The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-29 00:00:00

REPEAL AGITATION.

(PROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
DUBLIN, Nov 27.—(Two o'Cnocic.)—A verdict of
Guilty has just been returned against Mr. Barrett, in
the King's Bench, for publishing the first of the Dictator's
series of letters us the repeal of the Union.
The interest excited by this case, which has occupied
the Court the greater part of three days is intense. It
was a trial at bar for libel against the proprietor and
publisher of the Pilot newspaper, for having on the Bth
day of April last published a letter, signed Daniel
O'Connell, purporting to to a commentaryon the Coercion
Bill just then enacted ; but " inculcating," as was alleged,
" principles and lessons of disaffection." Proceedings had
i.een commenced immadiately after the publication of the
letter; and a trial at bar was fixed for the 13th of June
last ; but there being a defect of jurors on that
day, it was unavoidatily, as the law officers of the Crown
contend, postponed until after this term. The circum-
stance excited much curiosity and conjecture at the time ;
and being, as is understood, unprecedented in the legal
history of this country, it was generally supposed to have
been a compromise ; and that nothing further would be
done in the matter. This impression prevailed until the
18th of this month, when the Attorney-General moved
the Court, pursuant to a recent statute, to fix a day for
its final determination. Yesterday was accordingly ap-
pointed toy the Court ; and notwithstanding an application
by Mr. Shell on Monday to set aside the whole proceed-
ings, on account of irregularity in the jury process, the
trial commenced before a full bench of Judges, and twelve
respecoahle Protestant jurymen.
It had been rumoured for some days past, that O'Connell
should take no part in the defence, but that Mr. Sheil
was to have its entire management. At the cernmence-
inent of the trial, however, the former gentleman made
his appearance, as if unwilling to afford the latter an
opportunity for sach display as the occasion suggested.
The newspapers will supply you with the speeches and
details of this important case. I only anticipate them by
a hasty sketch of its more prominent features. The
At orney-General stated the case in that cool, clear, con-
cise, and chasoely.eli quent style, for which he is remark-
able. Not one sentence of aggravation was added to the
words of the indictment, except such as: were ingeni.
ously selected from the letter' its, If, which formed the
subject of prosecution. He said, the Coercion Bill was
admitted by Ministers themselves to be "a severe and
unconstitutional measure; and such as " imperative ne-
cessity" alone would justify them in bringing forward.
That necessity was admitted by the author of the letter.
who, in speaking of the Whitefeet, said, they had stained
by their outrages the country with a " turpitude" which
called forth the " vengeance of man." And yet, said the
Learned Gentleman, in that very letter, which thus hap
pily defines the state of things which constituted the
" necessity of a severe law ; we find the law itself charac-
terized as an act of unqualified despotism and tyranny."
He concluded by denying that the prosecution was perse-
vered in for the purpose of putting down discussion on the
repeal of the Union.
The speech of Mr. O'Connell, for the defendant, is
regarded by those acquainted with that gentleman's forensic
eloquence, as a specimen of his best and greatest efforts.
He beg .n ny asserting that it was a Cabinet prosecution,
fur the sole purpose of putting down discussion on repeal,
through the instrutnentality of a jury ; an .l declared his
willingness to grapple with it on that issue. He then in
a fervid and forcible strain of abuse poured forth a torrent
of vituperation collected from all his former letters and
speeches on the Whig Ministry—read the entire of the
letter which was the subject of the prosecution, and com-
mented on it, paragraph by paragraph—rejoicing. as it
were, in the opportunity for repeating all that he has
hitherto said and written in favour of repeal. This part
of the speech was heavy and prosing. Not so the con-
clusion, in which be quoted the opinions of several distin-