon. 
 
 Q. Did you not go without him ? A. I did, often alone. 
 
 Q. Did you not conceive from the description you have given 
 of Glennan, that he was one who would sweep oiF the Protestants ? 
 A. I was. 
 
 Q. And yet you went to him ? A. I went there through fear of 
 my life. 
 
 Q. From that fear you went into the Artillery ? A. I did. I 
 went to Glennan's by order of Serjeant Lane. 
 
 Q. Hanlon and you were not intimate ? A. No. 
 
 Q. The first intimation he had, that he was to be murdered, was 
 upon the bank of the river ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. Between Island-bridge and Chapelizod ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. You were afraid of being cut off by these people, and cautioned 
 Hanlon to defend himself? A. No ; I told him nothing till we left 
 Chapelizod. 
 
 Q. He was unarmed ? A. No ; he had his side-arms. 
 
 Q. Had you been on terms of intimacy with all the prisoners ? 
 A. I was often in their company, but did not know their names ; 
 these Defenders give themselves extraordinary names. 
 
 Q. Are you so well acquainted, as to swear to their faces ? A. Did 
 I not do so already ? I swear they are the men, who were by to 
 murder Hanlon and none other. 
 
 Q. Do you take upon you to swear, that all the ten men in the 
 dock were pi-esent and overheard the conversation respecting the 
 murder ? I am positive they were all consenting, and were to assist 
 in it. 
 
 Q. Was the proposal to murder Hanlon ?o loud, that every man 
 ccnild hear it ? A. Certainly. 
 
 (^. How large was the room ? A. It was a large room. 
 
470 TRIALS OF 
 
 Q. I am speaking of the last niglit ? A. Sure they did not talk of 
 the murder of Hanlon before his face. 
 
 Q. Did any person come in ? A. It was a free house. 
 
 Q. Did any person come in, and who were at the fireside ? A. I 
 am not positive. 
 
 Q. Are you positive they were all present at the consultation to 
 murder Hanlon ? A. No ; there were twenty there. 
 
 Q. Now, I ask you, were all the men at the bar in the room that 
 night ? A. I am not positive. 
 
 Q. Who were there the first night ? A. There were a great many 
 — but all who were taken on the last night by my directions knew 
 the plot. 
 
 John Hanlon, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Prime- Serji: ant. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the 31st of January last? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Did you receive any order from Serjeant-Major Lane that day ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. To come into town along with Smith, I did 
 not know for what, till I came half-way ; Smith stopped for a mo- 
 ment ; Smith said, " you are going to be murdered ;" I said, I would 
 not go ; he said, not to fear, and told me the way. I then said I 
 would go, if it was to the mouth of a six-pounder. We came to 
 Glennan's, I leaned my shoulder to the door, Smith went in, and 
 Glennan said, " wheel up the lad to Carmichael's, and drink the best." 
 We did so. They came in two parties, five or six each. They 
 removed us from the place, being a small room ; they took Smith 
 upon their knees, they were so glad to see him. I drank heartily, 
 sure enough, and after some time, I said, it was growing late, for I 
 should be put into the guard-house. He went to the door, and a 
 crowd came in. I was pleased to see them, and took courage, and 
 drank hearty. Smith was taken and the rest brought together. They 
 drank " present death and confusion to all bad Defenders," — that was 
 against me for betraying tliem. 
 
 Q. You were to give information against Defenders ? A. I gave 
 information against a party for a design to kill the Rev. Mr. Walsh 
 at Kilcock. 
 
 Q. Point out the men ? A. I think they were all there (here he 
 pointed several of the prisoners) — it was candle-light, and I was in 
 much confusion, but I give my affidavit this man was there (pointing 
 at Owen Keily), and this man (Peter Kinshela), and this man (Simon 
 Walsh), and this man, (Andrew Glennan), and this man (Hugh 
 Byrne). 
 
 Q. Were all the persons there that night taken into custody ? 
 A. They were, ten I think and the landlord. 
 
 Cross-examined by IVIi'. Green. 
 
 Q. How long were you acquainted with these men before ? A. 
 Never, not one man. 
 
 Q. How long were you in their comj^any that night ? A. Perhaps 
 three quarters of an hour. 
 
 Q. Were they not divided by separate benches ? A. No ; because 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 4^1 
 
 the first party that came in took us out of a small bench, and brought 
 us into a spacious place. 
 
 Q. You were a good deal terrified ? A. I was, certainly. 
 't Q. You had not seen them before ? A. No, not one. 
 
 Q. How then are you so certain as to their being in the same 
 place ? A. By their expressions. 
 
 Q. You cannot say, what dress they were in? A. I did not 
 examine their dress. 
 
 Q. Have they the same now which they had that night ? A. I 
 am sure they have part of it. I swear to the five men — the very 
 identical men. 
 
 Q. They suspected you to be a Defender ? A. 1 was taken in to 
 be a Defender by a north-country man at Kilcock, a stone-cutter, and 
 I was obliged to swear, or I would not come out alive. 
 
 Q. You drank veiy heartily ? A. Three pints and a half of punch. 
 
 Q. How much had you taken before the crowd appeared ? A. Two 
 pots of beer and two jugs of punch. 
 
 Q. You mentioned to Smith, that you were afraid of staying? 
 A. I did, seeing them going about, 
 
 Q. You knew the ofiicer had given you leave to go ? A. He did. 
 But I did not know, not seeing the constables coming, how much 
 danger there might be. 
 
 Q. Did you declare the night the persons were taken, that you had 
 no charge against Reily ? A. What charge could I have against any 
 of them, but for their oaths and declarations ? 
 
 Alderman Alexander, sworn Examined by Mr. Saurin. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect getting information from Smith ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. What was the time and what the nature of the information ? 
 A. A person called upon me at William-street, and said, that a person 
 of the name of Smith would give information against sworn Defenders, 
 and who were swearing Defenders, and that if I would meet him at 
 any time, where he would not be suspected, he would meet me. J 
 appointed the next morning at ten o'clock : he came and he told the 
 story exactly as he related it here. 
 
 Q. You heard him give his testimony here ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. And the information he gave you was exactly the saiue as the 
 account he gave here ? A. Exactly. 
 
 Q. Did you mention the time this happened ? A. It was the 
 Thursday before these people were taken up — the 28th, I believe. I 
 fixed with Smith at the oifice to call at my own house at four o'clock, 
 and I sent for Alderman Tweedy. Smith came and gave examina- 
 tions against these people. I agreed that he should go to the house 
 with my men, in order to take them when they were assembled, by 
 giving a signal. At the time appointed, two men were stationed at 
 the house ; I was told the sign was made ; I came down with a party 
 to Carmichael's house and took them. I spoke to Smith and desired 
 him to identify them. He asked me, how ? I told hhn, when I 
 asked any of them what his name was, if he was of the party, to give 
 my arm a pinch. I asked each man his name and vSmith gave me a pinch 
 
 Q. How many ? A. Ten and the landlord — he was not silling at 
 the table. 
 
472 
 
 TRIALS OF 
 
 ?■' Q. Can you identify them ? A. Six of them I can — their dresses 
 are all altered — that man, Sleaven or Shamrogue I know very well. 
 Glennan I recollect perfectly well — I remember Eeily too — we 
 brought them all up to Alderman Tweedy's office, and he committed 
 them. 
 
 Q. "Was the Alderman there at the time the prisoners were 
 brought ? A. He was at the office. . 
 
 Q. Did you see anything more ? A. There was a paper under the | 
 table, a sort of catechism. He pulled another paper out of the pockets 
 of one of the party. Here are the papers. 
 
 Alderman Tweedy, sworn Examined by Mr. Worthington. 
 
 Q. Did Alderman Alexander give into your care any persons on 
 the 31st of January last? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Look round and try if you see them. A. I do ; to the best of 
 my belief they are the persons. I put them into a dock, and took 
 them out one by one, and Smith identified them all. I gave them to 
 the constable. 
 
 Q. Who brought them to Newgate from your office? A. My 
 constables. 
 
 Q. Have you any of those constables here ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you find anything upon any of the prisoners ? A. I found 
 a bible, and a manual, and this pocket-book, in which there was a 
 paper with some powder in it. Under the table where they were 
 sitting, I found a number of bits of paper which I endeavoured to 
 put together, but I could not. Under the seat I found this kind of i 
 catechism. 
 
 Q. You sent the men to Newgate who were given to you ? A. I 
 did. 
 
 Tresham Gregg, sworn Examined by Mr. Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. You received all these men at the bar from Alderman Tweedy 
 on the 1st of February last ? A. I did. (Here he mentioned all 
 their names.) 
 
 Q. Under a warrant from the Alderman ? A. Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Ridgeway. 
 
 Q. Neither Connor nor Dempsey were delivered to you at the same 
 time with the others ? A. They were not. 
 
 [Here the papers were oflfered to be read, but the counsel for the 
 prisoners objecting, that no paper could be read, except such as was 
 actually found upon the possession of one of the prisoners, or satisfac- 
 torily connected with one of them, the paper found under the seat 
 was not read.] 
 
 [The following paper found by Alderman Tweedy upon one of the 
 prisoners was read.] 
 
 " Are you a Christian ? I am. By what ? By baptism. Who 
 baptised you ? St. John. Where ? In the river Jordan. What did 
 he call you ? To be loyal. To Avho ? To God and my brothers. 
 Are you consecrated ? I am. To what ? To the National Convention 
 — to queal all nations — to dethrone all Kings, and plant the tree of 
 iberty on our Irish land — whilst the French Defenders will protect 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 473 
 
 our cause, and the Irish Defenders pull down the British laws. 
 Which is the first T. ? The tree of hberty. Who planted it ? The 
 Duke of Orleans. Where ? In his own lawn. How high are you ? 
 Three steps to Paradise. How broad are you ? Fi'om E. to W. 
 How long ai-e you ? From N. to S. Are you astray ? No, I am not 
 astray. Where are you going ? To the North. What to do ? To 
 look for my brother. What is his name ? Sarsfield. What is your 
 number ? It is five. What is your pass-word ? Eliphismatis. How 
 do you stand those times ? Upright as well as I can — I am afraid. 
 Don't be afraid. The Duke of York will save you. What do you 
 carry ? The Rod of Aaron at command. Who sent you here ? Simon 
 Peter. Your coat is dirty. Is it high up ? Pretty high up. If you 
 be a friend you will come and clean it. Where did the cock crow 
 when the world heard him ? In France. What is your opinion of the 
 weather ? It is quite clear ; I think the faded flower will blow again." 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lord and gentlemen of the jury, in times like 
 these, after what you have heard, considering myself, what I am in 
 heart and soul, loving and revering the constitution under which I 
 live, I shall not address you without expressing the abhorrence which 
 I feel in my mind from the charge against the prisoners ; and I cannot 
 have a doubt, that every man upon the jury, equally abhors a crime, 
 marked by the most infamous cruelty, that can degrade the human 
 heart. A conspiracy to commit a crime can have no palliation from 
 the crime not having been perpeti'ated, and therefore the impression 
 upon your mind must be the same, as if the murder were actually 
 committed. But, gentlemen, let me warn you against retaining that 
 impression in your mind, when you deliberate upon the case of the 
 prisoners, because it is your duty to wipe away the heinousness of the 
 offence so as not to suffer it to influence your minds beyond the 
 investigation of the evidence which has been adduced. You are not 
 to form a sudden conclusion, because the charge is atrocious. You 
 are to consider this, that if such an offence could have been taken into 
 consideration by ten men, it is equally possible, that two men, such as 
 the witnesses could form a conspiracy to fabricate the charge. They 
 stand in equal situation as to past conduct. A paper is read — to 
 prove what ? — that the prisoners are Defenders, The witnesses 
 acknowledge they are Defenders. It appears, that they were con- 
 sidei'ed to be perpetrators in all the enormities, until, as they allege, 
 they took an asylum in the regiment of Artillery. 
 
 Gentlemen, I certainly cannot but acknowledge, that one fact sworn 
 to by these men is corroborated — but what is that ? — that they were 
 taken in the house of Carmichael. But it does not follow, tliat they 
 were all acting together as conspirators, and only four or five of the 
 prisoners have been identified by either of the witnesses. 
 
 Gentlemen, the credit of the witnesses is with you, for this case 
 depends entirely upon the credit, which you may give them ; and 
 when you come to consider upon their credit, though it does not 
 appear, that they come as approvers — that they were apprehended 
 first and came to save themselves from prosecution, yet it appears, 
 that there was a time, when they themselves would have been guilty 
 and were guilty of the very offences, which they impute to others. 
 Gentlemen, witnesses will be produced on one part of some of the 
 
474 TRIALS OF 
 
 prisoners, to shew tliat though they were in the house, yet that they 
 are innocent persons. 
 
 James "White, sworn. — Examined by Mr. Green. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the 3 1 st of January last ? A.I do. 
 
 Q. Were you in the house of Carmichael the evening of that day ? 
 A. Soraghan and Reilly were in my company in a part of the room 
 at a distance from the others. Soraghan lodged in the house. He 
 was going home, having disagreed with his master, and wrote a letter 
 to his mother to that efiect. We went to look for a vacant seat in the 
 front room, then went into the back room ; there were nine or ten men 
 there, and two artillery-men. We went to the first vacancy opposite 
 to them ; we had two glasses ; Reilly then came in, and sat down and 
 took two glasses of punch. A gentleman came in and gave the first 
 company in charge and no person was let out. We sat contented 
 there, and who the other persons were I knew not ; but on the coming 
 of the Alderman, he enquired our names, and he apprehended them 
 as he got their names, and when he had the large company appre- 
 hended, and Carmichael, the man of the house, he then turned to Reilly 
 and said, " you will come too, a very good name." The only thing 
 Reilly had about him was a crane-note. He then asked Soraghan his 
 name, " you will come too," said he. With that they marched out of 
 the house, and no more was said that I heard. 
 
 Q. Did either of the Artillery-men make any declaration respecting 
 with regard to Reilly or Soraghan ? A. I spoke to the gentleman 
 apprehending them and said, " I hoped there was nothing as to them 
 or their company." The Artillery-man rose up and said, " no person 
 was concerned but those who sat with him in the large company." 
 
 Cross-examined by the Prime- Serjeant. 
 
 Q. Soraghan and Reilly lodged at Carmichael's ? A. Yes. 
 Q. What brought you to Carmichael's ? A. I was upon my travels 
 home and met the two. Soraghan was at the door. 
 
 Q. You met them accidentally ? A. I found them there. 
 
 Francis Russell sworn. — Examined by Mr. Green. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the 31st of January ? A. I do, very well. 
 
 Q. You were at the house of Cai'michael ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Do you know Reilly and Soraghan ? A. I never saw them 
 before that night ; they handed me a glass of punch ; they were not of 
 the company who were detected, but when the Alderman came in he 
 desired all to be stopped. 
 
 Q. Did you hear either of the Artillery-men make any declaration 
 as to Reilly or Soraghan ?. A. No ; I did not hear. 
 
 Q. (By the jury What are you ? A. I am a constable, and went 
 
 there that night. 
 
 Alderman Alexander called again. 
 
 Q. Was there any reason why Reilly and Soraghan were separated? 
 A. They were in a separate box with a woman. 
 
 Lord Clonmel, There is evidence for the jury as to ten. Gen- 
 tlemen of the jury, the prisoners stand indicted for that they, on the 
 31st of January last, did conspire to kill and murder a person of the 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 475 
 
 name of Hanlon. To support this prosecution Thomas Smith was 
 produced. I shall read over his evidence without any observation, 
 because I shall leave it totally to you. The case turns entii-ely upon 
 the credit you give the witnesses. [Here his Lordship stated all the 
 evidence.] A paper was produced, manifestly treasonable, every 
 word of it, and it goes to shew you that they were likely to assemble 
 for the purpose of mui'dering a person who was to prosecute other 
 Defenders, being Defenders themselves. Gentlemen, here the prose 
 cution was rested, and Mr. M'Nally put the case upon fair ground, 
 whether the prisoners or the witnesses were the conspirators ? It is a 
 main question for your consideration. If you believe they have sworn 
 false, and that this was a plan of theirs, a scheme to bring innocent 
 persons into crimination, you must acquit them all. But if you believe 
 the testimony of these witnesses, with the evidence of the Aldermen 
 and Grregg as to their identity, you will find them guilty. This is a 
 misdemeanor ; I am glad it is, because if the crime had been com- 
 mitted, they must have been tried for murder. Then they produced 
 James White : all that he swore was, that he was present at 
 Carmichael's house. He endeavom-ed to distinguish, so as to get out 
 Reilly and Soraghan, but the first witness said they had all decided to 
 kill Hanlon — all participated in the intention. This witness said 
 these two were in a seat with him, distant from the other company. 
 The Artillery-men said they were not of the company at first, but 
 afterwards they included them. Very little occurs to me, upon this 
 occasion, to say to you. It is for your consideration. If you believe 
 that these people assembled with the criminal intent charged upon 
 them ; that they were brought together for the purpose of forming 
 a scheme to destroy Hanlon, you ought to find them all guilty. If 
 any line of distinction occurs to you with regard to Eeilly and 
 Soraghan, you will find accordingly ; it does not occur to me. I will 
 leave the case to you, and if you have a reasonable doubt, not such as 
 idle or fanciful men may take up on remote probabilities, but such as 
 cannot satisfy your judgments upon your oaths, then you will acquit. 
 If you have no such doubt, you will find them guilty. I have not 
 dilated upon this case ; perhaps the horror of the offence might lead 
 me farther than I ought to go. You are rational men, and you will 
 determine according to your consciences whether you believe these 
 men guilty or not. 
 
 The jury retii'ed for about ten minutes, and returned with a verdict 
 finding James Connor and James Dempsey — Not Guilty ; but all the 
 other persons named in the indictment. Guilty. 
 
 Thursday, March 3d 1796. 
 
 Both the grand juries were called over. 
 
 The prisoners found guilty upon the indictment for the conspiracy 
 were brought up to receive judgment. 
 
 Lord Clonmel addressed the prisoners and said — I trust you will 
 believe me, when I tell you, that I never left this court with more 
 i-eal concern, than I did the first day you were called up here. I saw, 
 as indeed at present, with sorrow and pain, ten decent looking men, 
 above want, with no appearance of distress, with nothing to provoke 
 them — with every reason to hope that they were, and would be, and 
 
476 TRIALS OF 
 
 had been as useful members of society as any other ten men in the 
 community. Look at them (said his lordship, turning to the grand 
 juries) and see whether you do not participate with me — they have 
 the appearance either of tradesmen or farmers, or of that class of 
 citizens that might well have supported themselves by honest means,i 
 carrying on an honest livelihood, and making themselves as respect- 
 able as any men, or set of men in the state (turning to the jirisoners). 
 You may think then, with what painful distress I heard the offence 
 against you, which the jury believed, notwithstanding every circmn- 
 stance that might be urged in your favour ; because ten of you were 
 tried together, your number would be a circumstance to induce a jury 
 to lean in your ftivour, if they had not been clear in the evidence 
 against you. You have just heard sentence of death pronounced 
 against a wretched soldier in your presence.* You, every one of 
 you, owe to your prosecutor. Smith, whom you conceive to be a 
 subject of great detestation — you owe to him, that the same sentence 
 which you have heard pronounced upon the soldier, has not been 
 repeated against every one of you, and that you are not the subject 
 of that infamous punishment. You have been cliarged upon the 
 clearest evidence with conspiring to murder a fellow-creature, who 
 never gave personal offence to any of you. And see under what 
 circumstances you appear — and it is necessary you should know the 
 horror of the offence. This act, from its commencement to the 
 perpetration of it contained no small space of time. I know not 
 what communion you are of — four Sundays intervened upon which 
 you went to religious worship, with this horror upon your minds, and 
 the very day you fixed vipon to perpeti'ate the offence was Sunday, 
 as if you Avere outraging against God Almighty. 
 
 You have had time to make your defence. I will state a few of 
 the leading circumstances of the evidence and with the sanction that 
 the jury have given it by their verdict upon their oaths, and they 
 were all respectable citizens. The case against you was this : — 
 Glennan had a brother-in-law in the gaol of Naas, and he was 
 informed against with ten or eleven other Defenders by the person 
 you had conspired to murder — his name was John Hanlon. While 
 those people were in gaol, Glennan and his wife got hold of Smith, 
 who had been a Defender himself from 1795. That appeared from 
 these circumstances. He swore, that in the presence of several he 
 tendered his information three times at the Castle of Dublin, the first 
 time so early as January, 1795, one whole year before this transaction. 
 He was there examined and gave information against several 
 Defenders, who had sworn to be true to the National Convention — to 
 follow that fugitive traitor, Hamilton Rowan, and also to follow 
 Napper Tandy and two other persons — the sound of the name of one 
 is respectable to my ear. Sir Edward Bellew — the other. Cole, I know 
 nothing of. Smith, with others, was sworn to support Defenders. 
 He was examined two or three times by the confidential servants of 
 government from January, 1795, to April, 1795. Now you all heard 
 and saw what passed in the autumn of 1795. It has been conveyed 
 
 * His lordsliip had a few minutes before passed sentence upon Mulhern, a private 
 in the Donegal Militia, for murder. 
 
THE DEFENDERS. 477 
 
 ito the public through other lips, that is the evidence of Lawler, 
 between whom and Smith it never was pretended there was any 
 knowledge. Hanlon gave information against a set of people who 
 had vowed vengeance against a respectable clergyman, Mr. Walsh, 
 and in order to take away the testimony of Hanlon, one scheme of 
 murder was to follow the other. Glenuan had undertaken to lay 
 hold of Smith, who at this time was in the Artillery, to which he had 
 fled, not thinking there was assistance to be had at the Castle at that 
 time. Glennan formed the plan so early as Januaiy, 1796, and con- 
 sidered Smith as a proper person to seduce the unhappy man into 
 their power — for that is one part of their execrable system, treason 
 ito be executed by murder. The mode was this : — Smith was to 
 deliver Hanlon into their hands, they were to take him along the 
 meadoAvs, and put him to death and throw his body into the river, 
 and Kane said, " as soon as it is fixed I will on the Friday after be 
 able to march 18,000 men into Dublin." Whether he lied or not, or 
 could do so or not, it is sworn he made the declaration. The import 
 of the oath taken was to serve certain persons, who were named, to 
 recover their estates, sweep clean the Protestants and leave none alive. 
 Which of you made use of this expression constitutes no variation 
 as to the argument — that was the general purport of Defenders — it 
 has been sworn to by great numbers of people. The impression I 
 wish to make is, that this is not an idle tale, but that there is existing, 
 and has been for some time, a horrid system of murder and treason, 
 the seeds of which were sown by such men as Rowan and Tandy, 
 who have fled from their country. I wish that masters of families 
 were more attentive to their children and their families in the early 
 part of their lives. I have endeavoured to save the youth of this 
 town. By two examples I have endeavoured to save the rest. 
 
 Masters should have some care that children and apprentices be 
 not brought to the gallows in a hurry. Every master of a family 
 should be accountable for his family, and not suffer them to resort to 
 punch-houses — first letting them get together, then they are infected 
 and made authors of the worst offences. From the 3d of January 
 down to the last day of the month, when this horrid plot was pre- 
 paring against Hanlon, it appears that Glennan was the person to 
 bring the boys about him. Smith informed Lane, and by well con- 
 certed conduct, and the spirit and vigilance of Alderman Alexander, 
 this horrid and infamous scheme was prevented from execution, which 
 might have been perpetrated in half an hour after. 
 
 One of the Prisoners. — My lord, there were five of us chandlers 
 had nothing to do with the business — we had come from chapel. 
 
 Lord Clonmel. — Five chandlers together on a Sunday evening 
 in a punch-house ! You should have been in your own places. You 
 talk of a chapel, that brings another part of the case into my mind. 
 Let it be recollected, that Hamilton Rowan was, or professed to be, a 
 Protestant. Jackson was a Protestant clergyman, and, therefore, let 
 not an expression of mine be supposed to apply to those of any per- 
 suasion. I am in too high a situation to fear any man, or class of 
 men. I thank God, I am in a situation which puts me above politics. 
 I have but one view — to exterminate this evil from the country, if 
 I can. 
 
478 TRIALS OF 
 
 What you have said, has not suggested any circumstance in your 
 favour. But take it in another point of vieAV. I suppose the persons 
 I have learned were professedly of the Protestant religion. What is 
 doing in France ? There, Roman Catholics are drowning in hundreds ; 
 even their own clergymen are packed together and extei'minated. So 
 that religic > is made a pretence. " We may begin with Protestants, 
 but the nexi day we begin upon another class," and so they will pro- 
 ceed to a thii 1, until they destroy each other. Let me go further, 
 and suppose they succeed. If the streets of the city flowed with the 
 blood of Pi'otestants, that would answer no purpose. When the 
 Protestants of this country were fewer and weaker, by thousands, 
 than they are now, they were able to establish themselves, and they 
 never can be borne down but by their own timidity and Avant of 
 spirit. Would it benefit the Roman Catholics ? Certainly not. They 
 have been told so, and the oath is the ceremony which binds vv'icked 
 hearts together: and if one class of men were destroyed, another 
 would succeed, and every man, having anything to lose, Avould fall 
 under the knife. Suppose them to succeed in this, and that these 
 associated people were wicked to damnation, if they have any sense of 
 it, would it ansAver them, if they had destroyed every Roman Catholic 
 of property in the country ? No. The country is a great one, and 
 worth fighting for, and if they destroyed every man of property, the 
 countiy would be conquered again. Therefore, it is a fallacious system. 
 
 God and nature have joined England and Ireland together — it is 
 impossible to separate them, and if bands of ruffians started up in 
 every part, they could not hold the dominion of murder for a month. 
 I have seen with pain, that this phrenzy has got among the people of 
 Ireland ; and if it be a phrenzy, prisons are their safest mad-houses. 
 What is the situation of Meath ? Rich almost beyond any neighbour- 
 ing county ; the farmer happy, the peasantry, yeomen, and gentry all 
 delighted with their situation, because all were independent. How 
 is it altered ? Whence is it, that unhappy county has become a sort 
 of slaughter-house ? From the practices of some Avicked-minded 
 people — who they are I knoAV not, — God forgive them. They Avill 
 fall victims of the law, against Avhich they are struggling. While 
 the countries round are perishing through the horrors of war and 
 famine, Ireland could not say, there was a creature unfed or unpro- 
 vided for. Why ? Because the bad are fed by the good, and the 
 south feeds the disturbers of the north ; and if the country had been 
 left to the Defenders, and if it had not been for the industry of the 
 south, there might have been one universal famine. What, then, are 
 these distracted and unhappy people told ? But, in truth, I early saAv, 
 and spoke of it in acts of my duty, here and elsewhere, that the mis- 
 chief originated in nests of clubs in the city of Dublin. Dublin is the 
 mint for coining treason and circulating it in small parts, and mak- 
 ing it current. A number of young persons, with trades which might 
 make them respectable, not in Avant, no appearance of it, are become 
 the most active agents. And here I must mention a circumstance 
 — you must feel the Aveight of it. There never Avas a time, Avhen 
 persons of your description had less reason to complain. Look at 
 the canals and various public works. Thousands of the poor are 
 employed and supplied Avith work, even in the time of Avar. Within 
 
THE DEFENBERS. 479 
 
 these five or six years past, many persons have looked to the state 
 i of the poor, and endeavoured to make them all comfortable and easy ; 
 ' and yet this is the time in which this phrenzy has seized such num- 
 bers. Is this an idle tale ? is it not notorious that cruel and horrid 
 murders have been committed upon witnesses, just at the eve of the 
 commission ? Is it not part of the system spread through the country 
 to destroy witnessess ? Two creatures, because they were witnesses, 
 or supposed to be witnesses, have been brutally murdered, in the 
 dead of the night, at the gate of a man who deserves as well from 
 this countiy as any other man in it. He who has employed so many 
 of the poor to improve and embellish the most improved place in that 
 part of the country where he resides. Few people are willing to do 
 as much as he did. I have known him to have two military commis- 
 sions. He quieted the south without a single person falling a sacrifice, 
 and he quieted the west with the thanks of that country. Yet two 
 persons were murdered at his gate, because they were witnesses. 
 
 What must be the situation of persons of his description, if the 
 country be made disagreeable to them ? The land will be abandoned 
 by all the proprietors and the tenantry will be left to be worried by 
 tribes of agents and managers : — Their landlords will never see them. 
 
 So that taking this subject in every point of view, it is the most 
 wicked system of murder and treason that ever was heard of in any 
 country, that for some years past has disgraced mine own. 
 
 A very old author discoursing upon Irishmen, says, " where Irish- 
 men are good, is it impossible to find better, where they are bad, it is 
 impossible to find worse." I am afraid, we have got to this alternative. 
 Treachery was never the character of Irishmen. Courage and 
 intrepdity were their characteristics. Every creature is taught to 
 fight, but boldly and fairly. But it was not until this system, 
 founded upon the French mode, the total want of all principle, that 
 we began to be disgraced. 
 
 I have gone thus far to shew the consequences of this wicked and 
 black system by which you have been seduced, bringing destruction 
 upon yourselves and everything dear to you. I now come to the 
 sentence, which I am obliged to pronounce upon you. 
 
 I have received two or three petitions this morning upon this sub- 
 ject. I am bound by the verdict of the jury. It is a calamitous 
 thing to think, that decent persons like you can be seduced. The 
 witness swore that ten were equally acquainted with the intended 
 murder. He acquitted three. But all the rest, he said, wei'e ac- 
 quainted with the design. I hope the example of this day will 
 operate through the city, and all parts of the kingdom. You must 
 have many relations. I will not wound them by exposing you in the 
 streets ; to send them home with sorrow and shame. For their sakes 
 as well as your own I will not do it. 
 
 But you must be punished and therefore each of you is to be 
 imprisoned three years, pay a fine of £50 and give security for your 
 good behaviour for seven years commencing from the expiration of 
 your imprisonment. 
 
 END OF THE TRIALS OF THE DEFENBERS. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TRIAL OF FINERTY 
 
 Some short account of William Orr, is the fittest introduction to the 
 celebrated Trial of Peter Finerty, as the latter was indicted for a 
 libel written on the subject of Orr's fate. 
 
 No incident occurred during the eight years which preceded the 
 rebellion of 1798 so full of melancholy interest as the trial and the 
 death of William Orr. It was pregnant with consequences of greater 
 import than usually follow the destruction of a single victim, particu- 
 larly where he is a man of humble position and of no striking talents. 
 
 William Orr was a farmer, of independent circumstances, in the 
 county of Anti'im. He was a Presbyterian, and of strict religious 
 principles. His character in every relation of life was of the most 
 exemplary kind. He was a rough, bold man, whose courage, homeli- 
 ness and warmth won love from all who knew him. In addition to 
 his high moral qualities, his generous charity, his domestic truth 
 and public spirit — ^lie was blessed with a fine figure and a handsome 
 face. Such was one of those whom a bad, immoral government 
 selected for destruction ; and succeeded in destroying, by means as foul 
 as ever disgraced the most inhuman tyranny. 
 
 The Insurrection Act had passed (Feb. 1796). It punished with 
 death the administering of the United Irishman's oath ; and created 
 a number of new crimes thei'etofoi'e unknown to the law. Its conse- 
 quences were soon felt. The country swarmed with villains of the 
 most profligate class, sAvearing away the lives of men and earning 
 the liberal blood-money which profusely flowed from the corrupt 
 fountain-head, at the Castle. It was a crime — the administering of 
 an oath — easy of proof ; and the facility with which the sacrifice was 
 efiected, and the liberality with which it was paid for, held out irre- 
 sistible temptations to a class of miscreants that is invariably called 
 into existence by a government that will use and reward the most 
 
 abandoned perfidy. 
 
 2 I 
 
482 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 William Orr was put upon his trial* on the 18th September 1797, 
 at Carrickfei'gus, and arraigned on an indictment, framed under the 
 Insurrection Act, for having administered an unlawful oath to a man 
 of the name of Hugh Wheatly, a private soldier in the Fifeshire 
 regiment of Fencibles. 
 
 Wheatly swore. That in April, 1796, he had been in Scotland on 
 furlough, and was on his return by Antrim to join his regiment then 
 quartered at Derry. That he then, upon the 24th or 25 th of that 
 month, met with several persons who swore him into the brotherhood 
 of United Irishmen, and afterwards took him to the house of the 
 prisoner, whom they found employed in sowing flax in his field. He 
 swore that an assembly was called in the house of the prisoner, who 
 acted as chairman or secretary, which he called a Baronial committee ; 
 and that there it was debated, whether he should be entrusted with the 
 printed constitutions of the society, in order to promote the institution 
 among his fellow soldiers. That it was agreed that he should have 
 one. That an oath was thereupon administered to him by the pri- 
 soner, which was to keep the secrets of United Irishmen, and not for 
 any reward or punishment to discover of them. The witness threw 
 in many circvimstances about arms and a Northern Star, which were 
 shown to him, also a draw-well to put the aristocrats into. 
 
 He swore that all he did was through fear of his life, which they 
 threatened. That he was told they had armed men enough to get a 
 reform by force, if they could not by fair means ; and that if they did 
 not get a reform by fair means, they would overturn the government. 
 He said, that the intention of the society, and consequently of the 
 prisoner, was to assist the French ; that it was so explained to him, 
 and that at that meeting it was so determined ; and added many cir- 
 cumstances of aggravation, tending to represent the oath and the 
 association as heinously wicked and treasonable. And at same time 
 swore, that the book from which the oath was administered was given 
 to him as his guide.f 
 
 A second witness was called (Lindsey, another of the same regi- 
 ment), who said he was in the room when an oath was administered, 
 but he knew nothing of its nature, whether it was innocent or guilty, 
 lawful or unlawful. 
 
 The counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Curran and Mi*. Sampson, now 
 insisted, that from the evidence in this case, if the prisoner was guilty 
 of anything it was of high treason — that they believed him innocent 
 of that and every such charge ; but in order that that matter might 
 
 * There is no correct report of the trial, and it is therefore offered in the shape 
 of a narrative, ample enough to illustrate the trial of Finerty, which sprung from it. 
 
 ■f See account of Orr's Trial, p. 2. 
 
I 
 
 TRIAL OF FINERTY. 483 
 
 be investigated according to the known law and constitution of the 
 country, the present indictment must be given up, or quashed, and a 
 bill for high treason sent up, otherwise it was in vain that the wisdom 
 of former times, that the experience of ages, and the voice of the 
 ) wisest and most upright judges hath allowed and sanctioned, the 
 statute 25th Edward III., called by Lord Coke " the blessed statute," 
 I as the parliament which enacted it was called Parliamentum Bene- 
 dictum. It was in vain that this excellent statute, never deviated 
 from but for the worst of purposes, and in the worst of times, had 
 1 given to the accused of treason so many securities against that power 
 1 ever too likely to be exerted against an individual accused and prose- 
 Icuted by the crown, for any alleged offence directly against the 
 I royal power. Experience had shown how horribly the accusations 
 ' for high treason had been multiplied by princes, or their ministers — 
 how hard it was for any subject to have a fair trial against whom 
 the angry brow of offended royalty was knit ; against whom the 
 public treasure of the nation was lavishly employed ; against whom 
 influence, authority and power, open and secret, were hostilely 
 arrayed ; when the sheriff might be a dependant on the bounty of 
 the crown, as in times of baseness and oppression usually had been 
 the case, since sheriffs ceased to be elected by the people ; who might 
 be induced to select from his county, not the indifferent, the disinter- 
 ested, and unbiassed, to pass judgment upon their fellow creature's 
 life, but the ignorant, the bigotted, the servile, or the mercenary ; 
 who, like the executioner, forgetting that they were sworn to judge 
 of the guilt or innocence of the accused according to the evidence, 
 and make true deliverance between the king and the prisoner, might 
 only await the beckon of authority to do their office. So careful had 
 the law of England been to guard against the various ways by which 
 power might oppress and defence be borne down ; against the partiality 
 or frailty of judges, juries, factions and parties, that in England a 
 man to be tried for such an offence as was now atteinpted to be 
 proved, would, under the 25th Edward III., have a list of his jurors 
 delivered to him in due time, in order to be well prepared to chal- 
 lenge such as he did not think impartial. He would be entitled to 
 thirty-five peremptory challenges, and as many more as he could 
 shew reasonable cause for challenging. He would be entitled to a 
 list of witnesses for a length of time previous to his trial, in order to 
 enable him to sift their character, and if it was bad or vile, to be able 
 to make that important circumstance appear to the jury, so as to set 
 aside such testimony in the whole, or in part, as the case might 
 warrant ; and two witnesses, at least, must swear to the same treason 
 before he eould be affected. He would also be entitled to a copy of 
 
484 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 his indictment five days, at least, before his trial, in order to apprise 
 him of the exact nature of the charge to which he was to apply his 
 defence. And, lastly, he would be allowed by his two counsel to j! 
 make a defence by observations upon the law and the fact of his case, ;| 
 and to utter fully and boldly whatever might tend to direct the con- |t 
 sciences or inform the understandings of his jury as to his intention, '1 
 which is, in other words, as to his innocence or guilt. For some I 
 reason, which might be matter of curiosity, but nothing to the present ;' 
 case — there was less protection and less indulgence to the accused in ; 
 Ireland ; but still there was a great deal in case of treason to make the ' 
 law esteemed. But see how all these wise and boasted provisions of : 
 freedom and glories of the English law will be filched away, if high ; 
 treason, (for such it is if anything,) specially prosecuted by the i 
 crown, out of the stock-purse of the nation, by the king's attorney- > 
 general, and other select and able lawyers of the crown, in times so 
 heated, and a situation so critical, that if ever there was occasion for 
 these blessed protections against prejudice and power, it is that time, 
 when so great a part of the community is accused, and secret informers 
 publicly advertised for, if high treason be tried under this Insurrection 
 Act, made hastily on the spur of an unfortunate occasion, and happily 
 if not already expired, shortly about to do so. The prisoner will be 
 tried it is true, and possibly be found guiUy ; but it will be a finding 
 contrary to the most sacred law, and a violation of that statute which 
 stands now almost singly the glory of our national jurisprudence, 
 and the bulwark of public security. Better it would be to wait until 
 the legislature should repeal or suspend this statute, if they so thought 
 fit, as they had already done the Habeas Corpus Act, than for a 
 court of justice thus directly to do so by trying, under another form, 
 that which if it be anything is high treason. For thus the unfortu- 
 nate prisoner is deprived of every safeguard, and even of that natural 
 right of the accused, to explain his own intentions and reason upon 
 the nature of the testimony oiFered against him. Perhaps a few 
 observations by those whose professions have taught them to discri- 
 minate between the fictitious and artful relations of a hired informer 
 and the simple tale of truth, might tend to save the life of an innocent 
 and honest man ; if so, terrible indeed would be the consequence of 
 the prevention. That peculiarity in our law, that though in cases of 
 the smallest import counsel shall be heard at length, whereas in capital 
 felonies their mouths shall be shut, is reconciled by supj)osing the 
 judge a counsel for the prisoner ; but that was a forced supposition, 
 and against the fact and the nature of mankind. The makers of the 
 wise statutes of treason knew that judges were men in a station 
 greatly exposed to influence, and guarded against their frailties. 
 
TRIAIi OF FINERTY. 485 
 
 They knew that judges, however upright in their intentions, could 
 not take the pains of studying a prisoner's case as he himself or his 
 counsel could ; and that in any cause which implied a contention 
 between the higher order of society and the lower, with which they 
 had neither intercourse nor fellow-feeling, it required virtue, sagacity, 
 and magnanimity enough to be merely indifferent. That a most 
 cogent reason for adhering to the good old law, and the exact and 
 precise classification of offences was, that in this very case, though 
 the prisoner was tried and acquitted under this indictment, yet it 
 could not be pleaded in bar without averments dangerous and difficult 
 to an indictment for high treason, which might be supported by the 
 identical testimony, and thus a man might be put twice in jeopardy 
 of his life for the same offence. 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General made a very short reply to these argu- 
 ments ; he called upon any man to say in what instance he had 
 prosecuted with any unbecoming rigour ; and whether, on the part 
 of the crown, throughout the circuit, the business had not been 
 conducted as mildly and as mercifully as possible. He also made 
 some observations upon what seemed to him an extraordinary motion, 
 where the counsel for the prisoner sought to have their client tried 
 for a deeper and more penal offence than that for which he had been 
 already indicted by the crown. He could not conceive that the 
 gentlemen expected any further benefit from this motion, than that 
 it gave them an opportunity of addressing the passions of the 
 audience. 
 
 The Lord- Chief Baron, after hearing both the prisoner's counsel 
 at length, refused the motion, observing that he had heard it patiently, 
 by which it might appear, that the prisoner had no cause to complain 
 of rigour or hardship, although the arguments seemed not so much 
 directed to him, as artfully and ingeniously designed, under the pre- 
 tence of addi'essing the court, to affect the minds of the jury and 
 by-standers.* 
 
 The prisoner entered upon his defence, and successfully impeached 
 the testimony of the two crown witnesses in the most important 
 particulars ; but the Lord Chief-Baron (Lord Avonmore), who 
 appears in this tragedy as no unwilling instrument of blind vindictive 
 law, forcibily charged the jury against the prisoner, and dwelt with 
 inconsiderate and most misplaced zeal on the sufficiency of Wlieatly's 
 testimony to induce them to convict. He told them that he was a 
 man of an education above his rank, and that his evidence was of the 
 most satisfactory nature. The jury retired at seven in the evening 
 
 * Account of the Trial, p. 4. 
 
486 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 and remained in the box until six in the morning. How they spent 
 that frightful interval — in what hellish orgies they passed the night 
 will be presently seen ; that they had not altogether drowned the 
 the voice of conscience and mercy is very clear from the qualified 
 verdict they felt desirous of giving. 
 
 When asked by the Clerk of the Crown if they were agreed, no 
 answer was made for some time — the question being repeated, the 
 foreman, much distressed, answered, " We leave him in your lordship's 
 mercy — he is in your lordship's mercy." On which the judge desired 
 them to return and consider of their verdict. Ten of them only 
 returned, two remaining without. They returned again, and very 
 nearly the same thing was repeated, and it was not till the third time, 
 the foreman still hesitating to pronounce the word "guilty" — Mr. 
 M'Naghten, one of the jury, reprimanded the fox'eman, calling upon 
 him to pronounce the prisoner guilty — upon which the foreman, who 
 was a man in years, and affected even to the loss of speech, handed 
 in the verdict, with a recommendation to mercy, which was taken by 
 the clerk. 
 
 The judge promised to lay their recommendation before govern- 
 ment, and it was understood by some, that he would represent the 
 case favourably himself. But on the following day he mentioned in 
 court, that he had not pledged himself so to do, but had immediately 
 transmitted by expx*ess the recommendation of the jury. 
 
 The prisoner heard the verdict without the smallest agitation, 
 and was immediately remanded to gaol.* 
 
 Such was the result of this memorable trial, and if the world had 
 heard nothing more of the matter, the name of Orr would, indeed, 
 have been remembered with love by those who knew his virtues — 
 opinion might have assumed his guilt or innocence — but his fate 
 would not have been felt by the whole people as one that demanded 
 vengeance at their hands upon a remorseless, cruel, inhuman govern- 
 ment. 
 
 On Monday the 1 8th September, Mr. Curran moved in arrest of 
 j udgment, and having relied upon several legal points, he produced to 
 the court the affidavits of three of the jurors, for the purpose of a 
 further motion for a new trial. The Attorney- General expi*essed his 
 astonishment at the idea of a new trial in capital cases ; the affidavits 
 were not permitted to be used, the motion was refused, and the unfor- 
 tunate William Orr was remanded to gaol. 
 
 The following are the affidavits of the jurors. 
 
 " Arthur Johnston and Archibald Thompson, two of the jury who 
 
 * Account of the trial, p. 13. 
 
TRIAL OF FINERTY. 487 
 
 were impannelled to try William Orr, depose on tlie Holy Evan- 
 gelists, and say, that after they had retired to their jury-room to 
 consider their verdict, two bottles of very strong whiskey spirits were 
 conveyed into their jury-room through the window thereof, and given 
 to and the greater part thereof drank by the said jurors, some of 
 whom became very sick and unwell, which occasioned their vomiting 
 before they gave their verdict. And deponent Thompson says, that 
 he was by age and infirmity, and intimidation used to him by Mr. 
 James M'Naghten, one of said jury, induced to concur in said verdict 
 contrary to his opinion. 
 
 " Sworn before me this 20th day of Sept. 1797, in court, 
 
 " Arthur Johnston, 
 
 " Arch. Thompson, 
 
 " Yelverton." 
 
 " George Brooks of Innischaloughlin, in the county of Antrim, 
 farmer, maketh oath and saith that he, this deponent, was one of the 
 jury who was on the trial of "William Orr, who was charged with 
 administering oaths. Deponent saith, he was resolved to acquit the 
 said William Orr, but for the representations of some of his fellow- 
 jurors, who informed this deponent, that in case they, the said jury, 
 should return a verdict of guilty, the said William Orr would not be 
 punished with death. Deponent further saith, that if he had at that 
 time known, that the consequence of returning a verdict of guilty on 
 the said William Orr would be his death, he, this deponent, in. 
 that case, would not have consented to such a verdict, but would 
 have insisted and persevered in returning a verdict of the said William 
 Orr's not being guilty. 
 
 " Sworn before me this 20th day of Sept. 1797, in court, 
 
 " George Brooks. 
 
 " Yelverton." 
 
 Orr received sentence of death, pronounced by Lord Avonniore, 
 with a show of sensibility which, under all the circumstances of the 
 case, it is very difficult to understand. In the interval between the 
 day of pi'onouncing the sentence, and the day fixed for its execution 
 (7th of October), various representations, favourable and adverse to 
 Orr, were forwarded to the executive. But there was one Avhich it 
 is almost incredible that any government could have been base enough 
 to neglect, and made by the Rev. G. Macartney, the magistrate who 
 had taken Wheatiys examinations against the prisoner. He pro- 
 cured the depositions of two other clergymen, and laid them, together 
 with his own affidavit, before the Lord Lieutenant. That affidavit 
 
488 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 and these depositions are here preserved as monuments, more durable 
 than any brass, of the foul inhumanity of the government, under 
 which our ancestors had the misfortune to live. 
 
 County of \ The affidavit of the Rev. George Macartney, Doctor of 
 Antrim. ) Laws, a magistrate for said county. 
 
 Who, being duly sworn and examined on oath, saith, " That he 
 took the depositions of Hugh Wheatly against William Orr, now 
 under sentence of death for administering the United Irishmen's oath 
 to said Wheatly in April, 1796. Examinant further saith, that at 
 spring assizes, in 1797, when it was thought that said Orr's trial would 
 be brought on for said charge, and said Wheatly was desired by Mr. 
 Kemmis and examinant to attend the court ; that said Wheatly came 
 to examinant in court, and told him he had something of importance 
 to communicate to him, and on examinant's going out of court with 
 said Wheatly, he said he had seen a Mr. Elder, a clergyman, whom 
 he had seen in April, 1796 (when he was on his way from Antrim to 
 Londonderry to join his regiment), at Rasharkin, a few minutes before 
 walking in the street of Carrickfergus ; that he was certain he was 
 brought t.here to invalidate his testimony against Orr, from a conver- 
 sation that had passed between him and said Elder, when at Rasharkin 
 in April, 1796, which conversation examinant believes must have 
 been the conversation alluded to in Mr. Elder's affidavit, hereunto 
 subjoined. 
 
 " George Macartney. 
 
 " Sworn befoi-e us at Quarter Sessions, the 3d Oct., 1797, 
 
 " Richard Dobbs, 
 " Jackson Clarke, 
 " DoGHERTY Gorman, 
 " George Moore." 
 
 County of \ The affidavit of the Rev. Jas. Elder, Dissenting Minister 
 
 Antrim. J of the parish of Finvoy, in the neighbourhood of 
 
 Rasharkin, in said county. 
 
 Who, being duly sworn and examined on oath, saith, " That in the 
 
 month of April, 1 796, he was sent for by a Mrs. Huey, who keeps a 
 
 public-house in Rasharkin aforesaid, to visit a soldier, who appeared 
 
 to be deranged in his mind. That he immediately went before noon 
 
 and on his way to the said Mrs. Huey's house, overtook the Rev. 
 
 Alexander Montgomery (who swore the annexed affidavit before Lord 
 
 O'Neil), and on being informed that the said soldier had attempted to 
 
 commit suicide, he told him if he committed that crime, he would put 
 
 himself out of the reach of divine mercy ; and on examinant's praying 
 
 by him, by his approbation, he seemed more calm, but said that his 
 
 crimes were of such a nature, that he never could expect to be for- 
 
TRIAL, OF FINERTY 489 
 
 given. On which, examinant read the parable of the prodigal son, 
 and other passages in the New Testament to said soldier, intimating to 
 him that the greatest sinner might be forgiven, through the mediation 
 of Christ, if he sincerely repented ; and on the two soldiers and Mrs. 
 Huey, who had attended prayers, having left the room, and the de- 
 ranged soldier and the above-named Alexander Montgomery with 
 examinant remaining in the room, he asked who he was, whence he 
 came, and where he was going ? On which, he said his name was 
 Wlieatly, that he came from Maybole, in Scotland, and was going to 
 Deny to join his regiment, and that his colonel's name was Derham. 
 And on being asked the nature of his crimes, he said that he had 
 been guilty of seducing women in Scotland, which he considered as a 
 great crime, which was a great weight upon his mind. That he went 
 out with a party from Londonderry and seized an unstatutable still, 
 under the direction of a revenue officer ; that the party was surrounded 
 by a number of people, who made use of abusive language, on which 
 the party fired on the people, who were in an adjoining field, and 
 that he, Wlieatly, ran a man through with his bayonet, which he 
 considered as murder, and which hung heavy on his mind. That the 
 revenue officer was wounded in the affray, and afterwards sent to 
 gaol, where he died of his wounds ; and that he, the said Wheatly, 
 was prevailed on to swear against some of the persons who were 
 taken prisoners, a false oath, for which he was afraid they would 
 suffer, which also hung heavy on his mind. Examinant further saith, 
 that he never heard that William Orr was accused of any crime by 
 said Wheatly, until he saw the account of his conviction in the Bel- 
 fast News Letter, nor did he ever hear that a family of the name of 
 Orr resided in the neighbourhood of Antrim, except the family of Mr. 
 Orr, the dissenting minister of Killead, until he saAv the account of 
 said William Orr, as a respectable farmer in the neighbourhood being 
 convicted by the testimony of the said Wheatly ; nor did examinant, to 
 his knowledge, ever see any of the family of the said Orr, until this 
 morning, the 3d of October instant, when a man, who said he was 
 brother of this said William Orr, came to examinant's house, and 
 requested that he would come with him to Ballymoney, to declare to 
 Mr. Macartney the conversation he had with the said Wheatly at 
 Rasharkin, in April, 1796, with which request he complied out of 
 compassion, having no other interest in the business. 
 " James Elder. 
 
 " Sworn before us, the 3d day of October, 1797, 
 
 " Richard Dobbs, 
 " Jackson Clark, 
 " DoGHERTv Gorman, 
 " George Moore." 
 
490 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 County of \ Alexander Montgomery made oath before me this day, 
 Antrim. ) " That he was present at Rasharkin when a conver- 
 
 sation took place between the Rev. James Elder, of the parish of 
 Finvoy, in said county, and Hugh Wheatly, of the Fifeshire Fen- 
 cibles, who appeared very uneasy in his mind, and being asked by the 
 said Mr. Elder the cause of his uneasiness, he replied it was from 
 some great crimes which he had committed ; on which Mr. Elder 
 asked him the nature of his crimes, when said Wheatly confessed he 
 had been guilty of seduction, murder, and perjury. Examinant further 
 saith, that the time when said conversation passed, was in the month 
 of April, 1796. 
 
 " Alex. Montgomery. 
 
 " Sworn before me, the 2d day of October, 1797, 
 
 " O'Neill." 
 
 A respite was granted till the 10th, and a further one to the 14th 
 of October. Meanwhile memorials were, sent to the Lord Lieutenant 
 praying for a pardon — memorials signed by the most respectable 
 gentlemen in the county of Antrim — and demanding the pardon as 
 an act either of mercy, justice, or policy. But it was vain to expect 
 justice or mercy at the Castle ; and the policy of government was 
 one irreconcileable with either of those virtues. Accordingly William 
 Orr was executed, amidst the deep and smothered rage of the people, 
 in whose hearts his memory lived, and on whose flags and banners of 
 rebellion his name was afterwards inscribed. 
 
 On Saturday morning, the 14th October, he was brought out from 
 the gaol, in which he had consumed the last year of his existence ; 
 and though his complexion was somewhat altered from the glow of 
 health which it formerly wore, the more than ordinary comeliness of 
 his countenance still remained. His stature was fully six feet, his 
 person graceful, but extremely athletic, and of those proportions which 
 indicate the greatest degree of bodily activity and strength, but, 
 above all, there was in his aspect a mixture of firmness and sensibility 
 which seemed to shew him gifted by nature with a generous and 
 elevated spirit. The character he had borne amongst his neighbours 
 confirmed this impression, for he was beloved by all ; and in the 
 relations of private life, as a father and a husband, his conduct was 
 amiable and exemplary. 
 
 When he understood that he was to be indulged in a post-chaise to 
 convey him to the place of execution, being apprehensive that he 
 might have soldiers for his companions, he seemed more desirous to 
 Avalk, in order to ejijoy the company of the two clergymen, Mr. 
 Stavely and Mr. Hill, whom he had requested to attend him; but 
 
TRIAL, OF FINERTY. 491 
 
 these gentlemen being permitted to go with him in the carriage, he 
 arrived at the place of execution about one o'clock, escorted by a very 
 strong military guard, composed of horse, foot, and artillery, detached 
 from dilFerent regiments in Belfast and Carrickfergus. At the place 
 of execution the infantry were drawn up in a triangular form round 
 the gallows, on the outside of which the cavalry continued to move, 
 whilst at some little distance two field pieces were planted, ranging 
 with the roads from Carrickfei"gus and Belfast. But this precaution 
 was unnecessary, as the public seemed rather to shun the spectacle. 
 A few of his particular friends having asked leave to come within the 
 space for the purpose of carrying away his remains, were permitted by 
 the sheriff.* 
 
 He distributed various printed papers containing his dying decla- 
 ration to the people who had come to witness the consummation of 
 his miu'der, and met his fate with calm intrepidity. It was afterwards 
 said of his conduct, that " in the heathen world less heroic magna- 
 nimity would have been deified, and in the early ages of Christianity 
 less divinity would have been canonized." When the rope was about 
 his neck, he appeared for a moment to feel indignant, and said " I am 
 no traitor — I am persecuted for a persecuted country. O God 
 receive my soul. I die in the true faith of a Presbyterian." 
 
 The following is his declaration : — 
 
 "TO THE PUBLIC. 
 " My Friends and Countrymen — In the thirty-first year of my 
 life, I have been sentenced to die upon the gallows, and this sentence 
 has been in pursuance of a verdict of twelve men, who should have 
 been indiffei'ently and impartially chosen ; how far they have been 
 so, I leave to that country from which they have been chosen, to 
 determine ; and how far they have discharged their duty, I leave to 
 their God and to themselves. They have, in pronouncing their 
 verdict, thought proper to recommend me as an object of human 
 mercy ; in return, I pray to God, as they have erred, to have mercy 
 upon them. The judge, who condemned me, humanely shed tears in 
 uttering my sentence, but whether he did wisely in so highly com- 
 mending the wretched informer, who swore away my life, I leave to 
 his own cool reflection, solemnly assuring him and all the world, with 
 my dying breath, that that informer was foresworn. The law under 
 which I suffer, is surely a severe one ; may the makers and promoters 
 of it be justified in the integrity of their motives and the purity of 
 their own lives ! By that law I am stamped a felon, but my heart 
 disdains the imputation. My comfortable lot and industrious course 
 
 * Account of the trial of William Orr, p. 33. 
 
i 
 
 492 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 of life best refvite the charge of being an adventurer for plunder ; 
 but if to have loved my country, to have known its wrongs, to have 
 felt the injuries of the persecuted Catholics, and to have united with 
 them and all other religious persuasions in the most orderly and least 
 sanguinary means of procuring redress : If those be felonies, I am 
 a felon, but not otherwise. Had my counsel (for whose honourable 
 exertions I am indebted) prevailed in their motion to have me tried 
 for high treason, rather than under the Insurrection Law, I should 
 have been entitled then to a full defence, and my actions then would 
 have been better vindicated, but that was refused, and I must now 
 submit to what has passed. 
 
 *' To the generous protection of my country, I leave a beloved wife, 
 who has been constant and true to me, and whose grief for my fate 
 has already nearly occasioned her death. I leave five living children, 
 who have been my delight — may they love their country as I have 
 done, and die for it, if needful. 
 
 " Lastly, a false and ungenerous publication having appeared in a 
 newspaper, stating certain alleged confessions of guilt on my part, 
 and thus striking at my reputation, which is dearer to me than life, I 
 take this solemn method of contradicting that calumny. I was applied 
 to by the High Sheriff and the Rev. William Bristow, sovereign of 
 Belfast, to make a confession of guilt, who used entreaties to that 
 effect ; — this I peremptorily refused ; — did I think myself guilty, I 
 should be free to confess it, but, on the contrary, I glory in my 
 innocence. 
 
 " I trust that all my virtuous countrymen will bear me in their kind 
 
 remembrance, and continue true and faithful to each other, as I have 
 
 been to all of them, with this last wish of my heart, nothing doubting 
 
 of the success of that cause for which I suffer, and hoping for Grod's 
 
 merciful forgiveness of such offences as my frail nature may have at 
 
 any time betrayed me into, I die in peace and charity with all 
 
 mankind. 
 
 William Orr." 
 " Carrickfei'gus Gaol, 
 
 « Oct. 5th, 1797. 
 
 N.B. — The above declaration was made and read by William Orr, 
 in the presence of the Rev. Mr. Savage. 
 
 Some gross mis-statements having appeared under the name of 
 C. Skiffington, in the Belfast Neivs Letter, the brother of the mur- 
 dered Orr had the following declaration published, which gives the 
 latter further claims to the grateful memory of his countrymen, and 
 adds fresh infamy to the government and its provincial agents : — 
 
TRIAL OF FINERTY. 493 
 
 "TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 " In consequence of seeing a paragraph in the Belfast Neics Letter, 
 signed C. Skiffington, Esq., High Sheriff of this county, and the 
 Reverned William Bristow, Sovereign of Belfast, relative to the 
 declaration of my unfortunate brother, I am therefore induced, through 
 justice to the character of my brother and myself, to lay the whole of 
 that transaction before the public. A few days after my brother 
 was found guilty and sentenced to die, I went to Belfast and applied 
 to many gentlmen for the purpose of using their interest to have the 
 punishment of my brother mitigated, and in presence of Mr. James 
 Dickey of Randlestown, and Mr. Thomas L. Stewart of Belfast, I 
 applied to Mr. Staples, a member of parliament for this county, and 
 the Honorable William John Skiffington, for the above purpose, who 
 proposed, if I would get a written confession of guilt from my brother, 
 that they would sign a memorial for the purpose of obtaining his 
 pardon ; and the Honorable William John Skiffington said, he would 
 go round the gentlemen of the grand jury (who were then mostly all 
 in Belfast) and get the memorial signed by them. In consequence of 
 which, I got a written confession prepared before I left Belfast, and 
 produced it to the Hon., William John Skiffington, and asked him if 
 it was full enough ? To which he agreed. I accordingly went to 
 Carrickfergus and applied to my brother to sign the confession, which 
 I produced to him, telling him, if he would sign it, the above gentle- 
 men would sign a memorial to obtain him his pardon, and get the 
 rest of the grand jury to do so. On his reading over the written 
 confession, he declared, he never would consent to sign a paper 
 acknowledging his guilt and the justice of his sentence, as he declared 
 he was not guilty of the crime he was charged with. Not being able 
 to induce him to consent to the above, I left him, and conceiving it 
 would be of very material use, and be the means of saving his life, 
 for this purpose, and through that view, I prepared and signed 
 in his name the confession of guilt, entirely without the privity or 
 consent of my brother, and immediately returned to Belfast, and 
 delivered it to the Hon. William John Skiffington, as the act of my 
 brother, with which, I believe, he went round the above gentlemen 
 in order to obtain their signatures to the memorial, which they 
 refused. This was the whole transaction, being entirely my act, and 
 not that of my brother, as he utterly refused it. And this I am 
 
 ready to verify upon oath." 
 
 " James Orr." 
 
 Such was the fate of Orr, and such the desperate wickedness of 
 government. His blood freshened the seeds of revolt deeply sown 
 
494 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 in the people's heart. His name was on the pikes in the rebellion 
 which soon followed, and the celebrated proclamation of John Sheares 
 terminated with the emphatic words " Remember Orr." 
 
 The consummation of this ti'agedy was received with indignant 
 fury by the people. The most beautiful and pathetic verses were 
 poured from the pi-ess ; and the fate of Orr was mourned for even in 
 the capital of England, where Mr. Fox, at a public dinner, gave the 
 memory of the martyr, and where another speaker proposed as a senti- 
 ment " that the Irish Cabinet may soon take the place of William Orr." 
 
 But the most powerful invective on his fate appeared in the Press 
 newspaper, a journal distinguished for its ability and literary merit, in 
 the shape of a letter addressed to the Lord Camden, the cold and 
 crafty tyrant who, as the Lord Lieutenant of the day, may be said to 
 have presided at the sacrifice of William Orr. For the publication of 
 this invective, a criminal information was filed against Mr. Peter 
 Finerty, the printer of the Press. The speech of Curran is one of 
 matchless beauty and tenderness ; but the days were rapidly approach- 
 ing when the jury-box ceased to afford a protection to the subject ; 
 evidence of the truth of the libel was rejected by the court, and the 
 printer was found guilty. 
 
 This very celebrated libel was written by Mr. Deane Swift, who, 
 under the signature of " Marcus," furnished the Press with some of 
 its most able and most violent articles. He was son of Theophilus 
 Swift, a barrister of eccentric habits, who was distinguished by his 
 duel with the Duke of Richmond, and who had been imprisoned for 
 a libel on the fellows of Trinity College.* The letter is throughout 
 one of considerable ability ; and it will be found set out in full in the 
 trial of Finerty. The closing passage is as follows : — 
 
 " We are not Domitian's people ; we are not lopped at a blow ; but it 
 looks as if some fate had doomed us to be destroyed one by one, as the 
 Persian tyrant ordered the hairs to be plucked from the tail of his beast. 
 Beasts we have been, the vile carriers of the vilest burdens that the 
 vilest masters could lay upon us. But the yoke is shaken — persecution 
 has provoked to love, and united Ireland against foreign despotism. 
 
 " Feasting in your Castle, in the midst of your myrmidons and 
 bishops, you have little concerned yourself about the expelled and 
 miserable cottager, whose dwelling, at the moment of your mirth was, 
 in flames ; his wife and his daughter then under the violation of some 
 commissioned ravager ; his son agonizing on the bayonet, and his 
 helpless infants crying in vain for mercy. These are lamentations 
 that stain not the hour of carousal. Under intoxicated counsels the 
 
 * Madden's United Irishmen, 2 vol., 2 series, p. 39. 
 
TRIAL or FINERTY. 495 
 
 constitution has reeled to its centre — -justice herself is not only 
 blind drunk, but deaf, like Festus, to ' the words of soberness and 
 truth.' 
 
 " My lord, the people of Ireland did hope that mercy would not 
 have been denied to a most woi-thy and innocent man, when they 
 understood, that one of the worst advisers and most imperious mem- 
 bers of your cabinet had abandoned the kingdom. Had he been of 
 your late counsels, the odium might have been divided ; at present 
 you have the best claim to it. Let, however, the awful execution of 
 Mr. Orr be a lesson to all unthinking juries ; and let them cease to 
 flatter themselves that the soberest recommendation of theirs, and of 
 the presiding judge, can stop the course of carnage which sanguinary, 
 and, I do not fear to say, unconstitutional laws have ordered to be 
 loosed — let them remember that, like Macbeth, the servants of the 
 crown have waded so far in blood, that they find it easier to go on 
 than to go back. 
 
 " I am, my lord, 
 '* Your Excellency's humble servant, 
 
 " Marcus." 
 
 For this libel ]Mr. Peter Finerty, the printer of the Press, was tried, 
 and on his trial found guilty. Fletcher and Curi'an were his counsel, 
 but it was beyond the ability of either to affect the corrupt and packed 
 juries of the day. The trial by jury has been no blessing in Ireland ; 
 the government has rarely hesitated to throw its weight into the scale 
 against the fair administration of justice ; and a system which ought 
 to be not alone pure but unsuspected, has been rendered, through the 
 agency of corrupt sheriffs, by terrorism and other unrighteous means, 
 an instrument of oppression, as effective as any ever adopted in the 
 worst judicatures in Europe. When we consider the class of jurors 
 which filled the box during the eventful years in which these trials 
 took place — the class of witnesses who paraded their blasted characters 
 and recorded infamy upon the table, and the kind of men who 
 degraded the seat of justice, we are not astonished at the scenes of 
 cruelty, the invariable verdict, and the prompt and bitter sentence 
 which each trial discloses. Prerogative judges have from time to 
 time poisoned the sources of justice in Ireland, and probably they 
 have been the most efficient means of preserving and perpetuating 
 the animosity with which Irishmen regard British influence in this 
 country. For all the constantly recurring judicial bi-eaches of inte- 
 grity were prompted by corrupt hope ; the profligate and partial judge 
 looked to the British cabinet as the liberal purchaser of his infamy, 
 and was ready to work out its objects by the saci'ifice of his functions 
 
496 INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 
 and the breach of his oath ; — and the reward was comznensurate 
 with the service. The modern politician in Ireland has good reason 
 to pray that the race may have passed away for ever, and that the 
 liberty which the British constitution is said to give, and of which 
 it is supposed to guarantee the possession, may not be the spoit of ; 
 furious bigots on the bench, or partial jurors in the juiy-box. 
 
 After the destruction of the Northern Star, a celebrated organ of 
 the United Irishmen of Ulster, which had been started in Belfast 
 by Samuel Neilson, which, from 1792 to 1797, was conducted with 
 considerable ability and zeal, the still more celebrated newspaper 
 the Press, was established by Arthur O'Connor. 
 
 The Press appeared for the first time on the 4th of October, 1797, 
 and after a brief and stormy existence, was suppressed like its prede- 
 cessor the Northern Star, by military violence, on the 6th of March, 
 1798. It was published at 62, Abbey-street, Dublin.* Its proprietor 
 was Arthur O'Connor, its nominal printer was Peter Finerty, and 
 Stockdale was its nominal publisher. The editorial department was, 
 however, conducted by Finerty. Arthur O'Connor, in a letter pub- 
 lished in the Press, 2d January, 1798, says: "I did set up the 
 Press, though in a legal sense I was not its proprietor ; nor did I 
 look to any remuneration ; and I did so, because from the time that 
 in violation of property in subversion of even the appearance of 
 respect for the laws, and to destroy not only the freedom of the Press 
 but the Press itself, the present members destroyed the Northern 
 Star, no paper in Ireland (either from the papers being bought up, 
 or from the dread and horror of being destroyed) would publish an 
 accoimt of the enormities these very ministers were committing." 
 
 Several men of great ability were connected with the Press. Dr. 
 Drennan, Mr. Deane Swift, Thomas Addis Emmet, Sampson, and 
 John Sheares amongst the rest. Moore was also a contributor. 
 
 The government having determined to destroy the paper, and having, 
 moreover, received intimation that a violent letter against Lord Clare 
 was about to be published, the High Sheriff, accompanied by a military 
 force, took possession of a house in Mountrath-street, where the 
 Press was printed, and also of the house in Abbey-street where it 
 was published. The letter which brought down the immediate ven- 
 geance of Lord Clare was signed " Dion," and written, as Dr. Madden 
 says, by John Sheares. It is a furious phillippic, and might have 
 excited rage in a more moderate and more constitutional government 
 than the Irish rulers of the period. Its threatened publication ter- 
 minated the existence of the Press. 
 
 * Madden's United Irishmen, 2 vol., 1 series, 37. 
 
TRIAL 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. PETER FINERTY, 
 
 LATE [PRINTER OF "THE PKRSS," 
 
 FOR A LIBEL. 
 
 COMMISSION 
 
 OF OYER AND TERMINER AND GENERAL GAOL DELIVERY, 
 
 HELD IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THE CITY OF 
 
 DUBLIN BEFORE THE HON. JUSTICE DOWNES. 
 
 Friday, 22c1 December, 1797- 
 
 Mr. Peter Finerty being put to the bar, the pannel of the petty jury 
 was called — there appeared above one hundred and forty names on it. 
 The folloAving jury was then sworn, after the crown had set aside 
 Mr. Henry Lyons and Mr. George »Saul ; and Messrs. Robert Law, 
 John Conroy, and John Ferange had objected to themselves, as having 
 been on the grand jury that found the bill against Mr. Finerty : 
 
 James Blacker, James Atkinson, 
 
 Ben. Richardson, William Cowan, 
 
 John Dickinson, Bladen Sweeny, 
 
 Wm. Dickinson, Mark Bloxam, 
 
 Wm. Taylor, Wm. Williams, 
 
 Michael Nixon, James King. 
 
 The Clerk of the Crown then gave Mr. Finerty in charge to the 
 jury upon an indictment stating — "That at a general assizes and gene- 
 ral gaol delivery, holden at Carrickfergus, in and for the county of 
 Antrim, on l7th April, 37 King, before the Hon. Mathias Finucane, 
 one of the judges of his majesty's Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, 
 and the Hon. Denis George, one of the barons of his majesty's Court of 
 Exchequer, in L-eland, justices and commissioners assigned to deliver 
 the gaol of our said lord the king, in and for the county of Antrim, 
 of the several prisoners and malefactors therein, one William Orr, 
 late of Farranshane, in said county Antrim, yeoman, was in lawful 
 manner indicted for feloniously administering a certain oath and 
 engagement upon a book to one Hugh Wheatly ; which oath and 
 engagement imported to bind the said Hugh Wheatly, who then 
 and there took the same, to be of an association, bi-otherhood, and 
 
 2 K 
 
498 TRIAL OF 
 
 society, formed for seditious purposes ; and also for feloniously caus- 
 ing, procuring, and inducing said Hugh Wheatly to take an oath of 
 import last mentioned ; and also for feloniously administering to said 
 Hugh Wheatly another oath, importing to bind said Hugh Wheatly 
 not to inform or give evidence against any brother, associate, or con- 
 federate of a certain society then and there formed ; and also for 
 feloniously causing, procuring, and seducing said Hugh Wheatly to 
 take an oath of said import last mentioned. And afterwards at Car- 
 rickfergus aforesaid, before the Right Hon. Barry Lord Yelverton, 
 Lord Chief-Baron of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer in Ireland, 
 and the Hon. Tankerville Chamberlaine, one of his Majesty's Justices 
 of his Court of Chief Place in Ireland, at a general assizes, &c., holden 
 at Carrickfergus aforesaid, in county Antrim aforesaid. Justices and 
 Commissioners of our said Lord the King, assigned to take all the 
 assizes, juries, recognitions, and certificates, before whatsoever justices 
 held or taken ; and also assigned to hear, examine, discuss, and deter- 
 mine of all and singular treasons, murders, manslaughters, burnings, 
 unlawful assemblies, felonies, robberies, extortions, oppressions, trans- 
 gressions, crimes, contempts, offences, evil doings, and causes whatso- 
 ever committed within the said county of Antrim ; and to deliver the 
 gaol of our said Lord the King, in and for the said county of Antrim. 
 On the 16th day of September, in the 37th King, said William Orr, 
 by the verdict of a certain jury of said county of Antrim, between 
 our said Lord the King and said William Orr, taken of and for the 
 felony aforesaid in due manner, was tried, convicted, and attainted, 
 and for the same was duly executed ; and that lie, Avell knowing the 
 premises, but being a wicked and ill-disposed person, and of unquiet 
 conversation and disposition, and devising, and intending to molest 
 and disturb the peace and public tranquillity of this kingdom of Ire- 
 land ; and to bring and draw the trial aforesaid, and the verdict there- 
 on, for our said Lord the King, against this William Orr given, and 
 the due course of law in that behalf had, as aforesaid, into hatred, 
 contempt, and scandal with all the liege subjects of our said Lord the 
 King ; and to persuade, and cause the subjects of our said Lord the 
 King to believe, that the ti'ial aforesaid was unduly had, and that the 
 said William Orr did undeservedly die in manner aforesaid ; and 
 that his Excellency John Jeffreys, Earl Camden, the Lord Lieu- 
 tenant of this kingdom, after the conviction aforesaid, ought to have 
 extended to the said William Orr his Majesty's gracious pardon of 
 the felonies aforesaid ; and that in not so extending such pardon, the 
 said Lord Lieutenant had acted inhumanly, wickedly, and unjustly, 
 and in a manner unworthy of the trust which had been committed to 
 him by our said Lord the King in that behalf; and that the said 
 Lord Lieutenant in his government of this kingdom, had acted 
 unjustly, cruelly, and oppressively to his Majesty's subjects therein. 
 And to fulfil and bring to effect his most wicked and detestable 
 devices and intentions aforesaid, on 26th October, 37th of the King, at 
 Mountrath-street aforesaid, city of Dublin aforesaid, falsely, wickedly, 
 maliciously, and seditiously, did print and publish, and cause and 
 procure to be printed and published, in a certain newspaper entitled 
 the Press, a certain false, wicked, malicious, and seditious libel, of 
 and concerning the said trial, conviction, attainder, and execution of 
 
PETER FINERTY. 499 
 
 the said William Orr, as aforesaid, and of arid concerning the said 
 Lord Lieutenant and his government of this kingdom, and his 
 Majesty's Ministers employed by him in his government of this 
 kingdom, according to the tenor and effect following, to wit : — " The 
 death of Mr. Orr (meaning the said execution of the said William 
 Orr) the nation has pronounced one of the most sanguinaiy and 
 savage acts that had disgraced the laws. In perjury, did you not 
 hear, my lord, (meaning the said Lord Lieutenant,) the verdict 
 (meaning the verdict aforesaid) was given ? Perjury accompanied 
 with terror, as terror has marked every step of your government 
 (meaning the government of this kingdom aforesaid by the said Lord 
 Lieutenant). Vengeance and desolation were to foil on those who 
 M^ould not plunge themselves in blood. These were not strong 
 enough. Against the express law of the land, not only was drink 
 introduced to the jury (meaning the jury aforesaid), but drunkenness 
 itself, beastly and criminal drunkenness, was employed to procure the 
 mui'der of a better man (meaning the said execution of the said 
 William Orr) than any that now surrounds you (meaning the said 
 Lord Lieutenant)." And in another part thereof, according to the 
 tenor and effect following, to wit : — " Eepentance, which is a slow 
 virtue, hastened however to declare the innocence of the victim 
 (meaning the said William Orr) ; the mischief (meaning the said con- 
 viction of the said William Orr) which perjury had done, truth now 
 stepped forward to repair. Neither was she too late, had humanity 
 formed any part of your counsels (meaning the counsels of the said 
 Lord Lieutenant). Stung with remorse, on the return of reason, 
 part of his jury (meaning the jury aforesaid) solemnly and soberly 
 made oath, that their verdict (meaning the verdict aforesaid) had been 
 given under the unhappy influence of intimidation and drink ; and in 
 the most serious affidavit that ever was made, by acknowledging their 
 crime, endeavoured to atone to God and to their country for the sin 
 into which they had been seduced." And in another part thereof, 
 according to the tenor and effect following, to wit : — " And though 
 the innocence of the accused (meaning the said William Orr) had 
 even remained doubtful, it was your duty (meaning the duty of the 
 said Lord Lieutenant), my lord, and you (meaning the said Lord 
 Lieutenant) had no exemption from that duty, to have interposed 
 your arm, and saved him (meaning the said WiUiam Orr) from the 
 death (meaning the execution aforesaid) that perjury, drunkenness, 
 and reward had prepared for him (meaning the said William Orr). 
 Let not the nation be told that you (meaning the said Lord Lieute- 
 nant) are a passive instrument in the hands of others ; if passive you 
 be, then is your office a shadow indeed. If an active instrument, as 
 you ought to be, you (meaning the said Lord Lieutenant) did not 
 perform the duty which the laws required of you ; you (meaning the 
 said Lord Lieutenant) did not exercise the prerogative of mercy — 
 that mercy which the constitution had entrusted to you (meaning the 
 said Lord Lieutenant) for the safety of the subject, by guarding him 
 from the oppression of wicked men. Innocent it appears he (meaning 
 the said William Orr) was, his blood (meaning the blood of the 
 said William Orr) has been shed, and the precedent indeed is 
 awfiil." And in auotl^er part thereof, according to the tenor and 
 
500 TRIAL OF 
 
 effect following, to wit : — " But suppose the evidence of Wheatly had 
 been true, what was the offence of Mr. Orr (meaning the said 
 William Orr) ? Not that he had taken an oath of blood and exter- 
 mination — for then he had not suffered ; but that he (meaning the 
 said William Orr) had taken an oath of charity and of union, of 
 humanity and of peace, he (meaning the said William Orr) has 
 suffered. Shall we then be told that your government (meaning the 
 government of this kingdom aforesaid by the said Lord Lieutenant) 
 will conciliate public opinion, or that the people will not continue to 
 look for a better." And in another part thereof, according to the 
 tenor and effect following, that is to say — " Is it to be wondered that 
 a successor of Lord Fitzwilliam should sign the death-wai'rant of 
 Mr. Orr (meaning the said William Orr). Mr. Pitt had learned 
 that a merciful Lord Lieutenant was unsuited to a government of 
 violence. It was no compliment to the native clemency of a Camden 
 that he sent you (meaning the said Lord Lieutenant) into Ireland — 
 and what has been our poi'tion under the change, but massacre and 
 rape, military murders, desolation, and terror." And in another part 
 thereof, according to the tenor and effect here following, that is to 
 say — " Feasting in your castle, in the midst of your myrmidons 
 and bishops, you (meaning the said Lord Lieutenant) have little 
 concerned yourself about the expelled and miserable cottager, whose 
 dwelling at the moment of your mirth was in flames, his wife and his 
 daughter then under the violation of some commissioned ravager, his 
 son agonizing on the bayonet, and his helpless infants crying in vain 
 for mercy. These are lamentations that stain not the house of 
 carousal. Under intoxicated counsels (meaning the counsels of the 
 said Lord Lieutenant) the constitution has reeled to its centre; justice 
 herself is not only blind drunk but deaf, like Festus, to the words of 
 soberness and truth." And in another part thereof, according to the 
 tenor and effect here following, to wit : — " Let, however, the awful 
 execution of Mr. Orr (meaning the execixtion aforesaid of the said 
 William Orr) be a lesson to all unthinking juries, and let them cease 
 to flatter themselves that the soberest recommendation of theirs, and 
 of the presiding judge, can stop the course of carnage which sangui- 
 nary, and I do not fear to say, unconstitutional laws have ordered to 
 be loosed. Let them remember that, like Macbeth, the servants of 
 the crown have waded so far in blood that they find it easier to go on 
 than to go back, in contempt, &c., and against peace." 
 
 There were other counts charging the publication in different ways. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND opened the indictment on the part of the prose- 
 cution, and in an unusual manner, never before done, stated to the 
 juiy the whole of the publication as charged against Mr. Finerty. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, stated the case. He said he had been 
 directed by the executive power to prosecute the traverser at the 
 bar for printing and publishing, and causing to be printed and pub- 
 lished, a false, scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel. The grand 
 jury of the city of Dublin had found the bill of indictment, and to 
 that bill the traverser has pleaded not guilty ; and it is your duty, 
 gentlemen of the jury, upon the evidence that shall be laid before 
 you this day, and the evidence arising from the libel itself, taking the 
 whole together to determine two questions : one, a question of fact. 
 
PETER FINERTY. 501 
 
 whether the traverser at the bar be guilty of publishing that paper 
 called a malicious and seditious libel ; and the second question, 
 gentlemen, which you have to decide is, whether the libellous paper 
 itself be a seditious libel or not. That, gentlemen, you will consider 
 upon a careful perusal and examination of the paper ; but previous 
 to that examination you are to hear from the learned judge who 
 presides in this court, his opinion upon this paper whether it be a libel 
 or not. And, gentlemen of the jury, I must beg leave to say, that no 
 jury, at least in modern times, have ever been assembled upon an 
 occasion of more importance to the government of the country, than 
 that which now is before you for your consideration. Gentlemen, I 
 am now speaking generally ; I shall afterwards go to particulars. It 
 is a libel upon the administration of the justice of the country — a 
 libel that renders the judges in the administration of justice con- 
 temptible and odious in the eyes of the people — a libel having such a 
 tendency is the greatest danger that can be brought on a state : the 
 necessary consequences which were intended to be produced, and for 
 which this libel has been published — a purpose that must tend to the 
 total destruction of government and social order in the state. When 
 respect for the administration of justice in a country is gone, every 
 thing is lost — our lives, our properties are in danger. The traverser 
 at the bar is charged with having, on the 26th of October last, printed 
 and published, in the city of Dublin, a newspaper, entitled the Press. 
 It would little become me, gentlemen of the jury, to state to you facts 
 not immediately pertaining to the case before you ; still less if I was 
 capable of stating anything to you in a case of such vast magnitude 
 as could affect your passions. However, something prefatory I must 
 say of this paper, of which it will appear that the man at the bar is 
 the sole proprietor and printer. 
 
 The paper, gentlemen, was published for the first time on the 1 7th 
 of September in the present year. The law makes it necessary in 
 order to preserve the freedom of the press, to preserve it by restrain- 
 ing its licentiousness ; the law has made it necessary, that the man 
 who publishes a newspaper shall make an affidavit that he is the sole 
 publisher of that paper and no other ; and of every day's publication 
 a copy shall be delivered at the Stamp-office, signed by him who is 
 the proprietor, and by that means leaves him responsible to any person 
 whom he shall publish against. 
 
 On the 17th of September the traverser made an affidavit pursu- 
 ant to the statute, by which he swore that he was the sole proprietor 
 and publisher of that newspaper called the Press, and the law 
 requires that the man who shall so publish such paper, whenever any 
 alteration shall be made in the property and right of publication, a 
 new affidavit of that fact shall be made. I have stated that on the 
 17th of September the traverser made an affidavit stating that he 
 was the sole proprietor and publisher of that paper, and from that 
 day to the present no other affidavit has been made ; and therefore, 
 gentlemen, by the affidavit already made by the traverser at the bar, 
 Peter Finerty appears to be the sole proprietor and printer of that 
 paper called the Press. 
 
 Gentlemen, this paper appears to be of such a nature as to draw 
 upon it the attention of a government deserving any respect, and of 
 
502 TRIAL OF M 
 
 every man in the state who had any regard to his life, liberty, or 
 property, and the happy constitution under which he is governed. I 
 will not go into the general systematic tendency of the paper. I will 
 make an observation or two on it, merely as to the head of the prose- 
 cution now under your consideration. No man who has read that 
 paper, that shall deliberate on the series of papers that have been 
 published in the Press, but must say it was calculated to run down 
 the administration of justice in this country — a systematic determina- 
 tion to disgi'ace the justice of the country in the eyes of the people ; 
 to make the lower orders of the people, who are ever and anon clamo- 
 rous, to rise against the state, and to make them believe that justice 
 and law are curbed in the administration of them, and that they can- 
 not have impartial justice done to them. 
 
 I am at liberty to say it does disclose such a system, and the part 
 you are called on to determine is only a part of that system. I will 
 presently state the different parts of the libel, but, before I do it, let 
 me observe to you, that in the discharge of that sacred trust which is 
 now reposed in you, you are to defend the liberty of the press. You 
 will defend that liberty which will preserve the freedom of life and 
 of property. It is the abuse of the freedom of the press that calls on 
 you to defend its liberty. The liberty of the press, gentlemen, can 
 never be destroyed, but by its licentiousness. 
 
 The indictment in this case does state some matters of fact, which,, 
 the better to enable you to understand, I will i-ead to you. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General then read the opening of the indictment, 
 where it is stated, <' that at a general gaol delivery, held at Carrick- 
 fergus, on the l7th April," &c. He then observed to the jury — This 
 part of the indictment, gentlemen, is worth attending to, because it 
 will show that there was a perversion of truth in order to deceive the 
 people. The indictment then goes on and states that Peter Finerty 
 had, as a further object to deceive the people by this seditious libel, 
 wished to insinuate that William Orr ought not to have been convicted, 
 and that he ought to have received his Majesty's pardon, and further 
 to cause it to be believed, that the Lord Lieutenant had acted inhu- 
 manly, unjustly, and unworthily the situation he holds, in not having 
 extended to Orr his Majesty's royal clemency. And then, gentlemen, 
 the indictment goes on, and states those parts of the libel which are 
 particularly relied on, and you will have, after the evidence is given, 
 an opportunity of viewing the whole libel. The indictment states 
 particular parts ; but in the consideration of the question, it will be 
 your duty to compare it, and see if the whole of the publication has 
 for its object that which the indictment charges it to be. 
 
 The paper was published on the 26th October, 1797, of and con- 
 cerning the trial, attaint, and execution of William Orr, and of and 
 concerning the Lord Lieutenant and ministers employed by the King 
 in the government of this kingdom. I forbear to state any of those 
 circumstances that attended the trial of Mr. Orr, because I do not 
 conceive them to be at all necessary to be shown in the present ques- 
 tion. You will see, gentlemen, from the libel itself, with what view 
 the publication was made ; and it is not for me to state what passed 
 on the trial of that unfortunate man, whose name I would not mention, 
 if it was not made necessary from the nature of the case. 
 
PETER FINERTY. 503 
 
 Gentlemen, the libel imports to be a letter writen to the Lord 
 Lieutenant soon after the execution of Mr. Orr. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General read the first paragraph stated in the 
 indictment. Gentlemen, it is impossible to conceive any good motive 
 that could have induced the publication of that. It is not peculiar to 
 any question to be discussed, not expressed in any terms, but such as 
 must excite the people to resentment against the government. If, 
 gentlemen, the ingenuity of the counsel for the traverser can, by force 
 of imagination, put a sense on it, other than the sense of exciting the 
 resentment of the people, let it have full force ; but from my under- 
 standing, and on the best deliberation, I am not able to find what dis- 
 tinction can be given to this sentence, or that it can mean anything 
 but a general charge against the administration of justice. A charge 
 against that government, to whom his Majesty has committed the care 
 of his subjects in this kingdom ; a charge that woidd disgrace the 
 basest of the base that now hear me, that the Lord Lieutenant and 
 the King's ministers, in order to obtain a sanguinary execution of a 
 man, contrived to have drink introduced into the jury-box, and had a 
 man put to death under colour of law ! 
 
 Mr. Attorney- General read the several paragraphs which fol- 
 lowed the above one, and observed upon them all. 
 
 You find, gentlemen, that the Lord Lieutenant is charged with 
 having withheld the royal mercy, of suffering a man to be executed, 
 after it had appeared to his lordship, fi'om afiidavits the most solemn 
 that had ever been made, that the sufferer was innocent. 
 
 Gentlemen, mercy is in the discretion of the crown, it must be ex- 
 ercised by the King, or those ministers to whom the executive govern- 
 ment is entrusted. The exercise of it is on due deliberation, and a 
 clear examination of the propriety of extending it. For what purpose 
 did the writer of this libel introduce this paragraph, but to hazard the 
 peace of the country ? A Ubeller daring to assert, in the face of the 
 woi'ld, that a man whose case was deliberated on, and who had fre- 
 quent reprieves from execution, that the verdict against that man was 
 obtained by introducing drink into the jury-room, to charge that a 
 verdict had been obtained by rcAvard ; can any man in this court dare 
 to think such a charge not libellous ? I believe in this, or in Great 
 Britain, since the happy period of the Revolution, no man has dared 
 to insist, or even to think, that a verdict in a criminal case has been 
 obtained by reward and drunkenness; and I do believe in my soul, 
 that he that penned that libel, let him be in what situation of life he 
 may, when he wrote that part, his soul told him he was writing what 
 was false. If it became me to make an appeal, I would appeal to 
 those who were present at the trial, to his friends that surrounded 
 him, and I would ask them, if there was amongst them there a man 
 who believed that that verdict was obtained by reward or fraud. If 
 that is not a libel upon the administration of justice in this kingdom, 
 I know not what it is ; and if it is not found to be so, let the scales 
 fall from the hand of justice, and yield up all you have to destruction. 
 If a jury of the country can find that this is not a libel, let all men 
 that wish to be happy, dispose of their properties, and seek protection 
 for their character and their industry in some other country, blessed 
 with a more happy constitution. 
 
504 TRIAL OF 
 
 Here is a libel of a new species. First, the world is told that he 
 was not guilty of the offence charged upon him, and that he ought not 
 to have suffered ; but then, say they, suppose all that has been sworn 
 was true, they then tell the people he suffered for taking an oath of 
 charity, insisting that that brothei'hood, to which this case is so nearly 
 related, is a brotherhood of charity, instituted for the benefit of 
 mankind. 
 
 Gentlemen, you will observe that the crime is for taking an oath to 
 be of a society formed for seditious purposes ; and, gentlemen, the 
 libeller, the author of the libel, tells the people that he suffered death, 
 not for the crime with which he knew he was charged, but for having 
 taken an oath of charity to men ! 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, you must see a direct attack upon the ad- 
 ministration of the country. Attend to the latter part of thS publi- 
 cation as a context to the whole : you see a direct attack on the 
 administration of justice ; she is painted as blind drunk, and the 
 people are taught to believe that no attention is paid to justice by the 
 Lord Lieutenant, or those whom he consults in the administration 
 of it. 
 
 Gentlemen, here is a direct charge with respect to the trial of Orr : 
 they desire all thinking juries to be cautious how they depend on the 
 recommendation of the presiding judge, leading the people to believe 
 that the jury and the judge had recommended the unfortunate man 
 to mercy, and that mercy had been denied ; leading the people to 
 believe that the Lord Lieutenant pays no attention to the recom- 
 mendation of a judge or jury; recommending to the juror not to find 
 a verdict according to his oath, lest afterwards the prisoner should 
 not be pardoned. It is a wicked doctrine, endeavoured to be spread 
 abroad, that the Lord Lieutenant will not extend mercy where it 
 oixght to be extended. It would be too much to say that the Lord 
 Lieutenant ought in all cases extend mercy, even though the judge 
 should recommend : it belongs to the minister to consider well before ; 
 for it might appear after that the person recommended was not an 
 object of mercy. 
 
 Gentlemen, in this case, the case of Mr. Orr, we must suppose there 
 was much deliberation, for twice was he respited. I will be bold to 
 say, that for one hundred years the crown has never refused to extend 
 mercy to those objects whom the judge on the trial recommended. 
 
 Gentlemen, on the whole of this case you will consider whether this 
 paper could be printed with any other view than that charged. The 
 fact of publication will be established by the evidence ; I have stated 
 to you that the law requires that a copy of every day's publication 
 should be deposited in the Stamp-office, signed by the pi-oprietor. But 
 it happens that the copy deposited for the 26th October, and that 
 alone, is not to be found in the Stamp-oflice. How it has gone, by 
 whose contrivance or machinations, it is not for me to observe ; but, 
 happily, we shall supply the defect, we shall prove the paper having 
 been bought where the Press is published, so that there can be no 
 doubt of the proof of publication. With respect to the libel, to any 
 man of common understanding, that knows anything of the nature of 
 our laws and constitution, he cannot hesitate a moment in finding it to 
 be a libel. If you think him gviilty of the fact you will find a verdict 
 
PETER FINEUTY. 505 
 
 that will have a tendency to establish the liberty of the press, and to 
 restore with full force the administration of justice to the people. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General then read the opinion of Judge Buller, 
 in the case of the King against Watson ; and he then concluded by 
 saying — " I will now pi'oduce evidence that will establish the fact of 
 publication ; and if it is, as I am instructed it will be, you can have 
 no difficulty in finding the traverser guilty." 
 
 Mr. George Hatton sworn. — (An afiidavit handed to him.) 
 
 Q. Is that your name and handwriting ? A. It is. 
 
 Q. Your are a commissioner of stamps ? A. I am. 
 
 Q. Was that afiidavit sworn before you ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. By the prisoner at the bar ? A. I do not know whether it was 
 or not. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Do you swear positively that he (the traverser) 
 made that afiidavit? 
 
 Court. — Do you swear that affidavit was made bofore you ? A. 
 I do. 
 
 Q. By a person calling himself Peter Finerty ? A. I asked him 
 if that was his name and hand-writing, and he said it was. The 
 affidavit was then read by Mr. Pollock, the clerk of the crown, dated 
 the 19th of September, 1797, and signed Peter Finerty. 
 
 John Kingsborough sworn. — Examined by Mr. Townsend. 
 
 Q. Have yovi any newspaper about you ? A. I have. (The wit- 
 ness produced the Press.) 
 
 Q. Where did you get it ? A. I believe I bought it to read it, and 
 gave it my father to read. 
 
 Q. What became of that paper after you gave it to your father ? 
 A. He returned this paper to me (the one he produced) on Saturday, 
 the 9th of December, as the Press I gave to him. 
 
 Q. Where did you buy it ? A. At No. 4, Church-lane. 
 
 Cross-examined by JMr. Curran. 
 
 Q. Pray, sir, from whom did you buy this paper ? A.I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. Was it from a common news-hawker ? A. I am positive it was 
 not. 
 
 Q. Wliy? A. Because I went to Church-lane and bought the 
 paper that had that letter from a man in the Press office. 
 
 Q. You went from mere curiosity to buy one ? A. I did, to read 
 for my own amusement ; and I do very often buy it for myself. 
 
 Q. How soon after you bought it did you give it to your father? 
 A. I believe the evening, for I bought it in the morning as I was 
 going up to the courts, and I think I gave it to him that evening. 
 
 Q. Whose office are you in ? A. Mr. Kemmis's. 
 
 Q. Where was the paper till you lent it to your father ? A. In my 
 pocket. 
 
 Q. Where is your father ? 
 
 . Mr. Attorney-General You say you went there to buy the 
 
 paper for your own reading merely ? A. I very often did ; I bought 
 it as I went to court. 
 
506 TRIAL OP 
 
 Court — Did you buy any other there before ? A. I will not 
 take upon me to say that I did ; but I bought that for my own 
 reading. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN Who was by when you bought it ? A. I did not 
 
 see anybody by, but the man in the office who sold it. 
 
 Q. Are you not particularly sure it was not the traverser that sold 
 it ? A. No, indeed, I am not, but I will not swear it was not ; but 
 it might be he. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — Did you inquire at the Stamp-office 
 for that particular paper ? A. I did ; I was desired by Mr. Kemmis 
 to go to INIr. Lestrange and Mr. Hatton, to attend him at his house. 
 
 Q. Did you get the paper ? A. No, I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you search for it ? A. No ; because Mr. Lestrange told 
 me he had it at home. 
 
 Q. Did you ever ask that officer for it ? A. No ; I never was sent 
 to him for it, nor did I see him relative to it. I was told by Doctor 
 Harvey that Mr. Lestrange was out of his reason. 
 
 Thomas Kingsborough, examined by the Solicitor-General. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect at any time getting a paper from your son ? 
 A. Yes ; and shortly after I put it into my desk. 
 
 Q. Who took it out of your desk ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Which had been under lock and key? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You kept that key yourself ? A. Yes, I did. 
 
 Q. I suppose it was put where you locked up other things you 
 kept privately ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Who was the person you gave it to next after you produced it 
 out of the the desk? A. To my son. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect a letter signed "Marcus" in it? A. I do, 
 and that was the reason I kept it. 
 
 Q. Your son was the next person you gave it to after it had been 
 delivered to you ? A. He was. 
 
 Question to Mr. John Kinsborough. — Is that the paper your father 
 returned to you ? A. It is the identical one which he gave me. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mi*. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. You read the letter before you put the paper into the desk ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. And you locked the paper up ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you give it to anybody in the house to i-ead ? A. I do not 
 recollect that I did. 
 
 Q. There are several in the house that might have recourse to it ? 
 A. No ; I have mostly daughters. 
 
 Q. Will you take upon you to say you did not lend it ? A. I will 
 not ; but I will take upon me to say it was not out of my sight. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally submitted to the court, that by a late act of parliament, 
 entitled " An act for securing the Liberty of the Press," every printer 
 of a newspaper is bound to deposit with the officer of the Stamp-office 
 an exact copy of each and every of such newspaper ; that the statute 
 created a superior species of evidence than what was before necessary ; 
 it does say that a ncAvspaper shall be filed, and that the paper so filed 
 shall be given in evidence as proof of the publication. 
 
! PETER FINERTY. 507 
 
 \\ 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes — Do you mean to contend that there is not 
 evidence to go to the jury ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally. — I mean, my lord, to contend that the best evidence 
 the nature of the case requires is not produced. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — Mr. M'Nally, I am sure there is no gentle- 
 man at the bar will contend that. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — My lord, I do not make the objection individually: 
 ''< I act with other gentlemen, and I never start a point without con- 
 sulting them ; and, my lord, it will be contended for. 
 
 The Clerk of the Crown was going to read the publication from 
 the newspaper proved by Mr. John Kingsborough. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally moved that the record might be given to the tra- 
 verser's counsel to compare with the publication. He said he would 
 assex't on this point individually, that it had been the uniform practice 
 on the most material trials for libels in England at which he had 
 been present. 
 
 The counsel for the prosecution objected to this ; and 
 
 The Court desired the deputy Clerk of the Crown to hold the 
 record while Mr. Pollock, Clerk of the Crown, read the publication 
 from the newspaper as follows : — The Press, Thursday, October 
 26, 1797. 
 
 TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE LORD LIEUTENANT. 
 
 My Lord — I address your Excellency on a subject as awful and 
 interesting as any that hath engaged the feelings of this suffering 
 country. The oppression of an individual leads to the oppression of 
 every member in the state, as his death, however speciously palliated 
 by forms, may lead to the death of the constitution. Your lordship 
 already anticipates me ; and your conscience has told you, that I 
 allude to the circumstance of Mr. Orr, whose case every man has 
 now made his own, by discovering the principle on which Mr. Pitt 
 sent you to execute his orders in Ireland. 
 
 The death of Mr. Orr the nation has pronounced one of the 
 most sanguinary and savage acts that had disgraced the laws. In 
 perjury, did you not hear, my lord, the verdict was given ? Perjury 
 accompanied with terror, as ten'or has marked every step of your 
 government. Vengeance and desolation were to fall on those who 
 would not plunge themselves in blood. These were not strong 
 enough. Against the express law of the land, not only was drink 
 introduced to the jury, but drunkenness itself, beastly and criminal 
 drunkenness, was employed to procure the murder of a better man 
 than any that now surrounds you. But well may juries think them- 
 selves justified in their drunken verdicts, if debauched and drunken 
 judges, swilling spirits on the seat of justice itself, shall set the countiy 
 so excellent an example. 
 
 Repentance, which is a slow virtue, hastened however to declare 
 the innocence of the victim. The mischief which perjury had done, 
 truth now stepped forward to repair ; neither was she too late, had 
 humanity formed any part of your counsels. Stung with remorse, on 
 the return of reason, part of his jury solemnly and soberly made oath, 
 that their verdict had been given under the unhappy influence of 
 
508 TRIAL OF 
 
 intimidation and drink ; and in the most serious affidavit that ever was 
 made, by acknowledging their crime, endeavoured to atone to God 
 and to their country for the sin into which they had been seduced. 
 
 The informer too, a man it must be owned not much famed for 
 veracity, but stung Avith the like remorse, deposed that all he liad for- 
 mei'ly sworn was malicious and untrue, and that from compunction 
 alone he was induced to make a full disclosure of his great and enor- 
 mous guilt. In this confession the wicked man had no temptation to 
 perjury ; he was not to be paid for that ; he had not in view, like 
 another Judas, the " thirty pieces of silver," if he was to receive his 
 reward, he knew he must not look for it in this world. 
 
 Those testimonies were followed by the solemn declaration of the 
 dying man himself; and the approach of death is not a moment when 
 men are given to deceive both themselves and the woi'ld. Good and 
 religious men are not apt, by perjury on their death-beds, to close the 
 gates of heaven against themselves, like those who have no hope. 
 But if these solemn declarations do not deserve regard, then is there 
 no truth in justice ; and though the innocence of the accused had 
 even remained doubtful, it was your duty, my lord, and you had no 
 exemption from that duty, to have interposed your arm, and saved 
 him the death that perjuiy, di'unkenness, and reward had prepared for 
 him. 
 
 Let not the nation be told tliat you are a passive instrument in the 
 hands of others — if passive you be, then is your olfice a shadow 
 indeed ; if an active instrmnent, as you ought to be, you did not per- 
 form the duty which the laws required of you ; you did not exercise 
 the prerogative of mercy — that mercy Avhich the constitution had 
 entrusted to you for the safety of the subject, by guarding him from 
 the oppression of wicked men. Innocent it appears he was ; his 
 blood has been shed ; and the precedent indeed is awful. 
 
 Had Frazer and Ross been found guilty of the murder committed 
 on a harmless and industrious peasant, lay your hand to your heart, 
 my lord, and answer without advisers, would you not have pardoned 
 those ruffians ? After the proof you have given of your mercy, I must 
 suppose your clemency unbounded. Have no Orangemen, convicted 
 on the purest evidence, been at any time pardoned ? Is not their 
 oath of blood connived at ? was not that oath manufactured at the 
 command of power? and does not power itself discipline those 
 brigands ? But suppose the evidence of Wheatly had been true, what 
 was the offence of Mr. Orr ? not that he had taken an oath of blood 
 and extermination — for then he had not suffered ; but that he had 
 taken an oath of charity and of iinion, of humanity and of peace, he 
 has suffered. Shall we then be told that your government will con- 
 ciliate public opinion, or that the people will not continue to look for 
 a better ? 
 
 "Was the unhappy man respited but to torture him, to insult both 
 justice and the nation, to carry the persecution into the bosom of his 
 wife and childi-eu ? Is this the prerogative of mercy ? What would 
 your father have said unto you, had he lived to witness this falling 
 off? " Son," he would have said, " I am a father, I have a daughter, 
 I have known misfortune : the world has pitied me. and I am not 
 ungrateful." 
 
PETER FINERTY. 509 
 
 Let us explore the causes of this sanguinary destruction of the 
 people. Is it that you are determined to revenge the regret expressed 
 by them at the recall of your predecessor; and, well knowing they 
 will not shed tears at the departure of his successor, that you are 
 resolved to make them weep during your stay ? Yes, my lord, I 
 repeat during your stay, for it may not be necessaiy that a royal 
 yacht, manned and decorated for the purpose, should waft you from 
 the shores of an angered and insulted country. 
 
 Another cause. Is it to be wondered that a successor of Lord 
 Fitzwilliam should sign the death-warrant of Mr. Orr? Mr. Pitt 
 had learned that a merciful Lord Lieutenant was unsuited to a 
 government of violence. It was no compliment to the native cle- 
 mency of a Camden that he sent you into Ireland ; and what has been 
 our portion under the change but massacre and rape, military murders, 
 desolation, and terror ? 
 
 Had you spared JNIr. Orr, you thought, perhaps, the numerous 
 families of those whom your administration had devoted, might accuse 
 you of partiality ; and thus, to prove your consistency, you are con- 
 tent to be suspected of wanting the only quality this coimtry wishes 
 you to exercise. 
 
 But, my lord, it will not do ; though yom' guards, and your soldiers, 
 and your thousands, and your tens of thousands, should conduct inno- 
 cence to death — it will not do. A voice has cried in the wilderness ; 
 and let the deserted streets of Carrickfergus proclaim to all the 
 world, that good men will not be intimidated, and that they are yet 
 more numerous than your soldiers. 
 
 We are not Domitian's people, we are not lopped at a blow, but it 
 looks as if some fate had doomed us to be destroyed one by one, as 
 the Persian tyrant ordered the hairs to be plucked from the tail of 
 his beast. Beasts we have been, the vile carriers of the vilest bur- 
 thens that the vilest masters could lay upon us. But the yoke is 
 shaken, persecution has provoked to love, and united L-eland against 
 foreign despotism- 
 Feasting in your castle, in the midst of your myrmidons and bishops, 
 you have little concerned yourself about the expelled and miserable 
 cottager, whose dwelling at the moment of your mirth was in flames, 
 his wife and his daughter then under the violation of some commis- 
 sioned ravager, his son agonizing on the bayonet, and his helpless 
 infants crying in vain for mercy. These are lamentations that stain 
 not the hour of carousal. Under intoxicated counsels, the constitu- 
 tion has reeled to its centre ; justice herself is not only blind drunk, 
 but deaf, like Festus, " to the words of soberness and truth." 
 
 My lord, the people of Ireland did hope that mercy would not 
 have been denied to a most worthy and innocent man, when they 
 understood that one of the worst advisers, and most imperious members 
 of your cabinet, had abandoned the kingdom. Had he been of your 
 late counsels, the odium might have been divided ; at present you 
 have the best claim to it. Let, however, the awful execution of Mr. 
 Orr be a lesson to all unthinking juries ; and let them cease to flatter 
 themselves that the soberest recommendation of theirs, and of the 
 presiding judge, can stop the course of carnage which sanguinary, 
 and I do not fear to say, unconstitutional laws have ordered to be 
 
510 TRIAL OP 
 
 loosed. Let them remember that, like Macbeth, the servants of the 
 crown have waded so far in blood, that they find it easier to go on, 
 than to go back. 
 
 I am, my Lord, 
 Your Excellency's humble servant, 
 
 MARCUS. 
 
 Mr. Walter Bourne was then sworn. 
 
 Q. Pray, sir, what are you ? A. Deputy Clerk of the Crown for 
 the county of Antrim. 
 
 Q. Have you the custody of the criminal records of the county ? 
 A. I have. 
 
 Q. What is that you have in your hand ? A. The record of the 
 conviction of William Orr. 
 
 Q. The original record ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 [The beginning of the record was read by the Clerk of the Crown.] 
 The case rested on the part of the ci'own. 
 
 Mr. Fletchek, for the traverser, said, if he was not mistaken, that 
 in point of law, the counsel for the crown had not sufficiently proved 
 their case ; however he did not mean to object to their supplying it 
 if they were able. If he understood right, the evidence produced to 
 prove the fact of proprietorship consisted in this. The evidence 
 produced swore that an individual calling himself Peter Finerty came 
 to him and did swear that affidavit which was produced in court. 
 But he did not understand from that evidence that Mr. Finerty, the 
 traverser, was the person that swore that affidavit. To fix the fact of 
 proprietorship upon the traverser, the counsel for the prosecution 
 ought to have gone a step farther. I do conceive, and it has been 
 already suggested, that the best evidence the natui'e of the case 
 required has not been produced. All that has appeared is, that a 
 man did swear an affidavit purporting that he was the proprietor of 
 the Press, and did sign his name, purporting to be the name of 
 " Peter Finerty," but no evidence whatever that he was the traverser 
 at the bar. It ought to have been proved in some manner that the 
 traverser was the person who made the affidavit. If the deficiency 
 can be supplied, I do not care, but I shall sit down to hear the opinion 
 of the court upon it. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN said, he trusted that it would not be deemed necessary 
 for him to add to what had been stated. He took it for granted, he said, 
 that there must be some evidence of identity of person. The affidavit 
 that has been read is signed by a pei'son calling himself Peter Finerty, 
 but where is the evidence that he was the traverser at the bar ? You 
 see that the intent of the evidence is to show, that he is the proprietor 
 of the house in Church-lane. His declaration of that matter would 
 be easily given in evidence. Suppose an individual man came to the 
 Stamp-office, and said his name was Peter Finerty, that he lived in 
 Church-lane, and was proprietor of the Press ; why a thousand dif- 
 ferent persons might say the same thing, and there not be a syllable 
 of truth in the whole of it. There must be laid before the jury evidence 
 sufficient to satisfy them that the traverser at the bar is the person 
 who made that identical declaration. 
 
PETER FINERTY. 5 1 I 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — It strikes me there is sufficient evi- 
 dence to go to the jury. 
 
 Q. By the Jury, to Mr. Hatton — Will you swear the traverser at 
 the bar is not the person that made the affidavit ? A. I believe he 
 is the man ; he was dressed in a green coat, and seemed as if he came 
 from the printing business. It was rather dark when I took the 
 affidavit. 
 
 Q. Could any other affidavit have been made without your know- 
 ledge ? A. There might, but not on that day. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN — The act expressly says that such affidavit shall be 
 evidence against the person who makes it. 
 
 A considerable delay followed, in consequence of the prosecutors 
 having sent for Mr. Sirr, who had taken the traverser into custody ; 
 at length Mr. Sirr appeared and was sworn. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mr. Finerty the traverser ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Point him out ? (Mr. Sirr identified him.) 
 
 Q. Do you recollect having arrested him ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. On what day, as near as you can recollect, or what month ? 
 A. It was during the last commission. 
 
 Q. Where did you arrest Peter Finerty the traverser ? A. In an 
 office, called the Press office, in Church-lane. 
 
 Q. What number ? A. Number 4. 
 
 Q. Had you any conversation with him at that time ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. Be so good as to state what that conversation was ? A. I asked 
 him if his name was Finerty ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I trust the counsel for the prosecution will have the 
 candour to apprize the counsel for the traverser what kind of evidence 
 they are going to give. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. — I am going to show declarations of the tra- 
 verser. 
 
 ]Mr. CuRRAN (to the witness). — Was the traverser induced, by any 
 hopes or fears, to say anything ? 
 
 This question was objected to by the counsel for the crown. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally mentioned the case of Paine, in 5 Mod. Reports ; 
 where it was ruled, that evidence of conversation of a prisoner should 
 be given, as well what he said in his own behalf, as what made against 
 him. 
 
 The counsel for the crown were desired to proceed by the court. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND (to the witness) You will be kind enough to tell 
 
 what the conversation you had with the traverser was ? A. I asked 
 him if his name was Finerty, and whether he was the publisher of the 
 Press, and he told me he was. 
 
 Q. Is that the man there (pointing to the traverser) ? A. That is 
 the gentleman. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Sampson. 
 
 Q. Who was present at the conversation ? A. I believe three or 
 four. 
 
 Q. Can you name them ? A. There was one I would know, if I 
 saw him ; but I do not know his name. 
 
 Q. Did you ask the traverser if he was the person who signed the 
 affidavit ? A. I know nothing of the affidavit. 
 
512 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did you say he acknowledged the publication of the letter 
 signed " Marcus ?" A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Was there any friend of yours there ? A. There was ; but I 
 did not know it, till I saw him in the office. 
 
 Q. Had you a warrant to arrest him ? A. I had. 
 
 Q. And you went singly ? A. No ; there was a man with me. 
 
 Q. What was his name ? A. Mitchell. 
 
 Q. Where does he live ? A. In Ship-street. 
 
 Q. What is his business ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. How did you happen to know him, and not his business ? A. I 
 knew him to be an evidence for the crown. 
 
 Q. Was it before or after the publication that you arrested him ? 
 A. I should imagine after ; it was during the last commission. 
 
 Q. What did you do with him when you took him ? A. I took 
 him to the Castle guard-house, and had him escorted to Newgate. 
 
 Q. You, sir, are also zealous, I understand, for the liberty of the 
 press, and the suppression of its licentiousness — are you the gentle- 
 man that chased the carrier of the Press, in the night time, with a 
 drawn sword ? 
 
 Mr Justice Downes. — What ! ask a man if he pursued another 
 with a drawn sword ! I do not think you have a right to ask it. 
 
 Mr. Sampson My lord, I surely have a right to ask it. If the 
 
 witness was doing his duty, he might do so ; if he was committing an 
 offence, he need not acquiesce. If he has not a mind to answer, let 
 him be silent. 
 
 Mr. SiRR I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you see any person stop the carrier in the public street ? 
 A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Pray, sir, do you know of Mr. Finerty's being taken out of the 
 gaol to the house of an alderman one night ? A. I do not ; I was 
 not present. 
 
 Q. Do you know is the Press in the pay of the government, or the 
 treasury ? A. I should suppose not. 
 
 Q. Do you not know there are other papers in the pay of the 
 treasury ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — I do not think that question material to the 
 point. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — My lord, it strikes me it is material in this point of 
 view. This is a prosecution carried on in the name of the state, for a 
 libel on the executive government ; and it may therefore be necessary 
 for the jury to know that the government have papers in pay to 
 panegyrize them. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND.— The conduct of government certainly is not the 
 subject of the present question. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Yes it is ; and may be the very ground of defence. 
 
 Mr. Jvistice Downes (to Mr. Sampson). — What question do you 
 put? 
 
 Ml'. Sampson — My lord, they are many ; all necessary to let the 
 jury judge of the degree of malice and guilt of this particular charge. 
 The lii'st question I would put is, whether the witness knows what 
 papers are paid by the government ? 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND I beg leave to object to that. 
 
PETER FINERTY. 513 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN — We contend for it on this ground : the conduct of 
 government has been stated to be abused by this publication ; and the 
 conduct of government may be part of our defence. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — I do not know that the court sits to enquire 
 into the conduct of government. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General I do object to that question ; I came 
 
 by the desire of the government to prosecute for this libel, to which 
 the defendant at the bar has pleaded not guilty, and they now desire 
 to go into evidence that the ministers of the crown have done some- 
 thing wrong, to justify what has been done by the prisoner. I do 
 object to it altogether. 
 
 Mr. Sampson — I believe there is one rule of law and evidence for 
 the croAvn and the subject, and God forbid it should be otherwise ; 
 that nothing shall be stated but what is intended to be proved, or is 
 material to the cause of the party stating it. The Press has been 
 stated to be part of a system of sedition and of provocation, and the 
 jury have been prepared to hear much evidence on that ground ; but 
 I trust we do not live in a country where the people are to submit to 
 every abuse without even daring to complain, where the Press is to 
 be licentious on the one side, and put down by military force on the 
 other — it is well to recollect at times that the doctrine of passive 
 obedience and non-resistance is treason in our law, and remonstrance 
 is not, and that extreme provocation is always some excuse for the 
 warmth of expostulation. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes To the point, sir, if you please. 
 
 Mr. vSampson. — The point is this ; it was stated that the Press 
 was part of a system of licentiousness, and I am about to shew that 
 there are papers that say what they please on one side ; and if I can 
 I will prove that this is part of no other system than that of repelling 
 argument by argument, assertion by assertion, invective by invective, 
 and that at a time when they have 100,000 armed men on the oppo- 
 site side of the question, and this nothing for its defence but paper 
 shot. I wish to know if I may ask the witness whether he knows of 
 other papers, in the pay of government ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — That is the question I have already said is 
 not relevant to the case ; therefore it shall not be asked. 
 
 Mr. Sampson. — Did you ever hear of the Northern Star being put 
 down by soldiers ? A. I have heard of it. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — I do not conceive that question to be more 
 material. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher We beg to be set right if we are wrong ; but we 
 
 suppose passive obedience and non-resistance is treason in our law, 
 and remonstrance is not ; and that extreme pi-ovocation is always 
 some excuse for the warmth of expostulation. We are to defend our 
 client for publishing a false, malicious, and seditious libel ; we suppose 
 the malice is deducible from the falsehood. It is stated to be a 
 malicious libel against the government of the country, and part of a 
 system to bring the administration of justice into contempt, and to 
 dissolve the government. That we conceive to be the question before 
 the jury, and therefore whether it is a libel or not ; and in order to 
 shew that is a libel, it must be shewn that the publication was pub- 
 lished falsely and maliciously, and therefore we do conceive we have 
 
 2 L 
 
514 TRIAL OF 
 
 a right to shew that it is not a false and malicious libel. In the case 
 of murder would it not be evidence to shew every anterior circum- I 
 stance, to shew the acts of the pai-ty killed having tended to the 
 provocation ? Does not the malice arise fi-om the falsity of the 
 charge ? Would it not be evidence to shew, that one party struck, 
 and the other repelled. Is not that evidence to go to the jury? 
 Therefore if we should give evidence to shew that 'when this publi- 
 cation was written, it was under an idea of the truth of the facts, not 
 thinking them to have been false, would not that go to the jury as 
 evidence of the intention. 
 
 Mr. Justice Dowist;s — I do not conceive it at all material to the 
 question before the jury. 
 
 IMr. Samfson (to I!»Ir. Sirr). — Did you at any time seize upon a 
 parcel of those papers, entitled the Press ? 
 
 Mr. Sirr objected to answer the question, if he was not obliged. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — You are not obliged to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Sampson. — If it will criminate you, sir, if you see that you are 
 in danger by answering, I will not persist, otherwise you wiU answer 
 it certainly. 
 
 Mr. Sirr I will not answer it. 
 
 Mr. Sampson Did you attend Mr. Finerty the night he was 
 
 taken out of the prison, and carried before the Alderman ? A. I 
 know nothing about it. 
 
 Q. What office do you hold ? A. I am deputy town-major. 
 
 Q. Are you a magistrate ? A. No further. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAX. — I hope your lordship will be of opinion that the 
 counsel for the prosecution have not established the case, and that it, 
 therefore, will not be necessary for the coimsel for the traverser to 
 state any case, and that the prosecutors having been admitted to the 
 indulgence of strengthening their evidence once, by calling Mr. Sirr, 
 that they will not be indulged again. It does not appear that any 
 charge has been sufficiently proved to make evidence to go to the 
 jury ; the evidence only goes to this, Mr. Hatton swore that he took 
 an affidavit of somebody who signed the affidavit, and that it was 
 dark ; he did not undertake to swear to the person of any man, as 
 having made that affidavit ; therefore as the evidence does rest there, 
 namely, that there was an affidavit sworn before him by somebody 
 calling himself Finerty, now the question is, whether the want of 
 proof of the identity of the person who so swore the affidavit has been 
 supplied or not ? I say not, because they could not by law be admitted 
 to go into the evidence they have endeavoured to give. 
 
 It has been stated by the crown, that there was an affidavit made 
 by the traverser, which affidavit has been produced in court ; and 
 that affidavit is the only evidence they could give ; according to the 
 law they ought not to have travelled out of it ; here is a written evi- 
 dence put upon the record of the county. The evidence can only be 
 supported by proving that the traverser was the person who swore 
 that affidavit, and that proof could only have been made by the person 
 before whom the affidavit was made. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes By the traverser's admission it may be 
 
 proved. 
 
 Mr. CuBRAN — I would not controvert that, but I say, in support of 
 
PETER FINERTY. 515 
 
 the position laid down, when the observation Avas made, that there is 
 written evidence that must be given, and no secondary evidence can 
 be received. I take it to be the law, that where evidence is stated to 
 be on written paper, that that written evidence must alone be resorted 
 to, unless it be proved to be destroyed. Suppose a bond in court, 
 could anything but that bond be let to go to the jury, proved as it 
 may be ? But could you receive evidence that the party did acknov/- 
 ledge that he had signed the bond ? It certainly could not be done. 
 There are a variety of ways in which that affidavit may be proved ; 
 but I do take it to be a rule of laAV, that the mere declaration of the 
 party cannot be received in a court of justice. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — Do you say there is no admissible proof of 
 a publication in a newspaper ; and that the affidavit is the only posi- 
 tive proof the law allows ? I think it may be proved by more ways 
 than one, as a debt may be due by more ways than by bond. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN What is the evidence of Sirr ? That he went to the 
 
 Press office, that he arrested a man there ? But I do not rest my 
 objection on one man going to arrest another, taking him by the 
 throat ; and that under the terror of such usage he said he was the 
 printer and publisher of the paper in question that contained the 
 libel ; that he was, at the time he was taken, the printer and publisher 
 of that paper ; but is there any proof that he knew of the publication 
 before it appeared, or that he was the printer of the paper at the time 
 of that publication? Is this to go to the jury? There is evidence 
 he was the printer on Saturday, therefore he must be the printer on 
 Monday ! Suppose a week before, suppose a month before, can the 
 jury find that because, perhaps through terror, he said he was the 
 printer on the Saturday, that he must have been the pi'inter a month 
 before. In the case of Rabb, printer of the Northern Star — that was 
 a publication in a paper that is now dead. I remember the objection 
 allowed by the court was, that the affidavit did state that Rabb Avas 
 proprietor of the pajier at the time of his making the affidavit before 
 the proper officer ; but it did not appear in evidence that he was 
 proprietor of the paper at the time of the publication of the libel, and 
 the court allowed the objection. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — The judges were afterwards of opinion 
 that the objection ought not to have been allowed, and I think the 
 court were wrong in not allowing the proof to be sufficient, on this 
 ground, that Rabb had continued to be printer till the time of publi- 
 cation. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAX submitted, that from what he had said, he trusted the 
 court would be of opinion, there was not evidence to go to the jury. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General Mr. Curran has stated facts that do 
 
 not arise on the case at all ; the question must go to the jury, and I 
 am convinced there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and that 
 there is sufficient evidence to convict the traverser. The question is 
 not whether he made that affidavit produced from the Stamp Office, 
 the question is, whether he be the publisher of the libel or not? 
 There is sufficient evidence to the jury that the traverser was the 
 publisher, at the place stated in the affidavit, that is, No. 4, Church- 
 lane. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes I do think there is evidence, that it was 
 
516 TRIAL OF 
 
 printed at No. 4, Church-lane, and Mr. Sirr has said that he went to 
 that house, and found tlie traverser there, who said his name was 
 Peter Finerty, and that he was the printer of the Press. I think 
 there is evidence to go to the jury. 
 
 Q. Juror (to Mr. Hatton) Was there any other person registered 
 
 as proprietor of that paper but the man who made the affidavit? A. 
 No; there was not. 
 
 Q. Could there be any other without your knowledge ? A. No ; 
 there could not. 
 
 Q. Mr. Fletcher (for the traverser). — Are there not other Com- 
 missioners of Stamps ? A. There are four. 
 
 Q. Might not the affidavit have been taken by them ? A. It is 
 not likely on that day ; I do believe it was the traverser at the bar 
 that made the affidavit. 
 
 Q. Mr. Justice Downes If there had been any other made would 
 
 it have appeared on that paper you have ? A. No ; it would not. 
 
 Q. By a Juror. — If the property had been changed would there not 
 have been another affidavit ? A. There ought to be another sworn. 
 
 Mr. J. Sheares (for the traverser). — If they give up the affidavit, 
 they must give some other thing in evidence to support their case. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General We give up nothing ; we rest here on 
 
 the part of the croAvn. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher (for the traverser) began by saying that he did 
 not know he would have any duty to discharge in the present 
 case. It Avas late on the night before when he found his brief lying 
 on his table, and when he saw on the back of it the two respect- 
 able names of Mr. Curran and Mr. Ponsonby, who had precedence of 
 him, he did not expect he would have had more to do than, with the 
 other counsel, merely to have examined the witnesses. He mentioned 
 this to the court and the jury that if he should not appear to be 
 arranged in what he was going to state that he might not be charged 
 with inattention. The traverser, he said, stood charged with having 
 printed and published, and having caused to be printed and published 
 a false, scandalous, and seditious libel. To establish the guilt upon 
 the traverser, there were two things of which the jury should be con- 
 vinced ; and they Avere called on to dischai'ge a most aAvful and 
 solemn duty ; they must be convinced of two substantial and material 
 facts, of any of which, if they had any the least hesitation, they were 
 bound by everything that Avas sacred to acquit the traverser. The 
 first point they had to decide was, Avhether he did print and publish 
 the paper in question, stated to be a false, seditious, and malicious 
 libel, and they must haA^e fully satisfied their minds upon that point, 
 before they were called upon to entertain the second, and then they 
 must consider whether the paper in question is a false, seditious, and 
 malicious libel or not ? 
 
 With respect to the preliminary point, whether he did publish the 
 paper in question, the jury had heai'd much said, and urged by the 
 counsel for the prosecution to induce the court to be of that opinion. 
 The counsel for the traverser did conceive that there was not sufficient 
 evidence to go to the jury, for them to exercise their duty upon ;-but 
 the disposal of that question by the court did not preclude the jury 
 from exercising their judgment. The court was not called upon to 
 
PETER FINERTY. 517 
 
 give an opinion, and all the court did do was to decide that there was 
 sufficient evidence for the jury to exercise their discretion upon, from 
 the circumstances sworn to; therefore, the jury ought to be convinced, 
 beyond a shadow of doubt, that the traverser at the bar was the pub- 
 lisher of that paper, stated to be a false, malicious, and seditious 
 libel. 
 
 He besought the jury to advert to the evidence which had been 
 given, and if it did not Hash conviction to their minds the judge would 
 tell them it was the boast of the criminal code of this country, that 
 where there was a doubt, there was an imperious call upon them to 
 acquit. He trusted the jury would exercise that reason wuth which 
 they were endowed ; for by the verdict they should give, must his 
 client stand or fall. They were, therefore, called on to exercise with 
 calmness, and divested of passion, as far as human minds are capable 
 of being divested, that discretion with which they had been inti'usted 
 by the law. 
 
 The evidence which had been laid before the jury amounted to 
 this : an affidavit is stated, purporting to have been sworn by a man 
 who passed for Peter Finerty — that has been proved ; but as to any 
 identity of the traverser at the bar being the person who made the 
 affidavit, there is not the smallest evidence. His hand-writing has 
 not been proved. There has not been a tittle of evidence of either of 
 these facts, of his identity, or of his hand- writing ; and, to a demon- 
 stration, no man of reason could draw that conclusion, that the 
 traverser was the identical person that made the affidavit. That the 
 proprietorship of the paper was in the traverser, there was not an iota 
 of evidence. What is the other evidence to support this ? A young 
 gentleman (Mr. Kingsborough, clerk to the CroAvn- Solicitor,) bought 
 a paper containing that letter or writing signed " Marcus," and which 
 is charged as the libel, for his own amusement ; and you are told that 
 he bought it at a certain house ; that he gave it afterwards to his father 
 to read ; that his father put it by after he had read it ; and that he 
 afterwards I'eturned it to his son; and upon that evidence are the jury 
 called upon to decide that the traverser was guilty of having published 
 that paper called a libel. What is the evidence of the fact ? That 
 Mr. Kingsborough bought the paper at a certain house ; not seeing 
 the traverser there ; not buying the paper from him, having no com- 
 munication whatever with him. When the jury coupled these 
 together, when they recollect that there was a legislative interference, 
 namely, the necessity imposed upon printers by the stamp act of fur- 
 nishing a paper to the stamp office, which should be lodged there ; 
 when they recollected that the paper, and the only paper missing, was 
 the identical one in which this libel is charged to have been printed, 
 is not produced on this occasion, it is a conclusive argument that there 
 is something singular in the case. What has become of that paper ? 
 Where has it gone to ? If it was lodged it must have been brought 
 forward, and it then might appear that the traverser did not authen- 
 ticate it. I put the non-production of it on the prosecutors if it was 
 lodged ; and by the non-production of that paper, there begets a rea- 
 sonable suspicion that if it was produced, it would appear to have been 
 authenticated by some other signature, and not to have been the 
 traverser's. The non-production of it makes the prosecution weaker 
 
518 TRIAL OF 
 
 than if no act of parliament had passed, because if it had been pro- 
 duced the production of it might have established the contrary of the 
 fact, and would have shewn that the traverser was not the man that 
 had authenticated it with his name. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher continued, and said he had gone through two stages 
 resorted to by the prosecution ; and after a considerable pause had 
 been, in which the court waited to enable the counsel for the crown to 
 make out the evidence if it could be done, and then a witness is pro- 
 duced who stated that the traverser acknowledged to him that he was 
 the publisher of the paper ; that point had been much argued, but if 
 the jury were not convinced as reasonable, honest, and conscientious 
 men, having no doubt on their minds ; that the traverser did really 
 publish the paper in question if they doubted ; if they hesitated on 
 the question, it was their duty, by the spirit of the criminal law, to 
 acquit the traverser. But if contrary to his opinion, and which he 
 should never believe the jury could, unless they had some private 
 evidence not disclosed, any man in the box having such internal 
 private evidence, ought to come forward and offer himself to be 
 examined in court as to whatever fact he might be in possession of. 
 If any of the jury was in possession of any such evidence it was not 
 then too late for him to offer himself, and come forward to be 
 examined. 
 
 Having touched upon the first question for the consideration of the 
 jury, he would now go to the second part of the case ; whether the 
 paper was a seditious, false, and malicious paper or not. In discharge 
 of that province which was assigned to the jury, he said they were 
 the sole judges of the law as well as the fact. As to the question 
 whether the writing was a false and seditious one, he would tell the 
 jury that antecedently to some years back, for it was but a few years 
 since the old common law was restored in both countries, juries had 
 been told for more than half a century that as to the fact of falsehood 
 and malice they had nothing to do, that they had merely to find the fact 
 of the publication ; that doctrine has gone to sleep, and peace be with it. 
 When a paper was written against an individual it was stated to be mali- 
 cious ; if the government was attacked, " seditious " was added by impli- 
 cation of law. Mr. Attorney- General has stated to the jury the trial and 
 conviction of a person of whom the jury must have all heard (Mr. Orr). 
 It was stated that the conviction of that unfortunate man had been 
 obtained by the perjury of the witness who prosecuted him, but it was 
 not charged by whom the perjury was procured. It does not appear 
 whether perjury was discovered before the trial or after, and (says 
 Mr. Fletcher) I have a right to suppose that the cii'cumstancies were 
 not disclosed at the trial. He would therefore take it for granted that 
 there did not appear to the learned judge who presided at the trial of 
 Mr. Orr any circumstances that could call on him to state to the jury 
 his doubts, if he had any, as to the credit of the witness. Mr. 
 Fletcher said he would take it in the most offensive way against the 
 traverser, and put it to the jury if these facts, which have been stated, 
 did appear after the trial, if it was a false and malicious libel to 
 ground tlieir verdict of guilty ; it had been stated to them that con- 
 viction followed the trial. But what followed that ? Certain of Mr. 
 Orr's jury did come forward and state upon their oaths, that drink 
 
PETER FINERTY. 519 
 
 had been introduced into the jury-room to influence that verdict which 
 ought to have been given in sobriety and reason. If the fact be as 
 stated by those juroi's, if by weakness of mind produced by liquor, 
 and influenced by the rest of the jury, if these be the foots, as I am 
 instructed to say they are, what will the jury upon their oaths say, 
 that the publication of those facts were a Mse and malicious libel ? 
 What shall I say to that government that would not interpose its 
 power and save the victim from destruction ? No charge against the 
 administration of justice in the country can by any fair deduction be 
 elucidated from the words stated, all that can be extracted from it is, 
 that the verdict was obtained by perjury ; if that be true, it establishes 
 this, namely, that it was procured in a manner that it ought not to have 
 been obtained. Suppose the witness had not sworn true, suppose the 
 verdict had been obtained by intimidation, and introduction of drink 
 into the jury-box, suppose all this to have been stated, suppose you would 
 be induced to believe that the verdict had been obtained by perjury, 
 seconded by drunkenness ; I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, what would 
 be the feeling of any honest man, supposing the facts true, can human 
 nature furnish words black enough to apply to such a conviction, what 
 would be the opinion of any honest man Avhen he heard of such a convic- 
 tion ? This prosecution is stated to be in vindication of the government 
 of this country. I stand forth in endeavouring to convince you that an 
 honest indignation has a right to observe upon those actions it con- 
 ceives to be bad. Do you imagine, gentlemen of the jury, that I 
 would stand forward the advocate for the licentiousness of the Press ? 
 God forbid any person should think I would not stand up the advocate 
 for the insulted laws of my country. Do you conceive the justice of 
 the country implicated in it ? God forbid. What is the freedom you 
 were told you were called upon to defend ? Does it consist in inves- 
 tigating the faults of the Press ? No ; it is its licentiousness you are 
 to curb. You have been told it is the most flagitious of all libels. 
 The question for you to decide is, is it false? I hold in my hand a 
 letter for printing which the printer was prosecuted in England — I 
 mean the letter of the celebrated Junius to the King. Hear the words 
 of that libel : " The people of England are loyal to the house of Hano- 
 ver, not fi'om a vain preference of one family to another, but from a 
 conviction that the establishment of that family was necessary to the 
 support of their civil and religious liberties. This, Sir, is a principle 
 of allegiance equally solid and rational, fit for Englishmen to adopt, 
 and well worthy of your Majesty's encouragement; we cannot long 
 be deluded by nominal distinctions. The name of Stuart by itself is 
 only contemptible ; armed with the sovereign authority their principles 
 are formidable. The prince who imitates their conduct should be 
 warned by their example ; and while he plumes himself upon the 
 security of his title to the crown, should remember that, as it was 
 acquired by one revolution it may be lost by another." 
 
 " The people of Ireland have been uniformly plundered and 
 oppressed ; in return they give you every day fresh marks of their 
 resentment. They despise the miserable governor you have sent them, 
 because he is a creature of Lord Bute ; nor is it from any natural con- 
 fusion in their ideas, that they are so ready to confound the original 
 of a king with the disgraceful I'epresentation of him." 
 
520 TRIAL OF 
 
 i 
 
 The printer of that letter was prosecuted for publishing it, and an 
 English jury would only find him guilty of the fact of publishing, but 
 they would not convict him of having published it with a seditious or 
 malicious intent. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher continued to argue, at considerable length, on the 
 discrimination of English juries, and the unbounded liberty of the 
 English subject to animadvert upon every public topic. It was true, 
 he said, that the publication in question was harsh and rude, and far 
 from that pleasing two-edged sword of Junius. If, said he, gentlemen 
 of the jury, you shall, after what I have said and read to you, be con- 
 vinced that the publication in question was published with that 
 malicious and seditious intention imputed to it by the indictment, find 
 him guilty ; if I were satisfied of the fact, I would be the first to 
 desire you to do so. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher then observed upon the abuse which had been given 
 to the character of Lord Moira, in the papers of this country, to an 
 offspring of the soil of Ireland. Had he not bled in the cause of 
 England and of Ireland ? Is the freedom of the Press to consist merely 
 in panegyrising the measures of the government, let them be right or 
 wrong '^ If that be the freedom of the Press, he had no idea of such a 
 liberty of the Press. That is not the liberty of the Press that put 
 down ship-money ; that is not the liberty of the Press that brought 
 the present King to the throne ; that was not the liberty of the Press 
 that produced the Revolution. In the case of the dispensing powers, 
 what do the seven bishops not owe to the liberty of the Press ? That 
 was not the liberty of the Press that forced the house of Stuart from 
 the throne. The liberty of the Press does not consist in panegyrising 
 the government of the country, or in libelling individuals. But if a 
 fact of the kind stated in a publication, and we shall have evidence to 
 convince you of it, and to induce you to believe that by the publica- 
 tion of that fact the freedom of the Press was well exerted, will you 
 say it is false and malicious ? 
 
 It has been suggested to me that the prosecution is carried on to 
 vindicate the ways of Mr. Pitt to this country. Marvellous indeed ! 
 The publication states that there are burnings and rapine, and desola- 
 tion in the land. I conjure you to lay your hands to your hearts, as 
 God shall deal with you, and I ask you is there desolation and burn- 
 ings in the country ? If you do say that there are, and it has been 
 stated in England by that character whose least boast is his descent 
 from the Plantagenets, I mean Lord Moira ; he offered to prove at the 
 bar of the English House of Lords ; and I hope he will come here and 
 make the same offer, facts within his own knowledge. Have you heard 
 of that offer ? If you have not, there is not a man about you but has. 
 Will you then be warranted to say, on your oaths, that the traverser 
 printed this publication in the malignity of his heart ? Have any of 
 you travelled through the country ? Have you observed the situation 
 of it ? If you liave, and find that the traverser has misrepresented 
 every circumstance, find him guilty. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher concluded, by requesting the jury to look to the con- 
 duct of the English jurors, in the cases of Home Tooke, and Thelwall ; 
 where, though they acquitted them, after long and heavy trials, the 
 verdicts gave satisfaction. He conjured the jury to weigh well the 
 
PETER FINERTY. 521 
 
 intention of the traverser ; if they were satisfied that he did publish 
 the letter in question ; and if, after the evidence that would be adduced, 
 they should be of opinion that the traverser did publish those facts 
 (most of which Lord Moira had offered to verify at the bar of the 
 English House of Lords) falsely, and with the malicious and seditious 
 purpose laid in the indictment, that then, and in that case only, could 
 they be warranted to find the traverser guilty. 
 
 The Right Hon. Lord Yelverton. — Examined by Mr. Sampson. 
 
 Q. I beg of your lordship to look at that writing (a paper produced 
 to his lordship). A. I believe the name subscribed to it is mine. 
 
 Q. Did not your lordship try William Orr ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Did your lordship transmit the recommendation of the jury ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. Does your lordship know how often he was respited? A. 
 According to my recollection he was respited twice ; three times, if I 
 may mention the respite of his execution at the assizes. You asked if 
 I sent the recommendation. I did send it to Mr. Pelham, and I got 
 an answer that the Lord Lieutenant was not in town, and that he had 
 no opportunity of consulting him ; and that therefore for the present 
 he could do no more than recommend a respite for two days ; in con- 
 sequence of which I respited the execution for sixteen days, in order 
 to give time. After I came to town, there was another of a few days 
 — (I believe from Monday to Thursday) and then a further one of a 
 few days more. 
 
 Q. Does your lordship know Doctor M'Cartney's hand-writing ? 
 A. I do not believe I do ; I never saw him write. I know him, and 
 did when in the College ; but I cannot say that I ever saw him write. 
 
 Q. Does your lordship know did Mr. M'Cartney lay any affidavit 
 before government respecting Wheatly, the witness, against Mr. Orr ? 
 A. I know he did. 
 
 Q. Does your lordship know was it an imputation against the 
 character of Wheatly ? 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — I object to his lordship answering that 
 question. 
 
 Lord Yelverton. — I would have it understood that I have no 
 objection to answer any question. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes I am decidedly of opinion that such evidence 
 
 is not admissible. 
 
 Mr. Sampson Then your lordship's decision is, that we cannot 
 
 go into any evidence of the truth of the publication, either for the 
 end of justification or extenuation. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes I do ; I hold it so expressly. I hold it to be 
 
 the constant law. It is the law of the land. It has never been a 
 doubt ; it is a question not even admitted to debate. The question 
 was put to the twelve judges while the libel bill was in progress. 
 The question was, whether the truth or falsehood were material, or to 
 be let to go to the jury on the trial of a libel ; and to that question it 
 was answered, that truth or falsehood is not material, or to be left to 
 a jury on the trial of an information or indictment ; and the opinion 
 goes further and says, we consider it so firmly settled that it cannot 
 now be drawn into debate. 
 
^1 
 
 522 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Orr (for the traverser) If your lordship has not fully 
 
 determined, I trust I might be able to show your lordship, particu- 
 larly in the case of the seven bishops, who were charged with a libel 
 for falsely and maliciously denying the dispensing power, the court 
 permitted them to produce the rolls of pai'liament to shew they were 
 true. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes I am determined on the inadmissibility of 
 
 the truth of the fact. 
 
 Mr. Orr I do not consider the decision of Holloway and Powel 
 
 less constitutional, though they were displaced by King James for 
 that opinion. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — If it wanted anything to strengthen it, it is 
 to be found in the act of parliament. It has been adopted by the 
 judges ; and they have not thought fit to vary the practice. 
 
 Mr. E. Cooke, Chief Clerk in the Secretary of State's office 
 
 Examined by Mr. M'Nally. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect a paper transmitted to your office by Lord 
 Yelverton, as the recommendation of the jury that convicted Mr. 
 Orr ? A. I do recollect it was sent. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect if any paper was brought to your office re- 
 specting the trial of Mr. Orr, and delivered by Mr. Macartney in 
 person ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes What relevancy does that bear to the case ? 
 
 Mr. M'Nally To shew that mercy was denied. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — I will not suffer that evidence to be gone 
 into. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally (to Mr. Cooke) — Do you know whetlier the papers 
 containing the recommendation of the jury that convicted Mr. Orr 
 were laid before the Lord Lieutenant ? 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes. — I will not let that question be answered. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally (to the jury). — Since evidence of truth will not be 
 allowed, the jury will conclude that the evidence rejected is true. 
 
 Evidence on both sides closed. 
 
 The evidence being closed, Mr. Curran addressed the court and 
 jury on the part of the traverser. Nevei", said he, did I feel myself 
 so sunk under the importance of any cause ; to speak to a question of 
 this kind at any time, would require the greatest talent and the most 
 matured deliberation ; but to be obliged, without cither of these ad- 
 vantages, to speak to a question that hath so deeply shaken the feel- 
 ings of this already irritated and agitated nation, is a task that fills 
 me with embarrassment and dismay. Neither my learned colleague 
 or myself received any instruction or license until after the jury were 
 actually sworn, and we both of us came here, under an idea that we 
 should not take any part in the trial. This circumstance I mention, 
 not as an idle apology for an effort that cannot be the subject of 
 either praise or censure, but as a call upon you, gentlemen of the 
 jury, to supply the defects of my efforts by a double exertion of your 
 attention. 
 
 Perhaps I ought to regret that I cannot begin with any compliment 
 that may recommend me or my client personally to your favour. 
 A more artful advocate would probably begin his address to you by 
 
PETER FINERTY. 523 
 
 compliments on youi- patriotism, and by felicitating his client upon 
 the happy selection of his jury, and that unsuspected impartiality in 
 which, if he was innocent, he must be safe. You must be conscious, 
 gentlemen, that such idle verbiage as that could not convey either 
 my sentiments or my client's upon that subject. You know, and 
 we know, upon what occasion you are come, and by whom you have 
 been chosen ; you are come to try an accusation professedly brought 
 forward by the state, chosen by a sheriff who is appointed by our 
 accuser. 
 
 (Here Mr. Attorney- General said the sheriff was elected by the 
 city, and that that observation was therefore unfounded.) 
 
 Be it so ; I will not now stop to inquire whose property the city 
 may be considered to be, but the learned gentleman seems to forget 
 that the election by that city, to whosoever it may belong, is abso- 
 lutely void without the approbation of that very Lord Lieutenant, 
 who is the prosecutor in this case. I do, therefore, repeat, gentlemen, 
 that not a man of you has been called to that box by the voice of my 
 client ; that he has had no power to object to a single man among 
 you, though the crown has, and that you yourselves must feel under 
 what influence you are chosen, or for what qualifications you are 
 particularly selected. At a moment when this wretched land is 
 shaken to its centre by the dreadful conflicts of the different branches 
 of the community, between those who call themselves the partisans of 
 liberty, and those who call themselves the partisans of power ; 
 between the advocates of infliction and the advocates of suffer- 
 ing ; upon such a question as the present, and at such a season, 
 can any man be at a loss to guess from what class of character and 
 opinion, a friend to either party would resort for that jury which 
 was to decide betAveen both. I trust, gentlemen, you know me too 
 well to suppose that I could be capable of treating you with any per- 
 sonal disrespect ; I am speaking to you in the honest confidence of 
 your fellow-citizen. "When I allude to those unworthy imputations 
 of supposed bias, or passion, or partiality, that may have marked you 
 out for your present situation ; I do so in order to warn you of th.e 
 ground on which you stand, of the point of awful responsibility in 
 which you are placed, to your conscience and to your country ; and to 
 remind you that if you have been put into that box from any unworthy 
 reliance on your complaisance or your servility, you have it in your 
 power, before you leave it, to refute and to punish so vile an expec- 
 tation by the integrity of your verdict ; to remind you that you have 
 it in your power to shew to as many L'ishmen as yet linger in their 
 country, that all law and justice have not taken their flight with our 
 prosperity and our peace ; that the sanctity of an oath and the honesty 
 of a juror are not yet dead amongst us ; and that if our courts of justice 
 are superseded by so many strange and terrible tribunals, it is not 
 because they are deficient either in wisdom or virtue. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is necessary that you should have a clear idea, first, 
 of the law by which this question is to be decided ; secondly, of the 
 nature and object of the prosecution. As to the first, it is my duty 
 to inform you that the law respecting libels has been much changed 
 of late. Heretofore, in consequence of some decisions of the judges in 
 Westminster-hall, the jury was conceived to have no province but 
 
524 TftlAL OF 
 
 that of finding the truth of" the inuendoes and the fact of publication ; 
 but the libellous nature of that publication, as well as the guilt or 
 innocence of the publication, were considered as exclusively belong- 
 ing to the court. In a system like that of law, which reasons logically, 
 no one erroneous principle can be introduced, without producing 
 every other that can be deducible from it. If, in the premises of any 
 argument, you admit one erroneous proposition, nothing but bad 
 reasoning can save the conclusion from falsehood. So it has been 
 with this encroachment of the court upon the province of the jury 
 with respect to libels. The moment the court assumed as a principle 
 that they, the court, were to decide upon everything but the publi- 
 cation ; that is, that they were to decide upon the question of libel or 
 no libel, and upon the guilt or innocence of the intention, which must 
 form the essence of every crime ; the guilt or innocence must, of 
 necessity, have ceased to be material. You see, gentlemen, clearly 
 that the question of intention is a mere question of fact. Now, the 
 moment the court determined that the jury was not to try that ques- 
 tion, it followed, of necessity, that it was not to be tried at all ; for the 
 court cannot try a question of fact. When the court said that it was 
 not triable, there was no way of fortifying that extraordinary propo- 
 sition, except by asserting that it was not material. The same 
 erroneous reasoning carried them another step, still more mischievous 
 and unjust; if the intention had been material, it must have been 
 decided upon as a mere fact under all its circumstances. Of these 
 circumstances, the meanest understanding can see that the leading one 
 must be the truth or the falsehood of the publication ; but, having 
 decided the intention to be immaterial, it followed that the truth must 
 be equally immaterial; and, under the law so distorted, any man in 
 England who published the most undeniable truth, and with the 
 purest intention, might be punished for a crime in the most igno- 
 minious manner, without imposing on the prosecutor the necessity of 
 proving his guilt, or getting any opportunity of shewing his inno- 
 cence. I am not in the habit of speaking of legal institutions with 
 disrespect, but I am warranted in condemning that usiirpation upon 
 the rights of juries, by the authority of that statute, by which your 
 jurisdiction is restored. For that restitution of justice, the British 
 subject is indebted to the splendid exertions of Mr. Fox and Mr. 
 Erskine, those distinguished supporters of the constitution and of the 
 law; and I am happy to say to you, that though we can claim no share 
 in the glory they have so justly acquired, we have the full benefit of 
 their success : for you are now sitting under a similar act, passed in 
 this country, which makes it your duty and your right to decide upon 
 the entire question, upon its broadest grounds, and vxnder all its 
 circumstances ; and, of course, to determine, by your verdict, Avhethcr 
 this publication be a false and scandalous libel ; false in fact, and 
 published with the seditious purpose alledged, of bringing the govern- 
 ment into scandal, and instigating the people to insurrection. 
 
 Having stated to you, gentlemen, the great and exclusive extent of 
 your jurisdiction, I shall beg leave to suggest to you a distinction 
 that will strike you at first sight ; and that is the distinction between 
 public animadversions upon the character of private individuals, and 
 those which are written upon measures of government, and the persons 
 
PETER PINERTY. 525 
 
 who conduct them. The former may be called personal, and the 
 latter political publications. No two things can be more diiferent in 
 their nature, nor in the point of view in which they are to be looked 
 on by a jury. The criminality of a mere personal libel consists in 
 this, that it tends to a breach of the peace ; it tends to all the vin- 
 dictive paroxysms of exasperated vanity, or to the deeper and more 
 deadly vengeance of irritated pride. The truth is, few men see at 
 once that they cannot be hurt so much as they think by the mere 
 battery of a newspaper. They do not reflect that every character 
 has a natural station, from which it cannot be effectually degraded, 
 and beyond which it cannot be raised by the bawling of a news- 
 hawker. If it is wantonly aspersed, it is but for a season, and that a 
 short one, when it emerges, like the moon, from a passing cloud to its 
 original brightness. It is right, however, that the law, and that you 
 should hold the strictest hand over this kind of public animadver- 
 sion, that forces humility and innocence from their retreat into the 
 glare of public view ; that wounds and terrifies, that destroys the 
 cordiality and the peace of domestic life, and that without eradicating 
 a single vice or a single folly, plants a thousand thorns in the human 
 heart. 
 
 In cases of that kind I perfectly agree with the law, as stated from 
 the bench ; in such cases, I hesitate not to think, that the truth of a 
 charge ought not to justify its publication. If a private man is 
 charged with a crime, he ought to be prosecuted in a court of justice, 
 where he may be punished if it is true, and the accuser if it be false ; 
 but far differently do I deem of the freedom of political publication. 
 The salutary restraint of the former species, which I talked of, is 
 found in the general law of all societies whatever ; but the more 
 enlarged freedom of the Press, for which I contend in political publi- 
 cation, I conceive to be founded in the peculiar nature of the Bi'itish 
 constitution, and to follow directly from the contract on which the 
 British government hath been placed by the Revolution. By the 
 British constitution, the power of the state is a trust, committed by 
 the people, upon certain conditions, by the violation of which, it may 
 be abdicated by those who hold, and resumed by those who conferred 
 it. The real security, therefore, of the British sceptre, is the senti- 
 ment and opinion of the people ; and it is consequently their duty to 
 observe the conduct of the government, and it is the privilege of every 
 man to give them full and just information upon that important sub- 
 ject. Hence the liberty of the Press is inseparably twined with the 
 liberty of the people. The Press is the great public monitor ; its 
 duty is that of the historian and the witness, that " Nil falsi audeat, 
 nil veri non audeat dicere ;" that its horizon shall extend to the 
 farthest verge and limit of truth ; that beyond that limit it shall not 
 dare to pass ; that it shall speak truth to the King, in the hearing of 
 the people, and to the people in the hearing of the King : that it shall 
 not perplex either the one or the other with false alarm, lest it lose 
 its chai-acter for veracity, and become an unheeded warner of real 
 danger, lest it should vainly warn them of that sin, of which the 
 inevitable consequence is death. This, gentlemen, is the great privi- 
 lege upon which you are to decide ; and I have detained you the 
 longer, because of the late change of tlie law, and because of some 
 
526 TRIAL OF 
 
 observations that have been made, which I shall find it necessary to 
 compare with the principles I have now laid down. 
 
 And now, gentlemen, let us come to the immediate subject of the 
 trial, as it is brought before you by the charge in the indictment, to 
 which it ought to have been confined ; and also, as it is presented to 
 you by the statement of the learned counsel, who has taken a much 
 wider range than the mere limits of the accusation, and has en- 
 deavoured to force upon your consideration extraneous and irrelevant 
 facts, for reasons which it is my duty to explain. The indictment 
 states simply that Mr. Finerty has published a false and scandalous 
 libel upon the Lord Lieutenant of L*eland, tending to bring his 
 government into disrepute, and to alienate the affections of the people ; 
 and one would have expected that, without stating any other matter, 
 the counsel for the crown would have gone directly to the proof of 
 this allegation ; but he has not done so ; he has gone to a most extra- 
 ordinary length, indeed, of preliminary observation, and an allusion 
 to facts, and sometimes an assertion of facts, at which, I own I was 
 astonished, until I saw the drift of these allusions and assertions. 
 "Whether you have been fairly dealt with by him, or are now honestly 
 dealt with by me, you must be judges. He has been pleased to say 
 that this prosecution is brought against this letter signed " Marcus," 
 merely as a part of what he calls a system of attack upon government 
 by the paper called the Press. As to this, I will only ask you whe- 
 ther you are fairly dealt with ? Whether it is fair treatment to men 
 upon their oaths, to insinuate to them, that the general character of 
 a newspaper (and that general character founded merely upon the 
 assertion of the prosecutor) is to have any influence upon their minds, 
 when they are to judge of a particular publication ? I will only ask 
 you what men you must be supposed to be, when it is thought that 
 even in a court of justice, and with the eyes of the nation upon you, 
 you can be tlie dupes of that trite and exploded expedient, so scanda- 
 lous of late in this country, of raising a vulgar and mercenary cry, 
 against whatever man, or whatever principle it is thought necessary 
 to put down ; and I shall, therefore, merely leave it to your own pride 
 to suggest upon what foundation it could be hoped that a senseless 
 clamour of that kind could be echoed back by the yell of a jury upon 
 their oaths. I trust you see that this has nothing to do with the 
 question. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, other matters have been mentioned, which 
 I must repeat for the same purpose ; that of shewing you that they 
 have nothing to do with the question. The learned counsel has been 
 pleased to say, that he comes forwai'd in this prosecution as the real 
 advocate for the liberty of the Press, and to protect a mild and a 
 merciful government from its licentiousness ; and he has been pleased 
 to add, that the constitution can never be lost while its freedom re- 
 mains, and that its licentiousness alone can destroy that freedom. As 
 to that, gentlemen, he might as well have said, that there is only one 
 mortal disease of which a man can die ; I can die the death inflicted 
 by tyranny ; and when he comes forward to extinguish this paper in 
 the ruin of the printer by a state prosecution, in order to prevent its 
 dying of licentiousness, you must judge how candidly he is ti*eating 
 you, both in the fact and in the reasoning. Ls it in Ireland, gentlemen. 
 
PETER FINEKTY- 527 
 
 that we are told licentiousness is the only disease that can be 
 mortal to the press ? Has he heard of nothing else that has been 
 fatal to the freedom of publication ? I know not whether the printer 
 of the Northern Star may have heard of such things in his captivity, 
 but I know that his wife and his children are well apprised that a 
 Press may be destroyed in open day, not by its own licentiousness, but 
 by the licentiousness of a military force. As to the sincerity of the 
 declaration that the state has prosecuted in order to assert tlie free- 
 dom of the Press ; it starts a train of thought, of melancholy retro- 
 spect, and direful prospect, to which I did not think the learned 
 counsel would have wished to commit your minds. It leads you 
 naturally to reflect at what times, from what motives, and with what 
 consequences the government has displayed its patriotism, by these 
 sorts of prosecutions. As to the motives, does history give you a 
 single instance in which the state has been provoked to these conflicts, 
 except by the fear of truth, and by the love of vengeance ? Have 
 you ever seen the rulers of any country bring forward a prosecution 
 from motives of filial piety, for libels upon their departed ancestors ? 
 Do you read that Elizabeth directed any of those state prosecutions 
 against the libels which the divines of her times had written against 
 her Catholic sister ; or against the other libels which the same gentle- 
 men had written against her Protestant father ? No, gentlemen, we 
 read of no such thing ; but we know she did bring forward a prose- 
 cution from motives of personal resentment, and we know that a jury 
 was found time-serving and mean enough to give a verdict, which she 
 was ashamed to carry into efiect. I said the learned counsel drew 
 you back to the times that have been marked by these miserable con- 
 flicts. I see you turn your thoughts to the reign of the second James. 
 I see you turn your eyes to those pages of govei'nniental abandonment, 
 of popular degradation, of expiring liberty, of merciless and sanguin- 
 ary persecution, to that miserable period, in which the fallen and 
 abject state of man might have been almost an argument in the mouth 
 of the Atheist and the blasphemer, against the existence of an all-j ust 
 and an all- wise first cause ; if the glorious era of the Revolution that 
 followed it, had not refuted the impious inference, by shewing that if 
 man descends, it is not in his own proper motion ; that it is with 
 labour and with pain, and that he can continue to sink only until by 
 the force and pressm-e of the descent, the spring of his immortal 
 faculties acquires that recuperative energy and efibrt that hurries him 
 as many miles aloft — he sinks but to rise again. It is at that period 
 that the state seeks for shelter in the destruction of the Press ; it is in 
 a period like that, that the tyrant prepares for the attack upon the 
 people by destroying the liberty of the Press ; by taking away that 
 shield of wisdom and of virtue, behind which the people are invulner- 
 able ; in whose pure and polished convex, ere the lifted blow has 
 fallen, he beholds his own image, and is turned into stone. It is at 
 those periods that the honest man dares not speak, because truth is 
 too dreadful to be told ; is it then humanity has no ears, because 
 humanity has no tongue ? It is then the proud man scorns to speak, but, 
 like a physician baffled by the wayward excesses of a dying patient, 
 retires indignantly from the bed of an unhappy wretch, whose ear is 
 too fastidious to bear the sound of wholesome advice, whose palate is 
 
528 TRIAL OF 
 
 too debauched to bear the salutary bitter of the medicine that might 
 redeem him ; and therefore leaves him to the felonious piety of the 
 slaves that talk to him of life, and strip him before he is cold. 
 
 I do not care, gentlemen, to exhaust too much of your attention by 
 following this subject through the last century with much minuteness; 
 but the facts are too recent in your mind not to shew you that the 
 liberty of the Press and the liberty of the people sink and rise together ; 
 that the liberty of speaking and the liberty of acting have shared 
 exactly the same fate. You must have observed in England that 
 their fate has been the same in the successive vicissitudes of tlieir late 
 depression ; and, sorry I am to add, that this country has exhibited a 
 melancholy proof of their inseparable destiny, through the various and 
 further stages of deterioration down to the period of their final ex- 
 tinction : when the constitution has given place to the sword, and the 
 only printer in Ireland who dares to speak for the people, is now in 
 the dock. 
 
 Gentlemen, the learned counsel has made the real subject of tliis 
 prosecution so small a part of his statement, and has led you into so 
 wide a range, certainly as necessary to the object, as inapplicable to 
 the subject of this prosecution, that I trust you will think me excusable 
 in somewhat following his example. Glad am I to find that I have the 
 authority of the same example, for coming at last to the subject of 
 this trial. I agree with the learned counsel, that the charge made 
 against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is that of having gi'ossly and 
 inhumanly abused the royal prerogative of mercy, of which the King 
 is only the trustee for the benefit of the people. The facts are not 
 controverted. It has been asserted, that their truth or falsehood is 
 indifferent, and they are shortly these, as they appear in this publi- 
 cation. 
 
 William Orr was indicted for having administered the oath of an 
 United Irishman. Every man now knows what that oath is ; that it 
 is simply an engagement, first, to promote a brotherhood of affection 
 among men of all religious distinctions ; secondly, to labour for the 
 attainment of a Parliamentary Reform ; and, thirdly, an obligation of 
 secrecy, which was added to it when the Convention law made it cri- 
 minal and punishable to meet by any public delegation for that purpose. 
 After remaining upwards of a year in gaol, Mr. Orr was brought to 
 his trial ; was prosecuted by the state ; was sworn against by a com- 
 mon informer of the name of Wheatly, who himself had taken the 
 obligation, and was convicted under the Insurrection act, which makes 
 the administering such an obligation felony of death. The jury 
 recommended Mr. Orr to mercy ; the judge, with an humanity 
 becoming his character transmitted the recommendation to the noble 
 prosecutor in this case. Three of the jurors made solemn affidavit 
 in court that liquor had been conveyed into their box ; that they 
 were brutally threatened by some of their fellow-jurors with capital 
 prosecution if they did not find the prisoner guilty ; and that under 
 the impression of those threats, and worn down by watching and 
 intoxication, they had given a verdict of guilty against him, though 
 they believed him in their conscience to be innocent. That further 
 enquiries were made, which ended in a discovery of the infamous life 
 and character of the informer ; that a respite was therefore sent once. 
 
PETER FINEKTY. 529 
 
 and twice, and thrice to give time, as Mr. Attorney- General has 
 stated, for his Excellency to consider whether mercy could be extended 
 to him or not ; and that with a knowledge of all these circumstances 
 his Excellency did finally determine that mercy should not be extended 
 to him, and that he was accordingly executed upon that verdict. Of 
 this publication, which the indictment charges to be i'alse and seditious, 
 Mr. Attorney- General is pleased to say that the design of it is to 
 bring the courts of justice into contempt. As to this point of fact, 
 gentlemen, I beg to set you right. 
 
 To the administration of justice, so far as it relates to the judges, 
 this publication has not even an allusion in any part mentioned in this 
 indictment ; it relates to a department of justice that cannot begin 
 until the duty of the judge is closed. Sorry should I be, that with 
 respect to this unfortunate man, any censure should be flung on those 
 judges who presided at this trial, with the mildness and temper that 
 became them upon so awful an occasion as the trial of life and death. 
 Sure am I, that if they had been charged with inhumanity or injus- 
 tice, and if they had condescended at all to prosecute the reviler, 
 they would not have come forward in the face of the public to say, 
 as has been said this day, that it was immaterial whether the charge 
 was true or not. Sure I am, their first object would have been to 
 show that it was false ; and i*eady should I have been, an eye-witness 
 of the fact, to have discharged the debt of ancient friendship, of pri- 
 vate respect, and of public duty, and, upon my oath, to have repelled 
 the falsehood of such an imputation. Upon this subject, gentlemen, 
 the presence of those venerable judges restrains what I might other- 
 wise have said; nor should I have named them at all if I had not 
 been forced to do so, and merely to undeceive you if you have been 
 made to believe their characters to have any community of cause 
 whatever with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. To him alone it is 
 confined, and against him the charge is made, as sti'ongly I suppose 
 as the writer could find words to express it, that the viceroy of 
 Ireland has cruelly abused the prerogative of royal mercy, in suffering 
 a man under such circumstances to perish like a common malefactor. 
 For this Mr. Attorney-General calls for your conviction as a false 
 and scandalous libel ; and after stating himself every fact that I have 
 repeated to you, either from his statement or from the evidence, he 
 tells you that you ought to find it false and scandalous; though he 
 almost in words admits that it is not false, and has resisted the admis- 
 sion of the evidence by which we offered to prove every word of it 
 to be true. 
 
 And here, gentlemen, give me leave to remind you of the parties 
 before you. The traverser is a printer, who follows that pi'ofession 
 for bread, and who at a time of great public misery and terror, when 
 the people are restrained by law from debating under any delegated 
 form ; when the few constituents that we have are prevented by force 
 from meeting in their own persons, to deliberate or to petition ; when 
 every other newspaper in Ireland is put down by force, or purchased 
 by the administration (though here, gentlemen, perhaps I ought to 
 beg your pardon for stating without authority — I recollect when we 
 attempted to examine as to the number of newspapers in the pay of 
 the Castle, that the evidence was objected to) ; at a season like this, 
 
 2 M 
 
530 TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Finerty has had the courage, perhaps the folly, to print the publi- 
 cation in question, Irom no motive under heaven to malice or vengeance, 
 but in the mere duty which he owes to his family and to the public. I 
 His prosecutor is the King's minister in Ireland : in that character ^ 
 does the learned gentleman mean to say, that his conduct is not a fair 
 subject of public observation ? Where does he find his authority for 
 that in the law or practice of the sister country ? Have the virtues, 
 or the exalted station, or the general love of his people preserved the 
 sacred person, even of the royal master of the prosecutor, from the 
 asperity and the intemperance of public censure, unfounded as it ever 
 must be, with any personal respect to his Majesty^ injustice, or truth? 
 Have the gigantic abilities of Mr. Pitt, have the more gigantic talents 
 of his great antagonist, Mr. Fox, protected either of them from the 
 insolent familiarity, and for aught to know, the injustice Avith which 
 writers have treated them ? What latitude of invective has the King's 
 minister escaped upon the subject of the present war ? Is there an 
 epithet of contumely or of reproach, that hatred or that fancy could 
 suggest, that are not publicly lavished upon him ? Do you not find 
 the words, "advocate of despotism, robber of the public treasure, 
 murderer of the King's subjects, debaucher of the public morality, 
 degrader of the constitution, tarnisher of the British empire," by 
 frequency of use lose all meaning whatsoever, and dwindle into terms, 
 not of any peculiar reproach, but of ordinary appellation ? And why, 
 gentlemen, is this permitted in that country ? I will tell you why : be- 
 cause in that countiy they are yet wise enough to see, that the measures 
 of the state are the proper subjects for the freedom of the Press ; 
 that the principles relating to personal slander do not apply to rulers 
 or to ministers ; that to publish an attack upon a public minister, 
 without any regard to truth, but merely because of its tendency to a 
 breach of the peace, would be ridiculous in the extreme. What 
 breach of the peace, gentlemen, I pray you in such a case ? Is it the 
 tendency of such publications to provoke Mi-. Pitt or Mr. Dundas to 
 break the head of the writer, if they sliould happen to meet him ? 
 No, gentlemen, in that country this freedom is exercised, because the 
 people feel it to be their right ; and it is wisely suffered to pass by 
 the state, from a consciousness that it would be vain to oppose it — a 
 conciousness confirmed by the event of every incautious experiment. 
 It is suffered to pass from a conviction that in a court of justice at 
 least the bulwarks of the constitution will not be svirrendered to the 
 state ; and that the intended victim, whether clothed in the humble 
 guise of honest industiy, or decked in the honours of genius, and 
 virtue, and philosophy, whether an Hardy or a Tooke, will find cer- 
 tain protection in the honesty and spirit of an English jury. 
 
 But, gentlemen, I suppose Mr. Attorney will scarcely wish to carry 
 his doctrine altogether so far. Indeed, I remember, he declared 
 himself a most zealous advocate for the liberty of the Press. I may, 
 therefore, even according to him, presume to make some observations 
 on the conduct of the existing government. I should wish to know 
 how far he supposes it to extend. Is it to the composition of lampoons 
 and madrigals, to be sung down the grates by ragged ballad-mongers 
 to kitchen-maids and footmen? I will not suppose that he means to 
 confine it to the ebullitions of Billingsgate, to those cataracts of 
 
PETER FINERTY. 531 
 
 ribaldry and scurrility, that are daily spouting upon the miseries of 
 our wretched fellow-suffei-ers, and the unavailing elForts of those who 
 have vainly laboured in their cause. I will not suppose that he con- 
 fines it to the poetic licence of a birth-day ode — the Laureat would 
 not use such language — in which case I do entirely agree with him, 
 that the truth or the falsehood is as perfectly immaterial to the law, 
 as it is to the Laureat ; as perfectly unrestrained by the law of the land, 
 as it is by any law of decency, or shame, or modesty, or decorum. 
 But as to the privilege of censure or blame, I am sorry that the 
 learned gentleman has not favoured you with his notion of the liberty 
 of the Press. Suppose an Irish viceroy acts a very little absurdity. 
 May the Press venture to be respectfully comical upon that absurdity ? 
 The learned counsel does not at least in terms give a negative to that. 
 But let me treat you honestly, and go further, to a more material 
 point : suppose an Irish viceroy does an act that brings scandal 
 upon his master — that fills the mind of a reasonable man with the 
 fear of approaching despotism, that leaves no hope to the people of 
 preserving themselves and their children from chains, but in common 
 confederacy for common safety. What is that honest man in that 
 case to do ? I am sorry the right honourable advocate for the liberty 
 of the Press has not told you his opinion, at least in any express 
 words. I will therefore venture to give you my far humbler thought 
 upon the subject. I think an honest man ought to tell the people 
 frankly and boldly of their peril, and I must say I can imagine no 
 villainy greater than that of holding a traitorous silence at such a crisis 
 — except the villainy and baseness of prosecuting him ; or of finding 
 him guilty for such an honest discharge of his public duty. And I 
 found myself on the known principle of the Revolution of England, 
 namely, that the crown itself may be abdicated by certain abuses of 
 the trust reposed, and that there are possible excesses of arbitrary 
 power, Avhich it is not only the right but the bounden duty of 
 every honest man to resist at the risk of his fortune and his life. 
 Now, gentlemen, if this reasoning be admitted, and it cannot be 
 denied — if there be any possible event in which the people lue 
 obliged to look only to themselves, and are justified in doing so, can 
 you be so absurd as to say that it is lawful to the people to act 
 upon it when it unfortunately does arrive, but that it is criminal in 
 any man to tell them that the miserable event has actually arrived, 
 or is imminently approaching ? Far am I, gentlemen, from insinu- 
 ating that (extreme as it is) our misery has been matured into any 
 deplorable crisis of this kind, from which I pray that the Almighty 
 God may for ever preserve us. But I am putting my principle upon 
 the strongest ground, and most favourable to my opponents, namely, 
 that it never can be criminal to say anything of the government but 
 what is false, and I put this in the extreme in order to demonstrate 
 to you a fortiori, that the privilege of speaking tr«th to the people 
 which holds in the last extremity must also obtain in every stage of 
 inferior importance ; and that, however, a court may have decided 
 before the late act, that the truth was immaterial in case of libel, that 
 since that act no honest jury can be governed by such a principle. 
 
 Be pleased now, gentlemen, to consider the grounds upon which 
 this publication is called a libel, and criminal. Mr. Attorney tells 
 
532 TRIAL OF 
 
 you, it tends to excite sedition and insurrection. Let me again 
 remind you, that the truth of this charge is not denied by the noble 
 prosecutor. What is it tlien that tends to excite sedition and insur- 
 rection ? The act that is charged upon the prosecutor, and is not 
 attempted to be denied. And, gracious God ! gentlemen of the 
 jury, is the public statement of the King's representative this ? "I 
 have done a deed that must fill the mind of every feeling or thinking 
 man with horror and indignation, that must alienate every man that 
 knows it, from the King's government, and endanger the separation 
 of this distracted empire ; the tni.verser has had the guilt of publish- 
 ing this fact, which I myself acknowledge, and I pray you to find 
 him guilty." Is this the case which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 
 brings forward ? Is this the principle for which he ventures, at a 
 dreadful crisis like the present, to contend in a court of justice? Is 
 this the picture which he wishes to hold out of himself to the justice 
 and humanity of his own covmtrymen ? Is this the history which he 
 wishes to be read by the poor Irishman of the south and of the 
 BOrth, by the sister nation and the common enemy ? 
 
 With the profoundest respect, permit me humbly to defend his 
 Excellency, even against his own opinion. The guilt of this 
 publication he is pleased to think consists in this, that it tends to 
 insurrection. Upon what can such a fear be supported ? After the 
 multitudes that have perished in this unhappy nation within the last 
 three yeai*s, and which has been borne with a patience unparalleled 
 in the story of nations, can any man suppose that the fate of a single 
 individual could lead to resistance or insuiTection ? But suppose that 
 it might, Avhat ought to be the conduct of an honest man ? Should it 
 not be to apprise the government and the country of the approaching 
 danger ? Should it not be to say to the viceroy, you will drive the 
 people to madness if you persevere in such bloody councils, you will 
 alienate the Irish nation, you will distract the common force, and you 
 will invite the common enemy. Should not an honest man say to the 
 people, the measure of yovir affliction is great, but you need not resort 
 for remedy to any desperate expedients. If the King's minister is 
 defective in humanity or wisdom, his royal master, and your beloved 
 Sovereign, is abounding in both ; at such a moment can you be so 
 senseless as not to feel that any one of you ought to hold such lan- 
 guage, or is it possible you could be so infatuated as to pvmish the 
 man who was honest enough to hold it ? Or is it possible that you 
 could bring yourselves to say to your country, that at such a season 
 the Press ought to sleep upon its post ; or to act like the perfidious 
 watchman on his round, that sees the villain wrenching the door, or the 
 flames bursting from the windows, while the inhabitant is wrapt in 
 sleep, and cries out that " past five o'clock, the morning is fair, and 
 all well." 
 
 On this part of the case I shall only put one question to you. I 
 do not affect to say it is similar in all its points ; I do not affect to 
 compare the humble fortunes of Mr. Orr with the sainted names of 
 Russell or of Sydney ; still less am I willing to find any likeness 
 between the present period and the year 1683. But I will put a 
 question to you, completely parallel in principle. When that 
 unhappy and misguided Monai'ch had shed the sacred blood which 
 
PETER FINERTY. 533 
 
 their noble hearts had matured into a fit cement of revolution, if 
 any honest Englishman had been brought to trial for daring to pro- 
 claim to the world his abhorrence of such a deed, what would you 
 have thought of the English jury that could have said — we know 
 in our hearts that what he said was true and honest ; but we will say 
 upon our oaths that it was false and criminal, and we will by that 
 base subserviency, add another item to the catalogue of public wrongs, 
 and another argument for the necessity of an appeal to heaven for 
 redress ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I am perfectly aware that what I say may be easily 
 misconstrued, but if you listen to me with the same fairness that I 
 address you, I cannot be misunderstood. When I show you the full 
 extent of your political rights and remedies ; when I answer those 
 slanderers of British liberty, which degrade the Monarch into a despot, 
 who degrade the steadfastness of law into the waywardness of will ; 
 when I show you the inestimable stores of political wealth so dearly 
 acquired by our ancestors, and so solemnly bequeathed ; and when I 
 show you how much of that precious inheritance has yet survived all 
 the prodigality of their posterity, I am far from saying that I stand 
 in need of it all ui^on the present occasion. No, gentlemen, far indeed 
 am I from such a sentiment. No man more deeply than myself, 
 deplores the present melancholy state of our unhappy country. 
 Neither does any man more fervently wish for the return of peace 
 and tranquillity through the natural channels of niei'cy and of justice. 
 I have seen too much of force and of violence, to hope much good 
 from the continuance of them on one side, or retaliation from another. 
 I have seen too much of late of political re-building, not to have 
 observed that to demolish is not the shortest way to repair. It is 
 with pain and anguish that I should search for the miserable right of 
 breaking ancient ties, or going in quest of new relations or untried 
 adventurers. No, gentlemen, the case of my client rests upon these 
 sad privileges of despair. I trust that as to the fact, namely, the 
 intention of exciting insurrection, you must see it cannot be found in 
 this publication, that it is the mere idle, unsupported imputation of 
 malice, or panic, or falsehood. And that as to the law, so far has 
 he been from transgressing the limits of the constitution, that whole 
 regions lie between him and those limits which he has not trod ; and 
 which, I pray to heaven, it may never be necessary for any of us to 
 tread. 
 
 Gentlemen, Mr. Attorney- General has been pleased to open 
 another battery upon this publication, which I do trust I shall silence, 
 unless I flatter myself too much in supposing that hitherto my resist- 
 ance has not been utterly unsuccessful. He abuses it for the foul and 
 insolent familiarity of its address. I do clearly understand his idea : 
 he considers the freedom of the Press to be the licence of offering 
 that paltry adulation which no man ought to stoop to utter or to hear 
 — he supposes the freedom of the Press ought to be like the freedom 
 of a King's jester, who, instead of reproving the faults of which his 
 Majesty ought to be ashamed, is base and cunning enough, under the 
 mask of servile and adulatory censure, to stroke down and pamper 
 those vices of which he is foolish enough to be vain. He would not 
 have the Press presume to tell the viceroy that the prerogative of 
 
(J34 TRIAL OF 
 
 mercy is a trust for the benefit of the subject, and not a gaudy feather 
 stuck into the diadem to shake in the wind, and by the waving of the 
 gaudy plumage to amuse the vanity of tlie wearer. He would not 
 have it say to him that the discretion of the crown as to mercy, is like 
 the discretion of a court of justice as to law; and that in the one case, 
 as well as the other, wherever the propriety of the exercise of it 
 appears, it is equally a matter of right. He would have the Press 
 all fierceness to the people, and all sycophancy to power ; he would 
 have it consider the mad and phrenetic depopulations of autho- 
 rity, like the awful and inscrutable dispensations of Providence, 
 and say to the unfeeling and despotic spoiler, in the blasphemed 
 and insulted language of religious resignation — " the Lord hath given, 
 and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord ! ! ! " 
 But let me condense the generality of the learned gentleman's invec- 
 tive into questions that you can conceive. Does he mean that the air 
 of this publication is rustic and unworthy ? Does he mean that when 
 " Marcus" presumed to ascend the steps of the Castle, and to address 
 the vicei'oy, he did not turn out his toes as he ought to have done ? — 
 but, gentlemen, you are not a jury of dancing-masters — or does the 
 learned gentleman mean that the language is coarse and vulgar ? If 
 this be his complaint, my client has but a poor advocate. I do not 
 pretend to be a mighty grammarian or a formidable critic ; but I 
 would beg leave to suggest to you in serious humility, that a free Press 
 can be supported only by the ardour of men who feel the prompting 
 sting of real or supposed capacity ; who write from the enthusiasm of 
 virtue, or the ambition of pi'aise ; or over whom if you exercise the 
 rigour of a grammatical censorship, you will inspire them with as 
 mean an opinion of your integrity as your wisdom, and inevitably 
 drive them from their post — and if you do, rely upon it you will 
 reduce the spirit of publication, and with it the Press of this country, 
 to what it for a long interval has been, the register of births, and fairs, 
 and funerals, and the general abuse of the people and their friends. 
 But, gentlemen, in order to bring this charge of insolence and vul- 
 garity to the test, let me ask you whether you know of any language 
 which could have adequately described the idea of mercy denied where 
 it ought to have been granted, or of any phrase vigorous enough to 
 convey the indignation which an honest man would have felt upon such 
 a subject ? Let me beg of you for a moment to suppose that any one 
 of you had been the writer of this very severe expostulation with the 
 viceroy, and that you had been the witness of the whole progress of 
 this never-to-be-forgotten catastrophe. Let me suppose that you had 
 known the charge upon which Mi*. Orr was apprehended — the charge 
 of abjuring that bigotry which had torn and disgraced his country, of 
 pledging himself to restore the people of his countiy to their place in 
 the constitution, and of binding himself never to be the betrayer of his 
 fellow-labourers in that enterprise ; that you had seen him upon that 
 charge removed from his industry, and confined in a gaol ; that through 
 the slow and lingering progress of twelve tedious months you had seen 
 him confined in a dungeon, shut out from the common use of air and 
 of his own limbs ; that day after day you had marked the unhappy 
 captive, cheered by no sound but- the cries of his family, or the clink- 
 ing of chains ; that you had seen him at last brought to his trial ; that 
 
VETER VINERTY. 535 
 
 you had seen the vile and perjured informer deposing against his life; 
 that you had seen the drunken, and worn-out, and terrified jury give in 
 a verdict of death ; that you had seen the same jury, when their return- 
 ing sobriety had brought back their consciences, prostrate themselves 
 before the humanity of the bench, and pray that the mercy of the crown 
 might save their characters from the reproach of an involuntary crime, 
 their consciences from the torture of eternal self-condemnation, and 
 their souls from the indelible stain of innocent blood. Let me suppose 
 that you had seen the respite given, and that contrite and honest recom- 
 mendation transmitted to that seat where mercy was presumed to dwell ; 
 that new, and before unheard-of, crimes are discovered against the 
 informer ; that the royal mercy seems to relent, and that a new respite 
 is sent to the prisoner ; that time is taken, as the learned counsel for the 
 crown has expressed it, to see whether mercy could be extended or not ! 
 that after that period of lingering deliberation passed, a third respite is 
 transmitted ; that the unhappy captive himself feels the cheering hope 
 of being restored to a family that he had adored, to a character that 
 he had never stained, and to a country that he had ever loved ; that 
 you had seen his wife and children upon their knees, giving those tears 
 to gratitude which their locked and frozen hearts could not give to 
 anguish and despair, and imploring the blessings of eternal Providence 
 upon his head who had graciously spared the father, and restored him 
 to his children ; that you had seen the olive branch sent into his little 
 ark, but no sign that the waters had subsided. " Alas ! nor wife 
 nor children more shall he behold ; nor friends nor sacred home !" 
 No seraph mercy unbars his dungeon, and leads him forth to light and 
 life, but the minister of death hurries him to the scene of suffering and 
 of shame ; where, unmoved by the hostile array of artillery and 
 armed men collected together, either to secure, or to insult, or to 
 disturb him, he dies with a solemn declaration of his innocence, and 
 utters his last breath in a prayer for the liberty of his country. Let 
 me now ask you, if any of you had addressed the public ear upon so 
 foul and monstrous a subject, in what language would you have con- 
 veyed the feelings of horror and indignation ? Would you have 
 stooped to the meanness of qualified complaint ? — would you have been 
 mean enough ? But I entreat your forgiveness — I do not think 
 meanly of you ; had I thought so meanly of you, I could not suffer 
 my mind to commune with you as it has done ; had I thought you 
 that base and vile instrument, attuned by hope and by- fear into dis- 
 cord and falsehood, from whose vulgar string no groan of suffering 
 could vibrate, no voice of integrity or honour could speak ; let me 
 honestly tell you, I should have scorned to fling my hand across it ; I 
 should have left it to a fitter minstrel ; if I do not therefore grossly err 
 in my opinion of you, I could use no language upon such a subject as 
 this, that must not lag behind the rapidity of your feelings, and that 
 would not disgrace those feelings if it attempted to describe them. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am not unconscious that the learned counsel for the 
 crown seemed to address you with a confidence of a very different 
 kind ; he seemed to expect a kind and respectful sympathy from you 
 with the feelings of the Castle, and the griefs of chided authority. 
 Perhaps, gentlemen, he may know you better than I do ; if he does, 
 he has spoken to you as he ought ; he has been I'ight in telling you, 
 
536 THIAL OF 
 
 that if the reprobation of this writer is weak, it is because his genius 
 could not make it stronger ; he has been right in telling you that his 
 language has not been braided and festooned as elegantly as it might ; 
 that he has not pinched the miserable plaits of his phraseology, nor 
 placed his patches and feathers with that correctness of millinery 
 which became so exalted a person. If you agree with him, gentlemen 
 of the jury — if you think that the man who, at the hazard of his own 
 life, to rescue from the deep the drowned honour of his country, must 
 not presume upon the guilty familiarity of plucking it up by the locks, 
 I have no more to say ; do a courteous thing. Upright and honest 
 jurors, find a civil and obliging verdict against the printer! and when 
 you have done so, march through the ranks of your fellow-citizens to 
 your homes, and bear their looks as they pass along ; retire to the 
 bosom of your families and your children, and when you are presiding 
 over the morality of the parental board, tell those infants, who are to 
 be the future men of Ireland, the history of this day. Form their 
 young minds by your precepts, and confirm those precepts by your 
 own example ; teach them how discreetly allegiance may be perjured 
 on the table, or loyalty be forsworn in the jury-box; and when you 
 have done so, tell them the story of Orr ; tell them of his captivity, 
 of his children, of his crime, of his hopes, of his disappointments, of 
 his courage, and of his death ; and when you find your little hearers 
 hanging from your lips, when you see their eyes overflow with sym- 
 pathy and sorrow, and their young hearts bursting with the pangs of 
 anticipated orphanage, tell them that you had the boldness and the 
 justice to stigmatise the monster — who had dared to publish the trans- 
 action ! Gentlemen, I believe I told you before that the conduct of 
 the viceroy was a small part indeed of the subject of this trial. If the 
 vindication of his mere personal character had been as it ought to 
 have been, the sole object of this prosecution, I should have felt the 
 most respectful regret at seeing a person of his high consideration 
 come forward in a court of public justice, in one and the same breath 
 to admit the truth, and to demand the punishment of a publication 
 like the present ; to prevent the chance he might have had of such an 
 accusation being disbelieved, and by a prosecution like this to give to 
 the passing stricture of a newspaper that life, and body, and action, 
 and reality that proves it to all mankind, and makes the record of it 
 indelible. Even as it is, I do own I feel the utmost concern that his 
 name should have been soiled by being mixed in a question of which 
 it is the mere pretext and scape-goat. Mr. Attorney was too wise to 
 state to you the real question or the object which he wished to be 
 answered by your verdict. Do you remember that he was pleased to 
 say that this publication was a base and foul misrepresentation of the 
 virtue and wisdom of the government, and a false and audacious 
 statement to the world that the King's government in Ireland was base 
 enough to pay informers for taking away the lives of the people ? 
 When I heard this statement to-day I doubted whether you were 
 aware of its tendency or not. It is now necessary that I should ex- 
 plain it to you more at large. 
 
 You cannot be ignorant of the great conflict between prerogative 
 and privilege, which hath convulsed the country for the last fifteen 
 years. When I say privilege, you cannot suppose that I mean the 
 
PETER FINERTY. 537 
 
 privileges of the House of Commons — I mean the priviliges of the 
 'people. You are no strangers to the various modes by Avhich the 
 people laboured to approach their object — delegations, conventions, 
 remonstrances, resolutions, petitions to the parliament, petitions to 
 the throne. It might not be decorous in this place to state to you 
 with any sharpness the various modes of resistance that were employed 
 on the other side ; but all of you seem old enough to remember 
 the variety of acts of parliament that have been made, by which the 
 people were deprived, session after session, of what they had supposed 
 to be the known and established fundamentals of the constitution — the 
 right of public debate, the right of public petition, the right of bail, 
 the right of trial, the right of arms for self-defence ; until at last, even 
 the relics of popular privilege became superseded by military force ; 
 the Press extinguished ; and the state found its last entrenchment in 
 the grave of the constitution. As little can you be strangers to the 
 tremendous confederations of himdreds of thousands of our coimtry- 
 men, of the nature and the objects of which such a variety of opinions 
 have been propagated and entertained. 
 
 The writer of this letter has presumed to censure the recall of Lord 
 Fitzwilliam, as well as the measures of the present viceroy. Into this 
 subject I do not enter ; but you cannot yourselves forget that the con- 
 ciliatory measures of the former noble lord had produced an almost 
 miraculous unanimity in this countiy ; and much do I regret, and 
 sure I am that it is not without pain you can reflect how unfortunately 
 the conduct of his successor has terminated. His intentions might 
 have been the best, I neither know them nor condemn them, but their 
 terrible effects you cannot be blind to. Every new act of coercion 
 has been followed by some new symptom of discontent ; and every 
 new attack provoked some new paroxysm of resentment, or some new 
 combination of resistance. In this deplorable state of affairs, con- 
 vulsed and distracted within, and menaced by a most formidable 
 enemy from without, it was thought that public safety might be found 
 in union and conciliation, and repeated applications were made to the 
 parliament of this kingdom for a calm inquiry into the complaints of 
 the people ; these applications were made in vain. Impressed by the 
 same motives, Mr. Fox brought the same subject before the Commons 
 of England, and ventured to ascribe the perilous state of Ireland to 
 the severity of its government. Even his stupendous abilities, excited 
 by the liveliest sympathy with our sufferings, and animated by the most 
 ardent zeal to restore the strength with the union of the empire, were 
 repeatedly exerted without success. The fact of discontent was denied ; 
 the fact of coei'cion was denied ; and the consequence was, the coer- 
 cion became more implacable, and the discontent more threatening and 
 irreconcilable. A similar application was made in the beginning of 
 this session in the Lords of Great Britain by our illustrious country- 
 man — of whom I do not wonder that my learned friend should have ob- 
 served how much virtue can fling pedigree into the shade, or how much 
 the transient honour of a body inherited from man is obscured by the 
 lustre of an intellect derived from God. He, after being an eye-wit- 
 ness of this country, presented the miserable picture of what he had 
 seen ; and, to the astonishment of every man in Ireland, the existence 
 of those facts was ventured to be denied. The conduct of the present 
 
538 TRIAL OF 
 
 viceroy was justified and applauded, and the necessity of continuing 
 tliat conduct was insisted upon, as the only means of preserving the 
 constitution, the peace, and the prosperity of Ireland. The moment 
 the learned counsel had talked of this publication as a false statement 
 of the conduct of the government and the condition of the people, no 
 man could be at a loss to see that that awful question which had been 
 dismissed from the Commons of Ireland and from the Lords and Com- 
 mons of Great Britain, is now brought forward to be tried by a side- 
 wind, and in a collateral way by a criminal prosecution. 
 
 I tell you, therefore, gentlemen of the jury, it is not with respect to 
 Mr. Orr that your verdict is now sought ; you are called upon on your 
 oaths to say that the government is wise and merciful, that the people 
 are prosperous and happy, that military law ought to be continued, 
 that the British constitution could not with safety be restored to this 
 country, and that the statements of a contrary import by your 
 advocates in either country were libellous and false. I tell you these 
 are the questions, and I ask you can you have the front to give the 
 expected answer in the face of a community, who know the country 
 as well as you do. Let me ask you, how you could reconcile, with such 
 a verdict, the gaols, the tenders, the gibbets, the conflagrations, the 
 murdei'S, the pi'oclamations that we hear of every day in the streets, 
 and see every day in the country ? What are the processions of the 
 learned counsel himself, circuit after circuit ? Merciful God ! what 
 is the state of Ireland, and Avhere shall you find the wretched in- 
 habitant of this land ? You may find him, perhaps, in a gaol, the 
 only place of security, I had almost said of habitation ; you may see 
 him flying by the conflagrations of his own dwelling ; or you may 
 find his bones bleaching on the green fields of his country ; or he 
 may be found tossing upon the surface of the ocean, and mingling 
 his groans with those tempests, less savage than his persecutors, that 
 drift him to a returnless distance from his family and his home. And 
 yet with these facts ringing in the ears, and staring in the face of the 
 prosecutor, you are called upon to say, on your oaths, that these facts 
 do not exist. You are called upon in defiance of shame, of truth, 
 of honour, to deny the sufferings under which you groan, and to 
 flatter the persecution that tramples you under foot. 
 
 But the learned gentleman is further pleased to say, that the 
 traverser has charged the government with the encouragement of in- 
 formers. This, gentlemen, is another small fact that you ai'e to deny 
 at the hazard of your souls, and upon the solemnity of your oaths. 
 You are upon your oaths to say to the sister country that the govern- 
 ment of Ireland uses no such abominable instruments of destrviction 
 as informers. Let me ask you, honestly, what do you feel when in 
 my hearing, when in the face of this audience you are called upon to 
 give a verdict, that every man of us, and every man of you, know 
 by the testimony of your own eyes to be utterly and absolutely false ? 
 I speak not, now, of the public proclamation for informers with a 
 promise of secrecy and of extravagant reward ; I speak not of the 
 fate of those horrid wretches who have been so often transferred from 
 the table to the dock, and from the dock to the pillory ; I speak of 
 what your own eyes have seen day after day during the course of this 
 commission, from the box where you are now sitting ; the number of 
 
PETER FINEKTY. 539 
 
 horrid miscreants who avowed upon their oaths, that they had come 
 from the very seat of government ; — from the Castle, where they had 
 been worked upon by the fear of death and the hopes of compensa- 
 tion to give evidence against their fellows, that the mild and whole- 
 some councils of this government are holden over these catacombs of 
 living death, where the wretch that is buried a man, lies till his 
 heart has time to fester and dissolve, and is then dug up as a witness. 
 Is this fancy, or is it fact ? Have you not seen him after his resur- 
 rection from that tomb, after having been dug out of the region of 
 death and corruption, make his appearance upon the table, the living 
 image of life and of death, and the supreme arbiter of both ? Have 
 you not marked, when he entered, how the stormy wave of the multi- 
 tude retired at his approach ? Have you not marked how the human 
 heart bowed to the supremacy of his power, in the undissembled 
 homage of deferential horror ? How this glance, like the lightning 
 of heaven, seemed to rive the body of the accused, and mark it for the 
 grave, while his voice warned the devoted Avretch of woe and death — 
 a death which no innocence can escape, no art elude, no force resist, 
 no antidote prevent. There was an antidote — a juror's oath — but 
 even that adamantine chain that bound the integrity of man to the 
 throne of eternal justice, is solved and melted in the breath that issues 
 from the informer's mouth ; conscience swings from her mooring, and 
 the appalled and affrighted juror consults his own safety in the sur- 
 render of the victim — 
 
 Et quiB sibi quisque timebat, 
 
 Unius in miseri exitium conversa tulere. 
 
 Gentlemen, I feel I must have tired your patience, but I have been 
 forced into this length by the prosecutor who has thought fit to intro- 
 duce those extraordinary topics, and to bring a question of mere 
 politics to trial under the form of a criminal prosecution. I cannot 
 say I am surprised that this has been done, or that you should be 
 solicited by the same inducements and from the same motives as if 
 your verdict was a vote of approbation. I do not wonder that the 
 government of Ireland should stand appalled at the state to which 
 we are reduced. I wonder not they should start at the public voice, 
 and labour to stifle or to contradict it. I wonder not that at this 
 arduous crisis, when the very existence of the empire is at stake, and 
 when its strongest and most pi-ecious limb is not girt with the sword 
 for battle, but pressed by the tourniquet for amputation ; when they 
 find the coldness of death already begun in those extremities where 
 it never ends, that they are terrified at what they have done, and 
 wish to say to the surviving parties of that empire, " they cannot say 
 that we did it." I wonder not that they should consider this conduct 
 as no immaterial question for a court of criminal jurisdiction, and 
 wish anxiously as on an inquest of blood for the kind acquittal of a 
 friendly jury. I wonder not they should wish to close the chaos they 
 have opened by flinging you into the abyss. But trust me, my coun- 
 trymen, you might persist in it, but you could not close it ; trust me 
 if it is yet possible to close it, it can be done only by truth and 
 honour — trust me that such an effect could no more be wrought by 
 the sacrifice of a jury, than by the sacrifice of Orr. As a state 
 
540 TRIAL OF 
 
 measure, tlie one would be as unwise and unavailing as the other ; but 
 while you are yet upon the brink, while you are yet visible, let me, 
 before we part, remind you once more of your awful situation. The 
 law upon this subject gives you supreme dominion. Hope not for 
 much assistance from his lordship — on such occasions perhaps the duty 
 of the court is to be cold and neutral. I cannot but admire the dignity 
 he has supported during this trial : I am grateful for his patience. 
 But let me tell you it is not his province to fan the scared flame of 
 patriotism in the jury-box ; as he has borne with the little exti'ava- 
 gancies of the law, do you bear with the little failings of the Press. 
 Let me, therefore, remind you, that though the day may soon come 
 when our orders shall be scattered before the winds of heaven, the 
 memory of what you do cannot die ; it will carry down to your pos- 
 terity your honour or your shame. In the presence and in the name 
 of that ever-living God, I do therefore conjure you to reflect that 
 you have your characters, your consciences ; that you have also the 
 character, perhaps the ultimate destiny of your counti'y in yovxr hands. 
 In that awful name, I do conjure you to have mercy upon your 
 covuitry and upon yourselves, and so to judge now, as you will here- 
 after be judged ; and I do now submit the fate of my client, and of 
 that country which we yet have, in common, to your disposal. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serge ANT replied to Mr. Curran. He said it had 
 become very difficult for him to answer the two very contradictory 
 addresses which the counsel for the traverser had made to the jury. 
 It did not appear to him that either of them had attended to the case 
 of their client, but, on the contrary, that they seemed totally regardless 
 of him. He observed at some length on the assertion of Mr. Curran, 
 that the jury had been collected by an officer of the crown for the 
 purpose of convicting the traverser. He subscribed most heartily to 
 the panegyric paid to the honour and integrity every jury ought to 
 possess, and which had been paid to the jury then in the box. He 
 said that the duty of the counsel for the traverser and the counsel for 
 the crown differed ; he ought to make some excuse for the conduct of 
 the foi-mer for departing from the duty they owed to their client, and 
 he sincerely hoped the public would pai'don them for it. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sergeant then observed at length on the libel, which 
 he read pai-agraph by paragraph. He said many libellous attacks 
 had been made upon the administration of justice in this country, 
 and upon the government ; but it was reserved for the traverser to 
 make a desperate attack upon the temple of justice, profaning its very 
 altars, and reviling its ministers. Notwithstanding, the traverser at 
 the bar stood indicted for having printed and published the libel in 
 the indictment, he firmly believed that the traverser was only an 
 instrument in the hands of others. If it was necessary to look for an 
 aggravation of the offence charged upon the traverser, it would be 
 found in the support given by his counsel, which had consisted of 
 nothing else but the display and pomp of language. Mr. Prime- 
 Sergeant then made a few observations on the nature of the offence 
 with which the traverser stood charged, and said if the jury were of 
 his opinion, it was both a false, scandalous, and seditious libel, and 
 they ought to find him guilty ; if, on the contrary, they did not 
 believe that, then in that case they ough to find him not guilty. 
 
PETER FINERTY. 541 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes charged the jury. He observed that they had 
 been amused by a display of eloqixence from the counsel for the 
 traverser, running wide of the matter before them. He would, 
 however, endeavour to point out to them the object for their consider- 
 ation, divested of all irrelevant matter. His lordship then stated to 
 the jury the libel, as it appeared on the record, and said that the 
 question which would be for their consideration would be, whether 
 the traverser at the bar was the printer and publisher of the matter 
 called a libel, and to find the intent with which he published it ; and 
 if the jury found that the traverser had published the paper called a 
 libel, they were then to inquire whether the inuendoes had been well 
 laid, and properly applied in the indictment, and Avhether it bears the 
 construction imputed to it by the inuendoes ; and if the jury were of 
 opinion that the traverser published it, and that it was a libel, and 
 that the inuendoes had been well laid and properly applied, there 
 could be no doubt on the whole of the case, but that the jury ought 
 to find the traverser guilty. 
 
 It was for the jury, his lordship said, to consider well the evidence, 
 and for them also to consider if it carried the force of conviction to 
 their minds, and to consider whether with the evidence, as connected 
 by Major Sirr, (which his lordship repeated,) they had any rational 
 doubt on their minds, that the traverser was the publisher of that 
 paper, called a libel. On this point his lordship said he was not to 
 give a positive opinion, but he left it entirely to the jury, and if they 
 were of opinion that he, the traverser, did publish the letter, then their 
 duty was to see if it was a libel or not. 
 
 His lordship then stated the act of parliament to the jury for 
 securing the liberty of the press, by which act is left to the jury the 
 final decision of the question, whether the publication be a libel or 
 not; and at the same time provides that the judge shall give his 
 opinion to the jury whether it is in his mind a libel. 
 
 The act of parliament having given to the judge this power, his 
 lordship said he would state to the jury his opinion upon the publica- 
 tion, and it was for them to follow or reject that opinion. In the 
 execution of that duty he would say to them, that a paper which 
 reflects on the administration of the justice of the country, as the paper 
 before them appeared to do ; that a paper which leads to degrade the 
 administration of justice in the eyes of the people, which, .in his opinion, 
 the paper before the jury did, was a libel. If the jury were of opinion, 
 that the publication called the execution of a criminal in due course 
 of law, murder, let the jury judge for themselves, if that was not a 
 libel — his opinion was that such a chai'ge was a libel. Was not to 
 charge a jury, which had brought in a verdict of guilty against a 
 criminal, with having been beastly drunk, a libel ? In his opinion it 
 was. Another offence charged is, that if the criminal had committed 
 the fact for which he suffered, it was no crime, but a meritorious act. 
 With what view could that paper have been written ? If upon the 
 whole of the evidence the jury believed that the charge in the indict- 
 ment states it true, when it says that the libel was printed with a view 
 of devising, contriving, and falsely, maliciously, and seditiously 
 intending, &c., then the charge would be fully established. 
 
 There had been no evidence given to show that the publication was 
 
,542 TRIAL OF 
 
 innocent. It was not necessary for the counsel for the prosecution to 
 show another intent of the printer and publisher than what appeared 
 on the face of the paper itself; and if the jury can feel that the inten- 
 tion of the paper was to state a false, seditious, and malicious libel, it 
 would be sufficient to ground their verdict of guilty. His lordship 
 said he took this to be the established law. 
 
 His lordship said he had rejected evidence of the truth to be given, 
 because it had been the established law that the truth or falsehood of 
 a libel was immaterial. At the very time the libel bill was going 
 thi'ough the House in England, from which the present bill is copied, 
 various questions were put to the judges of England, whether on a 
 trial on an information or indictment for a libel, the truth or falsehood 
 was material. The judges were of opinion that it was not. This 
 opinion was grounded upon a very sound reason ; it would be trying 
 a man who was not present, which would be totally inconsistent with 
 the spirit of justice. Another reason why his lordship would not 
 admit the evidence of the truth was, the libel was against the adminis- 
 tration of the country ; and the court in which he sat had no authority, 
 and was not competent to try the conduct of government ; the 
 court of parliament was the only court in which that could be brought 
 forward. 
 
 His lordship then said that if the jury did believe that malice 
 dii'ected the publication and writing of that paper termed a libel, it 
 would be for them to consider whether they would adopt the opinion 
 he had given them upon the matter contained in it or not ; but that if 
 they had any rational doubt that the paper was not published with a 
 malicious purpose, they ought to acquit him. 
 
 The jury retired for a short time, and then brought in a verdict — 
 Guilty. 
 
 COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 Messrs. Attorney-General, 
 Prime- Sergeant, 
 Solicitor-General, 
 
 Messrs. Ridgeway, 
 
 TowNSEND, and 
 
 "VVORTHINGTON. 
 
 Agent — Mr. Kemmis. 
 
 COUNSEL FOR THE TRAVERSER 
 
 Messrs. Curran, 
 
 Fletcher, 
 M'Nally, 
 
 Agent — Mr. M. Dowling 
 
 Messrs. Sampson, 
 
 Sheares, and 
 Orr. 
 
 The affidavits mentioned in this trial to have been made by the 
 jurors who tried Mr. Orr, are to be found annexed to that gentleman's 
 trial. 
 
 Saturday, December 23. 
 
 This day, Mr. Finerty was brought up to receive sentence. On 
 his being put to the bar, he addressed the judge as follows : — 
 
 My lord, from the very able defence which has been made for me, 
 I should think it utterly unnecessary to trouble your lordship with any 
 observations of mine, if the language of Mr. Prime- Sergeant, in his 
 
PETER FINERTY. 543 
 
 address to the jury, had had not imperiously demanded some reply. 
 It may accord well with the general system of our government, to 
 inflict a severe punishment upon me ; but what end it can answer, to 
 defame and abuse my character, I am at a loss to discover. Among 
 the epithets which the learned counsel so liberally dealt out against 
 me, he was pleased to call me " the tool of a party." However humble 
 I may be, my lord, I should spurn the idea of becoming the instru- 
 ment of any party, or any man — I was influenced solely by my own 
 sense of the situation of the country, and have uniformly acted from 
 that feeling of patriotism, which I hope it is not yet considered 
 criminal to indulge ; and I trust the general conduct of the Press, 
 has fully evinced to the people, that its object was truth and the good 
 of the nation, unconnected with the views, or unwarped by the pre- 
 judices of any party. 
 
 If I would stoop, my lord, to become the tool of a party, I might 
 have easily released myself from prosecution and reward ; and this 
 would have been clearly illustrated if your lordship had suffered the 
 persons summoned on my trial to be examined. 
 
 I have been now, my lord, eight weeks in confinement, during 
 which I have experienced the severest rigours of a gaol; the offence 
 was bailable, but it became impossible for me, from the humility of 
 my connections, to procure bail to the amount demanded ; probably 
 had any person stood forward, he would have been mai-ked ; and 
 sensible of that, I preferred imprisonment to the exposure of a friend 
 to danger. But not contented with my imprisonment and prosecution, 
 it seemed the intention of some of the agents of government to render 
 me infamous. For this purpose, my lord, about three weeks since, 
 I was taken fi'om Newgate, which ought at least to have been a place 
 of security to me, at seven o'clock in the evening, by what authority 
 of law I know not, to Alderman Alexander's ofiice ; and it was there 
 proposed to me to surrender the different gentlemen who had favoured 
 the Press with their productions, particularly the author of " Marcus." 
 Every artifice of hope and fear was held ovit to me. After a variety 
 of interrogations, and after detaining me there until two o'clock in 
 the morning, I was dispatched to Kilmainham under an escort, where 
 being refused admittance, I was returned to Newgate — from whence, 
 about eleven o'clock on the same day, I was again taken to Alderman 
 Alexander's, where I underwent a similar scrutiny, until three o'clock, 
 when the Alderman left me, as he said, to go to Secretary Cooke, to 
 know from him how he would wish to dispose of me, or if he desired 
 to ask me any questions. At eight in the evening, the Alderman, for 
 whom I was obliged to wait, was pleased to write to one of his ofl5cers 
 to have me remanded to prison. In the course of this extraordinary 
 inquisition, my lord, I was threatened with a species of punishment, 
 to a man educated as I have been in principles of virtue, and honesty, 
 and manly pride, more terrible than death ; a punishment, my lord, 
 which I am too proud to name, and which, were it now to make part 
 of my sentence, I fear, although I hope I am no coward, I should 
 not be able to persuade myself to live to meet. By what authority 
 any man could presume to prejudge your lordship's sentence, or anti- 
 cipate the verdict of a jury, it is not for me to decide. I cannot 
 conceive what sort of solicitude these men entertain for the dignity 
 
544 TKIAL OF 
 
 of tlie Irish character, or the honour of the government, who thus 
 endeavour to stain it by the multiplication of informers. It may be 
 answered, my lord, that informers ai-e useful ; so is the office of com- 
 mon hangman ; but will any man of common honesty, or common 
 sense, imitate the conduct, or plead for the character of either, 
 particularly in a time when so many instances of profligacy have 
 appeai'ed amongst the class ? 
 
 With respect to the publication, my lord, which the jury has 
 pronotmced a libel, the language of which is undoubtedly in some 
 instances exceptionable, it was received in the letter-box by my clerk, 
 who generally went to the office earlier than I, and taking it to the 
 printing-office, it was instituted, and the whole impression of thei:)aper 
 worked off before I saw it ; but on remonstrating with the author, he 
 produced to me such documents as put the truth of the statement 
 beyond question ; and these documents, my lord, were yesterday in 
 court, and would, combined with the testimony of the witnesses 
 pi'esent, if your lordship had permitted their examination, have amply 
 satisfied the jury of the facts. And hei'etofore, my lord, I have been 
 taught to think that truth was above all things important ; and I never 
 did believe it possible that truth and falsehood were in any instance 
 equally guilty, or that the truth, though it might not altogether acquit, 
 would not so much as extenuate ; for if it would in any degree extenuate 
 the offence, I suppose your lordship would have thought it necessary 
 that it should be heard, and I, of consequence, conceived the publica- 
 tion of " Marcus's " letter not alone innocent but praiseworthy, even 
 though it did contain passages which I do not vindicate ; but your 
 lordship's opinion and the verdict of the jury teaches a different lesson, 
 and may serve to regulate my conduct in future. 
 
 I hope your lordship will take the several circumstances I have 
 stated into consideration — if guilt, my lord, consists in the mind, I 
 solemnly assure you that I have examined my heart, and find that it 
 perfectly absolves me from any criminality of intention ; I have only 
 then to inform your lordship that a heavy fine would be tantamount 
 to perpetual imprisonment, and long imprisonment little short of 
 death ; yet whatever punishment you may please to inflict, I trust I 
 have sufficient fortitude arising from my sense of religion, and of 
 the sacred cause for which I suffer, to enable me to hear it with 
 resignation. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes then proceeded to pass sentence upon the 
 prisoner. 
 
 He told the prisoner he had listened to him with patience, that 
 nothing had fallen from him to induce a mitigation of punishment, 
 except what he had stated of the length of time he had been in con- 
 finement, which he would not forget in the sentence ; as the time of 
 the imprisonment should commence from tlie day of the arrest. That 
 with respect to the libel having been published without his immediate 
 knowledge, if this were an excuse, which it was not, no evidence of 
 the fact had been laid before the juiy. 
 
 Mr. Justice Downes then continued — Sir, in scornfully declaring 
 that guilt or infamy was attached to assisting the discovery of guilt, 
 you have affected a false spirit ; and you have proved that the govern- 
 ment would have afforded you mercy, which your libel asserted it was 
 
PETER FINERTY. 545 
 
 not in their nature to give. You say tliere were documents which 
 would have substantiated the facts. It would be monstrous indeed, 
 that a printer should take upon him to determine, what were sufficient 
 documents to justify his censure of the government. The publication 
 is a most atrocious libel on the administration of justice in all its 
 branches. If the vei'dict had been as you have stated, and that the 
 learned judge had reason to suppose that it was the result of perjury 
 and intoxication, he would, fi'om his nature, have delighted in recom- 
 mending the unfortunate man as an object of mercy ; and surely such 
 recommendation would have been attended to. Your libel says, 
 these facts were true, and that the Lord Lieutenant was acquainted 
 with them. It is impossible if they were true, and that they had 
 come to the knowledge of the chief-governor, and that the person 
 was a proper object of mercy, pardon would not have followed, for 
 there is no man whose heart is so steeled against mercy and hiunanity, 
 as to have refused it. 
 
 It also says, " if Mr. Orr was guilty, what was his crime ? It was 
 administering an oath of love and charity. If it was an oath of 
 extermination he would have found mercy." What ? Say that it was 
 no crime the administering an unlawful oath, when from such oaths 
 the present unfortunate state of the country springs ? It was an oath 
 binding the taker to be a member of a society formed for seditious 
 purposes, whose end has on many occasions appeared in evidence 
 subversive of order, and promoting an attachment to the enemies of 
 the country. Your sentence is — " That you be imprisoned for two 
 years from the day of your arrest ; that you stand in the pillory for 
 one hour ; pay a fine of twenty pounds, and at the expiration of your 
 confinement give security, yourself in five hundred pounds, and two 
 sureties in two hundred and fifty pounds each, for your good behaviour 
 for seven years. 
 
 Saturday, December 30. 
 
 This day Mr. Peter Finerty, pursuant to his sentence, stood one 
 hour in the pillory opposite to the sessions-house in Green-street. An 
 immense concourse of people attended this exhibition. Mr. Finerty 
 was accompanied by some most respectable citizens. He appeared 
 contented and resigned ; and upon being released from the restraint 
 of this governmental engine for securing the liberty of the press, he 
 addressed the spectators in a few words — " My friends, you see how 
 cheerfully I can suffer ; I can suffer anything provided it promotes 
 the liberty of my country." Upon this the spectators applauded by 
 clapping of hands, the most marked silence having prevailed until 
 then. Some of the guard who attended being, it is supposed, the picked- 
 men of the Armagh militia, attacked the unarmed people. Some of 
 the ofiicers also were guilty of similar conduct ; others, both officers 
 and privates, acted like gentlemen and soldiers. Sheriff Pasley on 
 this occasion conducted himself with perfect propriety. The conduct 
 of the people was peaceable and exemplary. 
 
 2 N 
 
I 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TEIAL or PATRICK FINNEY, 
 
 UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR 
 
 HIGH TREASON, 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 HON. JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN AND THE HON. BARON SMITH. 
 
 At a Commission of Oyer and Terminer, held in the city of Dublin, 
 in the month of July, 1797, an indictment was found against the pri- 
 soner, Patrick Finney, for high ti'eason, when counsel and agent were 
 assigned. After several adjournments, he was brought to trial on 
 Tuesday, January 16, 1798. The indictment contained one count 
 for compassing the King's death, and another for adhering to the King's 
 enemies ; and the overt acts, which were thirteen, laid in support of 
 each count were the same. They are stated fully in the Attorney- 
 General's opening speech. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. 
 
 ]Mr. RiDGEWAY opened the indictment. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General, My lords and gentlemen of the jury, 
 
 the prisoner at the bar stands indicted before you for high treason. 
 Of treason, gentlemen, there are several species. He stands charged 
 v.'itli two species : one is compassing and imagining the death of the 
 King ; the other is, adhering to the King's enemies — adhering to the 
 persons exercising the powers of government in France, being at war 
 with the King. 
 
 Gentlemen, the first species, that of compassing and imagining the 
 death of the King, ought to be explained to you ; that duty the court 
 will, no doubt, fully discharge ; I shall, therefore, content myself with 
 briefly stating, that in order to bring the charge home to the prisoner, 
 it is not necessary to produce evidence to show that he had it in his 
 immediate design and contemplation to take away the life of the 
 King. In our law, any act done that leads naturally, ultimately, or 
 in its consequences, to destroying the royal life, is considered as an 
 overt act to compass the death of the King. The preservation of the 
 life of the King is necessary to the tranquillity of the state : any 
 attack upon that life, however indirectly, has a tendency to destroy 
 that tranquillity, and the peace and prosperity of the subject whom 
 he governs. As, for instance, if war be levied, though not for the 
 purpose of destroying the life of the King, it has a tendency to destroy 
 it ; because he must resist that war, and thereby his life will be 
 
5 
 
 548 TBIAL OF 
 
 endangered. Again, if conspirators invite tlie foreign enemy to invade 
 the kingdom, it is settled law, that it is a compassing the death of the 
 King, because his life must he exposed in resisting the enemy, if they 
 invade the kingdom. 
 
 The other charge is for adhering to the King's enemies. The term 
 itself sufficiently explains the nature of that crime. By enemies are 
 understood those who are at war with the King ; and any adherence to 
 such persons, thus at war, constitutes that species of high treason. 
 
 Gentlemen, the law of this country makes it necessary that persons 
 charged with treason, the highest offiance that a subject can commit, 
 shall be informed by the indictment of some act or acts upon which 
 the charge is founded, in order that they may know how to prepare 
 for their defence. The acts so to be disclosed by the indictment are 
 called overt acts — acts whieh are to be plainly proved to you by legal 
 evidence. 
 
 The charge here is, that the prisoner compassed and imagined the 
 death of the King, and adhered to the King's enemies ; but that is not 
 enough, such is the care taken of the lives of the subjects. It 
 is not enough to charge the offence generally, but the particular overt 
 act must be set out, and it must be proved to enable the jury to find a 
 verdict against the prisoner, and that he may come prepared with 
 evidence to meet that fact, which is the ground of the principal charge. 
 
 Thus, gentlemen, you perceive that to support the charge against 
 the prisoner, Ave must prove by sufficient evidence some one overt act 
 laid in the indictment. If any one of those overt acts be established, 
 you must find a verdict against the prisoner, though we fail in sup- 
 porting all the others. 
 
 Gentlemen, in support of this charge, there are thirteen overt acts 
 laid in the indictment. I shall briefly state them. The overt acts 
 laid are the same in both counts of the indictment. 
 
 The first overt act is, that the prisoner became a member of a 
 society formed for the purpose of assisting the French in case they 
 should invade this kingdom, and that he did meet Avith other false 
 traitors to deliberate upon the means of effecting that purjDOse. I will 
 not consume time by minutely observing upon each overt act ; there 
 is no man so dull as not to understand this overt act : to encourage 
 the King's enemies to invade the kingdom is a proof of adhering to 
 the King's enemies. 
 
 The second overt act is the same in substance with the first. The 
 third is, that he consulted and agreed with others to send one or more 
 persons into France as agents, to invite the persons exei'cising the 
 powers of government there to invade this kingdom. The fourth is 
 for collecting sums of money to pay the agents who were or should be 
 sent into France — to pay and maintain persons who should be seduced 
 from his Majesty's forces, and persons charged with crimes and con- 
 fined in prison. 
 
 The fifth is, sending four persons to France to invite the French to 
 invade Ireland, and to aid them when they should arrive. The sixth 
 is nearly the same with the other, to raise money. The seventh is, 
 that the prisoner consulted Avith others to raise and levy war and 
 rebellion within the kingdom. The eighth is, that he met forty-eight 
 persons, and consulted with them upon the means of attacking the 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 549 
 
 f . 
 
 ' King's ordnance stores in the Gastle of Dublin, and to seize upon the 
 arms there deposited ; and appointing certain persons to view three 
 ; particuhxr phices, mentioned in the indictment, adjoining to the ord- 
 nance, in order to consider and report where they were proper phices 
 for making such attack. Gentlemen, to state this overt act is sulhcient 
 to explain, that it is evidence of treason in both counts — no words can 
 make it stronger. Men assemble together, and do consult, and send 
 some of their members to view the stores, and to consider where an 
 attack should be made upon the stores, to enable the society to seize 
 upon them, to make war upon the King, and to aid the French. 
 
 The ninth overt act is, that the prisoner did join with others for 
 the purpose of aiding the French. The tenth is, that he did with 
 others meet and agree to procure the French to invade this kingdom 
 with ships and armed men. The eleventh is, that he did agree to 
 raise insurrection, rebellion, and war within tlie kingdom. The 
 • twelfth is much of the same import ; and the thirteenth is, that he did 
 agree to support the French in case they should invade the kingdom. 
 
 You are now apprized of the charges against the prisoner, and the 
 particular overt acts laid in support of those charges, some one of 
 which must be clearly and satisfactorily proved to induce you to give 
 a verdict against him. 
 
 It is now my duty to state the facts and the evidence that will be 
 adduced to support the charge, and in doing so it is my intention to 
 lay before you purely the evidence stated to me, and that without 
 exciting your feelings in any I'espect whatsoever — careful not to excite 
 yours, and anxious, I solemnly assure you, to suppress mine. 
 
 Gentlemen, it will appear that there did, last summer— I go no 
 further back — exist in this city and kingdom a society styling itself a 
 society of United Ix'ishmen. This society was sub-divided into an 
 indefinite number of societies. The members took an oath, upon their 
 being admitted into any society, to keep secret, and not to give 
 evidence against any of their brethi'en. 
 
 These societies, as they happened to grow numerous by the admis- 
 sion of members, divided themselves into what is called " splits," con- 
 sisting of twelve ; and each society elected a treasurer and secretary. 
 There were in every barony and certain other districts baronial com- 
 mittees, formed of the treasurers and secretaries elected by each 
 particular sub-division, and of each barony and district, and to the 
 baronial society or committee the sub-societies did make reports of 
 their several transactions by their respective treasurers and secretaries, 
 and receive through their secretaries and treasurers the orders of the 
 baronial ; from the baronial committees were formed county com- 
 mittees, to whom the bai'onial committees made their reports, and from 
 whom the baronial committees received orders, and from the county 
 committees provincial committees were formed, and so by gradation 
 to a national committee. 
 
 If I am rightly instructed, it will still appear that the object of these 
 societies was, and is, to subvert the constitution ; and that the means 
 intended to be used to effect this purpose were, to invite the French 
 nation to invade this, their native country, to organize the people 
 whom they should seduce to join them, and to seize the arms of his 
 Majesty in the stores, provided for the defence of the kingdom. 
 
550 TRIAL OF 
 
 Such is the general outline of this United Society. I come to the , 
 more minute particulars of the present case ; and the facts which I ' 
 shall state will appear throughout to be connected in every step with ' 
 the statement I have made of the nature of the society. 
 
 A man of the name of James O'Brien, upon the 25th of April, 
 1797, was passing through Thomas-street, in this city; he met a man 
 who was his acquaintance, named Hyland, standing at the door of one 
 Blake, who kept a public-house. Tlie prisoner at the bar, then, as I 
 believe, a stranger to O'Brien, was standing at the door ; Hyland 
 asked O'Brien was he up ? — which is, I presume, a technical expression 
 to signify that a man is a member of the society. They tried O'Brien 
 by the signs, whether he was, or not. They told him that no man's 
 life was safe if he was not up ; and, particularly the prisoner at the 
 bar, told O'Brien his life Avould not be safe, if he were not up : they 
 desired O'Brien to go into the house, in a room of which eight people 
 were sitting. There, after some discourse, O'Brien was sworn to 
 secrecy, and afterwards he was sworn to that oath which is called the 
 oath of the United Irishmen. They talked much of their strength — 
 of the number of men and arms provided in various parts of the 
 kingdom, so great as to render the attainment of their object certain ; 
 and after much other discourse, which it is unnecessary to state, they 
 adjourned their meeting to the house of one Coghran, in Newmarket 
 on the Coombe, to be held the next Sunday, the 30th of April ; they 
 agreed that the pass- word to gain admittance at Coghran's should be 
 " ]\rr. Green." And it appears (for the trade is attended with some 
 profit) that O'Brien was called upon to pay, and did pay the prisoner 
 one shilling for swearing him. 
 
 As soon as . O'Brien left the house, and escaped the danger he 
 imagined he was in, he went to Mi'. Higgins, a magistrate of the 
 Queen's County, to whom he was known, then in Dublin, and dis- 
 closed to him what had passed. Mr. Higgins told O'Brien he was 
 right to reveal the matter, and brought him to Lord Portarlington, 
 who brought him to one of the committee-rooms of the House of , 
 Lords, where he was examined by one of the Lord Lieutenant's \ 
 secretaries. It was thought expedient, that attention should be paid 
 to this society, seeing its dangerous tendency, in order to counteract 
 the designs entertained. O'Brien conceiving that he might be in 
 some danger from a society formed upon such principles, was advised 
 to enlist in one of the regiments of dragoons then quartei-ed in Dublin, 
 and to attend the society to learn their designs. With this view, 
 O'Brien attended at Coghran's house, in New-market, and was 
 admitted upon giving the pass-word, " Mr. Green." He there found 
 the prisoner at the bar, with forty others assembled ; he was desired 
 to pay sixpence to the funds of the society ; he said he had not then 
 sixpence ; they told him he was to return in the evening, and that it 
 made no diffei-ence, whether he then paid or brought it in the evening. 
 Finney informed him and the society that the money collected Avas to 
 constitute a fund for the purpose of the society ; that upon that day 
 there was to be a collection from the united societies in Dublin, 
 sixpence from each man, and that there was to be collected that even- 
 ing from the various societies, 10,000 sixpences; and he further 
 informed them (for he was an active man at that meeting) that there 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 551 
 
 was to be a great funeral, that of one Ryan, a mill-wright, whose 
 corpse lay at Pimlico, which was to be attended by all the societies in 
 Dublin ; that after the funeral, that particular society was again to 
 
 i assemble at the same place, Coghran's. 
 
 I Gentlemen, O'Brien did, according to the directions he received, 
 attend the funeral of Ryan, at Pimlico, and at the funeral the prisoner 
 was most particularly alert and active, and marshalled the persons 
 who attended it. The witness will inform you of their numbers ; 
 they appeared to him so great that he (to use his own expression) 
 never before saw the like. He attended the funeral through several 
 streets, but apprehending that an attack would be made by the mili- 
 tary to disperse them, he took the first opportunity to retreat. In 
 the evening he attended, he returned to Coghran's ; he had in the 
 meantime seen his wife, and procured sixpence from her, and paid it 
 upon the table, upon which he saw considerable sums, gold, and silver, 
 and bank notes. He saw other members bring money from the other 
 societies, and the prisoner was particularly active in collecting the 
 money and in guiding the business of the meeting. 
 
 At this meeting, it will appear that the prisoner openly read an 
 account of arms, and money, and men, that were provided by the 
 societies, and he then informed the society that the French were to 
 land in Ireland, and were to be joined or aided by the societies ; some 
 other particulars, too minute to mention, and the meeting adjourned 
 to the 7th of May, to assemble at Tuite's, the " Sheaf of Wheat," in 
 Thomas-street, and the pass-Avord was to be " Captain Flail." O'Brien 
 went to Tuite's on the 7th of May, and was admitted on giving the 
 pass-word ; and there, he will inform you, he found the prisoner 
 acting as secretary. There were present sixty persons — their number 
 was so great that, according to the policy of their institution, they 
 determined to divide themselves into five splits, and they elected 
 treasurers and secretaries for each — the prisoner administered what I 
 may call an oath of office to the persons so elected treasurers and 
 secretaries. 
 
 At this particular meeting you will find the prisoner particularly 
 active. Here, at his desire, four members then present were appointed 
 to examine three particular places contiguous to the ordnance stores, 
 and to see whether they were places from which an attack might 
 successfully be made upon the stores. This meeting adjourned to the 
 ensuing Sunday — for Sundays are the days chosen to carry on this 
 blessed work. That particular split of which O'Brien was a member, 
 appointed to meet at Halfpenny's, in Newmarket ; and there that split 
 did meet accordingly upon the 14th of May. At that meeting reports 
 were made by several members that they had reviewed the three places 
 contiguous to the arsenal, pointed out at the meeting at Tuite's, and 
 that they found them proper places for making the intended attack ; 
 and from that meeting that particular split adjourned to meet at the 
 house of one Archbold in Skinner's-alley. There they were to meet 
 the ensuing Sunday, the 21st of May. Accordingly they did meet 
 upon that day, and there Finney was present : Halfpenny, who was 
 one of the officers of this particvilar split, read a state of the forces 
 and arms. And upon the next day, 22d of May, O'Brien, the secre- 
 tary of his split, and thereby privileged to attend the baronial meeting, 
 
552 TRIAL OF 
 
 was introduced by Finney, and did attend the baronial meeting in 
 King-street. At this baronial meeting there did attend forty-four 
 members, delegated from the various societies within the barony or 
 district to which that committee belonged. There O'Brien was 
 brought, and introduced by Finney, they having given the pass-word, 
 which was " Mr. Herring." There he was sworn into office, and 
 there the secretaries from the various societies did deliver in verbally 
 an account or statement of their societies and of their numbers, and 
 Finney made an entry or memorandum of the several reports tlius 
 made by the officers of the sub-societies to that meeting ; and to this 
 baronial committee sums of money were brought and delivered to 
 the prisoner and a person named Fox. Much conversation passed at 
 this meeting. It will appear, as applicable to two of the overt acts, 
 that Finney did declare the purpose for which the money was col- 
 lected ; — he did state that four persons had been sent into France 
 from the society of United Irishmen, for the pui*pose of inviting the 
 French to invade this kingdom — that two of these persons had returned 
 — that the remaining two had continued in France, in order to attend 
 the French when they should invade this country, and that the money 
 was collected for the purpose of paying the expenses of those agents, 
 thus stated by him to have been sent into France, and to maintain 
 the persons who should desert from the King's troops, and the 
 members of the society imprisoned under charges of having committed 
 offences against the laws. He did assure the persons surrounding 
 him very solemnly of the truth of his statement ; and in order to 
 procure further credit to a statement so important, he called upon 
 Fox to make oath of the truth of it ; and Fox did thereupon swear to 
 the truth of what Finney had informed them — tliat emissaries had 
 gone to France, and that the French were to invade this kingdom, 
 and that he had this account from another, who swore to its truth ; 
 and further, with a view to the attainment of this object, he did state, 
 that two vessels had aiTived from France with arms, to arm the people, 
 members of these societies. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have stated that the baronial meetings are inferior 
 to the county meetings. It will appear that, at this meeting, the 
 members present were informed, that they would not meet upon the 
 next Monday, which I suppose was generally the day appointed for 
 the baronial meeting, for that a county meeting was to be had upon 
 that day, and therefore the baronial meeting must stand over to 
 Tuesday. Accordingly they agi-eed to meet at the house of Mrs. 
 White, in Meath-street, and the pass- word was " Mr. Patrick." The 
 particulars of that meeting will come better from the mouth of the 
 witness. It will appear that some inquiry was made respecting the 
 place of being supplied with constitutions and other papers. Places 
 were mentioned where to apply, and a person of the name of Jackson, 
 a founder in Church-street, was mentioned, as being furnished with 
 abundance of them, and that they would be delivered there to persons 
 qualified to receive them. It will appear that a proposition was made 
 at this meeting, and debated, for assassinating all persons who should 
 give information against members of these societies. 
 
 HoAvever, before this meeting broke up, a peace-officer, who had 
 information through the means of O'Brien of the meeting at this 
 
PATRICK FlNNEV. 553 
 
 place, came for the purpose of apprehending the conspirators there 
 assembled, O'Brien had communicated the pass-word to the mao-is- 
 trate. The woman of the house, or the waiters, perceived the 
 approach of the officer and those by whom he was attended, and a 
 suspicion was entertained of the intention to arrest the persons assem- 
 bled. The waiter came into the room and said there were strano-ers 
 about the place, and cautioned them to take care of themselves. 
 Finney called upon the other members to deliver their papers to him, 
 which they accordingly did, and he left the room before the officer 
 entered, and he had the good fortune to escape with the papers. The 
 peace-officer and Major Sirr, town-major, arrived immediately after, 
 and found evei-ything accoixling to the information which O'Brien 
 had given. They arrested the persons there assembled. Finney had 
 escaped ; but that escape has, contrary to what he expected, tended 
 only fully to confii'm the account given by O'Brien. In a day or two 
 after, Finney appeared in a public-house in which were two soldiers ; 
 one, a corporal of the Kildare militia, of the name of Thompson, 
 the other of the name of Clarke : one of these persons only survives; 
 he will give you an account that in their presence Finney boasted of 
 his cleverness, or good fortune, in escaping from the meeting at which 
 his companions were arrested, and that he carried oiF the papers. 
 One of these men, Thompson, immediately went to the picquet guard, 
 and brought them to the house where Finney was, and had him 
 arrested ; thus from Finney's mouth the whole evidence which had 
 been given by O'Brien was confirmed. Finney was arrested in the 
 month of May last ; that he has not been tried before is not to be imput- 
 ed to the crown ; we were ready to try him, but he postponed his 
 trial from time to time ; but I will say no more upon that subject. 
 
 We will produce O'Brien, Major Sirr, Lord Portarlington, and 
 Clarke, the soldier of the Kildare militia. We cannot produce cor- 
 poral Thompson ; he made his examination of the facts I have stated ; 
 he cannot give evidence of facts — he has been since assassinated ; 
 such, bi'iefly, is the evidence that will be offered to you. You have 
 an awful and a sacred duty to discharge : yours is the duty which 
 will decide upon that man's life ; and the court is engaged in the same 
 duty in another respect. TTe, even we, who are in this humble sta- 
 tion, I mean the counsel for and against the prisoner, are engaged in 
 some degree in the discharge of the same duty. It. is our duty, for 
 the crown, to lay the case fairly and clearly before you. It is the duty 
 of the counsel for the prisoner to see that the man charged with this 
 atrocious crime shall have a fair trial, and if he be innocent, that his 
 innocence may be made apparent. It is not our duty or desire to 
 have innocent men found guilty ; and, I am confident, it is neither 
 the duty nor the wish of the counsel for the prisoner, if he be guilty, 
 that he should escape. The counsel for the prisoner surely must have 
 the same wish with ourselves — that, for the safety of the state, the guilty 
 shall be found guilty; and for the sake of the prisoner, if innocent, that 
 he should escape. It is far from them to wish that the guilty should 
 escape, as it is from us, that the innocent should be foimd guilty. 
 
 You, gentlemen, have, I say, a sacred duty to discharge — you will 
 not be led from the faithful discharge of that duty, either by an abhor- 
 rence of the crime, or a tenderness to the criminal. You will do your 
 
554 TRIAL OF 
 
 duty to the state and to the prisoner. It is of the last consequence 
 to the kingdom, and to every individual protected by the laws, that a 
 crime of this nature should not go unpunished ; your hearts will 
 inform you, that the enormity of the crime ought not to affect your 
 minds in considering the prisoner's guilt. We Avill call our witnesses, 
 and it must be a satisfaction to every mind to feel, that cool and 
 impartial justice will be administered between the crown and the 
 px'isoner upon this important occasion. 
 
 James O'Brien sworn. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect the 25th of April last ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect being in Thomas-street ? A. I do. Passing 
 through on the 25th of April, I met a man of the name of Hyland at 
 the door of one Blake, a publican. 
 
 Q. Did anything pass, and what, between you and Hyland ? 
 A. I had a slight knowledge with him three months before, through 
 friends from the same place. He asked me did I hear from the 
 country ? 
 
 Q. Was there any person present, or in hearing, at the time 
 Hyland spoke to you ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. Do you know a person of the name of Patrick Finney ? A. I 
 do ; I knew him that day, and since. 
 
 Q. Look about, and say if you see him ? A. That is the man 
 (pointing to the prisoner). 
 
 Q. Point him out to the jury? A. That is the man; he knows 
 me well. 
 
 Q. He was present, and within hearing, when Hyland spoke to 
 3-0U ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. What did Hyland say ? A. He made signs which I came 
 afterwards to understand. 
 
 Q. What did he say after he made the signs? A. "It is a 
 wonder you are not up, James !" 
 
 Q. Was that in the hearing of Finney ? A. It was. 
 
 Q. What passed, or was any observation made by any person upon 
 that ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. I asked him the sense of being up, for I did 
 not understand it. 
 
 Q. What was said then ? A. Finney immediately told me, the 
 sense was to become a United Irishman, or if not, I might lose 
 my life before I went half a street. 
 
 Q. Was there any proposal, and what, then made to you ? A. I 
 told him I did not understand him ; he told me to go into the house, 
 Blake's, and I should know the particulars. 
 
 Q. Did you go in ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Was there anybody but Finney in the room into which you 
 went? A. There was ; there were ten when I went in. There 
 were two men I have since come to learn their names. 
 
 Q. What happened towards yourself after you went into the room? 
 A. A man of the name of Buckley asked Finney — " Have you caught 
 a bird ? " " Yes," said Finney. Then, said Buckley, " He shall never 
 leave this until I make a Christian of him." Then, said he, " Do you, 
 Lewis, mind that door, and I will mind this." 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 555 
 
 Q. What passed then ; was any oath administered ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. By Avhom ? A. Hyland told me, that I should take an oath, 
 not to discover anything that passed, or to give evidence against any 
 one there, and then I would be further enlightened. 
 
 Q. Was there any oath administered by the prisoner ? A. There 
 was afterwards. 
 
 Q. Who swore you first to secrecy ? A. Hyland did. 
 
 Q. Was there any other oath administered ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. Hyland laid the book upon the table, and said, 
 turning to Finney — " I cannot repeat the test oath off — if not, you 
 have a printed one about you." Finney then drew out a printed paper, 
 and Hyland said — " Do you repeat after me," and I was sworn. 
 
 Q. Can you tell the purport of that oath ? A. As nearly as I 
 recollect, I will tell it. 
 
 Q. Do so. A. The purport of the oath to which he swore me, as 
 well as I can recollect, was — " that I should persevere to endeavour 
 to form a brotherhood of affection among Irishmen of eveiy religious 
 persuasion ; and persevere to endeavour to gain a full, equal, and ade- 
 quate representation of all the people in Ireland." 
 
 Q. Was there any more ? A. There was : " That neither fears, 
 hopes, rewards or punishments should ever induce me directly or in- 
 directly to discover on, or give evidence against him, them, or any 
 other similar societies for any act or expression of theirs done or 
 made collectively or individually, either in or out of this society." 
 That I believe finished it. 
 
 Q. After this, did you get any information with regard to the signs ? 
 A. I was told by the prisoner after the oath, that every person, whether 
 poor or rich, that was not a United Irishman, would lose their lives. 
 
 Q. Pray, now, O'Brien, what was it induced you, or did you take 
 that oath voluntarily or from apprehension ? A. He learned me the 
 signs, that I might make myself known. 
 
 Q. Did you take the oath voluntarily, or from fear ? A. I did it 
 from fear of the words he said, when he was joined by every one in 
 the room, and they had got, one to one door, another at another — 
 yourself might be afraid if you were there. 
 
 Q. Did you pay any money there ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. To whom ? A. I paid a shilling to the prisoner ; he said that 
 was the rule for every man sworn, to subsist the cause. 
 
 Q. Were there other meetings appointed ? A. There were ; after 
 Finney catechised me in the signs and words — I shall mention them 
 if you choose : he told the challenge was, to drawthe right hand across 
 the left breast ; and the answer was, to put the left hand upon the right 
 wrist, then two words were spoken — " go on ;" and the answer by the 
 opposite person was — " to what ?" the person replied — " to Truth, 
 Union, and Liberty ;" then the right hand was offered by one person, 
 and the left given by the other — then they shook hands. 
 
 Q. After this, was there any day appointed for a future meeting ? 
 A. He said we should meet to be further enlightened in the business 
 at the widow Coghx-an's, 47, Newmarket on the Coombe, corner of 
 Fordam's-alley. 
 
 Q. Pray, did you get any token, or word, by which to get admis- 
 sion ? A. He told me to go at six or seven in the evening, and to 
 
556 TRIAL. OF 
 
 ask — " Is Mr. Green here ?" and I would be admitted to the United 
 Irishmen, or Brothers, who were there. 
 
 Q. Was there any conversation about their strength, number, or 
 arms ? A. There was, at Blake's, in Thomas-street. 
 
 Q. When you were sworn ? A. There was a printed paper, the 
 sense of which was, that all placemen and pensioners, not United 
 Irishmen, wei'e to lose their lives. 
 
 Q. After this had passed what did you do on that day ? A. After 
 it had passed, I went home to my own place first ; and I could remem- 
 ber through my recollection and understanding to hear of people 
 being taken as " Defenders," and in that line, and I immediately set 
 my opinion that I had better discover what had happened to me. 
 
 Q. Did you discover ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. To whom ? A. To Captain Higgins, a magistrate, who is 
 acquainted with me. 
 
 Q. What county gentleman is he ? A. Queen's County, — from 
 Mountmellick. I went to him at Mr. Prendergast's, where he was ; 
 I do not know what street, but one leads into Golden-lane. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — What countryman are you? A. Queen's 
 County.) 
 
 Q. What did Mr. Higgins advise you to do ? A. When I apprised 
 him of the speeches ■ 
 
 Q. (Mr. M'Nally Was Mr. Finney present ? A. No.) 
 
 Q. Where did Mr. Higgins bring you ? A. He brought me to 
 Lord Portarlington. 
 
 Q. Were you brought anywhere afterwards ? A. I was not brought 
 anywhere — I walked voluntarily. 
 
 Q. AVhere did you go to ? A. We went to Lord Portarlington's 
 house, and he went with us to the Paidiament-house, where I told 
 what had passed. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — "Wliat do you mean by telling what passed ? 
 A. 1 told him what had happened at Thomas-street — my being sworn 
 in, and the declarations that were made of the placemen losing their 
 property, if they Avere not United Irishmen.) 
 
 Q. You enlisted in some regiment of dragoons afterwards ? A. I 
 did, in the 9th regiment of dragoons, for my own protection. 
 
 Q. With what colonel ? A. Colonel Henniker. 
 
 Q. How soon after you were sworn ? A. The day after, because 
 I did not know what to do ; I recollected Hanlon's having given in- 
 formation against some persons, and that he went into the artillery, 
 who protected him ; and I determined in my own breast to enlist, and 
 that I would have the protection of the regiment. 
 
 Q. You talked of an appointment for the Sunday after ? A. There 
 was. I made known at the Parliament-house something of the funeral 
 and the great meeting, and was asked whether there was anything in 
 the coffin ? — I said I could not tell. 
 
 This examination was objected to by the counsel for the prisoner. 
 
 Q. Did you go anywhere upon the Sunday after ? A. I did, 
 
 Q. Where ? A. To Coghran's, Newmarket upon the Coombe. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I do not know^ that the learned counsel is aware 
 that Newmarket is in the county of Dublin ; — I understand that the 
 entire market is in the county of Dublin. This indictment is in the 
 
PATUICK FINNEY. 55Y 
 
 city ; and it needs not any information or assertion from me to satisfy 
 you, tliat until an overt act be proved in the city, you can give no 
 evidence of wliat passed in tlie county. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sergeant — Tlien I will postpone for the present what 
 passed in the county. 
 
 Q. You gave me an account of Thomas-street. Do you know the 
 " Sheaf of Wheat ? " A. I was there the Sunday after I was at New- 
 market, Sunday the 7th of May. 
 
 Q. Was any word given to introduce you there ? A. " Mr. Flail." 
 
 Q. Now tell me what passed there. A. I got in upon the word 
 " Mr. Flail." 
 
 Q. Did you see the prisoner at the bar at that meeting ? I did see 
 him at the meeting, and when the meeting closed. 
 
 Q. Were there many persons there ? A. There were sixty men 
 in the room. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Whose house was it ? A. Tuite's.) 
 
 Mr.CuRRAN. — I wish Mr. Prime- Sergeant to mention the particular 
 overt act to which he applies this evidence. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serge ANT That must be done by those who speak to 
 
 evidence, or by the court. I produce the witness to prove every 
 individual overt act in the indictment, and if the statement be founded, 
 he will certainly prove them. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Tliere are thirteen overt acts in the indictment. 
 After the last objection I made, the court will see with what view I 
 interfere now, and how necessary it is we should know what act this 
 witness comes to prove. 
 
 I\lr. Prime- Sergeant. — I declare that from the informations I have 
 of this man he will prove them all. It will be for the court and the 
 jury to apply to the evidence. 
 
 Q. Was the number of the persons counted ? A. I counted them. 
 
 Q. Did anybody else ? A. Finney, and Tom Cooke a yeoman, 
 who is not here. 
 
 Q. Was anything said upon that ? A. It was advised between 
 them both that there being too many they should be divided into 
 splits. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — Who proposed it ? A. Finney, as secretary 
 of the meeting, and Cooke, as chairman or president. 
 
 Q. Do you say that Finney was secretary of the meeting ? A. He 
 was secretary, my lord.) 
 
 Q. You said they were divided ? A. There was a sheet of paper 
 got in, and number one to sixty jjut in it, and it was cut up in pieces 
 and thrown into a hat, and every one drew, and each man was to 
 follow the split of twelve that he was to draw. 
 
 Q. What number did you draw ? A. I drew thirty-eight. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — I suppose there were sixty tickets put into the 
 hat ? A. There were ; that was to determine what split a man should 
 belong to ; he was to fall into whatever twelve he should draw.) 
 
 Q. Was there any oiRcer elected for each split ? A. There was j 
 there was a room hard by into which every twelve went until they 
 elected a secretaiy and cash-keeper, which left ten members. 
 
 Q. (By the Court Did they go into the room ? A. I went in 
 
 with my own split. 
 
558 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did they go in in the order of their numbers ? A. I do not 
 know of any but my own split ; I cannot tell what passed while others 
 were there.) 
 
 Q. Did you elect a secretary and cash-keeper ? A. We did. 
 Q. What was done after that ? A. We came into the large room 
 all together. 
 
 Q. The whole sixty ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What happened there ? A. The secretaries that were elected 
 were ordered to attend their meetings, and have candle-light near the 
 door, that if a stranger came they might know him, lest any one 
 should impose himself upon their meeting. 
 
 Q. After the election of secretaries and cash-keei^ers, was there any 
 oath administered, and by whom ? A. The five secretaries and five 
 cash-keepers were ordered to sit near the chair, by the prisoner ; the 
 five secretaries were sworn to the secretary's oath, and the five cash- 
 keepei's to the treasurer's oath. 
 
 Q. (By the Court By whom ? A. By Finney and Cooke, who 
 
 afterwards raised a glass of punch and said — " wash it down with 
 this.") 
 
 Q. Can you tell the oath ? A. I believe I can, a part of both : — 
 " that as long as he held the ofiUce of secretary, he would not give any 
 papers, copies, or documents to any man not part of the split." 
 
 Q. What was the oath of the cash-keeper ? A. " That he should 
 not embezzle or put astray any of the cash given him in charge, but 
 to make a just return to the baronial meeting." 
 
 Q. After all this had passed, swearing and washing down, do you 
 recollect any conversation about White's-court ? A. I do very well. 
 Q. What was it ; tell the court and the jury ? A. Cooke struck 
 the table with a carpenter's rule he had, and called to order — every 
 man to keep silence. When every man kept silence, " gentlemen,' 
 said he, " I have one thing to disclose, with your leave," tui-ning to 
 Finney — Finney said, " there was time enough " — so Cooke said, " it 
 must be disclosed now — you must all go," said he, " as you know your 
 respective times of meeting, to White's-court, in Ship-street ; to No. 
 48, George's-street, and the stone-cutter's yard in the same street, 
 round from Stephen-street." 
 
 Q. Was it told for what purpose ? A. The business was introduced 
 in the purpose of viewing these places, to see how tliey could get into 
 the back of the ordnance stores, to rob it of arms and stores, ball 
 and powder, without loss of blood, as they did not like to face the 
 guards. 
 
 Q. Who said this ? A. Both Finney and Cooke. 
 Q. Was there any objection made to that proposal ? A. None that 
 I heard. 
 
 Q. Was it agreed to ? A. Every man was asked to put out his 
 hand, which he did. 
 
 Q. Was it appointed that you should meet again ? A. The 
 secretary and cash-keeper of the split I was allotted in, said we were 
 to meet at Halfpenny's, at New-market on the Coombe. 
 "Q. For what time ? A. The Sunday after. 
 
 Q. (By the Court What was his Cliristian name ? A. Ignatius : 
 
 he was our secretary. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 559 
 
 Q. Secretary of your split ? A. Yes, my lord.) 
 
 Q. You met them ? A. I went to Halfpenny's the Sunday after, 
 and I would not be let in without the word. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — Was there any signal? A. The pass-word 
 was " did the wool-pack pass by," they being mostly broad weavers.) 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — Are you going to give evidence of what passed at 
 Halfpenny's ? 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sergeant. — I am. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — My lords, as to the law there is not the least doubt. 
 It is cleai'ly settled, that unless an overt act be proved in the county 
 where the indictment is laid, the prosecutor cannot go into evidence 
 in a foreign county. There can be no doubt of that : we have the 
 books in the court, and can read passages to that effect. The only 
 doubt is with regard to the application of the rule here. I am to 
 contend, that there is not evidence for a jury of any overt act of 
 high treason in the city. There cannot be evidence of an overt act, 
 unless the evidence, if believed, would be sufficient to convict. 
 What is the evidence here ? He has stated a meeting, and a proposal 
 to see whether there might not be a robbery committed upon his 
 Majesty's stores, without bloodshed, and without opposing his Majesty's 
 forces. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — We will give an opinion, if forced 
 to it; but after the statement of the counsel for the crown, they can 
 be under no difficulty in going further, and postpone this part for the 
 present. 
 
 Mr. SoLiciTOR-GrENERAL — In Lord Preston's case, the only act 
 proved was taking boat at Surrey-stairs, and that let in evidence of 
 what passed in Middlesex. 
 
 Mr. Baron Smith — We have so much in prospect that the less 
 time there is wasted in argument the better. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serge ANT. — I shall go to another overt act. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect being at Skinner's- Alley, at one Archbold's ? 
 A. I do very well, the Sunday after. 
 
 [Here it was objected that Skinner's-alley was also in the 
 county.] 
 
 Q. Do you know North King-street ? A. I was there. 
 
 Q. Was Finney there ? A. He was the man brought me there 
 
 Q. Do you recollect how soon after you left Archbold's ? A. It 
 was the Monday evening following. He scolded the secretary and 
 cash-keeper there for admitting me, without administering an oath 
 to me upon my election. 
 
 Q. Was any account returned ? A. There was. Finney swore 
 me to the cash-keeper's oath, and one Hyland to the secretary's. 
 
 Q. Tell what was done ? A. After I was sworn, every secretary 
 and cash-keeper should answer according to their number, beginning at 
 twenty-one. The secretary was asked the number of men, and Finney 
 made an entry in the book of the cash and the numbers ; and when a 
 member swore in a man, he was to give an account what he belonged 
 to, and the number of men 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — What number of men ? A. The number of 
 men that each secretary and cash-keeper had under them, for this 
 was a baronial meeting.) 
 
560 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. This was a baronial meeting ? A. It was — of secretaries and 
 casli-keepers. 
 
 Q. There was an account given of each and the number of men ? 
 A. There was, and of arms. 
 
 Q. Wlio received the cash at the meeting ? A. Finney did. 
 
 Q. Was there any and what conversation, with regard to the pur- 
 pose for which the money was I'eceived, and by whom ? A. Thex'e 
 was. 
 
 Q By whom, and what was it ? A. There were forty-five men in 
 the room, secretaries and cash-keepers — every two men answering 
 one number. Finney was asked the purpose to which tlie cash was 
 to be applied. He answered, to i>ay the men, as they had done before, 
 to go to France. 
 
 Q. For what purpose ? A. For the purpose of letting the men in 
 France know the state of the men in Ireland, and of their intention 
 to join them at their landing. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — There was a return of men and arms, did 
 you say, at that baronial meeting ? A. There was a return of cash 
 by each cash-keeper, which was paid over to Finney, and thei'e was 
 a return of men and arms.) 
 
 Q. "What further did he say about the persons being sent into 
 France ? A. He told me that he got information that day — he told 
 the whole meeting as well as me — that two of the four, who were 
 last sent into France, had come back, and that the French would 
 certainly come again, and that the other two remained to come with 
 the fleet. 
 
 Q. Was there any county meeting mentioned that day ? A. 
 There was. 
 
 Q. Who mentioned it ? A. Finney did. He told us, they could 
 not meet on the Monday, but might on Tuesday, as he was obliged to 
 attend a county meeting. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — Were the baronial meetings on Monday ? 
 A. The one I sat in was upon Mondays, another met upon Tuesdays.) 
 
 Q. Was there one Fox at that meeting ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. Did he say anything in the presence of Finney ? A. Finney 
 had mentioned the use of the money, for deserters, and persons in 
 gaol, and the return of the two persons from France ; and then he 
 called upon Fox, and asked him if it was not true. Fox took a book 
 out of his pocket, and swore it was true, as it was sworn to him by 
 another man the same day. 
 
 Q. AVas there any further meeting appointed ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. For what day and place ? A. Tuesday eight days. 
 
 Q. What place ? A. Mrs. White's, 44, Meath-street, and the 
 pass-word was to be, " is Mr. Patrick here." She kept the sign of 
 St. Patrick, and it was thought the members would not forget the 
 word, when they looked at the sign. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect anything else to have been said by Fox in the 
 hearing of Finney ? A. That every person wanting constitutions or 
 returns was to call at Fox's place, 1 8, or 1 9, Hammond-lane, and he 
 woidd supply them. 
 
 Q. Did you ever call upon Fox in consequence of that ? A I did. 
 
 Q. Tell what passed ? A. I went up stairs to where he lived : 
 
fATRICK. FINNEY. 56 1 
 
 he brought me to a back yard, and from a hole in the wall he took out 
 papers, which he showed me, that I might give a copy of it. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally — I hope the counsel for the crown do not mean to 
 give parol evidence of these papers. 
 
 Witness — I took the paper, and had it till Cooke took it from 
 me. 
 
 Q. He gave you a return and a constitution ? A. He gave me a 
 return, and the constitution was somewhat blotted, and I asked for 
 another ; he said he had not another till we should go to Jackson's, 
 in Church-street. We went there, and saw a tall man in brown 
 clothes, with a black sallow complexion. He gave Fox twelve, and 
 he gave me one. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — What do you call a constitution ? A. A book 
 having the test oath, and the secretai'/s oath, and the cash-keeper's 
 oath, and the rules of the society.) 
 
 Mr. Prime- Serge ANT. — My lords, I now go back to the county of 
 Dublin, and hope the intimation from the court will have the effect 
 intended. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — Have the counsel for the prisoner 
 any objection to their going to this evidence ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I have, my lords ; and wish to know whether the 
 witness be done as to the parts he has testified, that he may not, after 
 my objection, supply anything, by saying he omitted any expression, 
 which he forgot. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — We do not give any opinion upon 
 the law now ; but we wish for the sake of pei-spicuity that you would 
 finish in the city. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sergeant. — I have no objection to accommodate the 
 court ; but it may be drawn into example hereafter. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — You must then support your objec- 
 tion, Mr. Curran. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — ]My lords, there is no doubt as to the law, that an 
 overt act must be established in the county where the indictment is 
 found, before evidence of an overt act in a foreign county can be 
 received. I take it to be clear law, that some overt act must be 
 clearly proved, if the evidence be credible, in the proper county, such 
 as would completely establish an overt act in the indictment. See 
 what the evidence is : the only overt act to which the evidence can 
 apply, is that of levying money to send persons into France to invite 
 the French to invade this country. There is evidence of an overt 
 act of treason to give material information to an enemy at war. 
 There is no occasion to cite cases. Hensey's case is directly in point. 
 Preston's case is in point. Therefore, my objection is this, that the 
 evidence given is evidence of a distinct kind of overt act, an established 
 overt act of treason, clearly known to the law. The overt act in this 
 indictment is, that the prisoner levied money to send messengers to 
 France to invite them to invade this country ; the evidence is not 
 that, but that messengers had been sent in consequence of a previous 
 determination on the part of France to invade this country ; alluding 
 to the notorious event of their coming to Bantry Bay. 
 
 Mr. Prime- Sergeant. — Do your lordships think it necessary for 
 
 me to say a word ? 
 
 2o 
 
562 TRIAL OF j 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain "We are of opinion, that there is 
 
 evidence to go to the jury, and unless there be no evidence, Mr. 
 Curran himself admits that his objection falls to the ground. We 
 think there is evidence of the several overt acts, and particularly of 
 the first — that the prisoner associated with others under the denomi- 
 nation of United Ii'ishmen, with design and for the purpose of aiding 
 and assisting the persons exercising the powers of government in 
 France, in case they should invade this kingdom. Now we think 
 there is evidence, if credited, to support that. Here are oaths pro- 
 posed — a society is formed : clearly, the purpose of this society is 
 inquirable into ; and the same witness discovers at subsequent 
 meetings that they had sent persons into France, to inform the 
 French of the state and number of persons inclined to assist them, 
 and ready to join them. Is not this evidence to go to a jury to show 
 the purpose of this association, if the jury believe it? Then there 
 is evidence in the city of Dublin of a plan to attack the ordnance 
 stores. Is it not for the jury to inquire for what purpose that attack 
 was to be made; and may it not be coupled with the expressions 
 of the prisoner, that persons had been sent into France, and some j 
 of them had retui'ned ? The jury, coupling the forming of the associa- 1 
 tion with the plan to attack the ordnance, are to see whether all 
 this was done for the purpose laid in the indictment, of adhering 
 to and assisting the French if they should land. I do not say what 
 the jury will intend upon this evidence, but I think they may intend 
 that these proceedings were for the purpose of assisting the French. 
 
 IMr. Baron Smith, — It is sufficient for me to say, that I entirely 
 concur in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Chamberlain. 
 
 Q. You told me that you got into Coghran's by the word, " Mr. 
 Green." Where is Coghran's ? A. No. 47, Newmarket on the 
 Coombe. 
 
 Q. You got in by the word " Mr. Green ?" A. I did, by asking 
 " is Mr. Green here ?" 
 
 Q. Was the prisoner there ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — This was the Sunday after you were sworn ? 
 A. It was Sunday the 25th of April.) 
 
 Q. You were admitted ? A. I was admitted up stairs, and Finney 
 introduced me to the men there as a true man and a brother — that he 
 had sworn me himself. 
 
 Q. What happened there ? A. He asked me for sixpence ; I told 
 him I had it not ; he told me to go to Pimlico that evening, and that 
 10,000 United Irishmen were to walk after the funeral of Michael 
 Ryan, and that every man of them was to pay sixpence. They were 
 to walk to show government their strength, and what they were. 
 
 Q. Did you go to that funeral ? A. I went home first and pro- 
 cured some money, and then went to the funeral. I walked as far as 
 the Castle-gate, and the guard being coming, I was afraid I might be 
 killed as much as any man that deserved it, for I was all that time 
 giving information. 
 
 Q. Was the prisoner there ? A. He was — ^he was making us walk 
 four deep ; and afterwards he was making us walk six deep. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — You walked four deep ? A. We did, four in 
 a breast. 
 
rATBICK FINNEY. 563 
 
 Q. Who made you walk that way ? A. Finney ; and after he saw 
 the crowd too throng, he made us w^alk six deep.) 
 
 Q. You went home ? A. I did, and got some money, and went to 
 Coghran's, and got in upon the word, after the corpse was interred. 
 Finney introduced me as before, that I was a true man and a brother, 
 for he had sworn me himself. Then he demanded sixpence from me, as 
 every man at the funeral had paid sixpence for the good of the cause. 
 
 Q. Did you see any more money there but that sixpence ? A. Un- 
 doubtedly I did, both gold, and brass, and paper — men were coming 
 in and paying it, and he received it. 
 
 Q. (By the Court — You saw notes and money ? A. Notes and 
 money, my lord. 
 
 Q. Received by him ? A. Yes, brought in by different people and 
 received by him.) 
 
 Q. Did he read anything at that meeting ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. "\Yhat was it ? A. He read the constitution, the strength of 
 men and arms in Ii-eland — I cannot recollect the strength of arms, 
 but he told me there was 1 1 1,000 men in the province of Ulster. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — You do not recollect the arms ? A. I do not ; 
 but he said there were two ships arrived with arms and ammunition 
 from France.) 
 
 Q. Was there any meeting appointed for a futm-e day ? A. There 
 was. 
 
 Q. WTiere? A. Tuite's in Thomas-street. 
 
 Q. Was there any pass- word ? A. There was — " Mr. Flail." 
 
 Q. Was there any meeting at Halfpenny's ? A. There Avas. 
 
 Q. At that meeting was Finney present ? A. He was not. 
 
 Q. You recollect what passed about examining White's-court and 
 Georore-street, what was to be done afterwards ? A. We were to see 
 how it might be easy to get in without blood. What opinion we 
 formed we were to communicate to the officers of each split, that they 
 might report it to the baronial committee, and that they should report 
 to the national committee. 
 
 Q. Did you report it accordingly ? A. We did ; and every one of 
 the old split gave their opinion that it was a very good act, and could 
 easily be done, except five new members that came in. 
 
 Q. Was there any other meeting appointed for any other place ? 
 A. There was. 
 
 Q. Wliere ? A. At Archbold's, in Skinner's-alley — the pass- word 
 was to be " Harp," because Halfpenny had a harpsichord in the parlour 
 where he swore the five men, and played_some tunes upon it; therefore 
 the pass-word was agreed to be " the harp." 
 
 Q. ^Yliat happened there ? A. There were seven new members 
 sworn, which made us twenty-fom', and obliged us to have a split 
 that day. 
 
 Q. Did you get any place in that split ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. AVhat place ? A. I was voted cash-keeper of that split ; I was 
 only elected there, and was sworn in at North King-street at the 
 baronial meeting. I told you that Finney had scolded Halfpenny for 
 letting mc come to the baronial meeting without being sworn. 
 
 Q. Was there any benefit annexed to the office of secretary or cash- 
 keeper ? A. They had. 
 
564 TRIAJL OF 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. No other could go to the baronial meeting 
 but secretaries and cash-keepers. 
 
 Q. Did you go there to be sworn in ? A. No ; I did not know 
 that I would be sworn, but several of us went, and Finney, who was 
 in a great-coat. 
 
 Q. (By the jury Was Finney present ? A. He brought me from 
 
 Archbold's to North King-street.) 
 
 Q. You recollect you said there was a meeting appointed at Meath- 
 street, and the pass-word agreed upon was " Mr. Patrick ?" A. I 
 do ; it was agreed that the meeting should not be till the Tuesday 
 eight-days following. 
 
 Q. You went to that meeting ? A. I did on the Tuesday eight- 
 days following. 
 
 Q. How did you get in ? A. There were two men on the stairs, 
 and they both saw whether I was catechised, to see whether I knew 
 the signs, although I had the pass-word — " is Mr. Patrick here." 
 
 Q. Was Finney there ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Was Cooke there ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Was there any debate ? A. There was : Finney said as soon 
 as they should all come in they should be sworn not to make use 
 of the Christian names of one another, lest it might lead to a 
 discovery. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said with regard to persons who should give 
 information ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. Cooke said, that any man who was only 
 to be censured for giving information to government, should have his 
 eyes plucked out, his hands cut off, and his tongue cut out. 
 
 Q. (By the Court What do you mean by censured? A. To 
 
 suppose they were giving information against the party. 
 
 Q. His hands were to be cut off? A. They were — the way he 
 could not write ; and those who gave evidence for government were 
 to be murdered.) 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any woman going into the room ? A. No ; 
 but I recollect she sent her man in. 
 
 Q. What did he say ? A. The man said his mistress had been 
 looking out of the window and saw people watching about the house, 
 and desired us to take care. Finney immediately desired every one 
 to give up the papers : he got them all, put them into his bosom, and 
 he and another went across the table and got down stairs. 
 
 Q. Did anybody come in, or were any taken ? A. Every one of 
 us were taken — sixteen. 
 
 Q. Who came in ? A. Some gentlemen and guards. 
 
 Q. Tell the people who were taken. A. There was Cooke, Half- 
 penny, Hartford, M'Cue, Molony, Flinn — I do not immediately 
 recollect any more of them. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect who came in with the guards ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Who ? A. Major Sirr and Captain Atkinson. 
 
 Q. Had you given any information to them ? A. Not to Atkinson, 
 but I had to Major Sirr and some other gentlemen. 
 
 Q. You recollect the meeting at Meath-street ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Was there any report ? A. There was. 
 
 Q. By whom ? A. By Finney — that there should be no explosion 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 565 
 
 among the United Irishmen until such time as the French should 
 come either to England or Ireland, but they should continue to swear 
 in as many as they could, and secrete all the arms and ammunition 
 they should get. 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. Pray, Mr. O'Brien, whence came you? A. Speak in a way I 
 will understand you. 
 
 Q. Do you not understand me ? A. Whence ? — I am here — do 
 you mean the place I came from ? 
 
 Q. By your oath, do you not understand it ? A. I partly censure 
 it now. 
 
 Q. Now that you partly censure the question, answer it — where 
 did you come from ? A. From the Castle. 
 
 Q. Do you live there ? A. I do while I am there. 
 
 Q. You are welcome, sir, to practise your wit upon me — where 
 did you live before you came to Dublin ? A. In the Queen's County. 
 
 Q. What way of life were you engaged in before you came to 
 Dublin ? A. I had a farm of land which my father left me, and I 
 set it, and afterwards sold it, and came to Dublin to follow business 
 I learned before my father's death. I served four years to Mr. 
 Latouche of JMarley. 
 
 Q. To what business ? A. A gardener. 
 
 Q. Were you an excise-officer ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor never acted as one ? A. I do not doubt but I may have 
 gone of messages for one. 
 
 Q. Who was that ? A. A man of the name of Fitzpatrick. 
 
 Q. He is an excise officer ? A. So I understand. 
 
 Q. What messages did you go for him ? A. For money, when he 
 was lying on a sick bed. 
 
 Q. To whom ? A. To several of the people in his walk. 
 
 Q. But you never pretended to be an officer yourself? A. As I 
 have been walking with him, and had clean clothes on me, he might 
 have said to the persons he met that I was an excise- officer. 
 
 Q. But did you ever pretend to be an officer ? A. I never did 
 pretend to be an officer. 
 
 Q. Did you ever pass yourself for a revenue officer ? A. I an- 
 swered that before. 
 
 Q. I do not want to give you any unnecessary trouble, sir — treat 
 me with the same respect I shall treat you. I ask you again, did 
 you ever pass yourself for a revenue officer ? A. Never ; barring 
 when I was in drink and the like. 
 
 Q. Then, when you have been drunk, you have passed for a 
 revenue officer ? A. I do not know what I have done when I was 
 drunk. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time, drunk or sober, pass yourself as a revenue 
 officer ? A. Never, when sober. 
 
 Q. Did you, drunk or sober ? A. I cannot say what I did when I 
 was drunk. 
 
 Q. Can you form a belief ? I ask you upon your oath, you are upon 
 a solemn occasion, did you pass yourself for a revenue officer ? A. 
 I cannot say what happened to me when I was drunk. 
 
566 
 
 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. What ! do j^u say you might have done it when you were 
 drunk ? A. I cannot recollect what passed in my drink. 
 
 Q. Are you in the habit of being drunk ? A. Not now, but some 
 time back I was. 
 
 Q. Very fond of drink ? A. Very fond of drink. 
 
 Q. Do you remember to whom you passed yourself for a revenue 
 officer ? A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Do you know the man who keeps the Red Cow, of the name of 
 Cavanagh ? A. Where does he live ? 
 
 Q. Do you not know yourself? A. There is one Red Cow above 
 the Fox and Geese. 
 
 Q. Did you ever pass yourself as a revenue officer there ? A. I 
 never was there but with Fitzpatrick ; and one day there had been a 
 scuffle, and he abused Fitzpatrick and threatened him j I drank some 
 whiskey there and paid for it, and went to Fitzpatrick and told him, 
 and I summoned Cavanagh. 
 
 Q. For selling spirits without licence ? A. I did, and compromised 
 the business. 
 
 Q. By taking money, and not prosecuting him ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you put money into youi- own pocket by that ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. But you swear you never passed yourself for a revenue officer ? 
 A. Barring when I was drunk. 
 
 Q. Were you drunk when you summoned Cavanagh ? A. No. 
 
 Q. When you did not prosecute him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. When you put his money into your pocket ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you know a man of the name of Patrick Lamb ? A. I do 
 not ; but if you brighten my memory I may recollect. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell any man that you were a supernumerary, and 
 that your walk was Ratlifaniham and Tallagh. A. I never did except 
 when I was drunk ; but I never did anything but what was honest 
 when I was sober. 
 
 Q. Do you belie^'e you did say it ? A. I do not know what I might 
 have said when I was drunk. You knoAv when a man is walkiu"; 
 with an exciseman he gets a glass at every house. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — I know no such thing, never having walked with an 
 exciseman. 
 
 Witness Then you may know it. 
 
 Q. Do you know any man passing by the name or called Patrick 
 Lamb. A. Not that I recollect, upon my word. 
 
 Q. Upon your oath ? A. I do not recollect : I mean to tell every- 
 thing against myself as against any other. 
 
 Q. Do you know a person of the name of Margaret Moore ? A. 
 Where does she live — is she manned ? 
 
 Q. She lives near Stradbally. Do you know her ? A. I know her 
 well : I thought it might be another. I was courting a woman of that 
 name before my marriage. 
 
 Q. Did you come to Dublin before her or after? A. I was in 
 Dublin before I knew her. 
 
 Q. Did you get a decree against her ? A. I did get a summons for 
 money she owed me. 
 
 Q. Were you taken to the court of Conscience by her ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Never? A. Never. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 567 
 
 Q. Did she pay you the money since ? A. No : my brother and 
 sister run a bill Avith her, and my brother gave a note, he being under 
 age ; and afterwards I took a house in Stradbally, and did not like 
 making a noise before the neighbours, and paid her nine guineas. 
 
 Q. Was there any money refunded her by order of the court ? A. 
 I do not know ; she lodged money for her security in the house where 
 she lay, as a security for her return the next day. 
 
 Q. Were you summoned ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor paid any money ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did she pay any money to any person ? A. Do not I tell you 
 she lodged money as a security until next day. 
 
 Q. When you met Hyland were you an United Irishman ? A. 
 Always united to every honest man. 
 
 Q. Were you an United Irishman ? A. Never sworn. 
 
 Q. AVei-e you in any manner an United Irishman before that day ? 
 A. Never sworn in before that day. 
 
 Q. Were you in any manner ? A. Do not I tell you that I was 
 united to every honest man? 
 
 Q. Do you believe you are answering my question ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Were you ever in any society of United Irishmen before that 
 day ? A. I do not at all know but I may, but without my knowledge ; 
 they might be in the next box to me, or in the end of the seat with 
 me, I do not know them. 
 
 Q. Were you ever in any society of United Irishmen but that day ? 
 A. I was since. 
 
 Q. Were you ever of their meetings, or did you know anything 
 of their business before that day ? A. No ; but I have heard of 
 Defenders' business. 
 
 Q. Were you of their society ? A. No ; but when they came to 
 my father's house I went to Admiral Cosby's and kept guard there, 
 and threatened to shoot any of them that would come. One Connelly 
 told me I was to be murdered for this expression. 
 
 Q. Hyland made signs to you in the street ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did you answer them ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Why did you not ? A. Because I did not know how. 
 
 Q. Then is your evidence this, that you went into the house in order 
 to save your life ? A. I was told that I might lose my life before I 
 went half a street if I did not. 
 
 Q. Then it was from fear of being murdered before you should go 
 half a street, that you went in to be an United Irishman ? A. You 
 have often heard of men being murdered in the business. 
 
 Q. Do you believe that ? A. I do ; it is common through the 
 country. I have read the proclamations upon it, and you may have 
 done so too. 
 
 Q. How soon after you were sworn did you see the magistrate ? A. 
 I was sworn upon the 25 th, and upon the 28th I was brought to Lord 
 Portarlington, and in the interval of the two days Hyland was with 
 me and dined with me. 
 
 Q. Why did you not go the next day ? A. Because I did not get 
 clear of them, and they might murder me. 
 
 Q. Where did you sleep the first night after? A. At my own 
 place. I was very full — very drunk. 
 
568 
 
 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. Did either of them sleep there ? A. No. 
 
 Q. "Where did you live ? A. In Kevin-street, among some friends, 
 good to the same cause. 
 
 Q. Where did you see Hyland the next day ? A. He came to me 
 next morning before I was out of bed, and staid all day and dined. 
 We drank full in the evening. 
 
 Q. Wbat became of you next day ? A. Hyland came early again 
 and staid all day. I was after getting two guineas from my brother. 
 I was determined to see it out, to know their conspiracies after I was 
 sworn. 
 
 Q. Then you meant to give evidence? A. I never went to a 
 meeting that I did not give an account of it. 
 
 Q. (By the Court To whom did you give information ? A. To 
 
 Colonel Henniker, Lord Portarlington, and Mr. Secretary Cooke, in 
 the Castle. 
 
 Q. How soon after these meetings ? A. I gave information before 
 I went to Newmarket on the Coombe, that I was to meet there.) 
 
 Q. I wish you would recollect yourself as to Mrs. Moore ; did you 
 not swear that there was no re-hearing of a cause between you before 
 a magistrate ? A. You did not ask me that before. 
 
 Q. I ask you now ? A. I believe there was between her and the 
 bailiff. 
 
 Q. You were not sworn ? A. I never swore an oath there. I was 
 talking to a young man of the name of Kilbride 
 
 Q. (By the Court — What was the re-hearing about ? A. She had 
 let my brother and sister run in debt, and he passed a note, and that 
 was hurting my cx'edit in Stradbally, and I was obliged to take up the 
 note.) 
 
 Q. You were not sworn ? A. I was not. 
 
 Q. Did you get an order ? A. I got an immediate summons with- 
 out being sworn. She put an immediate summons upon the pillars of 
 the Tholsel, not knowing where I lived, and when we came before the 
 magistrate he tore them both. 
 
 Q. Did you say she was arrested ? A. Indeed it was the bailiff 
 humbugged me out of the money ; I was not up to the tricks of Dublin 
 that time. 
 
 Q. Was she arrested ? A.I believe she was ; the bailiff told me so. 
 
 Q. Do you know Charles Clarke, of Blue-bell ? A. I have heard 
 of such a man. 
 
 Q. You do not know him ? A. I do : I do not mean to tell a lie. 
 
 Q. You did not know him at first ? A. There are many men of 
 the name of Clarke. I did not know but it might be some other. It 
 did not immediately come into my memory. 
 
 Q. You thought it might be some other Clarke ? A. There is a 
 Clarke came into me yesterday. 
 
 Q. Did you ever get money from Clarke, of Blue-bell, as an excise 
 officer? A. I got three and three pence from him not to tell 
 Fitzpatrick. He did not know me, and I bought spirits there, and 
 seeing me walking Avith an exciseman, he was afraid I wovild tell of 
 him, and he gave me three and three pence. 
 
 Q. And you put it into your pocket ? A. To be sure. 
 
 Q. Did Mrs. Clarke give you any money ? A. Not that I recollect. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 569 
 
 I got three and three pence between them. The husband gave me 
 three and three pence. 
 
 Q. You said before he gave you three and three pence, that is 
 settled. Did you get any afterwards from her ? A. No ; I got it 
 from them both. He struck her for giving me spirits, and then they 
 disputed, and she gave him money to give me, and I got it from the 
 husband. 
 
 Q. Did you pass yourself as a revenue officer upon him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You swear that ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. You know a man of the name of Edward Purcell? A. That is 
 the man that led me into everything. He has figured among the 
 United Irishmen. He got about forty pounds of their money and 
 went off. He has been wi-itten to several times. 
 
 Q. How came you to know him ? A. Through the friendship of 
 Fitzpatrick. He had Fitzpatrick's wife, as a body might say, having 
 another man's wife. 
 
 Q. He made you acquainted ? A. I saw him there, and Fitzpatrick 
 well contented. 
 
 Q. Did he ever give you a receipt ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Was it for money ? A. No. 
 
 Q. What was it ? A. It was partly an order, where Hyland he 
 and I hoped to be together. It was a pass-word that I gave him 
 to go to Hyland to buy light gold that I knew was going to the 
 country. 
 
 Q. Did you ever give him any other receipt ? A. I do not know 
 but I might — we had many dealings. 
 
 Q. Had you many dealings in receipts ? A. In receipts. 
 
 Q. I mean receipts to do a thing ; as to make a pudding, &c. Did 
 you give him receipts of that nature ? A. I do not know but I 
 might give him receipts to do a great number of things. 
 
 Q. To do a great number of things — Avhat are they ? A. Tell me 
 the smallest hint, and I will tell the truth. 
 
 Q. Upon that engagement, I will tell you. Did you ever give him 
 a receipt to turn silver into gold, or copper into silver ? A. Yes, for 
 turning copper into silver. 
 
 Q. You have kept your word ? A. I said I would tell everything 
 against myself. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that against yourself? A. I tell you the 
 truth — I gave him a receipt for making copper money like silver 
 money. 
 
 Q. What did you give it him for ; did he make use of it ; was it 
 to protect his copper from being changed that you did it ? A. He 
 was very officious to make things in a light easy way, without much 
 trouble, to make his bread light. But I did it more in fun than 
 profit. 
 
 Q. You did not care how much coin he made by it ? A. I did 
 not care how much coin he made by it : he might put it upon the 
 market cross. 
 
 Q. Do you say, you do not care how many copper shillings he 
 made ? A. I did not care whether he made use of it or not. 
 
 Q. Upon your solemn oath you say, that you did not care how 
 many base shillings he made in consequence of the receipt you gave 
 
570 TRIAL OP 
 
 him ? A. I did not care liow many he told of it ; or what he did 
 with it. 
 
 Q. Had you never seen it ti'ied ? A. No, I never saw the recipe 
 I gave him tried, but I saw others tried. 
 
 Q. For making copper look like silver ? A. To be sure. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect, Avhether you gave him half a crown upon 
 which that recipe was tried ? A. I never saw it tried ; but I gave 
 him a bad half-crown ; I did not give it him in payment. I did it 
 more to humbug him, than anything else. 
 
 Q. "Were you never a seller of tea at Stradbally ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Anywhere ? A. No. 
 
 Q. At the Canal ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Had you ever in your custody any quantity of tea ? A. Never, 
 but when I might buy it for my family and bring it home. 
 
 Q. You never bought a quantity of tea at the Canal Stores ? A. 
 Never. 
 
 Q. Did you demand any there ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor send any person to demand any ? A. No : I do not know 
 what you are talking of at all. 
 
 Q. Do you know of any tea that Fitzpatrick seized ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you ever live at Power's in Thomas-street ? A. I did by 
 day, but never at night. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect tea being taken out of Power's house ? A. 
 No, I do not recollect its being taken ; but I recollect to have heard 
 of such a thing being done. 
 
 Q. Were you ever charged with having that tea ? A. I went 
 home the evening the tea was said to be taken, and was in bed, when 
 at twelve o'clock at night, Master John Power and some Avatchmen 
 came and took me out of bed. They searched the place. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General.. — How long since ? A. Twelve or 
 fifteen months ago. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — -Is that your hand-writing (showing a paper to 
 the witness) ? A. That is my hand-writing. 
 
 Q. That is one of the receipts you gave Power ? A. I do not 
 know ; but I gave him many ; I will not deny anything. 
 
 Q. Have you no recollection of any other that you gave him ? 
 A. I may have given him others. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection of them ? A. Unless you brighten 
 my memory. 
 
 Q. You have no recollection now of what any other receipt was. 
 Do you swear that ? A. Indeed I have not, but as you may give me 
 a small hint, it may come to me. 
 
 Q. Recollect what you said. I ask you, have you no recollection 
 of what any of them was ? A. I have not, barring you give me 
 some small hint, and then I will tell it. 
 
 Q. Do you know what became of that tea ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell any one you did ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you tell anybody that you found any tea ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Nor that you lodged any at the Canal ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you know a man of the name of Patrick Brady ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Or Michael Brady ? A. Not that I recollect. 
 
 Q. Then you never told such a man, that you had taken the tea. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 571 
 
 or knew anything of it ? A. Never to my recollection. If I did it 
 was false. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell it, true or false, to any person, that you "-ot 
 half of it as an informer ? A. Never. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mr. Roberts ? A. What Mr. Roberts ? 
 
 Q. Mr. Arthur Roberts of Stradbally ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Did you ever talk to any person about his giving a character of 
 you ? A. He could not give a bad character of me. 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell any person about his giving you a character ? 
 A. I say now, in the hearing of the court and the jury, that I heard 
 of his being summoned against me, and unless he would forswear 
 himself, he could not give me a bad character. 
 
 Q. Did you ever say you would do anything against him ? A. I 
 said I would settle him, but do you know how ? There was a matter 
 about an auction that I would tell of him. 
 
 Q. Had you a weapon in your hand at the time ? A. I believe I 
 had a sword. 
 
 Q. And a pistol ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And you had them in your hand at the time you made the 
 declaration ? A. I knew he was a government man, and I would 
 not do anything to him in the way of assassination. 
 
 Q. Do you know a man of the name of George Howell ? A. 
 Thomas Cooke knows him. 
 
 Q. Do you know him ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you pass yourself before him as a revenue officer ? A. I 
 do not remember that I did. It might be the case through drink. 
 
 Q. You must be very drunk when you did it ? A. I never did it 
 when sober. 
 
 Q. Did you ever apply at Justice Wilson's office, in New-street, for 
 a summons as a revenue officer ? A. It is not in New-street at all. 
 
 Q. Well, did you apply at his office ? A. It was at his office I got 
 the summons for Cavanagh, and the justice desired me, when the man 
 was to appear, to bring the officer of the walk there. 
 
 Q. But you did not pass yourself there as a revenue officer ? A. 
 If I did, Mr. AVilson would not desire me to have the officer of the 
 walk there. 
 
 Q. You said you never sold tea to anybody ? A. Never. 
 
 Do you know a man of the name of Dunn ? A. I know tlie wife 
 of Matthew Dunn who keeps the Churn-Inn in Thomas-street. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor-General. — What you said about Roberts, you 
 said publicly ? A. I made no secret of it ; but I did not say it with 
 a bad intent. 
 
 Q. (By the Jury Was Finney present when that conversation was 
 
 held about cutting off the hands, and putting out the eyes of persons 
 suspected of informing government ? A. He was ; and he said fur- 
 ther, which I forgot, but say now, that there should be a day appointed 
 to bring such persons in, as they might not get out again.) 
 
 John Atkinson, Esq., was sworn, and stated that he went to a house 
 in Meath-street, the sign of Saint Patrick, in the latter end of May, and 
 found there O'Brien and several others, amongst them, he thought, a 
 man of the name of Cooke, altogether about sixteen of them. He was told 
 the signal word was " is Mr. Pati'ick here," and that upon mentioning it 
 
572 TRIAL OF 
 
 he would be admitted it. He got that information from Colonel 
 Alexander ; he gave it and passed two persons, apparently sentinels, 
 who desired him to go forward. He got into a room and found people 
 sitting there. He did not see the prisoner there. 
 
 Peter Clarke was sworn, and stated he recollected the 31st of May- 
 last (1797); knows Patrick Finney and identified him; was in his 
 company in Thomas-street, at Tuite's house ; Corporal Thompson, of 
 the Kildare militia, who was afterwards murdered near the Naul, was 
 there ; when we went there Finney was in the tap-room, and called 
 out " Kildare, how are you." Finney gave one paper to Thompson 
 and another to witness ; the paper produced is one of them, the one he 
 gave witness ; on giving witness the paper he desired witness to give 
 it him again, as he could not give it without witness being sworn ; 
 Finney swore witness. 
 
 The following extract from the paper was read : — 
 
 " TEST. 
 
 " In the awful presence of God, 
 
 " I, A. B., do voluntarily declare, that I will persevere in endea- 
 vouring to form a brotherhood of affection among Irishmen of every 
 religious persuasion ; and that I will persevere in my endeavours to 
 obtain an equal, full, and adequate rej^resentation of all the people of 
 Ireland. I do further declare, that neither hopes, fears, rewards, or 
 punishments, shall ever induce me, directly or indirectly, to inform on 
 or give evidence against any member or members of this or similar 
 societies, for any act or expression of theirs done or made, collectively 
 or individually, in or out of this society, in pursuance of the spirit of 
 this obligation." 
 
 " TEST FOR SECRETARIES OF SOCIETIES OR COMMITTEES. 
 
 " In the awful presence of God, 
 
 " I, A. B., do voluntarily declare, that as long as I shall hold the 
 office of secretary to this I will, to the utmost of my abilities, 
 
 faithfully discharge the duties thereof. 
 
 " That all papers or documents received by me, as secretary, I will 
 in safety keep. I will not give any of them, or any copy or copies of 
 them, to any person or persons, members, or others, but by a vote of 
 this ; and that I will, at the expiration of my secretary- 
 
 ship, deliver up to this all such papers as may be then in 
 
 my posssession." 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND With your lordship's permission, we shall now 
 
 examine Lord Portarlington ; and it is fair to apprise the court and 
 the counsel for the prisoner of the object of this evidence. The wit- 
 ness, O'Brien, gave an accbunt of his informing Lord Portarlington of 
 what was going on. There is an attempt made to impeach the credit 
 of the witness ; and to show his consistency, we now produce Lord 
 Portarlington. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN If a witness be impeached, it is competent to set 
 
 him up, and to show that the impeachment is not well founded. 
 Every witness is impeached by a cross-examination ; but it is not 
 usual to hear evidence in support of the witness for the prosecution' 
 until the prisoner's case is gone through. You may examine to 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 573 
 
 character or to particular facts, and the witness may be entitled to 
 call witnesses to his general character. But can the counsel for the 
 prosecution say, " this man's evidence is impeached, or seems to be 
 impeached by the counsel for the prisoner ; therefore, we think it 
 necessary to support him now." I submit, it is not competent for 
 them to set up his character now. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain — The tendency of the cross-examina- 
 tion is, to impeach O'Brien in this pai'ticular transaction ; and tlie 
 witness now offered to be produced is to show that he gave an account 
 of the proceedings as they happened. It is not competent for them 
 now to produce witnesses to show that the witness ah-eady examined 
 is of good character ; but they want to prove that his former account 
 is consistent with his present. Such evidence has always been 
 received in my experience. 
 
 Earl Portarlington sworn. 
 
 Q. Your lordship saw James O'Brien, the witness who was exa- 
 mined this day ? A. I have seen him. 
 
 Q. Does your lordship recollect upon what occasion you first saw 
 him ? A. I never saw him till the latter end of last April, when an 
 acquaintance of mine, Mi'. Higgins, brought the witness to my house. 
 Mr. Higgins said the witness had told him, he had matters to com- 
 municate to Mr. Pelham, but as he had not the honour of knowing 
 him, begged of me to introduce him. I desired to know the matter 
 and the chai-acter of the man. O'Brien told me he had been lately ad- 
 mitted a member of the society of United Irishmen — that he thei-e found 
 out there was, on the Sunday following, a great number of people to 
 be collected under pretence of a funeral — that the man to be buried 
 was already buried, and he apprehended, or heard, that it would lead 
 to insui'rection. He also mentioned some other circumstances — I do 
 not remember all. He stated that an attack Avas meditated upon the 
 arsenal of the Castle. I told the matter to Mr. Secretary Cooke, and 
 therefore did not lay it upon my memory. 
 
 Q. HoAV many interviews had you with him ? A. I think I had two 
 interviews. I desired him to come no more, as I had communicated 
 the matter to Mr. Cooke, to whom it belonged more than to me. I 
 asked him had he anything new to communicate? He said, the United 
 Irishmen were busy coi'rupting the servants of gentlemen. 
 
 Q. Did all this conversation pass at one time ? A. I think it all 
 passed at one time. All I mentioned first did. 
 
 Q. Where ? A. At my house in Kildare-street. . 
 
 Q. When O'Brien related this matter, what did you do with him ? 
 A. I went to the House of Commons and expected to see Mr. Pelham ; 
 he had some business, and Mr. Cooke came to the Speaker's chamber, 
 where O'Bi-ien related all that he did to me. 
 
 Q. O'Brien afterwards called a second time ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Your lordship mentioned something that passed at the second 
 meeting ; can you state anything more that passed at the second meet- 
 ing ? A. No, I cannot. As well as I recollect, what he said was at 
 the first meeting ; what he said at the second was trifling. I desired 
 him not to come to me, but to apply to the executive government. 
 
 Q. Had your lordship any further meeting after the second ? A. I 
 
574 TBIAL OP 
 
 do not recollect ; he might have come a third time, but I did not like 
 his coming after he was in better hands, with Mr. Cooke. 
 
 Q. Is your lordship's recollection so accurate as that you are certain 
 whether what you relate passed at the first meeting, or whether some 
 might have occurred at the second ? A. I believe the whole may have 
 passed at the first meeting — he certainly gave notice of the burial. 
 
 Q. So far you are certain ? A. I am. 
 
 Q. And the rest was told by the witness ? A. It was. 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. Your lordship recollects tliat he told you the United Irishmen 
 were busy among gentlemen's servants — that was at the first meeting ? 
 A. I cannot recollect — I rather believe it was. 
 
 Q. He told you of the funeral ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you the name of the person to be buried ? A. He 
 did mention the name and the house, but I do not recollect them. 
 
 Q. He said it was a fictitious funeral ? A. He did, I think. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General. — My lords, on the part of the crown, 
 we rest the case here, unless the evidence for the prisoner makes it 
 necessary we shovdd go further. 
 
 Mr. M'Nally stated the prisoner's case ; and when he concluded, 
 the court adjourned for twenty minutes, and the sheriff was ordered 
 to provide refreshment for the jury, who were not allowed to leave the 
 box. When the court was resumed, 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain said — "We wish that the counsel for the 
 prosecution Avould point out the overt acts upon which they mean to 
 rely, and to which they apply the evidence, before the counsel for the 
 prisoner shall speak to the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Curran. — My lords, we first pray that the paper which O'Brien 
 admitted to be his hand- writing, and given by him to Purcell, may be 
 read. 
 
 The paper was then read as follows : — 
 
 " RECIPE TO PLATE COPPER OR, ETC. 
 
 " File up some silver very small, add to as much aquafortice as shall 
 cover the silver, then simper them in a tea cup for 2 mts. then add to 
 a small quantity Crame a tartar, then dip in your cork and sd. plate 
 — then boil them in salt and water, till you see them gro whyte, then 
 rub them with Crame a tartar." 
 
 " A MIXTURE OF MINERALS THAT SHALL EQUAL SILVER. 
 
 " Take I lb. of long graind tin — Do. of Rock solder, or whyte 
 Spilter, 1 lb. of Block tin. 
 
 " N.B. to be melted all to Gether & to be poured into a point of 
 vinigeear, a dram of Suppliment — ;jlb. of pine top ashes — this is not 
 to be melted more than 1 time in the above mixture of waters. 
 
 " N.B. the Liqur. must Be Avaram." 
 
 " For melting minerals you must have white-rock-asnick to extract 
 silver from copper you must have sadcramonick. 
 
 " Rigt. Ilonob. the Countess 
 Merculer-watter 
 Venegar & pine top ashes." 
 
PATRICK FINNEy. 575 
 
 Margaret Moore sworn. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. At Stradbally in the Queen's County, 
 about forty miles from this. 
 
 Q. Pray, Mrs. Moore, do you know James O'Brien ? A. I did 
 know a James O'Brien, who lived in Stradbally, and was reared and 
 born there. 
 
 Q. Do yovi know his general character? A. I do since he was born. 
 
 Q. In Avhat line of life are you ? A. I am living in an industrious 
 situation, in a shop in Stradbally. 
 
 Q. Are you a married woman ? A. I am a married woman. 
 
 Q. Do you know the general character of that James O'Brien ? 
 A. I knew his general character until he came to Dublin, and have 
 heard a great deal of it since. 
 
 Q. From your knowledge of his general character, do you believe 
 he is deserving of credit upon his oath ? A. During the time I knew 
 him, in his father's life-time, until he came to manhood, I would not 
 give a groat for his oath, and that is enough at present. 
 
 Q. Do you say for his general character, that he is not deserving of 
 credit ? A. I do, if I were to die for it this moment. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether you were arrested at any time by any 
 body ? A. I do ; he come to me in the morning, and asked me was I 
 ready to come to Dublin — I told him I was not, because I did not 
 choose to go in his company — he then said, his wife and he were com- 
 ing off — they went on the Monday and I came on the Tuesday — the 
 least money we have, we must make the most of it. I was at Mount- 
 joy-square, and as I was coming over the bridge, a man came up near 
 to me. I asked him what was the matter — he asked me was my name 
 Moore — I said it was — he said he had a small demand against me — I 
 asked him at what suit — I tell the story as well as I can — he said, 
 James O'Brien — James O'Biien, says I ; I know the man right enough 
 — the dirty blackguard, what demand has he against me ? They 
 brought me to the Tholsel or sponging-house, and James O'Brien came 
 to the door — I said, you scoundrel, what demand have you against me ? 
 If you come to a friend's house, I will give you satisfaction that I do 
 not owe you anything. I called to the lady of the house, and asked 
 her to keep two guineas for me till I would call next morning. I 
 came to the Tholsel next morning ; O'Brien was there ; are you thei'e, 
 my gentleman ? says I — you see I am, says he — very well, says I, I 
 must know how I owe you this money. I took out a summons for 
 him. Then the sitting justice said, where do you live ? — I reside 
 forty miles from this, said I, and I gave O'Brien the lie, not minding 
 what I said. The magistrate, offended, said, I had given the lie, and 
 he tore the order, and that was all ; and I hope I have said enough. 
 The bailiff told me at another time that I hindered him of getting at 
 the money. 
 
 Q. That money was ordered back to you ? A, It was. 
 
 Q. (By the Court TVHiat house was this money deposited in ? 
 
 A. The house where I was lodged — the sponging-house.) 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. How often have you been in Dublin before this ? A. I cannot 
 tell. 
 
576 TRIAL OP 
 
 Q. You have been very often ? A. I have been two or three times 
 a-year. 
 
 Q. You have been acquainted with the sitting justices ? A. For 
 a part. 
 
 Q. You have been acquainted with them before this time ? A. I 
 never was before him before that time. 
 
 Q. What is your husband's name ? A. Kelly. 
 
 Q. Where does he live ? A. Near Mountniellick, in a gentleman's 
 service. 
 
 Q. How long is it since you and he have been apart from each 
 other ? A. I see him as often as I can : he lived with Mr. Cassan of 
 Sheffield, and it was Mr. Fletcher brought him there. 
 
 Q. Did not O'Brien think you were married ? A. He did not see 
 me married, but I believe he thought I was married. 
 
 Q. How long ai'e you married ? A. Thirty-three years. 
 
 Q. And knowing that you were a married woman, O'Brien had 
 you arrested. Did you tell the sitting justice you were married ? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you ever take a journey to Kilkenny ? A. Me 1 
 
 Q. By virtue of your oath ? A. I did live at Kilkenny. 
 
 Q. How long ago ? A. Twelve years ago. 
 
 Q. You went to live there ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. From Stradbally? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. For what reason ? A. I had a son bound 'prentice to a shoe- 
 maker, one Speare, and I had some friends of the name of Fitzpatrick, 
 and I went there. 
 
 Q. Was there no charge against you in Stradbally ? A. No ; I 
 never heard of any. 
 
 Q. Did you ever live with a man of the name of Archbold ? A. 
 Me! 
 
 Q. In the way of service, I mean ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you know a man of that name, or Ashbold ? A. My hus- 
 band lived with a gentleman of that name. 
 
 Q. Was there a charge against you respecting curtains ? A. 
 Against me ! I have never heard of anything of the kind. 
 
 Q. Is thei'e a woman of the name of Walker in Stradbally? 
 A. There is— Molly Walker. 
 
 Q. Was there anything said about butter, bacon, or such articles 
 being stolen ? A. I never stole any. 
 
 Q. Was there ever a charge made about it ? Your husband knew 
 this man O'Brien as well as you did ? A. No he does not. 
 
 Q. You live in the town of Stradbally ? A. I do ; and honestly. 
 
 Q. What rent do you pay ? A. Eight guineas a-year 
 
 Q. What have you for that ? A. I have a house with a shop. 
 
 Q. What commodities do you deal in ? A. In crockery-ware and 
 delft, when I can touch it — tea, sugar, eggs, and bread, and every- 
 thing I can put my hand to, and make a penny by. 
 
 Q. You put a hand to anything you meet ? A. I do in that line 
 — not in any other. 
 
 [Here the jury desired she might point out O'Brien, which she 
 did, saying, " that is the very identical lad."] 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear of this man being examined as a witness 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 5t7 
 
 before ? A. No ; I knew nothing about him but what I told 
 you. 
 
 Q. How long since you were arrested ? A. Last May twelve- 
 month. 
 
 Q. Did you travel with him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. You were very intimate with him ? A. No ; not any more 
 than any other — I kept him oif as well as I could. 
 
 Q. Did you ever eat or drink together ? A. I never drank a drop 
 of tea with his wife in my life. 
 
 Q. How came this man to propose to you to come to town if you 
 were not intimate ? How came it to be planned and settled and 
 agreed upon between you ? 
 
 Mr. Curb AN. — She said no such thing. 
 
 Q. Did you not say he thought you would be to town with him ? 
 A. Well, suppose so — I will not say any more. 
 
 Q. Did you not say he thought you Avould be to town with him ? 
 A. I will not answer any more. 
 
 Q. You must. A. He called in the morning, and I said I was not 
 ready, and he went off by himself. 
 
 Q. Did you not say he thought you would be with him ? A. I do 
 not know whether he thought so or not. 
 
 Q. Did you say so ? A. I do not know : he said one Nalty and 
 himself were going to town, and I said I could not go. 
 
 Q. I ask you again, were you not upon such terms that he proposed 
 to travel with you ? A. I Avould come with others I thought less 
 about. 
 
 Q. How long have you lived in Stradbally ? A. Since I was born 
 — I have been thirty-three years keeping house. 
 
 Q. Do you know any person of the Queen's County here ? A. I 
 do — Mr. Gray, Mr. Greaves, and Mr. Dunn. 
 
 Q. They are witnesses along with you ? A. No ; they were here 
 before. 
 
 John Clarke examined. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. At the " Blue-bell." 
 
 Q. Do you mean in the county of Dublin ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How long have you lived there ? A. Since I was born. 
 
 Q. What business ? A. A bleacher. 
 
 Q. Any other ? A. The public business. 
 
 Q. Do you know James O'Brien ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would you know him now if you saw him ? A. There is the 
 man. 
 
 Q. What business does he follow ? A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Did he ever tell you what business he followed ? A. No ; but 
 he came to me as a revenue officer. 
 
 Q. How do you know that ? A. By pulling out a pocket-book and 
 some paper, and I being simple thought him an officer. 
 
 Q. To what place did he come ? A. To my house. 
 
 Q. Did he tell you what the paper was ? A. He demanded my 
 licence from me, and I did not know but he might be an officer. 
 
 Q. (By the Court What papers did he pull out ? A. He pulled 
 
 out a paper as for a licence ; he said he would run me to seventeen 
 
 2 p 
 
578 TKIAL OF 
 
 pounds expense. I gave him two and twopence, and twelve pence in 
 halfpence.) 
 
 Q. At that time did he say for Avhat he would run you to the 
 expense ? A. For selling spirits without licence. I did not know 
 but he was the right person. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by supposing him the right person ? A. I 
 did not know but he was a real officer. 
 
 Q. What happened there ? A. He came three or four days after, 
 demanding more money. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — What did you give him the three shillings for? 
 
 A. On his demanding a licence. Afterwards he came and said, if 
 I gave him half a guinea he would not trouble me again, nor suflfer 
 anybody else.) 
 
 Q. So you gave him two sums ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Was he sober when he came to you in this manner ? A. He 
 was, and pleaded poverty ; and he wanted shoes, and desired me to 
 assist him. 
 
 Q. Had he been acquainted with you before ? A. I never saw 
 him before he came to me in this character of an officer. 
 
 Q. If O'Brien said he never passed as a revenue officer, would he 
 swear true ? A. No ; he passed as a revenue officer to me. 
 
 Q. And he was sober ? A. He was. 
 
 Q. Did you give that money as civility-money to an officer ? A. I 
 gave it in fear, to tell the truth, for he said he would take the bed 
 from under me. 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. You keep a public-house at the Blue-bell ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How long ? A. Two years. 
 
 Q. Have you not sold liquor more than two years ? A. I have 
 kept the opposite house twelve years ago. 
 
 Q. How long have you sold liquor ? A. I sold liquor in James's- 
 street ; I have sold malt and huxtery. 
 
 Q. Do you mean malt liquor ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you sell any little spirits in that time ? A. I am a working 
 man, and keep a bottle for myself. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — He is not bound to answer these questions. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain He is not bound to answer them, but 
 
 may if he choose. 
 
 Q. Pray, did O'Brien ever drink at your house ? A. Not to my 
 knowledge, barring a draft of malt. 
 
 Q. Have you always had a licence for selling liquor ? 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — He is not bound to answer. 
 
 Q. O'Brien called at your house and showed you a paper, and told 
 you he would charge you with selling liquor ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. He said he would prosecute you ? A. He said he would bring 
 the army and take the bed from me. 
 
 Q. Did he not threaten to prosecute you if you did not give 
 him money ? A. He said he would bring the army there ; and I gave 
 him two and two-pence in silver and twelve-pence in brass. 
 
 Q. And you have been a publican in James's-street and at the 
 Blue-bell, and you were threatened by a man, saying he would bring 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 579 
 
 the army upon you. Did you see a summons ? A. I do not know 
 
 I cannot read. 
 
 Q. Did he not threaten to prosecute you? A. He did sure 
 enough. 
 
 Q. When did you first tell this story to anybody ? A. Immediately 
 after it happened. 
 
 Q. To whom? A. To my neighbours. 
 
 Q. Mention them ? A. To John Hanlon of the Bleach-green. 
 
 Q. Did you see O'Brien since that ? A. I did, in James's-street. 
 
 Q. Is there not a justice of peace near you? A. There is. 
 
 Q. Did you complain to him ? A. No. 
 
 Q. And when did you tell Hanlon of the Bleach-green ? A. I 
 told it often. 
 
 Q. You were afraid O'Brien would prosecute you. You know 
 Cavanagh of the Red-cow ? A. I do — he is here. 
 
 Q. You have often talked with Cavanagh about this matter ? A. 
 We have. 
 
 Q. How often within these four months ? A. I met Cavanagh 
 upon his own ground, and he talked to me often. 
 
 Q. How came you here to-day ? A. I came here to tell the truth. 
 
 Q. Did you come here of yourself? A. I did. 
 
 Q. You heard Finney was to be on his trial ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. And what of O'Brien ? A. I heard he was under a bad character. 
 
 Q. And what made you come here ; from a point of conscience 
 and justice ? A. Yes, without fee or reward. 
 
 Q. And how came you to come here without fee or reward ? A. 
 To tell the truth. 
 
 Q. What invited you ? A. Nothing more. 
 
 Q. You heard, by account, that Finney was to be tried ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. And out of justice you came, hearing of this trial — and that is 
 truth? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And the whole truth ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How long do you know Finney ? A. I do not know him. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — Were you summoned ? A. I was.) 
 
 Q. When were you summoned ? A. This day. 
 
 Q. Was that the first day ? A. No, I was summoned yesterday. 
 
 Q. When before ? A. Yesterday week. 
 
 Q. When before that ? A. I cannot recollect. 
 
 Q. And to whom did you mention this matter befoi'e ? A. I do 
 not know. 
 
 Q. You came of your own accord for a man you do not knoAV ? 
 Can you tell me how you came to be summoned ? A. I cannot. 
 
 Q. Nor have no guess about it ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Have you a great resort of company to your house ? A. No, 
 very few. 
 
 Q. An odd meeting of a Saturday night ? A. No ; but a few of 
 my own workmen. 
 
 Q, (By the Jury Did O'Brien say he was a revenue officer? A. 
 
 He did.) 
 
 William Dunn sworn. 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. At No. 57, Dame-street. 
 
580 TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. What is vour way of life ? A. Shopkeeper to Mr. Butler at 
 present. 
 
 Q. Do vou know James O'Brien ? A. I know James O'Brien of 
 the old mill near Stradbally. 
 
 Q. Look about and try if you see him ? A. This is the man. 
 
 Q. Have you known him long ? A. Since he was a child. 
 
 Q. Have you known his pei'son and character ? A. Since his 
 father's death. 
 
 Q. From your knowledge of his general character, do you think he 
 deserves to be believed upon his oath in a court of j ustice ? A. 
 "Why, indeed, and upon my oath, I would not take his oath, nor believe 
 his oath for anv small matter. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mrs. Moore who was on the table a while ago ? 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q. (By the Court. — "^Tiat do you mean by saying you would not 
 take his oath for a small matter ? A. That I would not take it for 
 three-pence, or anything at all. I would not believe him.) 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear of this man being examined in a court of 
 justice before ? A. No : it is from other matters I form my opinion. 
 
 Patrick Cavanagh sworn. 
 
 Q. What business do you follow ? A. A farmer. 
 
 Q. What else ? A. I keep a carrier's inn. 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. At Inchieore. 
 
 Q. Do you know the Red-cow ? A. Yes, I keep that house. 
 
 Q. Do you know James O'Brien ? A. I have seen him several 
 times. 
 
 Q. Would you know him ? A. I believe I would. 
 
 Q. Do you see him there ? A. I do not know (here O'Brien was 
 pointed out to the witness) — I think that is the man. 
 
 Q. Do you remember his ever coming to your house ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. What passed ? A. He came to my house and said he was sta- 
 tioned in the walk ; I thought Fitzpatrick was the man ; no, said he ; 
 why then, said I, he was here yesterday ; then, said he, Fitzpatrick is 
 to show me the way till I am acquainted with it. 
 
 Q. Did he ask anything from you ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Was he very drunk ? A. No : he was very sober, I think. 
 
 Q. Did he come to you again ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. What passed that time ? A. He came to the cellar, and there 
 was a hogshead of beer and one of porter, and he turned the cock 
 and examined. He asked me to lend him fourpence, which I did, 
 and gave him his breakfast. He then summoned me, and a man came 
 to me and said — he was sorry for me ; why ? said I ; because, said he, 
 you have a large family, and God help you when he gets the book 
 into his hands. 
 
 Q. Did anything further pass ? A. Yes ; I went to the justice. 
 A man desired me to make it up ; I said I would, rather than be in 
 such hands. I was told he said I assaulted him. I said, if giving 
 him his breakfast was an assault, I assaulted him. 
 
 Q. Did you make it up ? A. I did, when I saw him the next day. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY- 581 
 
 Q. What money did you give him before that time? A. All 
 I had. 
 
 Q. How much was that ? A. Two guineas and some change. 
 
 Q. For an assault never committed. Did you ever assault him ? 
 A. Never, by my oath. 
 
 Q. Is O'Brien a man that ought to have credit upon his oath in a 
 court of justice ? A. I do not know him, but what I have told 
 you. 
 
 George Howell sworn. 
 
 Q. What is your situation in life ? A. Clerk in a public office. 
 
 Q. What office ? A. Justice AVilson's office. 
 
 Q. Do you know James O'Brien ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. Did he ever go to your office ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. Upon what occasion ? A. He came there one morning ; Mr. 
 Wilson was not there ; he wanted summonses for persons who sold 
 liquor without licences. I asked in what walk. He, mentioned the 
 Cow and Calf, and Fox and Geese ; I asked him what was become 
 of Fitzpatrick, whom I knew ; he said he was tiu'ned out, and that 
 he supplied his place ; I said there were not summonses enough — ■ 
 sometimes we have one or two, sometimes twenty. He took out a 
 large pocket-book, and said he had plenty from the commissioners of 
 the revenue and Mr. Swan. I did not see the fellow for some days 
 after. I met Fitzpatrick in some days after, and expressed my 
 sorrow that he was turned out. He asked me who told it ; I said 
 O'Brien. The greatest rascal and informer upon the face of the 
 earth, he said. We met him near Bishop-street, and I asked him 
 about it, and he ran up Bishop-street, and I never saw the fellow 
 since that time to this. 
 
 Q. Was he sober ? A. Perfectly ; it was ten o'clock in the day. 
 
 William Byrne sworn. 
 
 Q. Did you see a man of the name of Clarke in court to-day ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. When did you see him before ? A. Yesterday. 
 
 Q. How was he dressed? A. In a short jacket, in scarlet. 
 
 Q. Where did you see him yesterday ? A. In court standing 
 there. 
 
 Q. Did you hear him swear he was not in court yesterday ? A. I 
 did, which is the cause of my coming forward in this manner. 
 
 Q. Did he swear true ? A. He did not. 
 
 Bernard Cummins sworn. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prisoner at the bar ? A. I do. 
 
 Q. How long ? A. Many years. 
 
 Q. What business do you foUow ? A. The tobacco business. 
 
 Q. What is his general character ? A. I never heard anything 
 improper of him. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear, until the present charge, of his loyalty being 
 impeached? A. Never. 
 
 Q. (By the Court Did he work with you ? A. He did. 
 
 Q. How long ? A. Many months.) 
 
582 TRIAL OF 
 
 Cx'oss-examined. 
 
 Q. Was there ever any charge made against you ? A. No. 
 Q. Were you ever taken up on any charge ? A. No. 
 Case rested for the prisoner. 
 
 Peter Clarke called up again on the part of the crown. 
 
 Q. When you were upon the table befoi-e, you said you were not 
 in court yestei'day ? A. I made a mistake being so puzzled. 
 Q. Were you here yesterday ? A. I was. 
 Q. Did Mr. Ivemmis send to you ? A. He did. 
 Q. Was it to come or stay from court ? A. To come to court. 
 Q. Did you come ? A. I did. 
 
 Cross-examined. 
 
 Q. Did you not say that Mr. Kemmis desired you not to come ? 
 A. I did, being puzzled, and I did not know anything of law. 
 
 Q. Then not being a gi'eat lawyer, you came here and said you did 1 
 not ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Were you ever upon the table before ? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Then you are not so simple in the business ? A. I never 
 swore wrong before. 
 
 Q. You swore against one Lynch ? A. I did. 
 
 Q. Was he found guilty ? A. No. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-Gteneral. — The court have been pleased to ask, 
 to what overt acts we apply this evidence. I say, my lords, we apply 
 it to all the overt acts : first, that he became a member of the society 
 of United Irishmen — there is evidence of that ; that he confederated 
 with them to assist the French ; that he with others consulted and 
 agreed to send persons into France, to invite the French to invade 
 this kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain I do not think the evidence supports 
 
 that. But, in short, you think there is evidence to go to all the overt 
 acts. 
 
 Mr. Attorney-General — My lord, I do. 
 
 Mr. CuRRAN. — My lords and gentlemen of the jury, I did imagine 
 in the early part of this trial, that I should have to rise to address 
 you upon the most important and awful occasion that can happen on 
 this side the grave ; and that is, when the defence of a man labouring 
 for liberty, for life, for everything that can be dear to a human being, 
 depends upon the casual sti-ength of an exhausted, and at best not 
 a very feeble advocate. But, gentlemen, I do not now pretend to 
 say, that I rise under any of these burdens. I do not rise poor and 
 enfeebled — I affect no such despicable humility. I rise not to under- 
 mine your judgments, or to awaken your compassion. But I rise up 
 with whatever there is of law, of constitution, of conscience in the 
 realm at my back, and standing in the front of this all-powerful 
 alliance, I do demand your verdict of acquittal for my client ; and I 
 will show you that this case is that kind of despicable tissue which 
 requires no force to break it. In walking by it, it vanishes into air, 
 and is sundered into tatters. 
 
 I did feel, gentlemen, an observation made by the right honourable 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 583 
 
 gentleman who stated this case for the crown, made in the spirit of a 
 kindness which for a number of years has filled me with much grati- 
 tude, and reflected no little credit upon me. He has been pleased to 
 say, that the counsel for the prisoner would address the court and 
 you with the same spirit of candour which he did upon the part of the 
 crown. Gentlemen, I accept of the observation made by that highly- 
 respected counsel with the more confidence, because mine own heart 
 tells me it is sound and honest. I know not the situation in human 
 life in which the humble abilities of any man can be so gloriously 
 exerted, as in endeavouring to give an honest defence to a fellow- 
 subject labouring for his character and his life. If there be any sub- 
 lunary situation in which a human being can be engaged, that can be 
 supposed to attract the eye of heaven, it is where God looks down 
 upon one human creature defending the life of another against human 
 turpitude — a life which God himself has endeavoured to defend by 
 his awful canon — " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy 
 neighbour ;" and, " Thou shalt do no murder." 
 
 Gentlemen, let me deserve that kind observation which the counsel 
 for the crown has been pleased to make — let me reason fairly and 
 coolly upon this subject. Thank God, I cannot ! But let me reason 
 unclouded, though, I trust, not unwarned by the observation. 
 
 Gentlemen, the prisoner stands indicted — I wish to state with all 
 possible succinctness and clearness the nature of the charge, and I 
 am glad that my learned colleague has done so much before me — so 
 much so, that when I repeat anything which he has said, I run a risk 
 of weakening it much. I am not in the habit of paying compliments 
 where they are not deserved ; neither am I in the habit of receiving 
 them myself. But I trust, the honesty of his heart must have gained 
 from you that I'espect and credit which a statement flowing from a 
 clear judgment and an animated heart deserves. 
 
 Gentlemen, the prisoner at the bar is indicted for high treason. 
 The indictment contains two kinds of high treason, and is founded 
 upon the declaratory statute the 25th Ed. III. The observation made 
 upon that statute by my learned friend must impress itself upon your 
 hearts, that it was made for the protection of the subject in cases where 
 no man knew whether his life was safe from the vague and wandering 
 uncertainty of the law — when no man knew Avhether he should lose 
 his life by his own conduct or the construction of crown lawyers ; 
 therefore that statute was enacted. 
 
 It has been called a blessed act, and may the blessings of God give 
 repose and reward to the souls of those who made it ! It was made 
 to regulate the law of treason, and it is founded upon the principles 
 of justice and humanity. It enacts that no man shall be convicted 
 of treason, but upon proveable evidence of overt acts — which overt 
 acts must be clearly stated in the indictment. The meaning of the 
 statute is this, that no man's life shall be taken away upon allegations, 
 that he did an act this way or that by possibility, but a clear and 
 precise overt act must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury who 
 try the charge. The statute does everything which human foresight 
 could do to bring the guilty man to judgment, and to save the inno- 
 cent man from death. I would call it an omnipotent statute, were it 
 possible for the omnipotency of an act of parliament to appal the 
 
584 TRIAL OF 
 
 conscience of a remorseless perjurer or drive him from a court of 
 justice. But law could not do it — religion could not do it — the feel- 
 ings of humanity locked up in a frozen and obdurate heart, could not 
 do it. It could not prevent the arrow from being pointed at the heart 
 of the accused ; but it has been given a shield to protect him — ^the 
 crime shall be stated so clear, that no man shall mistake it — the acts 
 by which he intended to elFect his Avicked pui-pose must be stated, and 
 must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury — he must be proveably 
 convicted ? Are you at a loss to know it ? Does it mean, that if a 
 man should come and say — " that is a traitor, and was vile enough 
 to intend to kill the sacred person who holds the reins of the state." 
 Is that what is meant by proveably convicted ? that a wretch can 
 come upon the table — no matter who — the noble lord that appeared 
 this day — their lordships on the bench — or O'Brien the informer — 
 and say, " by virtvie of my oath, the prisoner intended to kill the 
 King ; and settled all the means of doing it ; and bought the powder 
 and ball in order to kill him ?" Is that what you suppose by prove- 
 able evidence ? It is not what the law means : it means that the 
 cogency of the evidence lays as strong a hold of the jury, as the 
 sentence of condemnation does of the prisoner ; and they are obliged 
 to find him guilty against the yearnings of human nature — that is 
 what the law means, and that only. It means not that dirty ribaldry 
 that is flung on him by any man — no, in that abominable filth and 
 scurrility which the wretch flings on the intended victim of his 
 perjury, there is nothing deleterious, but there is something sapona- 
 ceous which clears the character it was intended to vilify. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have stated the law of high treason a little more 
 warmly than I need have done ; but I do not apologise for any 
 warmth. It is honest. I say then the overt acts must be laid and 
 proved, in the words of the statute, by positive testimony from 
 untainted witnesses ; the law which I am laying before you is recog- 
 nised by every writer on the law of treason ; by the most illustrious 
 commentators on the laws of England. I do not wonder they have 
 been so often repeated ; the abandonment of these rules has produced 
 such fatal consequences, that no man can lament them too long. No 
 man viewing the constructions which had been put on acts to construe 
 them into treason ; no honest man could ever think he had done 
 enough to warn each successive court and jury, how they suflfered 
 themselves to be carried away by those passions which are disgraceful 
 only when they are not able to hold the manly check of judgment 
 over them, under the guidance of reason. 
 
 The charge upon which the prisoner at the bar stands before you, 
 gentlemen of the jury, is two-fold; that is, of compassing and 
 imagining the death of the King, and also of adhering to the King's 
 enemies. It is peculiarly necessary that I should be circumspect in 
 everything I shall say to you, because, if I fall into any errors, I 
 might be liable to have them detected by the counsel, whose duty it 
 will be to answer me. I am sure it would be in the spirit of the 
 crown prosecution ; and if I was to make any mistake, therefore, it 
 could not escape detection from that gentleman. Gentlemen, the 
 indictment, as I stated before, is founded on two species of high 
 trea,son ; compassing and imagining the death of the King, and also 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 58^ 
 
 adliering to the King's enemies. To support which charges, there 
 are no fewer than thirteen overt acts, as I have akeady described. 
 I will only make a few observations on them. It will not be neces- 
 sary for me to go minutely through them all ; and the learned 
 counsel for the prosecution will feel I am speaking with great can- 
 dour when I admit, that if you were to consider the evidence you 
 have heard as true, there could be no doubt but the indictment would 
 be supported. If the evidence was to be believed by you, I think 
 there could be no doubt that the prisoner must be guilty, under some 
 one or other of the overt acts laid in the indictment. I do not 
 complain that the counsel for the crown when called upon by the, 
 learned judge, did not find it expedient to point out on which of the 
 overt acts it was they meant to rely, when I saw the complexion with 
 which the evidence for the crown appeared, and the additional 
 complexion it received from the evidence for the prisoner. Mr. 
 Attorney- General was pleased to make an observation which has 
 drawn a strong remark from my learned colleague : — Mr. Attorney- 
 General told you that the atrocity of the charge ought not to make 
 any impression on your minds — it was a remark of candour and 
 liberality — because, what he meant was this, that you are not from 
 any impulse of loyalty or affection to the King, to give credit to the 
 accusation, merely because it is atrocious. But the remark of my 
 friend in answer to that was, and in which I fully concur, it was not 
 the business of the Attorney-General to make the observation, but his 
 disposition will admit the justice of it ; that the atrocity of the crime, 
 of any charge, is not the reason why a jury should give belief to it, 
 but that they ought to disbelieve it ; and therefore, the atrocity of the 
 charge ought to be considered by a jury as an improbability of the 
 truth, because the more atrocious, the more unlikely. 
 
 I can imagine no crime gi'eater in a civilized state — I care not 
 whether it be democratical, or aristocratical, or monarchical, or even 
 actually despotic ; I say, no ci'inie can be greater, than an attempt to 
 destroy the person who holds the executive authority of the state — 
 far be it from me to conceal my abhorrence of such a crime. Happy 
 am I, that in the discharge of that duty which I owe to my client, I 
 am not called upon to varnish over, or disguise a crime which I abhor, 
 but that I can express my opinion without involving the fate of my 
 client. The defence of my client is, that no man feels a greater 
 abhorrence of the charge than the prisoner at the bar, and that he 
 feels himself as innocent of the imputation as your own hearts, 
 gentlemen, do tell you that you are. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, the overt acts which are charged against the 
 prisoner, are all very much of the same nature ; consulting to destroy 
 the government ; entering into a society for the purpose of subverting 
 the constitution ; calling in the French, enemies to the King, for the 
 purposes stated in these overt acts. They are overt acts, which very 
 much resemble each other in their general nature, in both counts of 
 the indictment ; but there is a distinction which I feel of great 
 moment to make to you, and it is of great moment indeed. It has 
 been not an uncommon expression in courts of justice to say, that the 
 prosecutor artfully did this, or suppressed that. I do not like this 
 mode of expression. I do not like to make observations, when 
 
586 TRIAL OF 
 
 they reflect upon the candour of any man ; but we have to complain, 
 that the prevaricating witness who appeared this day, has committed 
 a base imposition on those gentlemen, whose duty it was to bring 
 forward this charge against the prisoner ; to that, and to that only, 
 do I attribute the want of candour, which is not to be expected from 
 the informer, and I should shrink to attribute it to any other cause. 
 
 You find, gentlemen, at the bottom of this charge, what I may call 
 the foundation-stone of it, laid, or endeavoured to be laid, by Mr. 
 O'Brien, the informer ; that there was a deliberate system entered 
 into by a number of persons calling themselves United Irishmen — 
 taking certain tests for the purpose of committing the treasons charged 
 in the overt acts. I said there was a distinction of great moment, 
 that O'Brien endeavoured to hold out to the pviblic, to all Europe, 
 that he endeavours to disseminate a belief, that 111,000 men in the 
 province of Ulster alone — to establish a belief on his own single 
 evidence, that at a time of peril and calamity like the present, such 
 a body of men, able to defend their King, and country, and 
 constitution, against a host of enemies, had combined against the 
 life of that King, and the tranquillity of that counti-y ! On that 
 point, it is for you, gentlemen, to consider, and to consider again and 
 again (if there was nothing but the name of an Irishman, so basely 
 aspersed, at stake from the insinuation). I will show you it is a fact 
 of such a nature, as is unworthy of belief. If there is any fact stated 
 by that witness, which can be deserving of belief, what is it ? It can 
 only be, that there is a great combination of the human mind upon 
 public subjects ; and here the distinction of materiality arises ; 
 because if there be such a combination as that described by the 
 witness, you must take the evidence altogether, and consider the 
 paper produced in court as a foundation of the charge. Do not mis- 
 take me. Gentlemen, I say, a witness asserting such a fact as 
 O'Brien has asserted, deserves no credit from you ; but if you conceive 
 he does, you must take the principles of that combination, from that 
 kind of institution which has been read in court. I will state to you 
 what it is ; it is to get rid of religious animosities. Would to God it 
 were possible to be done ! You will see, gentlemen, from what I am 
 going to do, that am I stating the facts fairly. The next object is 
 parliamentary reform ; if that be an oifence, the text is full of it ; it 
 needs no comment of mine. The last is that of secrecy. Gentlemen, 
 in the heai'ing of the court, I do submit the question to the counsel 
 for the crown ; I do make this appeal to the bench, to the bar, to you, 
 gentlemen of the jury, Avhether, take that obligation in the words of it, 
 there is anything treasonable ? It needs no argument to show you 
 there is nothing in it of treason. I would make myself ridiculous 
 were I to say, that however taken there might be no treason in it. 
 There may be a colourable combination for anything, and the real 
 purpose be concealed. What is the law of England ? What was 
 the opinion of the very able court that presided at the late trials for 
 constructive treasons in England ? It is this — " strong must that 
 proof be, which goes to show that the paper* bear any internal import 
 from what they seem to bear ; that they seem to apply to one pvu-pose, 
 and mean another." 
 
 If the tests of any combination were open, suppose the tests of 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 587 
 
 the Corresponding Society in England, there might be a reason for 
 concealing their meaning, if anything bad were intended, in words 
 which could not attach guilt to them ; but, is a paper, not subject to 
 public discussion, subject to no public investigation, to be worded in 
 the same manner ? It is ridiculous to say that, if 1 1 1 ,000 men meet 
 secretly to hatch treason and treasonable conspiracies, they will 
 express their intentions in words, not bearing such meaning, but will 
 take an oath of another import ! Do you think it common sense that 
 if men meet and deliberate on sending persons to France, or murder- 
 ing the people, or overturning the constitution, or for any of those 
 purposes form a guilty combination, they would take an engagement 
 for something totally diiFerent from that which is the real intention 
 of their combination ? "What purpose could it answer ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I have stated the proposition abstractedly taken, that 
 upon the written paper there is nothing treasonable. But I admit it 
 may be the foundation of a treasonable purpose. I am well aware 
 that a man taking that obligation, will not be prevented by it from 
 becoming a traitor if he chooses ; he may, if he be base enough, make 
 an attempt upon the sacred person of the King ; no oath or test can 
 prevent a man becoming a traitor. But, the question for you to 
 decide upon is, whether there was, independently of that engagement, 
 (and there is no evidence that I recollect) — I say, the great and only 
 question for your consideration is, have there been any treasonable pur- 
 poses proved by the witness, O'Brien, against the prisoner at the bar ? 
 
 I have told you, gentlemen, that the Avords of the statute of the 
 25th of Edward III. on which this indictment is grounded, are, that 
 it shall be proveably evinced to the satisfaction of the jury that the 
 prisoner is guilty of the treason charged upon him ; what is the evi- 
 dence produced to support that ? Mr. O'Brien. What has he stated 
 to you ? And here I beseech you let me have the benefit of that 
 circumstance (as much as fools may abuse these countries) — let me 
 have that benefit, that privilege which distinguishes the trial by jury 
 from all other modes of trial in the woi'ld. Twelve men from the 
 walks of common life, acquainted with the human character in all its 
 progressions, not emerging from the must and cobwebs of a study, nor 
 abstracted from human nature, where they may come without vision to 
 make them discern the distinction between the sincerity and insincerity 
 of the human character. I call upon you to let me have the full benefit of 
 that particular distinction of these countries — the trial by jury. Look 
 carefully, and weigh the probability of the story : — " I was going 
 through the street," says O'Brien, " I met Hyland." " Are you up ?" 
 says Hyland — " are you up ? You will be murdered before you go 
 half a street if you do not become an United Irishman." Gentlemen, 
 some of you are younger men than I am ; but you are all old enough 
 to form an opinion upon the truth of this story. Do you think it 
 probable ? Suppose any of you were of the society of United Ii'ishmen, 
 or Freemasons, or Friendly Brothers, and suppose you were walking 
 along and met me, would you say — " Come in here ; are you a Friendly 
 Brother or a Freemason ?" " No." " Then come in here, or you will 
 be murdered before you get half up the street." Do you think that 
 likely ? Did you ever hear of a man tempted to commit a felony of 
 death under a temptation of that kind ? Such a coaxing of the 
 
588 TRIAL OF 
 
 native simplicity of O'Brien. " Sweet Mr. O'Brien, come in, or your 
 precious life will be taken away before you get half the street." 
 What a loss he would have been to his King, if he ventured to go 
 away without becoming an United Irishman ! All this in the street. 
 He could not call out for assistance ; his members refused their office ; 
 his feet were incorporated with the paving stones ; he could not run ; 
 he went in, and what happened there ? Why, he meets a number of 
 people ; one goes to one door, and another goes to another, and the 
 first ci-ies out — " Secure the doors from this bloody-minded rogue, that 
 will not save his own precious life by becoming an United Irishman." 
 Did you ever hear anything like it in common life ? He took a book 
 in his hand after he went in, and supposing his life would be taken 
 away if he had not gone in, he takes the United Irishman's oath ; but 
 that is not all ; this oath must be washed down ; and, lest he throw 
 it off his stomach, why, they fill him up to the neck with beef and 
 whiskey. He would have gone to make discovery of this ; but he 
 was drunk. Did he go the next morning ? No ; he was sick ; but 
 his loyalty returning with his stomach, they came to him, as soon 
 as light appeared, and made him drunk again. Poor fellow ! his mis- 
 fortune saved his life. He was sworn in an United Irishman, and to 
 that he charges all his distresses. Poor, innocent, sober James 
 O'Bi'ien was made drunk two days successively ; so that he was not 
 only sworn against his will to save his life, but he was made drunk 
 against his inclination ! He would have gone to lodge his sorrows in 
 the sympathetic bosom of the major ; but he was prevented ; for they 
 made him drunk again. He did not go to discover the third day ; he 
 was drunk. At last he went to a justice of peace, and then, gentle- 
 men, his loyalty is better than his memory or his sobriety. What 
 does he do ? He goes to make a discovery, and in the force of his 
 loyalty, becomes a prophet. I am holding out a strong vindication of 
 his character, because, what did he do ? He stated what occurred 
 three weeks before it happened. He went to Lord Portarlington, 
 and what does he do ? He tells his lordship of a circumstance that 
 did not happen for three weeks after. Honest James O'Brien ! be- 
 cause he could keep nothing secret, and in letting out the truth, he 
 tells that which he knew nothing about at the time ! Let others argue 
 on logical truth, or ethical falsehood, if I can pin an informer to one 
 ring of perjury, I will bait him on it, till it is impossible to give him 
 credit. Can the life of any man be safe, can it be considered of any 
 moment, if such perjury as this is to take it away ? What argument 
 can be found to support his testimony, when he swears he has perjured 
 himself? He forgets when he perjured himself — what! an informer 
 foi'get? But, in spite of what he swears, I will say he is not perjured, 
 but he is an honest man ! I am speaking of his communications with 
 Lord Portarlington ; I am not confounding his testimony with the 
 perjury of Clarke ; but I am speaking of O'Brien, and comparing his 
 testimony with himself, because he stated, he did not hear anything 
 of the funeral or of attacking the stores till the second or third meet- 
 ing, and Lord Portarlington mentions he stated it upon the first. If 
 it is possible that any man can come into a court of justice as a wit- 
 ness to perjure himself, if such man did come in, I do pray God to 
 forgive him ; and I do beg that man's pardon for what I have said ; 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 589 
 
 because it is your calm and cool verdict that is to stamp on his cha- 
 racter that degree of credit which he deserves, and which cannot be 
 inflicted by any casual strictures of mine. 
 
 Gentlemen, you must perceive it to be material to the question, how 
 it came to pass that O'Brien should be able tell Lord Portarlington, 
 that it was intended to make an attack upon the ordnance, unless he 
 started at the beginning with a design of being an informer, and with 
 a determination of swearing against some person or other. Whether 
 he saw Hyland or Finney, is a matter extremely questionable. But 
 this is not ; that he laid the foundation of a false charge ; false — be- 
 cause it does appear that he stated it at a time it could not possibly 
 exist. And here, gentlemen, you see the cleverness he exerted in 
 imposing on the honest, unsuspecting nature of those who were to 
 conduct and take care of the business for the ci'own ; he stated as a 
 fact what existed mei-ely in his own fancy ; he did state that to Lord 
 Portarlington, which could not have happened at the time ; and with 
 which, by his own evidence, he was not acquainted till after his 
 interview with that lord. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have stated a little of the evidence, I shall have occa- 
 sion to return to it again ; but before I do so give me leave to recall 
 to your minds that statement by my learned friend as applied to the 
 law of treason in this case. It is the invulnerable principle of the 
 English law, that two witnesses are necessary in cases of treason ; but 
 though the law is not the same in both countries, yet the principle of 
 the law is, and is engraven upon the heart of every honest man ; for 
 every man must see what the principle of that is, and will do what 
 St. Paul says — " They know not the law nor the prophets ; but they 
 do the things that are written in their hearts ; their consciences also 
 bearing unto them testimony." 
 
 I own it is with a warmth of heart that I refute a calumny of en- 
 deavouring to separate the two countries. We feel the value of the 
 British constitution, and under the sacred shade of that constitution I 
 do now place my client ; and I do call upon you to show a cordiality 
 of adherence to the British law, not by a sycophantic display of idle 
 words — not by saying " Lord ! Lord ! " — but " by doing the will of 
 that Father which is in heaven." Show your concurrence in the 
 principles of that law — show an adherence worthy of yourselves by 
 showing an adherence to a communion of law and justice. What does 
 that law say ? If my client must be unfortunate, it is for being an 
 Irishman ; for having been tried in his own country. Had he been 
 tried by a jury of Ludgate-hill shopkeepers, he would long before this 
 time have been in his lodging, if he had one ; and the court (had he 
 been tried in England) would have said, the law does not suffer a man 
 to be butchered by one witness — by one wretched perjurer. The 
 court and jury, and those who pi'osecute for the crown, may be 
 imposed upon, where a wretch thirsts for the blood of his fellow- 
 creatures ; and, if such may happen in England, why should an Irish 
 jury he incredulous of the fact ? In that country, St. Paul's is not 
 more public than the charge made against the poorest creature that 
 crawls upon the soil of England. There must be two witnesses to 
 convict the prisoner of high treason. The prisoner must have a copy 
 of the jurors' names, by whom he may eventually be tried ; he must 
 
590 TRIAL OF 
 
 have a list of the witnesses that are to be produced against him, that 
 they may not, vampire-like, come crawling out of the grave to drink 
 his blood ; but that, by having a list of their names and places of abode, 
 he may inquire into their characters and modes of life, that, if they 
 are infamous, he may be enabled to defend himself against the attacks 
 of their perjmy, and their subornation. There must, I say, be two 
 witnesses, that the juiy may be satisfied, if they believe the evidence, 
 that the prisoner is guilty ; and if there be but one Avitness, the jury 
 shall not be troubled with the idle folly of listening to the prisoner's 
 defence. There can be but little probability of contradicting one 
 witness ; he little fears the detection of his intended murder, and his 
 public perjury. It is diiScult to contradict that man, who has only a 
 communication between himself and the infernal author of all evil. 
 It is only when the promoter of his infamy calls for retribution, in 
 the loss of his victim, that the wretched perjurer is appalled. I do 
 not mean to apply any of those observations where man is equal with 
 man ; God forbid ! I trust that the principle of the English law will 
 be proved by you, to be the same in this country, that I am yet proud 
 of. God forbid ! we should not feel as much, and have hearts beating 
 as high, as they can in England. I care not that my client knows 
 nothing of you. If the blood of a man in this countiy is not considered 
 equally precious as in another — yet, if I know the feelings of the 
 human heart, and the look of the human countenance, he has no reason 
 to regret that you ai-e not an English jury ; though it may be unfor- 
 tunate for him that he is an Irishman. Am I i-easoning wildly ? 
 Why was it made the law in England that two witnesses were 
 necessary on a trial for high treason ? Because the law did take it 
 for granted that no one witness ought to take away the life of a pri- 
 soner charged with such a crime ; and if that was the reason which 
 induced that necessary rule of law, was it absurdly stated to you that 
 it was founded in the clear and obvious principles of justice ? If so, 
 the laws of eternal justice do not require the sanction of an act of 
 parliament. 
 
 Another circumstance has occurred to me of particular moment, 
 and that is, the man came forward to take his trial in the absence of 
 two witnesses, sworn to be materially necessary for his defence. He 
 stands at the bar totally divested of whatever aid they could have 
 given him by their presence. What they could have stated, I am not 
 at liberty to mention to you ; it would not be evidence. That they 
 are not here now, is not imputable to any neglect of my client to pro- 
 cure them. I have only to say, that the two witnesses might have been 
 most material to the defence of the prisoner ; but so little do I now 
 think he stands in need of their support that I should not have men- 
 tioned them if they had not been so oftened named. Gentlemen, do 
 you remember the testimony admitted by O'Brien, that " if Roberts 
 said anything against him he would settle him ? " The very informer 
 coming here to plunge a dagger into the heart of the prisoner, thus 
 plunges a dagger into the heart of the intended witness. Why was 
 it he threw his abominable threat against the life of Mr. Roberts ? It 
 was to deter him from giving evidence of the baseness and infamy of 
 his abominable life, I said Mr. Roberts was not here ; now I say he 
 is here — I appeal to the evidence of O'Brien — I appeal to the heart 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 591 
 
 of that man who vowed vengeance against him if he appeared on the 
 table. I appeal to the obdurate heart of that wretched and abandoned 
 man. What was the evidence he knew Mr. Roberts would have given 
 if he had dared to appear on the table, and in a court of justice ? And 
 that he would make it at the risk of his life, from the attack of the 
 perjured informer, if he came into a court of justice to give evidence. 
 Good God ! is a transaction of this kind to be borne ? Where do the 
 laws exist ? Shall the horrors which surround the informer, the 
 ferocity of his countenance and the terrors of his voice, cast such a 
 wide and appalling influence that none dare approach and save the 
 victim whom he has marked out for ignominy and death ? 
 
 He has told you there are no less than 1 11, 000 men in one province, 
 and 10,000 in the city of Dublin, ready to assist an invasion ! Gen- 
 tlemen, are you prepared to say that the kingdom of Ireland has been 
 so forsaken by all principles of humanity and of loyalty, that there 
 are now no less than 111,000 men sworn by the most solemn of all 
 engagements, and connected in a deadly combination to destroy the 
 constitution of the country, and to invite the common enemy, the 
 French, to invade it — are you prepared to say this by your verdict ? 
 When you know not the intentions or the means of that watchful and 
 insatiable enemy, do you think it would be wise by your verdict of 
 guilty, to say, on the single testimony of a common infoi'mer, that you 
 do believe upon your oatlis that there is a body consisting of no less 
 a number than 1 1 1,000 men ready to assist the French, if they should 
 make an attempt upon this country, and ready to fly to their standard 
 whenever they think proper to invade it ? This is another point of 
 view in which to examine this case. You know the distress and con- 
 vulsion of the public mind for a considerable length of time ; cau- 
 tiously will I abstain from making observations that could refresh the 
 public memory, situated as I am in a court of justice. But, gentle- 
 men, this is the first, the only trial for high treason, in which an 
 informer gives his notions of the propriety or impropi'iety of public 
 measures ; I remember none — except the trial of that unfortunate 
 wanderer, that unhappy fugitive, for so I may call hun, Jackson, a 
 native of this country — guilty he was, but neither his guilt nor inno- 
 cence had any affinity with any other system. But this is the first 
 trial that has been brought forward for high treason, except that, 
 where such mattei's have been disclosed ; and, gentlemen, are you 
 prepared to think well of the burden of embarking your character, 
 high and respectable, on the evidence of an abandoned and, I will 
 show you, a peijured and common informer, in declaring you are 
 ready to offer up to death 111,000 men, one by one, by the sentence 
 of a court of justice ? Are you ready to meet it ? Do not suppose I 
 am base or mean enough to say anything to intimidate you, when I 
 talk to you of such an event ; but if you were prepared for such a 
 scene, what would be your private reflections were you to do any such 
 thing ? Tlierefore I put the question fairly to you — have you made 
 up your minds to tell the public, that as soon as James O'Brien shall 
 choose to come forward again, to make the same charge against 
 111,000 other men, you are ready to see so many men, so many 
 of your fellow-subjects and fellow-citizens, drop one by one into the 
 grave, dug for them by his testimony ? 
 
592 TRIAL OF 
 
 Gentlemen, I do not think I am speaking disrespectfully to you 
 when I say, that when such a character as Mr. O'Brien can be found, 
 it may be the lot of the proudest among you to have a visitation from 
 him, and instead of sitting in the jury-box, you might be at the bar 
 where my client now stands. If you were standing there, how would 
 you feel if you found that the evidence of such a wretch would be ad- 
 mitted as sufficient to attaint your life, and send you to an ignominious 
 death ? Remember, I do beseech you, that great mandate of your 
 religion — " Do thou unto all men as you would they should unto you." 
 
 Give me leave to put another point to you — what is the reason that 
 you deliberate, that you condescend to listen to me, and try if from 
 me anything can come to illuminate the subject before you ? It is 
 because you are bound by the sacred obligation of an oath. It is be- 
 cause you feel that that sacred obligation is a thing which you dare 
 not forfeit. Have you any doubt that it is the object of O'Brien to 
 take down the prisoner for the reward that follows ? Have you not 
 seen with what more than instinctive keenness this bloodhound has 
 pursued his victim ? How he has kept him in view from place to 
 place until he hunts him through the avenues of the court to where 
 the unhappy man stands now, hopeless of all succour but that which 
 your verdict shall afford. I have heard of assassination by sword, 
 by pistol, and by dagger ; but here is a wretch who would dip the 
 evangelists in blood : if he thinks he has not sworn his victim to 
 death, he is ready to swear without mercy and without end. But 
 oh ! do not, I assure you, suffer him to take an oath — the hand of the 
 murderer should not pollute the purity of the Gospel : if he will swear, 
 let it be on the knife, the proper symbol of his profession. 
 
 Gentlemen, I am again reminded of that tissue of abominable 
 slander and calumny with which O'Brien has endeavoured to load so 
 great a portion of the adult part of your country. Is it possible you 
 can believe the report of that wretch, that no less than 111,000 men 
 are ready to destroy and overturn the government ? I do not believe 
 the abominable slander. I may have been too quick in condemning 
 this man ; and I know the argument which will be used, and, to a 
 certain degree, it is not without sense — that you cannot always expect 
 witnesses of the most unblemished character, and such things would 
 never be brought to light if witnesses like O'Brien were rejected 
 altogether. The argument is of some force ; but does it hold here ? 
 or are you to believe it as a truth, because the fact is sworn to by 
 an abominable and perjured witness ? No ; the law of England, the 
 so-often-mentioned principle upon which that important statute is 
 framed, denies the admission. An English judge would be bound to 
 tell you, and the learned judges present will tell you, that a single 
 accomplice is not to be believed without strong corroborative con- 
 firmations — I do not know where a contrary principle was entertained ; 
 if such has been the case, I never heard of it. O'Brien stated himself 
 to have been involved in the guilt of the prisoner, in taking the obli- 
 gation which was forced on him, and which he was afterwards obliged 
 to wash down ; but may not the whole description given by him be 
 false ? May he not have fabricated that story, and come forward as 
 an informer in a transaction that never happened, from the expectation 
 of pay and profit ? How does he stand ? He stands divested of a 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 593 
 
 Single witness to support his character or the trutli of his assertions, 
 when numbers were necessary for each. You would be most helpless 
 and unfortunate men, if everything said by the witness laid you under 
 a necessity of believing it. Therefore he must be supported either by 
 collateral or coniirmatory evidence. Has he been supported by any 
 collateral evidence, confirming what was sworn this day ? No. Two 
 witnesses have been examined, they are not additional witnesses to 
 the overt acts ; but if either of them should carry any conviction to 
 your minds, you must be satisfied that the evidence given by O'Brien 
 is false. I will not pollute the respectable and honourable character 
 of Lord Portarlington, by mentioning it with the false and perjured 
 O'Brien. Does his lordship tell you a single word but what O'Brien 
 said to him ? Because, if his lordship told all here that O'Brien told 
 to him, O'Brien has done the same too ; and though he has told Lord 
 Portarlington every word which he has sworn on the table, yet still the 
 evidence given by his lordship cannot be corroborative ; because the 
 probability is that he told a falsehood ; you must take that evidence 
 by comparison. And what did he tell Lord Portarlington ? or, rather, 
 what has Lord Poi'tarlington told you ? — That O'Brien did state to him 
 the project of I'obbing the ordnance some time before he could possibly 
 have known it himself. And it is material that he swore on the table 
 thathe did not know of the plot till his third meeting with the socie- 
 ties ; and Lord Portaidington swears that he told it to him on the first 
 interview with him : tliex'e the contradiction of O'Brien by Lord 
 Portarlington is material ; and the testimony of Lord Portarlington may 
 be put out of the case, except so far as it contradicts that of O'Brien. 
 
 Mr. Justice Chamberlain. — It is material, Mr. Curran, that Lord 
 Portarlington did not swear positively it was at the fii'St interview, 
 but that he was inclined to believe it was so. 
 
 Mr. Curran Your lordship will recollect that he said O'Brien 
 
 did not say anything of consequence at any of the other interviews ; 
 but I put his lordship out of the question, so far as he does not con- 
 tradict O'Brien, and he does so. If I am stating anything through 
 mistake, I would wish to be set right ; but Lord Portarlington said 
 he did not recollect anything of importance at any subsequent meeting ; 
 and as far as he goes, he does beyond contradiction establish the false 
 swearing of O'Brien. I am strictly right in stating the contradiction ; 
 so far as it can be compared with the testimony of O'Brien, it does 
 weaken it ; and, therefore, I will leave it there, and put Lord Portar- 
 lington out of the question — that is, as if he had not been examined 
 at all, but where he differs from the evidence given by O'Brien. 
 
 As to the witness Clarke, after all he has sworn, you cannot but be 
 satisfied he has not said a single word materially against the prisoner ; 
 he has not given any confirmatory evidence in support of any one 
 overt act laid in the indictment. You have them upon your minds 
 — he has not said one word as to the various meetings — levying 
 money, or sending persons to France ; and, therefore, I do warn you 
 against giving it that attention for which it has beon introduced. He 
 does not make a second witness. Gentlemen, in alluding to the 
 evidence of Lord Portarlington, which I have ali-eady mentioned, I 
 was bound to make some observations. On the evidence of Clarke I 
 am also obliged to do the same, because he has endeavoured to pre- 
 
 2 Q 
 
594 TRIAL OF 
 
 judice your minds by an endeavour to give a sliding evidence of what 
 does not by any means come within this case ; that is, a malignant 
 endeavour to impute an horrid transaction — the murder of a man of 
 the name of Thompson — to the prisoner at the bar ; but I do conjure 
 you to consider what motives there can be for insinuations of this 
 sort, and why such a transaction, so remote from the case before you, 
 should be endeavoured to be impressed on your minds. Gentlemen, 
 I am not blinking the question, I come boldly up to it ; and I ask 
 you, in the presence of the court and of your God, is there one 
 word of evidence that bears the shadow of such a charge, as the 
 murder of that unfortunate man, to the prisoner at the bar ? Is there 
 one word to show how he died — whether by force, or by any other 
 means ? Is there a word how he came to his end ? Is there a word 
 to bi*ing a shadow of suspicion that can be attached to the prisoner ? 
 Gentlemen, my client has been deprived of the benefit of a witness, 
 May, (you have heard of it,) who, had the trial been postponed, 
 might have been able to attend ; we have not been able to examine 
 him ; but you may guess what he would have said — he would have dis- 
 credited the informer O'Brien. The evidence of O'Brien ought to be 
 supported by collateral circvimstances. It is not ; and though Roberts 
 is not here, yet you may conjecture what he would have said. But, 
 gentlemen, I have examined five witnesses, and it does seem as if 
 there had been some providential interference carried on in bringing 
 five witnesses to contradict O'Brien in his testimony, as to direct 
 matters of fact, if his testimony could be put in competition with 
 direct positive evidence. O'Brien said, he knew nothing of ordering 
 back any money to Margaret Moore ; he denied that fact. The 
 woman was examined — what did she say on the table in the presence 
 of O'Brien ? That " an order was made, and the money refunded, 
 after the magistrate had abused him for his conduct." What would 
 you think of your servant, if you found him committing such 
 perjury — would you believe him? What do you think of this fact? 
 O'Brien denies he knew anything of the money being refunded ! 
 What does Mrs. Moore say ? That after the magistrate had 
 abused him for his conduct the money was refunded, and that " she 
 and O'Brien walked down stairs together!" Is this an accidental 
 trip, a little stumble of conscience, or, is it not downright, wilful 
 perjury? What said Mr. Clarke? I laid the foundation of the 
 evidence by asking O'Brien, did you ever pass for a revenue ofiicer ? 
 I call, gentlemen, on your knowledge of the human character, and 
 of human life, what was the conduct of the man ? Was it what you 
 would have acted, if you had been called on in a court of justice? 
 Did he answer me candidly ? Do you remember his manner ? " Not, 
 sir, that I remember ; it could not be when I was sober." Did you 
 do it at all ? What was the answer — " I might, sii", have done it ; 
 but I must have been drunk. I never did anything dishonest." Why 
 did he answer thus ? Because he did imagine he would have been 
 opposed in his testimony, he not only added perjury to his prevari- 
 cation, but he added robbery to both. There are thousands of your 
 fellow-subjects waiting to know, if the fact charged upon the nation 
 of 111,000 men ready to assist the common enemy be true ; if upon 
 the evidence of an abandoned wretch, a common cheat, a robber. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 595 
 
 and a perjurer, you will convict the prisoner at the bar. As to his 
 being a coiner, I will not pass that felony in payment among his other 
 crimes, but I will offer it by itself; I will ofter it as an emblem of his 
 conscience, copper washed — I will offer it by itself. 
 
 What has O'Brien said ? " I never remember that I did pretend to 
 be a revenue officer ; but I remember there was a man said something 
 about whiskey ; and I remember, I threatened to complain, and he 
 was a little frightened — and he gave me three and three pence !" — 
 I asked him, " Did his wife give you anything ?" — " There was three 
 and three pence between them." — " Who gave you the money ?" " It 
 was all I got from both of them !" — Gentlemen, would you let him 
 into your house as a servant ? Suppose one of you wanted a servant, 
 and went to the other to get one ; and suppose you heai'd that he 
 personated a revenue officer ; that he had threatened to become an 
 informer against persons not having licences, in order to extort 
 money to compromise the actions, Avould you take him as a ser- 
 vant? If you would not take him as a servant in exchange 
 for his wages, would you take his perjuries in exchange for the 
 life of a fellow-subject ? Let me ask you, how would you show your 
 faces to the public, and justify a barter of that kind, if you were to 
 establish and send abroad his assignats of perjury to pass current as 
 the price of human blood ? How could you bear the tyranny your 
 consciences would exercise over you ; the dagger that would turn 
 upon your heart's blood, if in the moment of madness you could suffer 
 by your verdict the sword of justice to fall on the head of a victim 
 committed to your sworn humanity, to be massacred in your presence 
 by the perjured and abominable evidence that has been offered ! But 
 does it stop there ? — Has perjury rested there ? — No. What said the 
 honest-looking, unlettered mind of the poor farmer? — What said 
 Cavanagh ? — " I keep a public-house, — O'Brien came to me, and pre- 
 tended he was a revenue officer ; — I knew not but it might be so ; — 
 he told me he was so — he examined my little beer I had, and my cask 
 of porter." And, gentlemen, what did the villain do ? While he 
 was dipping his abandoned tongue in perjury and in blood, he robbed 
 the wretched man of two guineas. Where is he now ? Do you 
 wonder he is afraid of my eye ? that he has buried himself in the 
 crowd ? that he has shrunk into the whole of the multitude, when 
 the witness endeavoured to disentangle him and his evidence ? Do 
 you not feel that he was appalled with horror by that more piercing 
 and penetrating eye that looks upon him, and upon me, and upon us 
 all ? — The chords of his heart bore testimony by its flight, and proved 
 that he fled for the same. But does it rest there ? No. Witness 
 upon witness appeared for the prisoner, to whom, I dare say, you will 
 give that credit you must deny to O'Brien. In the presence of God 
 they swore, " that they would not believe him upon his oath in the 
 smallest matter." Do you know him, gentlemen of the jury ? — Are 
 you acquainted with James O'Brien ? — If you do, let him come for- 
 ward from that crowd where he has hid himself, and claim you by a 
 look. Have you been fellow-companions ? — If you have I dare say 
 you will recognise him. Have I done with him yet ?— No ; while 
 there is a thread of his villainy together, I will tatter it, lest you 
 should be caught with it. Did he dare to say to the solicitor for the 
 
596 TRIAL OF 
 
 crown, to tlie counsel that are persecuting the prisoner, that " there 
 is some one witness on the surface of the globe that will saj, he 
 believes I am not a villain ; but I am a man that deserves some credit 
 on my oath in a court of justice ?" Did he venture to call one human 
 being to that fact ? But why did they not venture to examine the 
 prisoner's witnesses, as to the reasons of their disbelief? AVhat, if 
 I was bold enough to say of any of you, gentlemen, that I did not 
 think you deserved credit on your oath, would not the first question 
 you would ask be the reason for that opinion ? Did he ventui'e to 
 ask that question ? No. I think the trial has been fairly and 
 humanely carried on. Mrs. JNIoore was examined ; she underwent a 
 cross-examination — the object was to impeach her credit. I oiFered 
 to examine to her character ; no — I would not be suffered to do it ; — 
 they were right in the point of law. Gentlemen, let me ask you 
 another question : — Is the character of O'Brien such, that you think 
 he did not know that any human creature was to attack it ? Did you 
 not see him coiling himself in the scaly circles of his perjury, making 
 anticipated battle against the attack, that he knew would be made, 
 and spitting his venom against the man that might have given such 
 evidence of his infamous character, if he had dared to appear. 
 
 Gentlemen, do you feel now that I was maliciously aspersing the 
 character of O'Brien ? What language is strong enough to describe 
 the mixture of swindling and imposition which, in the face of justice, 
 this wretch has been guilty of? Taking on himself the situation of 
 one of the King's officers, to rob the King's subjects of the King's 
 money ; but tliat is not enough for him — in the vileness and turpitude 
 of his cliaraeter he afterwards wants to rob them of their lives by 
 perjury. Do I speak truly to you, gentlemen, when I have shown 
 you the witness in his real colours — when I have shown you his 
 habitual fellowship with baseness and fraud ? He gave a recipe for 
 forging money. " Why did you give it to him ?" " He was an 
 inquisitive man, and I gave it as a matter of course." " But why did 
 you do it ?" " It was a light, easy way of getting money — I gave it 
 as a humbug." He gave a recipe for forging the coin of the country, 
 because it was a light, easy way of getting money ! Has it, gentle- 
 men, ever happened to you in the ordinary passages of life, to have 
 met with such a constellation of atrocities and horrors, and that in a 
 single man ? AYliat do you say to Clarke ? Except his perjury, he 
 has scarcely ground to turn on. What was his cross-examination ? 
 " Pray, sir, were you in court yesterday ?" " No, sir ; I was not." 
 " Why ?" " Mr. Kemmis sent me word not to come." There happened 
 to be several persons who saw him in court : one of them swoi'c it — 
 the rest were i-eady. Call up little Skirmisli again.* "Pray, Skirmish, 
 why did you say you were not in court yesterday, Avhen you were ?" 
 " Why, it was a little bit of a mistake, not being a lawyer. It being 
 a matter of law, I was mistaken." " How did it happen you were mis- 
 taken ?" " I was puzzled by the hard questions that Mr. M'Nally asked 
 Jne." AVhat was the hard question he was asked ? " AYere you in 
 court yestesday ?" " No ; Mr. Kemmis sent me word I need not 
 come !" Can you, gentlemen of the jury, suppose that any simple 
 
 Little Skirmish, a character in The Deserter. 
 
PATRICK FINNEY. 597 
 
 well-meaning man would commit such a gross and abominable perjury? 
 I do think he is a credible man ; that is, that he swore truer than Lord 
 Portarlington did, because it stands on a single testimony ; he may be 
 true, because he has sworn on both sides : he has sworn positively that 
 he was not in the court yesterday ; and he has sworn positively he 
 was ! so that, wherever the truth is, he is found in it ; let the ground 
 be clean or dirty, he is in the midst of it. There is no person but 
 deserves some little degree of credit ; if the soul was as black as night, 
 it would burn to something in hell. But let me not appear to avoid 
 the question by any seeming levity upon it. O'Brien stands blackened 
 by the unimpeached proofs of five positive perjuries. If he was 
 indicted on any of them, he could not appear to give evidence in a 
 court of justice; and I do call upon you, gentlemen of the jury, to 
 refuse him on his oath that credit which never ought to be squandered 
 on the evidence of an abandoned and self-convicted perjurer. 
 
 The charge is not merely against the prisoner at the bar ; it takes 
 in the entire character of your country. It is the first question of 
 the kind for ages brought forward in this nation to public view, after 
 an expectation of years. It is the great experiment of the informers 
 of Ireland, to see with what success they may make this traffic of human 
 blood. Fifteen men now in gaol, depending on the fate of the unfor- 
 tunate prisoner, and on the same blasted and perjured evidence of 
 O'Brien. I have stated at large the case, and the situation of my 
 client ; I make no apology for wasting your time ; I regret I have 
 not been more able to do my duty ; it would insult you if I were to 
 express any such feeling to you. I have only to aplogize to my client 
 for delaying his acquittal. I have blackened the character of O'Brien 
 in every point of view ; and, though he anticipated that attack that 
 would be made on it, yet he could not pi'ocure one human being even 
 base enough to depose, that he was to be believed on his oath. 
 
 The character of the prisoner has been given. Am I warranted in 
 saying, that I am now defending an innocent and unfortunate fellow- 
 subject, on the grounds of eternal justice and immutable law ; and 
 on that eternal law I do call upon you to acquit my client. I call 
 upon you for your justice ! Great is the reward, and sweet the recol- 
 lection in the hour of trial, and in the day of dissolution ; when the 
 casualties of life are pressing close upon your heart, and when, in the 
 agonies of death, you look back to the justifiable and honourable 
 transactions of your life. At the awful foot of eternal justice I do, 
 therefore, invite you to acquit my client ; and may God of his infinite 
 mercy ! grant you that great compensation which is a reward more 
 lasting than that perishable crown we read of, which the ancients 
 gave to him who saved the life of a fellow-citizen in battle. In the 
 name of public justice ! I do implore you to interpose between the 
 perjurer and his intended victim; and, if ever you are assailed by the 
 villainy of an informer, may you find refuge in the recollection of 
 that example which, when jurors, you set to those that might be called 
 to pass upon your lives ; to repel at the human tribunal the intended 
 effects of hireling perjury, and premeditated murder ; and, if it should 
 be the fate of any of you to count the tedious moments of captivity, 
 in sorrow and in pain, pining in the damps and gloom of a dungeon, 
 recollect there is another more awful tribunal than any on earth, 
 
598 TBIAL OF 
 
 which we must all approach, and before which the best of us will have 
 occasion to look back to what little good we may have done on this 
 side the grave ; I do pray, that Eternal Justice may record the 
 deed you have done, and give to you the full benefit of your claims 
 to an eternal reward, a requital in mercy upon your souls. 
 
 The SoiiiciTOR-GENERAi, replied, after which the jury was ad- 
 dressed by Judge Chamberlain and Baron Smith. The jury I'etired 
 for a about a quarter of an hour and then came into their box with 
 a verdict of not guiety. 
 
 On Thursday, the 1 9th, several other persons, accused by the same 
 witness, were brought up; and, having joined in their challenges, were 
 committed to the jury together, and no witness being produced, they 
 were of course acquitted ; and, after having taken the oath of allegi- 
 ance and having entered into recognizances for their good behaviour, 
 were discharged. 
 
 END OF FINNEY S Tl.IAL. 
 
 Dublin : Pubdok, Printer, 22, Bachelor's Walk. 
 
• 
 
 Date Due 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^u« 
 
 % k7t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , — ;■ ■' ■ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
BOSTON COLLtf.'t 
 
 mmmv Q^ 338827 4 
 
 //^c A/^ v/k 
 
 Boston College Library 
 
 Chestnut Hill 67, Mass. 
 
 Books may be kept for two weeks unless a 
 shorter period is specified. 
 
 If you cannot find what you want, inquire at 
 the circulation desk for assistance.