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

(
,c--., •
~ 2- • . Lel /7
, .
„
....." ,f 4
f he ead the-istl
• . . ,
cit.w.
•
111 ' \ .
pAg 1, :'.,;
t.:w-
-4-.:.:,..s „„ ' \ ~.
4
1,!'''''.?,.;',;:•.i•4,1.'),V-S!';
'l.. .."-------,----•ZC,..4, 4"; 4.
, ,
,
433: 41 .Ste ffik‘
,i ,• ) -•:'---r-0. tt • is,. 'l,,' AIL !, -/
. : //Z
. '
11%*) . 1111?6C.‘ ,'''A ':4•••• .&,,s-1,6'44!. (1; . t,... . v. . i cg ',,lLliri!-Y‘Y,'.',w,•,t,''';`,
~,; , i ~.1: 1
i:.4
,
‘44-45.7,)• , , --.:•,,, ,i, - . ‘,O ..•:•_:,-....,,,43,7:..c.--,,, ~.i4, ,
~--.41-,z,„:„:---------- -t:, -•
-1:' , :
=I
.4-41:-..„ ..“1. , -
-'•„',:,;','-_4l-_,;,- ,'-----",..• 1 ---V,,,--,,,,,,,„_--4,.,•-•,c,-- ..,,x0gA.,,,1 V- ' • _,,!_-_-_-_-:..., -
i 1,„ .i';'-' "t.' +
..
- 1 1, ' • 'Z''';;.,::-..A. 01 (--:„, - jo‘ir.
y ; ik;Die.' • ',.....r. rsil 1 zz,_ !...7 1\
.. n _ '
~••:!::, n „
r_...._'' ' ...,%:.+•.- '42, .'')'.s,•;:' ..: \., ',
, n'.;
a'› l'''' --:-T7.'Ve; ' •
0 ..;Z4:%''' 1?';47.,' ier,
_,
~,s-t1it.i.,.........., ' 7.\- 4,,,....L.',11/ Ff1:7.4,"•' +'
,ON-....„...„_,N' 's'''',l.Vile, 1 w—n 0
2....,,,-...‘‘,
~1
j...,.,:,.....
'P.-•,,,,1'''<..‘-'3-:/ii--.1...:_..-iffne'- 'r'o.4l••--P'''''' ' - -c'''''.2------•
sue`..-k, -L '------t. ' • -5..--r-N;,- ---1-...-4,,• -OL-.----- --- •
k
...sil-:.,
,:44,,.,

[PRICE SD.

The Clerk oL Crown, then Je,
stated that the 'jury were to try whether John Mitchel
was guilty or not guilty of the charge on which he was
put forward, and that the verdict was guilty.
Baron LEFROY then looked over the indictment, and
said—We have called on this case first this morning in
order to give time if there should be, either on the part
of the prisoner or of the Crown, any application to be
made to the Court relating to it. It is, therefore, that
we have had the case called on first, and we shall 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 ernuaoelled even according to the law of
England. I bare been found guilty by a packed jury
obtained by a juggle—a jury nut empanelled by a sheriff,
but by a juggler.
The Ilion SHERIFF—My Lord, I claim the protection
of the Court.

Mr. Mitchel—That is the reason I object to sentence
being passed on me.

&trim LEFROY—That impuation upon the conduct of
the sheriff I miot 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 shut the
panel was au impartial panel, fairly obtained and
formed. On their oaths they have found it to be sp.
Therefore the sheriff, far from being subject to the im-
putation cast upou 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 iu by nay
urother Judge—that a person of your condition should
stand at the ear under the circumstances you do. You
have been found g-,•;lty on the indictment charging you
with feloniously- c....npassing, 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
oy publishing certain writings in a public newspaper,
published by y ou, and called the United Irishman.
There are other counts on which you have been also
found guilty. You have been found guilty of the felo-
nious intent and purpose of iutendiug to levy war against
the Queen, tor the purpose of compelling her by force
and constraint to change her measures stud councils; and
that those felonious intents and purposes were mani-
tesied in publications put forward iu yoot own name 411
the same newspaper. These are the charges for which you
were put. on your trial, and for which yoqhsve been found
The evidence was furnished by yourself is pub
ltcattuns coining out of your own hands, deliberate liod//..
lications, issued at intervals of time which gave you
ull leisure . and opportunity to consider what you were
about, and to reflect upon what might be the conse-
quence of your acts. The case turned upon the meaning
iud interpretation of those publications. The meaning
and intention was clearly furnishal by yourself, an I
came from yourself, just as the publications themselv
The meaning and intent was collected from the language
of the publications themselves, not confined to one, but
to be collected from the succe,sive 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 justifttrd
in calling it the verdict of a packed jury, and thus uu-
puling perjury to twelve of your countrymen, deliberate
and wilful perjury—
Mr. Mitchel—No, my Lord, I did not impute perjury
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—I did.
Pisron LEFROY—I shall make no further observation
upon that, but I owe it to the. jury to state,. that upon
the evidence furnished thutshe by yourself, juror, who
had the slightest regard to e!, th he had taken, could,
by possibility, come to a different
conclusion. What
ground of doubt was even suggested with respect to the
effect of the publication by yourself, or with respect to
the interpretation and meaning these publications.
As I ob,.erved, not even your own ableo Ise: was able
to suggest a doubt er a meaning different from what is
justice, e apology 3
imputed to them. No, not even to suggest
which could be attended to in a court t
apology amounting to this, that you had a right to vie!
iate theg
law. Well, then, with the verdict establishin
your guilt of the offence stated upon the lace of this in-
dictment, even yourself cannot fairly quarrel ; and now
what is the nature of the Aimee of which you have been
:build guilty ? If not the greatest off'uce, it is near
akin to the greatest offs nee which any subject can be
guilty of towards his sovereign, or towards his country.
By the law of lingllnti. up to a bite period, the offence
you have been found guilty ut was high treason. At the
present nionteitt, both in England anti Ireland, it is a
treasonable felony ; and I cannot but hope that, not-
withstauding 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-
s, quences, the awful results to wnich that course must
:a necessity have led, ii it had nut been checked in its
progress. Surely, apr ,visional gpvernineut taken front
a howling 'non—:cutely a practical enforcement of your
arguments, enforced byieLloo,oo pikes, must have been,
,treaded with ntetei. deeolating- J-util to your country:
well,--tben, independently of the nature of this crime,
look at the circutestances connected with it. I will not, go
into any extraneous eireumweners, but look at the ter-
cinustauces which were brought before the Court. and
to which we cuu.d out shut our eyes, cenneciid with this
offence. It originated in a speech. Well, great allow-
ance might be math, for a speech delivered under ex-.
citement, and though the time and place were bad 4
chosen, upuu an occasion where excitement would do
more mischief; perhspi, than upon a more sober occar.ion.
If it even rested upon that, there might be great allow_
and great apology. But, after time for deliberation, you
,houghs fit to pub jsh that speech, so full of exciting and
objectionable matter, so charged with these telouious
cotnpassings and intentions which are stated in the in-
dictment. Yuu thought fit to publish it., to take away
from it all apology ut momentary excitement, to take
away from it all apology of limited effect. You put it itito
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 disiinction
between 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
much has been lately sai i, 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 toe 6th of May, and the second
of the 13th, this observation arises—that whatever pos-
sible mitieation might arise from the tenor of the first,
ur 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 ts—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 bad 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 secund 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 bt.longing 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—et
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 defence, we desire—aud
I especially desire it to be understood—that the obser-
vations I am about to make, and in which lam folldw-
ing up some of the o'uservations in the charge of my ;,:::?;-4--
Learned Brother, in every word of which I concur—=in -lw
the observations that I am about to make on the ' ieof
it
defence that was adopted, I make them not to eg , sate
in the least the punishment which it may be,
_pjr, ikty to
impose, any more than it aggravated the case bilore the
jary. But I make these observations resikteting am
line of defence that was taken, in order to mark its
irrelevancy, and with a viewthat the Court may not
appear to acquiesce in that line of defence. We felt it
our duty not to put a stop to it, bat to interpose with a
view of reprobating and checking it, as a lino of defence
which, in oar 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 publication—no effort
Made to show that you were not guilty of the defence
imputed to you by the indictment; but a line of defence
Await taken, which not only implicitly but eirretaly