all he possesses this day, in that, whether it be right or wrong, which he believes to be for his country's good. And when he reflected that the effect of a verdict of guilty would be to consign such a man to a prison, he was, he confessed, anxious for them, for himself, and for the country-for all could not be right in a country in which such a man as Mr. O'Brien was guilty-if guilty they pronounced him to be-of sedition. The real question on which they were to pronounce their opinion was, whether the language imputed to his client was seditious or not. It was not a question to be decided on any technical maxim of the law. They had a very difficult duty to perform-their verdict must be grounded on public considerations. Let him tell them, in the plainest and most distinct terms that language could supply him with, that, whether this speech be seditious or not, they and they alone were the judges. The Attorney-General had not given them a definition of sedition; but he would give them one, and in doing so he would ask them to consider if Mr. O'Brien's speech was not language which any freeman had a right to use? And he would also adduce instances of much stronger language being used by the most illustrious of their fellow countrymen in former times. He would now call their attention to the speech complained of, not so much to the parts read as the parts omitted by the Crown-and also to the Youghal address. With regard to the latter document, no jury could find Mr. Smith O'Brien guilty upon account of it, even supposing it were seditious, because it did not contain his words; but, even if it did, he would like

to know if in England it was said, "The right to make laws for Englishmen belongs to England, and to the people of no other country," would the English Attorney-General dare to stand up in an English court, and call upon an English jury to convict the man who had said so? He (Mr. Butt) would show them presently that Lord Plunket, Chief Justice Bushe, and Saurin had demanded the same thing for Ireland; and if so, would any jury convict Mr. O'Brien for merely repeating the sentiments, for saying what those illustrious Irishmen had frequently said? The right of an oppressed nation to assert its liberties by arms was the admitted theory of the British constitution, which recognised that right when governors transgressed the rule of law. The revolution of 1688 was nothing else than an assertion of the people of their right to vindicate their liberties by arms, and there was a time when an Attorney-General would have been impeached for attempting to dispute their right. Works were written and taught in their universities in which the right he advocated was held as inviolable. The learned gentleman here referred to Locke and Paley in support of his argument, and contended that his client had never uttered a sentiment which did not agree with the sentiments propounded by those writers, and taught even to the students of universities in their colleges. He (Mr. Butt) now came to the speech of the traverser, and he would request of the jury to listen to it without prejudice. He was not going to deny it; on the contrary, he admitted it was an advice to the Irish nation to put themselves in an attitude to be able to vindicate their liberties if assailed. He

made that admission, and he submitted it was one fully borne out by the Bill of Rights established in 1688, when James II. was driven from the throne because he resorted to arbitrary measures, and disarmed a large portion of his subjects. The officers of the Crown had not set out the speech of the traverser fully on the face of the indictment, and he (Mr. Butt) would not quarrel with the omission; but he would say that a great deal was left out which qualified the other parts. Mr. O'Brien had disclaimed republicanism, as he then did on his behalf, asserting that he was then, as he always was, a firm supporter of monarchy, under the Queen, Lords, and Commons of Ireland; and he would suffer death on the scaffold sooner than deny those principles. He had made no attempt to subvert the Queen's authority in Ireland. He wished to restore the ancient constitution, but not to subvert the power of the Monarch. He (Mr. O'Brien) suggested a peaceful meeting, and advised the people to hold it in opposition to the proclamation of the Lord-Lieutenant. He (Mr. Butt) denied the right of any Government to make laws by proclamation. Mr. O'Brien's speech contained the assertion of a right that did belong to every British subject, namely, to resist the Government if it interfered illegally. Mr. O'Brien had a perfect right to put forward that sentiment. The learned Counsel then referred to the case of John Binns, tried at Warwick in 1797. The learned Judge then told the jury what he (Mr. Butt) then told them also, that if the Executive attempted improper interference, so far from resistance being a crime it was patriotism, and the man who gave

the counsel, so far from being a seditious adviser, was a good sentinel.

The verdict which that English jury returned was, that the accused was not guilty. They pronounced that the traverser had not done anything but his duty as a citizen. Let the jury not be afraid to give their verdict boldly, and let them recollect that the result of a verdict of not guilty would be, that the system of which he complained must henceforward be abandoned-the treating this country as a conquered nation; and the English Ministry would be taught that the best security for British dominion in Ireland would have been to have acted a different part, and to have devised means of raising Ireland into the position of a happy and prosperous nation. The learned Counsel then referred to the declaration of the Volunteers of 1782. Was there a man in that jury box, he would boldly ask, Repealer or not, satisfied with the relations of this country to the empire at large? He did not believe there was.

What had been the course of the English nation towards Ireland for centuries? No matter what their opinion might be on the abstract merits of the Union, he would boldly ask them, had the United Parliament done justice to this country? Did they know that Irish questions were disposed of in the English Parliament, not with reference to their merits, to the benefit of the country, or to the public opinion, but with reference to the convenience of the English Parliament? Could they point out to him any measures based on the real good, and directed to the real prosperity of Ireland, ever passed through the English Commons? Had the Union, as it had been administered in the

United Parliament, given security to property and life in Ireland? Let the murders that disgraced the country let the late Special Commissions answer. Had the Union fostered their manufactures-had it enriched the landlords of Ireland? Let them go and ask the shopkeepers of the city whether they could get their accounts paid by the struggling gentry of Ireland? Had it elevated the condition of the agricultural population? Did they hear the other day that it was lately proved in a court of justice, that a woman kept the dead corpse of her child, instead of giving it Christian burial, that she might preserve her own life by devouring its flesh? Did not every man agree in saying the present state of things could not continue; and what was that prosecution for but to repress that sentiment? He would appeal to them as Irishmen, and in doing so he did not think he was doing wrong, when he reminded them that the traverser was charged, pleaded not guilty, and in legal phrase, "put himself on his country." It was as his countrymen they were to try him, and not as aliens. The learned gentleman said in conclusion, Gentlemen

of the jury, proclaim that the day for insulting Ireland has gone by, and tell the British Minister that he is a traitor to the Queen who advises her to found the British power in Ireland upon any other than the affections of the Irish people.

The Chief Justice having recapitulated the various charges contained in the information against the traverser, said that, in considering the speech made by him it would be their duty to read it and understand it as the persons to

whom it was addressed understood it; for it was no matter what passed in the speaker's mind when speaking, his intentions were only to be judged by his words, which should be considered as bearing the meaning they appeared to import; for the law did not allow a man to put a different construction on his words from their ordinary meaning. With regard to the question of Repeal, the Union they knew consisted in the Acts of the

Irish and British Parliaments— the Acts of the two Legislatures, Acts which could only be repealed by an Act of the Imperial Legislature. There was no other power by which the Repeal of the Union could be legally obtained, and it was perfectly lawful for any one to contemplate that object, for it was the right of every man to send representatives to Parliament for the purpose, to petition Parliament, and to adopt any other legal course he thought proper. Within the limits of law every man had a right to ask for repeal; but, however he might do so, he was not to be allowed to carry out his views by force, or the threat of force, or of foreign invasion, foreign troops, foreign money, and foreign assistance; such acts were acts of treason if carried out, and advising their adoption was sedition. Therefore, if it was their opinion that the traverser's speech was of this character, they should consider it seditious, and seditious in a high degree. His Lordship then referred to Mr. O'Brien's speech as read by the Attorney-General, and the addresses adopted to the French people, on which he commented at length. The topics of defence, the unmeasured condemnation of the Act of Union, and the various abstract questions touched upon by

the traverser's counsel, should not lead them astray from the real question to be decided, which he had no doubt they would honestly decide, regardless of prejudice.

The jury retired at half past six o'clock. When the Court met on the following morning at ten o'clock they were called into court, when they informed his Lordship that there was no likelihood of their agreeing, and they were, with the consent of the Attorney-General, discharged.

May 16th.

THE QUEEN v. T. F. MEAGHER.

In this case Thomas Francis Meagher was arraigned on an ex officio information, filed by the Attorney-General, for uttering a seditious speech on the 15th March last, at the Irish Confederation; being the same occasion on which Mr. Smith O'Brien had delivered the speech for which he had just been tried and acquitted. As the result in this was the same as that in Mr. O'Brien's case, it is unnecessary to give the details of the trial. Two facts, however, may be noticed. Upon the jury being called into court, they were asked by the Lord Chief Justice-Are you likely to agree, gentlemen?

The Foreman.--We are not, my Lord.

Mr. Ferrall (one of the jurors). -We are all agreed, my Lord, but one, and he is a Roman Catholic.

The other fact which it is desirable to notice is, that these are the speeches so much referred to in the subsequent trials for high

treason.

Before MR. BARON LEFROY and MR.
JUSTICE Moore.

THE QUEEN V. JOHN MITCHELL.

The traverser in this case, Mr. John Mitchell, was the proprietor of the United Irishman newspaper, and was arrested under a warrant charging him with felony under the 11th Vict. c. 12, entitled "An Act for the better Security of the Crown and Government." Two several bills of indictment were found by the Grand Jury against Mr. Mitchell for this felony; to each of these he handed in a plea praying that the indictment might be quashed, on the ground that one of the jurors is a member of the Council of the borough of Dublin, and as such disqualified. As these were merely dilatory pleas, on the 26th April, the Attorney-General, for the purpose of avoiding delay, entered a nolle prosequi to each, and filed ex officio informations against Mr. Mitchell. To this Mr. Mitchell put in a plea in abatement, on the ground that as the indictment found against him by the jury had not been quashed, but only a nolle prosequi had been entered, he could not be called upon to answer an information except upon the oaths of twelve men. The Crown demurred to the plea as insufficient, and the Court held the plea to be bad. The Attorney-General then called upon the traverser to plead forthwith. He pleaded "Not Guilty."

May 24th.

A true bill having been found against the traverser by the Grand Jury, he was called upon to plead to the indictment; but his counsel raised another objection, and pro

posed to apply to the Court to quash the indictment altogether, on the ground that there were two distinct charges of felony contained in the indictment, whereas by rule of law it was clear that two distinct felonies could not be charged in the same indictment. This contained a charge that the traverser endeavoured to take away the style, honour, and royal name of our Sovereign Lady the Queen; and, second, that he had sought to levy war against Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. The Court overruled the objectionthere was no inconsistency or repugnancy in the two felonies charged in the indictment-the two felonies charged only varied the offence, but did not vitiate the indictment.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen then applied for leave to demur to the indictment, and plead over to the felony; and then for the postponement of the trial on the ground that they had not been able to serve a material witness. These dilatory proceedings passed, the trial was appointed to be had on the 25th May. The Court-House presented a scene of great excite

ment.

May 25th.

The panel being called over, Sir Colman O'Loghlen, on behalf of the prisoner, handed in a challenge to the array, on the ground that it had been arrayed in a favourable and partial manner to our Lady the Queen, and to the prejudice of the said John Mitchell. The Crown joined issue. Triers were appointed. The subject was argued at great length. The principal objection was to the disproportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants. The triers found

against the traverser, and a jury was then sworn.

John Mitchell was then placed at the bar, and arraigned for felony. The Attorney-General stated the case on the part of the Crown, and pointed out at great length the distinction which existed between the law as amended by the recent statute, and what it was previously, and then read in succession the passages of the traverser's speeches and writings, which were the foundation of the criminal charges, upon which he commented as he proceeded. Before April last, there were in activity several associations of politicians, whose object was, by legal and constitutional agitation, and the formation of a public opinion in their favour, to accomplish the repeal of the Legislative Union of the two countries. In such an object there was nothing illegal. But a party separated itself from those so associated, with the professed intention to gain the repeal of the Union by force and violence. In that state of things, the Crown and Government Security Act had been passed, making it a transportable felony to compass or intend, either the deprivation and deposition of the Queen from Her style, honour, and royal name of the imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, or the levying war against Her in Her kingdom, to force Her to change Her measures or counsels. The present prosecution had been instituted against Mr. Mitchell for a contravention of this law; and the evidence of his crime consisted in reports of speeches made by him, and of articles written by him, both published in his paper called the United Irishman, since the passing of the Act.

The first publication founded on for the prosecution was the re