The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-29 00:00:00

dwelt upon forcibly and parmonately, and the jurors for the
first time began to whisper with each other. The isoensaie•
don of insurrection on the aiming harvest was also the subject
of sharp comment. The third and last article on whicli the
Attorney-General commented was Vie reply in the United
Irishman to a violent tirade in the Times on Mr. Mitchell
and the "battle of Limerick " The reading of the Timm
Isadore:cited some amusement from i attempt at humour and
foolish exaggeration. None felt more smutted than Mr. Mit-
chel himself, whe relaxed his habitual seriousness and smiled
et the de-cription of the rerest from the Limerick barn.
Mr. Monahan now approached the close of his addr se. Hav-
ing placed the facts Cully sod fairly before the jury, he
touched on the cheep of picking the jury, brought against
the government and himself. He denied alma, ther, on the
pert oldie government and himself, any such foul design.
Could he. a Roman Catholic him-elf, from conviction,
feeling, and educiition, object to a Roman catholic juror, on
the mere ground of his rel glen. It was a calumny on that
government who had raised himself to the highest law Aloe
in the gift of the crown. In this part of his speech the
Attorney General's feelings appeared, during this portion
of his address, to be much excited. "No man," said he,
"was set @side who was not known to entertain similar po-
litical sentiments with the traverser. It was the injunction
of the government to set aside no man on account of his
religion. The instruction was, "obtain a fair, honourable,
impartial jury, and object to uone solely on account of hie
religion."
The only evidence adduced was respecting the publication
of the United frisAmein, and the identity of Mr. Mitchel
with the utterance of the Limerick speech. This did not
occupy more than a quarter of an hour, after which
Mr. Houses addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
After a few words on the character of Mr. Mitchel, he took
up the statements of the Attorney-General, relative to the
instructions in striking the jury. Mr. Holmes was bent
upon severity, when the Attorney-General interrupted Mr
Holmes, and remarked that the instructions did not emanate
from the governm• rat hut from himself. The court con-
firmed this view, and Mr. Holmes turned to the challenge to
the array. " The erywn struck off 39 Roman catholic—jury-
men—rake that will you, aid call the selection a fair and im-
partial jury." Toe 'Treason Felony Act was vigorously ex
posed, Mr. Holmes discovered in its obscurity and antiquity
what meant deposing the Queen from the honours and
dignity of the imperial crown. Mr. Mitchel, said his
counsel, neither sought to depose nor levy veer on his sove-
reign. He asked the court to state their opinion before he
proceeded further.
THE COURT refused, and
Mr. Hotline proceeded, and in appealing to the feelings
of the jury as Irishmen, he entered into a history of Ireland,
when

The Comm' interposed, and requested Mr. Holmes to
limit his observations to matter pertinent to the defence.
Mr. HolAnta, however, renewed the same line of obser-
vation, when the galleries bunt into applause. Mr. Holmes
was commenting on the means whereby the union was
carried, and pledging his character as a man and a lawyer
that the people were justified in seeking the resumption of
their parliament, if nt mammy, by force of arms.
The Collar again interposed, and objected to such a mode
of defence. _ _

Mr. HouxEs concluded with a peroration which produced
s marked effect on the jury and the auditors in court. One
cireunistance arrested the attention, that Mr. Holmes did not
say a single word in defence oe the publications—but still his
oration—tor an oration it was—was well calculated to affect

the jury.
Mr. HENN having replied,
Judge Mooaa charged the jury. lie said the prisoner is
charted with a very heinous offence. if be be innocent of
it, it is of coarse of deep importance that he should not be
found guilty or subjected to the consequences which are at-
tached to that crime. But, gentlemen, on the other hand,
if he be guilty, it appears to me to be of deep importance to
the law, to the administration of justice, and to the peace,
tranquillity, and well-being of this country, that the man
who has deliberately violated the law (if he has done so),
should be made to undergo the punishment attached to that
offence. This case will depend upon the construction
that is to be given to the documents laid before you in
evidence, and it is my duty to tell you, that the law
leaves the construction of documents exclusively with you.
But before I call your attention to the act of parliament on
which this preeecutien is tonoded, I think it right to advert
to some topics which have been advanced both on behalf of
the prosecution and of the prisoner, which appear to me to
be extraneous and irrelevant to the questions you have to
try. The Attorney-General called your attention to the
work of the formation of the jury. My learned brother
(Lefroy) and myself would have felt it our duty to have pre-
vented any recu.venoe to such a topic by the Attorney• G-
eneral, if it were not that he himself was in some degree per-
sonally implicated in the formation of that jury, and we
thought it but just and right that a man on whom
a personal imputation h been cast should be
afforded the opportunity of vindicating himself. Under
that feeling alone we permitted him to refer to the
mode in which the jury was formed. lam bound to tell you
that topic should be entirely dismissed from your considera-
tion—it cannot form any ingredient whatever in the mode in
which you are to arrive at a determination in this case.
There is another topic to which the Attorney-General alluded,
and fromiwhich, gentlemen. I would rather he had abstained,
and that is what he celled the notorious efforts to intithdate
the jury. No evidence to that effect has been given. If any
such efforts have been made to intimidate the jury, and if
the Attorney-General thought it was important to give
evidence of that circumstance, he was at liberty to do
so; but I trust that topic also you will dismiss from
your consideration. If any such effort were made, come
from what quarter it might, I am sure you will treat it with
he scorn and contempt it month, end perform your duty
uprightly sad honestly. The counsel for the prisoner had also
introduced to you some ii relevant matters. He began oy
expressing his opinion of the h meaty and sincerity of hi.
client. lam sure he would not have pledged his word to
any such opinion did he not entertain it; but, gentlemen,
let Mr. Mitchel be honest, let him be sincere, and let him
out forward these publications with the utmost honesty and
sincerity of intention, all you have to say is—whether yen
think the publication of these documents to be a violation of
the provisions of a certain act of parliament. It is a prin-
ciple which never can be laid down in a court of justice that
a prisoner is entitled to say, " True, I violate an act of
parliament; I have committed a crime, and I am subject
to the consequences attached to that ffence ; but in the
opinion of my counsel lam an honest man. I put for
ward what I am accused of with the utmost sincerity, and
therefore I should be acquitted." That topic, although put
forward by so able and amiable a man as Mr. 11,Imes, and
standing so high as he has ever done in public estimation,
you are bound to disregard and dismiss from your considera-
tion. Mr. Holmes has also adverted to another extraneous
and irrelevant matter ; indeed I cannot find any great fault
with him for doing so, for it sprung out of the concluding
observations of the Attorney. General. He has adverted to
the feet that the =VII set aside no less than thirty-nine in.
dividuaLs of thaw on the panel, and has made that a subject
of imputation on some of the parties—l know not on whom
connected with the crown. I am bound to tell you, that
that topic, also, you are bound to dismiss from your coo
sideration. The law has given certain privileges
to the accused, and also to the accuser. The accused
is allowed the privilege of challenging peremptorily twenty
persons; he is not bound to assign any reason for it, and
nothing could be more monstrously unjust than if counsel
for the crown stood up, and said to a jury, " Oh, so doubtful
was the prisoner of his case, that '3O exercised his privilege,
and challenged 20 persons." I do not believe there I. a
counsel in the land who, were he capable of laying down
such a doctrine, would not be at once scouted out of court.

The law has given the crown a corresponding privilege of
striking persons off until the panel is exhausted. This right
has been exercised ; and I do not see why that should be
ma le a topic of comment to the jury. I should have been
very glad that the vary able and learned counsel for the pri-
soner had not been guilty of any greater irrelevancy than
this to which I have adverted ; but I regret to say that he
has, in my judgment, and I believe I may add in the
opinion of my brother judge, introduced a great' variety
of topics perfectly foreign to the question you have to de-
cide, and many of them topics that is no court of justice
ought to have been allowed to be used. He told you that
Ireland is an enslaved country ; he has gone into a his-
tory of the union, and a history of the country before
the union. He him denied the competency of the Irish
parliament to pus an act for the carrying of the union. Let
me ask, what have these topics ti do with the question you
are sworn to decide, and to which I shall presently call your
attention—that single question being, whether the prisoner
at the bar is guilty of violating the provisions of a particular
act of parliament ? Let the union be good or let it be bad.
let the means by which it was putted be right or wrong, it
was under that act you have been placed in the jury-box to
decide this case. I trust you will dismiss every one of the
topics I have mentioned from your consideration, as they are
irrelevant to the question you have to decide. Gentlemen
of the jury, I have already toll. you that the construction of
the documents given in evidence is entirely and exclusively
for you. The prisoner at the bar is indicted for the viola-
, tion of the provisions of en set of parliament
Apt has bet very recently come into operation, That act
received the royal assent on the 22nd of Anvil, 1848.
If the import of the observations made by the aide counsel
for the prisoner was, that they ought not to pay attention to
that act of parliament, because it was passed by the imperial
legislature, they should not accept that construction, but
should understand from him (the learned judge) that it was
a valid and competent act of parliament. The simple ques-
tion for the jury to decide in this case was, whether the act
of parliament, which was unquestionably and beyond all
doubt the law of the land, was violated by Mr. Mitchel.
It was entitled an "Act for the Security of the Crown and
Government of the United Kingdom,' and by the third
section it was enacted that if any person should compass,
imagine, design, or desire to depose her Majesty from the
style, honour, and royal name of her imperial crown, and
should express such compassing' or intentions by publications
in print, or writing, or by open and advised speaking, he
would be guilty of felony according to the provisioini of the
statute. There was enothe- portion of the act which stated
that if any man should compass to levy war against her Ma•
iesty, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change
her council or measures, and should expn es that intention by
any publication or speech, that man was guilty of the offence '
provided for by the sot. In order to constitute an offence
under the act two things should be proved. There first of
all should be a compassing of one of the things prohibited
by the statute. It was not sufficient that there should
be merely such a oonspaa,ing in the mind of the
prisoner- but he should have gone further, and
expressed such compassing or intent by print or writing,
or by open and advised speaking. It was perfectly
plain that the first thing which the ury would have to in-
' quire into was, had there been a publication by the prisoner
at the bar; because if there was no publication, or that he
was not the person connected wits those documents which
had been given in evidence, they could not be brought in
any wa to bear against him. It appeared, however, from
the , that he wee proprietor of the publication called

the touted freshman ; and, indeed, his counsel had net
raised say question whatever upon that point. There still
remained the more important, or rather equally important,
and somewhat, perhaps, more difficult question (if there
was any difficulty in the case at alit—namely, what wu the
intention to be drawn or deduced from the publication in
question. If they (the jury) were satisfied that the pri-
soner at the bar intended either to deprive the Queen of her
royal title, or to levy war against her to compel her to
change her councils, it was perfectly competent for them to
find the prisoner guilty on both or either of them charges.
If, on the contrary, they were satisfied that he enter-
tained no such intention, then, of course, it would be their
duty to acquit him. The only means they had of moat-
taioing these intentions was by the publications them-
selves, which they should take with them Into the jury-room,
and read with the strictest attention. They would not give
a strained or forced meaning to any
_part of them to the
benefit or prejudice of the prisoner. They would not, of
cotum,perrnit any passage to do him mischief; neither would
thesed
tpri. Pt
private
document. tme: •ny passage fy, and not in : wereirtyhis sbirid7i :Tet. h themyrhweoy, nwouldy their
whatroew
was the impression which they fairly and honestly made on
their minds. They would bring to the consideration of them
their best judgment; and, having done so, they would be
calls, upon to declare whether the crown had not put a
right interpretation upon them. It was a very remarkable
circumstance that counsel for . the prisoner had never once
adverted to those publications, or made a single observation
for the purpose of showing that the Attorney-General in hie
oagsthaanuirthtmthretetomanretbetorhkreadt i
Ifepenuthfttacoi satthwwb.essr:ponrargeeitdnti ermirPn.oritahthiticßeSanrieitliti:alertn°sogeugteuhPatuytrdhnadn4ogo4
to determine this, or in any way to influence the minds
of the jury. Counsel for the prisoner had taken the
course which he thought most beneficial to hie client;
and if he had abstained from adverting to the
purport or meaning of
wasm
.meaning
reasonfixed
uponw h y
them t h werebt hy et
h documents
too o c
crownut l ee
nwrour granted
the
egtun
iethate meaning.
the
.
But, before you come to any conclusion as to the interpreta-
tion you will put on these passages, you will aced), your-
selves what is the interpretation which ought fairly and
justly to be placed upon them. It is, however, my duty to
draw your attention to those passages in the publieations re-
ferred to which are relied on by the crown to sustain the
charges against the prisoner set out is the indictment. The
fist charge is that accusing the prisoner of an intent to de-
prive her Majesty of the style, honour, and name of the im-
perial crown, and. I will call your attention to the passages
in those publiations which appear to bear upon that part of
the indictment. In the beginning of the speech made by
Mr. Mitchel he asserts " that mob law is better than
government law ;" and says, " rather than endure
one other year of British dominion, I would take
a provisional government *cleated out of the men
that are bellowing there in the street." That
the expression of the prisoner's opinion of British
' dominion, a dominion constituted of the Queen, Lords, and
Commons, and he states in direct and unmistakeatile terms,
that sooner than endure another year of the dominion of that
Queen, Lords, and Commons, he would take a proviaional
government from the mob that we. howling is the street.
Now what is the meaning—the ordinary natural meaning of
the words—a provisional government? Can you understand
the existence of a provisional government in the sense it
appears to have been used here with the existence of the
sovereign of the United Kingdom? Can any one doubt—urs-
ine he shuts his earn to everything going on is the world—
that this expression of the prisoner with referenc, to a pro-
visional government alluded to what has recently taken
place in another country, where a provisional government
was created ? And you, gentlemen, need not be told that the
proceedings which have occurred in that country were at-
tended with the destruction of the monarchy of that country
—the abolition of the existing government, end the deposi-
tion from the throne and kingdom of the monarch ; and it
will be for you to say if the passage I have cited advocates
the establishment of • similar provisional government. you.
are to say if the man who openly avows has hatred of British
dominion, meaning thereby the present government,. end
states that sooner than endure one year of that dominion
he would take a provisional government from the mob—
you are to say if ho does not contemplate events from
which such a provisional government might be established.
The next plume to which I will draw your attention
one contained in the tome speech. He says : " I cannot
condemn the alternative put by Mr. Meagher,
who says when the hut constitutional appeal shall
be made, and shal fail, then up with the barri-
cades and invoke the God of Battles." Now, gentle-
men, what was Mr. Meagher's opinion ? Not that the
barricades shall be put up at once, but that a coustitutional
appeal should still be tried—and if every coustitutional
means should fail, then, and not till then, were the barri-
cades to be erected and the God of Battles invoked. But let
us see if Mr. Mitchel is satisfied with that. He says, " Can
I repudiate this, who hold that constitutional appeals are
long since closed against us—that we have even new no re:
mune except when we have the means or the pluck to do it
—the barricades and the God of Battles." Thus, gentle.
men, you perceive he goes far beyond Mr. Me other ; he
approves of what Mr. Meagher proposes, but he goes a
great deal farther himself. He says, " here is no con-
stitutional sppesl for us, the time is gone by fur that ,"
and again, the sedition and treasons of these gentlemen
I accept and adopt, and I ask for more whatever
has been said or dose by the most disaffected person in
all Ireland against the existence of the party which calls
itself the government—nothing an go too far for ine." We
know that there have been in Ireland disaffected men whose
acts even brought them under the charge of treason, and
yet Mr. Mitchel tells you un, quivocally and directly that
nothing done or said by the most disaffected of all these that
he is not prepared to go the full extent of. It is net the mi.
nis'ry of the day who are meant by "government." What
is meant by government is the Queen, Lords, and Commons
of England, and nothing that men the most treasobable and
cted have done or said against that governm, nt
approved _of by Mr. Mitchel, but meets, his full concurrence
end approbation. There isanother passage to which I beg to
all attention. Mohlitebel says : " I am herenotes a Jacobin
(which 1 am not)—nor as a communist (which I am not)—
nor even as a republican (which I am)— but because I am a
bitter and irreconcile.,ble enemy to the British government."
Now, gentlemen. here he announces himself a republican
and a bitter and irreconcilable enemy of the English govern.
relent. He says, besides, he is prepared to go to any extent
that the mast disaffected persons could go against that.
government. It will be necessary that you should keep this
in mind when we come to the portions of the second publi-
cation to which I will direct your attention, and which
appear to bear even more directly on this part of tee charge.
The learned judge then read and commented on the several
passages from the writings of Mr. Mitchel in the Unitise'
frialiman, which formed the subject of the indictment.
I am now, said his lordship in continuation, going toll
your attention to the passage that has reference to the charge
of compassing and intending to levy war. The learned
Limerick,
here read the extract from Mr. Mitchel's speech at
Limerick, where he called on the constituents of " My.
Smith O'Brien to stand by him," and then ouatinuerl—So
the, Mr. O'Brien having had charges brought against him,
distinctly
he says it is the duty of his constituent/ to prepare
systematically to sustain him in arms. You, gen,lemen,
will have to say whether, if a man tells an aseembled
multitude, and who afterwards publishes it in a widely
circulated paper, that it is the duty of the constituents of
Mr. O'Brien to sustain him in his felony, and to sustain him
with arms, it does or does not make out the all.gal ion that
he did compass the levying of war. In order to constitute
the crime it is not necessary there should be enythiug done ;
the mere compassing and the expression of it by a publica-
tion is an offence which the act of paralamen• thought fit to
provide against. He tells the women of Limerick that they
should not even speak to a man who had not arms It is
for you to say whether that was or not a direction and incite-
meet to every man to provide himself with arms for the
purpose of sustaining Mr. O'Brien. New, in his commentary
on the article from the Tinses, what was the meaning of
" enforcing his argument gradually." That you will have
to decide. Then we come to hie letter to the pi oti stant
farmers of Ulster, and after that passage where he speaks of
an Irish republic, one and indivisible, he says " how are we to
meet on that day ? In arms, my countrymen, in arms."
He here refers to the day, and says they are to meet on that
day "in arms," and he repeats hat twice. Gentlemen, you
will have to say is there anything in that langu ige to admit
of a doubtful meaning or interpretation. It will lie for you
to say whether, in any portion of the document, there is
anything that could enable any man exercising honestly
his judgment, to come to the conclusion that this was not •
compassing and imagining the levying of war. Then,
did he not say that every grain of food growing
in the country was to be fought for? Why was it to
be fought for ? or how ? or how is it perible for
you to avoid an inference from language of that
kind—teat he was compu.ing an appeal to arms
Gentlemen, 1 have gone through the venous pa-ssges that
bear upon the second branch of the case. I told you b Aore
that you ought not to pay the slightest attention. to any opi-
nion I have expressed or intimated as to the natter 1 import
and meaning of these passages, except so far at my opinion
concurs with your own. I tell you eo again. it must be by
your own deliberate judgment and the exercise of your own
sense altogether that this verdict is to be pronounced. If you
do after a careful revision and review of all these publications,
cenacientiously come to the conclusion that Mr. Mitchel did
not intend both or either of the intents attributed to bite , you
ought, without hesitation, find him not guilty. If lou think
the intents are not clear, that they are ambiguous, and that
the espressions used are of a doubtful nature, you arc bound
to give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt But if after
a careful revision and review of them pes.sg.s, to which a
meaning has been stashed by the cte wn, and no opposite
meaning attempted to be assigned by counsel for the prisoner,
if you come to the conclusion that they sustain the allegations
in the indictment, and that as honest men you can lay your
hands upon your butts and say that these intents charged in
the indictment have been proved—l would not insult you
for a moment by fancying that honest men like yen would
hesitate in discharging the duty imposed upon you, and
which you are bound to discharge under the solemn oblige-
ton of an oath.

At the conclusion of the learned judge's charge, the fore-
man of he jury (Mr. Whitty) said that as anothrr question
might aria., which might or might not be material, probably
that was the proper time to bring it under toe notice of the
court. It his memory served biro, the offence was laid in
the indictment in the parish of St Thomas, whilst the evi-
dence that had been given preyed the publica.ion of the
newspaper to have taken place in St. Andrew'. parish.

Mr. ;Justice Moore said the evidence was, that' the custom.
house was situated in the parish of Bt. Thomas, ha; that the
paper wu published in St. Andrew's parish.

. . . -
The jury then retired at a quarter-past four 0 consider
their verdict, and the judges also left the court. 1/uriou their
lengthened absence, the court still continued doled) crowded,
every individual present being filled with iaten•s and absorb-
ing anxiety as to the result of this most exciting trial. Every
mown; of their axiom momod to imam Me adat bogus