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

S N MAY 29, 1848.

avowed the time as " the spring of the year." I think,
Gentlemen, perhaps that those words were not k
suffi-
ciently plain, and accordingly he says, speak
more will sp
more plainly :"
" There is now growing on the soil of Ireland a
wealth of grain, and roots, and cattle, far more than
enough to sustain in life and in comfort all the inhabi-
tants of the island. That wealth must not leave us
another year, not until every grain of it is fought for
in every stage, from the tying of the sheaf to the load-
ing of the ship. And the effort necessary for that
simple act of sell-preservation will at one and the same
blow prostrate British dominion, and landlordism toge-
ther. 'Tie but the one act of volition; if we resolve
but to live, we make our country a free and sovereign
state."
What, gentlemen, is a free and sovereign state, accord-
ing to Mr. Mitchel, but this ideal republic? Might I
ask you, in sober earnestness, as rational men, if Mr.
Holmes, who is to follow me, can put any meaning on
this language except that it was a piece of advice to the
farmers, who are to reap the forthcoming harvest, that
they should rise up in arms, possess themselves of the
property of the country, establish a republic, and make
Ireland a free and sovereign state? The letter is then
concluded as follows:
" Will you not gird up your loins for this great na-
tional struggle, and stand with your countrymen for life
and land? Will you, the sons of a warlike race, the in-
heritors of conquering memories—with the arms of free-
men in all your homes, and relics of the gallant Republi-
cans of '93 for ever before your eyes —will you stand fold-
ing your hands in helpless loyalty,' and while every na-
tion in Christendom is seizing on its birthright with armed
hands, will you take patiently with your rations of
yellow meal, and your inevitable portion of eternal con-
tempt?
"If this be your determination, Protestants of
Ulster, then make haste, sign addresses of loyalty and
confidence in Lord Clarendon, and protest, with that
other Lord, your unalterable attachment to our ve-
nerable institutions.'

" JOHN MITCHEL."
After some further remarks, the Learned Gentleman
proceeded to say—This, gentlemen, is not a trial of mere
larceny, where the question is—did a particular person
steal this or that thing? It is a trial for a political of-
fence. The only instruction given by the Crown to
their officer, the Crown Solicitor, was upon no account,
and under no circumstances, to exclude a maa for his
religion. No matter what religion he professed, it
was his duty to exclude from the jury-box men,
no matter what their religion may be, who co-
incided with the prisoner in his political opinions.
May I ask you, gentlemen, if men were biassed in their
judgments, would they be proper persons to be put upon
a jury? The only instruction that was given was this—
" Obtain an honest, fair, and impartial jury. Any man
who, from your information, you believe not to be a
man who will give an impartial verdict between the
Crown and the subject—that man, and that man alone,
without reference to his religion, you are to exclude
from the panel;" and that Mr. Kemmis has, according,
to the best of his judgment, exercised that right, I en-
tertain no doubt; also you will recollect that efforts
have been made to intimidate jurors. You, I hope,
Gentlemen, are above all such feelings. I trust you are
men, and that is all that is required by the Crown, who
will discard from your minds anything that you may
have heard of Mr. Mitchel, or the publications in his
paper, before you entered the jury box. I trust you
are men who, having regard to the obligation of the
oath you have taken, will honestly and fairly give a
verdict which, laying your hand upon your heart, you
can say is consistent with the duty which you owe to
your country upon the one hand, and the prisoner upon
the other. I trust that you are men who will honestly
and fairly discharge the very important duty which
you have been empanneled to discharge.
Mr. HoLmEs rose to address the jury for the defence
at a quarter past twelve o'clock. He said—May it
please your Lordships, and Gentlemen, I am counsel for
the prisoner, John Mitchel ; and I am well aware of the
important duty which devolves on me this day, as coun-
sel for that gentleman, and also of my inadequacy to dis-
charge that duty ; but I will avow that I feel pride at
being selected on this occasion by Mr. Mitchel, because
I believe in my heart that he is an honest man, sincerely
attached to the principles he avows—and no doubt which
he avows boldly—and although the Government of this
country may fear him, or hate him, they cannot despise
him. Gentlemen, having thus said a word respecting
the prisoner as to character, I shall now proceed with
his case. The Attorney-General has fairly stated the
case on behalf of the Crown, and has read very fairly
all the publications respecting which Mr. Mitchel stands
indicted ; and there is only a part, and one part only of
the Attorney-General's statement to complain of, and
that is the conclusion. Ido not think he was war-
ranted in stating in this court what instructions he,
or those connected with hire, received from the
Chief Governor of this country with respect
to the striking of the Jury ; I think the Crown should
never know anything of striking juries—not a word
.—or give any instructions on the subject; for, if the
Crown can do it, with respect to giving fair instruc-
tions, it—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What I said was, that
the instructions I gave to the Crown Solicitor were as I
stated.
Mr. HOLMES—I may be mistaken, and would be very
sorry to misinterpret anything said; but I misunder•
stood that you intimated y our instructions from the Lord
Lieutenant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Most certainly not.
Mr. HOLMES —Then I am mistaken. That is quite
sufficient.

Baron LEFBOY-If the Attorney-General's statement
on this point had not been with a view to vindicate
himself personally from charges made against him, I
would have felt it my duty to have interrupted him.
It was with that view alone that we allowed him to
proceed.

Mr. HoLmes—Well, my Lords and Gentlemen, I may
be mistaken in that, but there is yet something in the
Attorney-General's concluding statement I cannot be
mistaken in, and which I find fault with. There was, as
you are aware, a challenge to the array in this case on
the part of the accused, in consequence of information
he had received to the effect, that those whose duty
it was to empanel an impartial jury, had not in all
instances done so, particularly with respect to Ro-
man Catholics. That issue was raised and ques-
tioned, and the triers found on their oaths that the
panel was a fair and impartial one; but what do
I find them? I find that, of this fair and impartial jury
—found to be so by two respectable citizens—the Crown
strikes off no less than thirty men, eighteen of them
Roman Catholics. There can be no doubt on that sub-
ject, therefore I will at once dismiss it. In this case,
gentlemen, the prisoner, John Mitchel, stands charged
with two distinct offences—and it is somewhat remark-
able that, in support of those two distinct offences
—the same identical evidence is given to support
both. The Attorney-General will be very well
satisfied, no doubt, if you give your verdict on both or
either charges, or for anything, like the foreman of the
grand jury who found the bills. The foreman of the
grand jury, gentlemen, having been asked if the jury had
found bills against the prisoner, replied, " Oh, yes ; we
find him guilty of sedition." " Gentlemen," said the
officer of the court, "he is not indicted for sedition."
" Well," said the foreman, " we find him guilty of trea-
son." But,
.gentlemen, again interrupted the officer, " the
charge against Mr. Mitchel is for felony." " 06, no
matter t
o us," said the foreman, " sedition, treason, or
felony, it is all the same to us," and so with the Attorney-
General, if you convict the prisoner, that is all that
he wants. Gentlemen, as the Court' will tell you,
the question in this case is not whether Mr. Mitchel
may have committed in these publications other offences;
if you think him guilty of high treason, you ought not to
find him so, for you must believe him guilty of one or
both of the charges made against him, or find a verdict
of acquittal. The first charge is, " that he compassed,
imagined, invented, devised, or intended to deprive, or
depose, our most gracious Sovereign the Queen from the
style, honour, or Royal name of the. Imperial Crown of the
United Kingdom," and that this was evidenced by overt
acts of his, namely, the publication of the different arti-
cles in the newspapers that were read for you. Now,
really, I may be very dull, but I do not rightly compre-
head this part of the Act of Parliament, or meaning of
the words, " to depose the Queen from the style, honour,
or royal name of the Imperial Crown of the United King-
dom." I can understand deposing the Queen from the
throne perfectly well. I can understand an attempt made
on the life of the Queen perfectly well, or expelling her
from her dominions; but I do not, for the life of me,
know what it is to depose her "from the style, honour, or
Royal name of the Imperial Crown of the United King-
dons." If Mr. Mitchell was indicted upon another section
of this statute, for " intimidating both or either Houses
of Parliament," I could understand the evidence here as
applicable perhaps, if it were alleged that by so doing
he got them to pass an Act to increase the Irish repre-
sentatives from one to two hundred, but I cannot under-
stand this charge, for notwithstanding that he did so,
the Crown would not be affected in the least " in the
style, honour, or Royal name of the Imperial Crown of
the United Kingdom;" she would be still as she is, and
have the same title. lam not accusing the Attorney-
General of a blunder in drawing the indictment, for he
has followed the Act, but we must have Acts of Parlia-
ment that we can understand, and I defy any man to
understand what it is to deprive her Majesty of the
style, honour, and Royal name of the Imperial Crown
of the United Kingdom. The importance of this con-
sideration would appear from the first secti▪
on of the
article, which declares—" that from the Ist of January,
1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall
be for ever united by the name of the United King-
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that the
Royal style and title appertaining to the Imperial
Crown of the United Kingdom, and all the
armorial bearings, &c., shall be such as his▪ Majesty,
by his royal proclamation, under the great seal
shall appoint." Now, I can understand anything done
to deprive the Queen of her title of Sovereign of the
United Kingdom ; but, as I said before, I cannot under-
stand depriving her "of the style, honour, and royal
name," as laid in this indictment. What the depriva-
tion is I cannot comprehend, therefore I cannot under-
stand this charge against the prisoner. What is the
other charge ? It is "advising i orintending to levy
war against her Majesty, her heirs or successors, living
in any part of the United Kingdom, by force or con-

[PRICE SD.

straint, to compel her to change her measures OT coun-
cils." What measures ? What councils ? Is there
the slightest evidence here as to what measures or
councils these publications purported to change? Arc
you, gentlemen, as a jury, to grope in the dark ?
Are these publications calculated to force the Queen to
alter her measures with France or America, or any
other country on the face of the earth ? What the
measures ere the prisoner wants to change I cannot
understand ? What have been the measures of this
session of Parliament for the improvement of Ireland ?
The poor-law. That is the only measure I know
of, and has Mr. Mitchel endeavoured to change it ?
Not in the least; therefore I ask my Learned Friend,
the Attorney-General, or the gentlemen who will follow
me for the Crown, to tell you, on your oaths, what course
or measure it is my client has endeavoured, "by advising
the levy of war," to force the Queen to change. I would
be glad to hear, even now, if the Attorney-General would
condescend to inform me. I have no objection to le him
mend his speech, if by doing so he can tell you any mea-
sure or council. Mr. Mitchel endeavoured to compel her
Majesty to change by trying to levy war. Gentlemen,
this is a criminal case, and it is incumbent on those who
make the charge to prove it as clear as light—to prove a
specific offence under the statute. The Crown, I admit,
have done all they could—they have followed the Act of
Parliament, but they have not proved that Mr. Mitchel
has tried to levy war against the Queen—" to compel her
by constraint to change her measures or councils." I
put it to your Lordships that, under this Act, unless the
Crown prove a specific measure or council that the pri-
soner wanted to have changed by these publications, he
mIS Mr.
ern.
the
t I Iwoi arc which
Learneds
m,
is entitled to an acquittal; and, therefore, I apply myself
further to the case—l would wish to have your Lord-
ships' opinion on the subject as to what is to be left to
which, if you co
the jury. If your Lordships do not wish to interfere at
yttohhuei sgsetecanogrteide,ornaf
gentlemen
iliclleot
ith,reti
hacel, will,
ol.uurrty
willo of
rcourse,
it.
and proceed—
BaronifheinLdtoeoeetsßOY—Whateyer the charge is, appears on
believe me—that they®
by m y client
inciovatati
view
and
aatvtoewntsiothnetmo,
life? Will he leave
ageod fully
theaccused, which.
the him, he ill
and I want to try
saonmdething
juryor
tahnthoniseonet ti.l:i.huat
expressionsstatewith o without
tf uncertainty;
a alllisnoga youry avow,
w ,
I Itce very
is
ef
rfye
lnotso tar
felony
strong
dutye
x p r e
sheresi o n
st o u tellse
used
enslaved country. A
tnahsidscelklinneesrhseityweenpajeltikuaorath continuation,
herbsfheoeatiGentlemanit.trhchhaoeocastrwetnyrt
ill] i
sweaspslllaid
. alid:wteihitdsTnebproceeded
this
jgiehelutarlimarrsei
bnyartsensAoaetswmir,
epvehatoyearos ttddaf_enudmuitdt,ypehai observe—
Willonohrat
upon
mea-
sures—what
entertained atr;
silsavervyin:anly
—and if I did you would not
persons to the
between the Crown
tell you, in the
instance, c
theree ,
nlnroe
tl Ireland
greatstate of
m Ireland,
istak e is
efiffrsetetintthe present
a slave unless he be in chains, orY subjectti:at no man can be
the planter like the negroes; but the S
to the lash of
speak is the slavery of the people, which
havcery of which I
consists in this,
they do not make the laws by which they
that they do not ma
but that those laws are made by others, aenffolverned,
boldly, that a people so circumstanced are in ' say it
a state of
slavery.
Baron LEFROY said the Court were very reluctant to
interpose, but the course pursued by Mr. Holmes was
calculated to embarrass them in the situation they occu-
pied, by introducing objectionable matter, to which, if
they did not express their dissent, it might make them
liable to the imputation of having approved the line of
argument advanced by Mr. Holmes.
Mr. floe:Ares—l am the last man to press upon the
Court that which I had not a right to do; and I think it
impossible to do justice to my client without doing jus-
tice to Ireland also.—(Loud cheers.)
Baron LEFROY called upon the Sheriff to give orders
that persons who would again create disturbance in the
Court, should be taken into custody. The Learned
Baron commanded that the person who would commit
such a breach of public decorum should be instantly
reported to the Court, and it would be his duty to com-
mit him. ,

Mr. HOLMES —Th e Act of Parliament under which
Mr. Mitchel stood at the bar does not prescribe one
punishment—it might be for twojyears' imprisonment,
or seven years' transportation, or transportation for life
—and if there should be a verdict of conviction, it is not
important to show all the circumstances of the case,and
the provocations under which my client has acted in
those publications. I think it quite essential to his
case, and with that view the line I have prescribed for
myself is quite necessary for his defence. My client
may be guilty of felony, but I say it broadly and boldly,
that England is the cause of the offence of which he is
accused, and I will demonstrate it. I care not by what
means you have been empanelled. I address you be-
cause I believe you to be honest men and faithful Irish-
men. Take nothing from me; I will state upon high au-
thority :—° What does the liberty of a people consist in:
it consists in the right and power to make laws for its
own government. Were an individual to make laws
for another country, that person is a despot and the
people aro slaves. When one country makes
laws for another country (and
_that England
in making laws for Ireland, I will demon-
strate, by which Ireland is enslaved), the country
which makes the laws is ab.polutely the sovereign coun-
try, and the country for which those laws are made, is
in a state of slavery." I give that upon the authority
of an Englishman—an honest man in his day—Black-
stone. And what does he say ? In constitutional
questions he will not be suspected or accused of being
too much in favour of popular rights, ho says :—" It
follows from the nature and constitution of a dependent
state, that England should make laws for Ireland"—
(treating Ireland as a conquered country)—" conquered,
planted, and governed by England, it might be neces-
sary that it should be subject to such laws as the su-
perior state thinks proper to prescribe." In speaking of
this country, Ireland, he (Blackstone) maintains that
because Ireland had been a conquered country in his
days, Ireland of the present time, and for posterity for
ever should be bound by such laws as the conquering
state thinks proper to make for her. He called upon
the jury, in conclusion, as they valued their oaths, and
as they valued justice and public good, manly bearing,
and personal honour, and as they loved the country of
their birth, to find a verdict of acquittal.
Mr. HENN replied on the part of the Crown.
Justice MoonE proceeded to charge the jury.
The jury then, at a quarter past four o'clock, retired
to their room, and their Lordships withdrew from the
bench. At ten minutes after six o'clock they returned,
and inquired of the High Sheriff if the jury had agreed?
He replied in the negative, and by the direction of the
Court proceeded to the jury-room and asked them if
they had found a verdict? In a few moments he
returned, and intimated to the Court that the jury had
not agreed, but there was a probability that they would
do so.

Their LORDSHIPS expressed an intention of adjourn-
ing the court for an hour, and swore in special bailiffs
to prevent any communication with the jury during the
interval.

Mr. FRENCH, the High Sheriff, intimated to their
Lordships, as they were about to retire, that it would
be necessary to swear ie two more policemen and
another bailiff, in order to station one in a yard from
which the jury might be communicated with, andthe:other
two were required the better to guard against the least
probability of tampering with the jury.
The additional sentinels were then sworn, and sta-
tioned by the Sheriff in the places in which their pre-
sence was necessary.
The word ran abroad like wildfire that the jury had
disagreed, and the excitement in Green-street and the
surrounding neighbourhood became intense, the populace
cheering and rushing through Capel-street, communicat-
ing to others the supposed fact.
Their Lordships remained upon the bench, and did
not adjourn the Court as they had intended, and the
seat immediately before the bar, upon which a number
of Mr. Mitchel's friends were, was cleared by the
police, and two of the body was stationed at either
side of it.

jhuorryt l yr e
-afterwards e
i(rt en
box.m i nTu
ht ees
stiol e
nsceev eant ot
h' cilsock),
theB
mo-
ment was profound. Every eye was turned towards the
box, and when the foreman handed the issue paper and
the indictment to the Clerk of the Crown the anxiety
was excessive.
Clerk of the Crown—hew say you, gentlemen, guilty
or not guilty.
Foreman—Guilty.
Baron LEFROY (addressing the prisoner) said, " Stand
by till to-morrow."
Several of Mr. Mitchel's friends, some of whom are
barristers, pressed forward to shake hands with him,
and blocked up the bar, standing between the prisoner
and the bench.
Baron LEFROY said he was surprised to see gentlemen
of the bar thus violating the order of the Court.
be pronounced.
Mr.
Mitchel was then reconducted by a private pas-
sage to Newgate, and the Court was adjourned to eleven
O'clock this morning, when it is supposed the sentence
will
A great concourse of persons assembled in Capel-
street, and it became necessary for the horse and foot
police to assemble and form into a solid line, to remove
them
quietly and orderly, which was done without any
commotion save the shouts and yells of a few boys. The
police were on the alert during the evening to prevent
disturbance, and every necessary arrangement was made
to check and restrain any violation of the peace.
SENTENCE OF TRANSPORTATION ON
Aare LIEL.
SATURDAY, MAY 27.—At five minutes after eleven,
the Judges, Baron Lefroy and Mr. Justice Moore, took
their seats on the bench.
ch el
Clerk of the Crown—Gaoler, put forward John Mit-
.
Mr. Mitchel was hero placed at the bar, where he
stood in a calm and firm attitude. ile was warmly
shaken by the hand by his friends who were about the
bar.

While his friends were thus occupied,
~ Baron LEFROT called out in a peremptory tone,
Keep order in court."
Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, then addressingi the Court,
said—lf your Lordships have no objection we would
wish to have the-verdict of the jury read by the Clerk
of the Crown.
Clerk of the Crown—The verdict is guilty.
Sir COLMAN O'Loaurai—What is the issue paper ?
&ad the issue paper itself.

u. ,
su.. Nt
in Afitabei
was guilty or no, _ , - . 614ras r 4,
put forward, and tli at the verdict we .ity.
~i,.., ..„‘
tiv
Baron LEFROT then looked over'__ ndictme and
said—We have called .on this case '42t this mo ' g=in
order to give time if there should b ither 9,,,,ti,e,r, y
of the prisoner or of tlie Crown, an • 'l, . ...11,641,
made to the Court relating to it. It isri., : .1 flit
we have had the case cailed on first; .iulti•ivkli • Now
proceed to dispose of the case.
The Clerk of the Crown then asked Mr. Mitchel if he
had anything to say why sentence should not be passed
upon him?
Mr. Mitchel—l have to say that I have been found
guilty by a packed jury—by a jury of a partisan sheriff
—by a jury not empanelled even according to the law of
England. I have been found guilty by a packed jury
obtained by a juggle—a jury not empanelled by a sheriff,
but by a juggler.
The Emu SHERIFF-My Lord, I claim the protection
of the Court.

Mr. Dlitchel—That is the reason I obiect to sentence
being passed on me.

Baron LEFROY—That impuation upon the conduct of
the sheriff I must pronounce to be most unwarranted
and unfounded. I state this, not on my own opinion.
alone, but on the opinion of two indifferent gentlemen.
on their oaths, who were chosen and appointed to exa-
mine into the matter, and who have declared that thee
panel was an impartial panel, fairly obtained and
formed. On their oaths they have found it to be so.
Therefore the sheriff, far from being subject to the im-
putation cast upon him, has done his duty in the case.
John Mitchel, I cannot at the outset but express my
regret—regret that, I am sure, is shared in by my
brother Judge—that a person of your condition should
stand at the ear under the circumstances you do. You
have been found ge,Qty on the indictment charging you
with feloniously oempassing, imagining, and intending
to deprive the Queen of the style, title, honour, and
royal name of the Imperial Crown of the United King-
dom; and with having given publicity to that intention
by publishing certain writings in a public newspaper,
published by you, and called the United Irishman.
There aro other counts on which you have been also
found guilty. You have been found guilty of the felo-
nious intent and purpose of intending to levy war against
the Queen, for the purpose of compelling her by force
and constraint to change her measures egad councils; and
that those felonious intents and purposes were mani-
fested in publications put forward in your own name in
the same newspaper. These are the charges for which you
were put on your trial, and for which you have been found
guilty. The evidence was furnished by yourself in pub -
lications coming out of your own hands, deliberate pub-
lications, issued at intervals of time which gave you
l'ull leisure and opportunity to consider what you were
about, and to reflect upon what might be the conse-
ouenc,e of your acts. The case turned upon the meaning
and interpretation of those publications. The meaning
and intention was clearly furnished by yourself, and
came from yourself, just as the publications themselves.
The meaningand intent was collected from the language
of the publications themselves, not confined to one, but
to be collected from the successive publications, so as to
leave no doubt upon the words interpreted by yourself
as to the meaning and intent of these publications. The
very able counsel who defended you was not able to
offer any other interpretation of their meaning than that
which is assigned in the indictment. Upon this evi-
dence, therefore, thus furnished by yourself, the jury
have found you guilty. With that verdict, therefore,
however you may be advised, or think yourself justified
in calling it the verdict of a packed jury, and thus im-
puting perjury to twelve of your countrymen, deliberate
and wilful perjury—
Mr. Mitchel—No, my Lord, I did not impute perjary
to the jury.
Baron LEFROY—I understood that you had stated in
arrest of judgment that you had been found guilty by a
packed jury.
Mr. Mitchel—l did.
Baron LEFROY—I shall make no further observation
upon that, but I owe it to the jury to state, that upon
the evidence furnished thus by yourself, no juror, who
had the slightest regardt; to the oath he had taken, could,
by possibility, come a different conclusion. What
ground of doubt was even suggested with respect to the
by y
effect of the publication
ourself: or with respect to
the interpretation and mearning of these publications.
As I observed, not even you
own able counsel was able
to suggest a doubt or a meaning different from what is
imputed to them. No, not even to suggest
ut any apology
which could be attended to in a courtjustice, but an
apology amounting to this, that you had a right to vio-
late the law. Well, then, with the verdict establishing
your guilt of the offence stated upon the face of this in-
dictmeut, even yourself cannot fairly quarrel ' • and now
what is the nature of the offence of which you have been
found guilty ? If not the greatest offence, it is near
akin to the greatest offence which any subject can be
guilty of towards his sovereign, or towards his country.
By the law of England, up to a late period, the offence
you have been found guilty of was high treason. At the
present moment, both in England and Ireland, it is a
treasonable felony ; and I cannot but hope that, not-
withstanding the deliberate perseverance in the course
which unhappily you have been pursuing, that you may
yourself one day or other be struck with the awful con-
sequences, the awful results to which that course must
of necessity have led, if it had not been checked in its
progress. Surely, a provisional government taken from
a howling mob—Surely a practical enforcement of your
arguments, enforced by a 100,000 pikes, must have been.
attended with most desolating ruin to your country.
Well, then, independently of the nature of this crime,
look at the circumstances connected with it. I will not go
into any extraneous circumstances, but look at the cir-
cumstances which were brought before the Court, and
to which we could not shut our eves, connected with this
offence. It originated in a speech. Well, great allow-
ance might be made fur a speech delivered under ex-
citement, and though the time and place were badly
chosen, upon an occasion where excitement would do
more mischief, perhaps, than upon a more sober occasion.
If it even rested upon that, there might be great allow-
and great apology. But, after time for deliberation, you
thought fit to publish that speech, so full of exciting and
objectionable matter, so charged with these felonious
compassings and intentions which are stated in the in-
dictment. You thought fit to publish it, to take away
from it all apology of momentary excitement, to take
away from it all apology of limited effect. You put it into
a condition calculated to give it circulation through every
corner of the land, to diffuse the poison through every
excited mind in the whole country. The law makes,
even upon the matter of high treason, a great distinction
betweeu words spoken and published. You deprived
yourself of every mitigation which the law allows, and
of every favourable distinction it has established as be-
tween words spoken and published. You published
deliberately the first article, upon which so
I much has been lately said, that it is quite
unnecessary for me to recall or reiterate the objec-
tionable passages it contains, to sustain both the one
count and the other. Bat upon comparing the two pub-
lications—the first of the 6th of May, and the second
of the 13th, this observation arises—that whatever pos-
sible mitigation might arise from the tenor of the first,
or from anything on it, has been effectually withdrawn
by you, and done away with in the second. The second
publication, which was at the interval of another week,
leaves it utterly impossible for the greatest stretch of
ingenuity, or the greatest perversion of interpretation,
to protect you. Upon the second the charge is—and
we have it expressed by yourself—of an intention to
overthrow the monarchy, and establish in its place a re-
public. To render distinct what was perhaps vaguely
expressed in the first, you have published the second
document for which you were indicted. The first
contained matter which perhaps might have been,
and would no doubt, if the case had rested on that
alone, have been a circumstance of mitigation, or at
least an apology for that publication. You have in
it disclaimed the intention of a war of plunder and
assassination; and it was a disclaimer which would
have been to your credit and your advantage if you had
left it to be made use of on your behalf. But what ap-
pears in the second publication from the man who dis-
claimed a war of plunder and assassination? You tell
your countrymen in the second publication, after a pre-
face that you were going to speak plainly, " There is
now growing on the soil of Ireland a wealth of grain,
and roots, and cattle, far more than enough to sustain in
life and comfort all the inhabitants of the island. That
wealth must not leave us another year, nor until every
grain of it is fought for in every stage, the tying of
the sheaf to the loading of the ship. And the effort
necessary to that simple act of self-preservation will
at one and the same blow prostrate British domi-
nion and landlordism together." Now, how is it
possible that advice could be acted upon without, of
necessity, leading to plunder, to the violent taking
away and withholding, by force and violence, the
property justly belonging to others, or with-
holding it from them by force and violence, by
the use of arms. Thus it is, then, that you appear
from one stage to another to have advanced in a bold,
and deliberate, and determined opposition to the law, in
language more and more unmeasured, more and more
mischievously exciting. I do not express myself--at
least such is not my purpose—to hurt your feelings, but
merely to discharge the duty which is now cast upon
the Court to admeasure, in proportion to the nature of
the crime, the punishment which it may be our duty
to inflict. It is, therefore, that I have, of necessity,
stated strongly these passages of that publication, and
the manner of them, and the perseverance of them, and
the deliberation of them, as the grounds by which we
are bound to measure our judgment, and to discharge
the solemn duty we owe to the law and the public, and
the peace and welfare of the kingdom. But has
there been in the course of this trial attempted
any explanation, any interpretation, any apology
for these publications, or anything tending to raise
a doubt of their bearing the interpretation put
upon them by the indictment ? In advert-
ing to the course taken for the delence, we desire—and
I especially desire it to be understood—that the obser-
vations I am about to make, and in which I am follow-
ing up some of the observations in the charge of my
Learned Brother, in every word of which I concur—in
the observations that I am about to make on the line of
defence that was adopted, I make them not to aggravate
in the least the punishment which it may be my duty to
impose, any more than it aggravated the case before the
jury. But I make these observations respecting the
line of defence that was taken, in order to mark its
irrelevancy, and with a view that the Court may not
appear to acquiesce in that line of defence. We felt it
our duty not to put a stop to it, but to interpose with a
view of reprobating and checking it, as a line of defence
which, in our judgment, was not warranted by the pri-
vilege given to a prisoner for his defence, and which,
as it was too plainly shown, was as injudicious as it was
injurious to the prisoner. No interpretation offered—
no meaning ascribed to these publications—no effort
made to show that you were not guilty of the defence
imputed to you by the indictment; but a line of defence
t, was taken, which not only implicitly but expressly