The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-12 00:00:00

before the last had been of such a character as to

warrant him in taking the precaution of placing policemen
in the vicinity of the dock.—The first juror called,
and sworn as foreman was Mr. Samuel Begot Oldham.
The second called was John Joseph Nolan, who was desired
by the crown solicitor to stand by.—Mr. Butt and Sir Col-
man O'Loghlen severally contended that the crown was
bound oo show cause for setting aside a juror.—The Attor-
ney-General rose, and addressing the juror in question said,
Mr. Nolan, are you security for Mr. Delany, one of the
party of the Nat ion f—Mr. Nolan am.—Attorney'Gene-
ral : Th 'n stand by.—Mr. Butt contended that, according
to the 9th of Geo. IV., the crown had not the right of pe.
remptory challenge, without showing cause, and the court
was bound to make a rule on the subject —Baron Penne
father; It is by the order of the court the jurors
objocfid to are commanded to stand by. John
Phayre was the next juror called, to whom counsel
for the prisoner objected, on the grounds that he was a
burge s of the city of Dublin, and as the property of con-
victed felons became confiscated to the corporation of Dublin
the juror now called to the book had an interest in the con-
viction of the prisoner at the bar, inasmuch u property so
confivated was calculated to swell the borough fund, by
which means a borough rate might he avoided, or reduced: in
the amount to be struck. After a lengthened argument, in
which Sir Colman O'Loghlen and Mr. Butt were heard for
the prisoner, and the Attorney and Solicitor General were
heard for the crown, the Chief Baron, in whose opinion Bum
Pe, nefather concurred, decided that the challenge on the
part of the prisoner c,..uld not be allowed, on the grounds
that if the court were to set aside the jaror on
the objections shown it would have the effect of
disqualifying almost the entire panel of the city, as ,
every man on that panel was presumed to be rated to
the poor law, and, accordingly, entitled to vote as a burgess'
for the return of the town council of the city of Dublin to
the corporation. The challenge having been disallowed
the juror was again called to the book, and challer.ged per-
emptorily by the attorney for the prisoner. He was, there-
fore, finally desired to stand by.—Richard Ulysses Burgh
was then sworn.—After several challenges had been disposed
of the following jury were sworn : —Samuel Begot Oldham,
Richard Ulysses Burgh, Edward Birmingham, Richard
Collier, George Yeates, William Read, George N.thitt, John
Kershaw, Blaney Mitchel, Charles Mathers, John Johnson,
Thomas Stewart. . . .

Mr. Alley (clerk of the crown) stated to the jury that the
prisoner at the bar stood indicted,untler the act for the better
si curdy of the crown and government of these countries for
publishing certain articles in the Tribune newspaper.
Th. Attorney-0.,,e..1 then reneeeded to state the cue for
the crown. lie said the prisoner stood charged with a very
serious offence, and the consequences to him would be
serious. Toe law did not fix any certain punishment to the
offence, but left it in the discretion of the court. It might
be punishalme by transportation for life, or imprisonment.
There could be no doubt as to the evidence to be pro-
duced, for it all consisted of facts admitted. The
charge was founded en a recant act of parliament, which,
in a few words, defined the offence. It was to conspire
to depose the Queen from the style, title, and honour of
the royal name; and also did compass to levy war against
her Majesty, in order to compel her to change
her measures or councils. The charge did not go so far as
to say that he did levy war, but that he compassed and
imagined so to de. It would be sufficieot to know the pri-
soner entertained the felonious intent, in order to fix on him
the gull,. Mr. O'Doherty, at the time those documents
were published, was the proprietor of a newspaper called
the Tribune, which came into existence in the month
of June. which circumstance was of very great im-
portance. The paper came out alter the suppression of an-
other paper, whose proprietor was punished for the very
same offence of which Mr. O'Doherty now stood charged.
He had lisped that after the punishment of Mr. Mitchel,
it would not have again been necessary for him to
address a jury on the atone subject ; but he was woefully
disappointed. The paper was brought out to fill up the
space vacant by the suppression of Mr. Mitchel's paper. The
paper commenced by holding up Mitchel as a martyr, whose
example should be followed ; and he regretted to say that
Mr. O'Doherty did h low it. The object of Mr. Mitchel was
to make the harvest, about which they were all so anxious,
the goal for rebellion, by appealing to the peasantry to
held their own grain. The first article commenced by being
headed Our Harvest Prospects." (The Attorney-General
then read the article in question.) He would ask them for
' what object was that etude published 1 Was it not that the
people should take the harvest and slake their thirst in the
blood of the Enelish foe? That would be to make Ireland a
separate kingdom, and therefore to deprive her Majesty of
the crown of this kingdom.
The Attorney-General next proceeded to read an article
from the same paper, entitled "Courage," and extracts from
a aeries of notices in the Tribune, entitled, Our War De-
partment." Those invocations to the god of battles had,
unfurtunetely, grown into a camp, and therefore the effects
of such doctrines could no longer be mistaken. A council of
300 was recommended for the purpose of raising the country
into armed and simultaneous insurrection. What did armed
and simultaneous insurrection mean but to make war on the
authorities? The article stated that the crown, which
stood in the way of the people, and the harvest,
should perish. There could be, therefore, no mis-
take as to the intent of the article—no other
meaning attached to it, except that in the indictment.
The prisoner seemed to have ensered on his dangerous
career with his eyes wide opt n, and fully aware of all the
consequences likely to result from his conduct. Probably,
he might have been an enthusiast who believed that the
course he pursued was calculated to benefit his country.
He did not know what extenuating circumstance might be
adduced in his favour ; bat this much he did know, that
firmness was a necessary virtue on the part of juries who
were sworn to preserve the administration of justice in
its purity, and he would, therefore, ask that jury calmly
to read over these publications in their box, and not to
give more weight to the observations he had mad • upon
them than the articles themselves fully warranted. He fat
no pleasure in the discharge of the duty he had to perform
that day; but he did feel that he would be unworthy of the
position he held if he allowed any feelings of mock huma-
nity to interfere with its fulfilment in an honest and fearless
manner He had not—nor could he have done so if he was
aD disposed—appealed to their feel ngs as men • he was not
gifted with powers of eloquence, and boasted only . f the pas
session of very moderate talents. But so far as his reason
and judgment enabled him to do se, he had attempted to lead
them to the conclusion that all these articles beam but a single
meaning. Let the jury, therefore, discharge their duty in a
firm, honest, and tears's+ manner, by bringing in that ver.
diet which it was their duty, according to the evletna oaths
they had taken to find, he would may, regardless of all per-
sonal consequences to tin mselves, whatever these conse-
quences might be. The learned counsel then resumed his seat.
Mr. Charles Vernon, registrar of newspapers in the Stamp-
office, was then sworn and exemined by Mr. Serjeant
O'Brien. This witness proved the prisoner to be one of the
I registered proprietors of the Irish Tribune newspaper, and
identified his handwriting in two numbers of the paper,
which had been lodged in the usual manner, according to
law, in the Stamp-office.
Constable Mortimer Redmond, of the detective police,
identified one of the pro-ecuteel newspapers as having been
purchased by him at the Tribune office, No. 11, Trinity-
street, on the 11th July.
At 5 o'clock the court was adjourned to this (Friday)
morning. The Chief Baron discharged the jury I,r the day,
having cautioned them against conversing with any person
on the sub•ect of the trial, or forming their judgments till
they had heard the remainder of the case.