On this page
-
Text (3)
-
' August 19, ib48. THE. r .N.O£TBERff ¦ ...
-
THE WHIGS. From the beginning this Whig ...
-
Durham.—Scenb in Court.—At the Darhara A...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
' p jfr tried on this indictment ; but when it if _^• _csud that applications are to be- made to _postal _ti- _^ e trials , I may net , perhaps , discharge my _£ tr a * icu ? ut if I allow myself to be _embarrasstd ?! the bills found for felony when I have the _pounds , _ssEfl up bills for high treason . Perhaps , I _hare _rot done ray duty as I ought in _send' ne _fp hills for felony when I might have f _^ i up bills for high treason ; but , if the case i 3 r ' it determined at tbe present commission , the COTS ' . I trust , will not , bj any act out of tbeir way , _oblige me to take any course that would fetter my _discretion in sending up bills for treason . Mr Butt . —It ia my desire , my lord , to _cornet _^ case calmly and temperately , and therefore ! will jot offer one word of reply to the admirable specimen
ef calmness and good temper of the learned Solicitor-General . As te any _observations of his on myself , ay conduct is before your lordships and the public ; it is not in his power to prejudice me with either , for official station does not always confer authority . I feel the reason brought forward by the Attorney-GeHerel is another strong ground why Mr Duffy ' s p lea sbonld be received . I had las ' ; night the prisoner ' s instructions tbat he would stand his trial this _eommissios , and was ready to do so . I will tell the court what is unprecedented ; it is unprecedented that an Attorney-GeEeral should stand up in court _snd adopt this mode of proceeding when a prisoner is about to apply for a postponement of his trial , on grounds which common humanity Bhould induce _ium to listen to , namely , tbe public excitement at _prewr-t existing .
The Attorney . GeEer & l . —I must interfere ; there i 3 no affidavit . Mr Butt . —The Attorney-General has threatened that if the counsel for the prisoner exercises the _undoubted mat of applying to postpone the trial of this man , he would abandon this bill and send up one for _higk treason . The Attorney General—I & aii no such thing . Mr Butt . —I call tipen the « onrt to interpose between the prisoner and the unconstitutional threat of the Attorney-General . Let them allow the prisoner to plead , and the Attorney-General to take his Bourse .
The Chief Baron . —We do not see anything in the esse to induce us to proceed with the arraingtnent of the prisoner . The proceedings of the commission are still pending ; the commission is not about to doss , and another case was fixed for this morning . "We shall not proceed with the arraignment of Mr Duffy , but shall proceed , a 3 we were about to do , with the trial of Doherty . The Qdxen v . _Kevts _Izid O'Doheett —Felont . —Kevin Izod O'Doherty was then placed at the bar , to take his trial on the charges on which he was srraignedan the preceding day , namely , for imagining , deTisise , and intending to depose the Queen from her royal style , title , and honour , of the
imperial crown of the United Kingdom , which imagination , intention , « £ c ,, were indicated by articles published in the Tkibtjse newspaper , and also for intending , & c , to levy war against her Majesty . On the esse having been called on , and proclamation for a jury having been made , the clerk of the « rowu called over the panel , about half of whena answered to their E _3 _s : e 3 . At tbe suggestion of the _Attsrney-General , the court ordered that tbe absent j urors should be called on a fine of £ 20 each , whieh produced a alight increase to the number present ; hut that penalty hsvirg failed ia procuring the desired effect , the Chief Baron ordered _thai those absent should te called on a fine of £ 50 , and a few additional jurors _hiTing answered , the court proceeded to _saesx a
_jflff-At thig period of the proceedings a gentleman _nf the bar , in robes , complained to the court that he and several others of the profession were put te great iccocvecienee , there not having been any place provided for tbeir accommodation . Sir Colman O'Logh _' en suggested that the range of seats over the dock , which were exclusively occupied by policemen , should bs clsaied for the accommodation of the bar . The High Sheriff said , that the police who occupied those seats had been placed there by his orders ; that the scene wbich occurred in the dock at t e _ODrflmission before the last , had been of _gnch a character as to warrant him in taking the precaution of placing policemen in the vicinity ef the dock .
Tie first juror called , and sworn as foreman , was M » _Samnel Bagot Oldham . The _gecond callBd was John Joseph Nolan , who was desired by the crown solicitor to stand by . Mr Bntt and Sir Colman O'Loghlen severally contended that the crown waa bound _ta show cause for setting aside a juror . The Attorney-General rose , and addressing the juror Eaid , Mr Nohn , are you _security for Mr Dalany one cf tha party of the Ratios ? Mr Nolan : I am . Attorney-General : Then stand by . Mr Butt contended that , according to the 9 th of Geo . IV ., tbe crown had not the ri _? ht of peremptory challenge , without showing cause , and the court was bound to make a rule on the subject . Barcn Pennefather : It is by tbe order of tbe court the jurors objected to are commanded to stand bv . *
JohnPnayre was the next juror called , to whom counsel for the prisoner objected , en the grounds that he was a burgess ef the city of Dublin , and as the property of convicted felons became confiscated to the corporation of Dublin , the juror now called to the book had an interest in the conviction of the prisOEer tt the bar , inasmuch as property so confiscated was calculated to swell the borough fund , by which means a borough rats might ba avoided , or reduced in the amount to be struck . After a lengthened argument , in which Sir Colman O'Loghlen and Mr Batt were heard for t ' re _pri-Jtmer , and the Attorney and Solicitor-General were beard for the crown , the Chief Baron , in
whose opinion Baron Pennefather concurred , decided _tfeat the challenge ou the part of the prisoner could not be al ' owed , on the grounds tbat if tbe court were to set a 3 ide the juror on the objections shown , it would have the effect of disqualifying almost the entire panel of the city , a 3 every man on tbat panel was presumed to bs rated to the poor law , and accordinglv , entitled to vote as a barges * for the return cf the town council of the city of Dublin to the corporation . The challenge having been disallowed tbe jnrar was again called to the book , and challenged peremptory by tbe attorney for the prisoner . He was , therefore , _fiaally desired to stand by . Richard Ulysses Bn _« h was then sworn .
After several challenges had been disposed of the following jury were sworn : —Samuel Bagot Oldham , Richard _Uivsses Burgh , Edward _Birmingham , Richard Collier , George Yeate » , William Read , George Nesbitt , John Kershaw , Blaney Mitchel , Charles Mathers , John Johnson . Thom 39 Stewart . Mr AUev ( clerk of the crown ) stated to the jury that the prisoner at the bar stood indicted , under the Act for the better security of the Crown and Government of these cauntries for publishing certain articles in the _Tribusi newspaper .
The Attorney-General then proceeded to state the case for the crown . He said the prisoner stood charged with a very _ssrioua offence , and the consequences to him would be serious . The law did not fix any certain punishment to the offence , but left it in the discretioa of the court . It might be punishable by transportation for life , or imprisonment . There could bs no donbt as to the evidenca to be produced , for it ail consisted ef facts admitted . Tbe _charge was founded on a recent act of parliament , which , in a few words , defined the offence . It was to conspire to _cepese the Queen from tha style , title , and honour of the royal name ; _scd also did compass to levy war against her Majesty , in order to compel her to change her measures or councils . The charge
did net go bo far as to say thit he did levy war , but that he compassed and imagined so to do . It wou ' . d be _gutacient to know tbe prisoner entertained tbe felonious intent , in order te fix oa him thB guilt . Mr O'Doherty , at the time those documents were published , was the proprietor of a newspaper called the _Tstbukk , which came into existence in t 2 e _aon-th of June , which _cirennuiance was of very great _irapor * t 3 _cce . Tbe paper came out after tha suppression of another paper , whose proprietor was punished for the very same _effince of which Mr O'Doherty nsw stood charged . He had hoped that after the punishment of Mr Mitchel , it would not have again been _necessary for him to address a jury on the same subject ; but be was woefully disappointed . The paper wa 3 brought oat to fill up the space vacant by the
suppression of Mr Mitcbel ' s paper . The paper commenced bv holding np Mitchel aB a martyr , whose example s ' aould be followed ; and he regretted _ttmy fast Mr O'Daherty did follow it . The object ot Mr Mitchel was to make the harvest , about wbich they were all so anxious , the signal for reb ?! hcn , by appealing to the peassntrv to hold their own gram . Tbe first article commenced ' bv bains headed ' Oar Barvat Prospects . ' ( The A ttorney-General then read the article in que stion . ) Ha would ask them for what object was that artiele published i W as it not that the people should take the harvest and rlake their _thirjt in the blood of the Eng liBb foe ? That _vroiildfcets make Ireland a separate _kingdom , and therefore to deprive her Majesty of the crown of this kingdom .
... The Attorney-General next proceeded to read _^ a article from tb 9 same paper , entitled ' Courage , ' and extracts from a series oi notices in the- Tribusk , entitled , ' Oar War Department , ' Tbojeinvocations to taa god of battle had , unfortunately , grown into a . « amp , aad therefore the effect * of such doctrines eould no longer be mistaken . A council of 300 was recommended for the purpose of raising the country into armed and simultaneous insurrection . What did armed and _simmltaceous insurrection mean but to make w « on the authorities ? The article
stated that the crown , whieh stood in the way of the people , and the harvest , should perish . There conld be , therefore , no mistake as to the intent of the article—no other _nerniug attached to it , except that iu the tndictnKst . The prisoner seemed to have entered on his dangerous _tamr with his eyes wide open , * nd fully aware of all the consequences likely to result frm his eMidnot . _Probably , hB might have been _sa enthusiast who b »\ ieved thai the conm ke pursued was calculated to benefit his country . lie did not know what extenuating cireumstanoa might be
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
adduced in his favour ; but this much he did know tbat firmness was a necessary virtue on the part of juries who were sworn to preserve tie _administration of justice in its purity , and he would , therefore , ask that jury calmly to read over these publications in their box , and not to give mnre weight to tbe observations he had made upon them than the articles themselves fully warranted . So far as his reason and judgment enabled him to do so , he had attempted te lead them to the _conclusion that all these articles bore but a single meaning . Let the jury , therefore , discharge their duty in a firm , honest , " and fearless manner , by bringing in that verdict which it was their duty , according to the solemn oaths they had taken to find , he would say , _regardlessto all pergonal _consequences to themselves , whatever those consequences might be . The learned counsel then resumed his seat .
Mr Charfes Vernon , registrar of newspapers in the _Stamp-fffice , was then sworn and examined by Mr _SerjtaDi O'Brien . _Tbis witness proved the _prisoner to be one of the registered proprietors of the _Ihish Tribuse newspaper , and identified his handwriting in two numbers of the paper , which had been lodged in the usual manner , according to law , in the Stamp-efHce . Constable Mortimer Redmond , of the detective police , identified one of the prosecuted newspapers as Ravine been _purchase 1 by him at the Tribuxe offiee , Ne . 11 , Trinity-street , on the Sth of July . At five o cleck the court was adjourned to Friday morning . The Chief Baron discharged thejury for the day , baviDg cautioned them against _cwvers < n ? with any person on the Bubject of the trial , or forming their judgments till tbey had heard the _remainder of the case .
THB DEFEXCS . Fridat , Aug . 11 . —On the judges of the commission taking their seat ? , Mr Butt , Q _.. C , moved that tbe Attorney-General should elect upon which of the two distinct charges in the indictment he wonld rro 3 ecute the prisoner . The first was alleged to be an intention to deprive or depose tke Queen from tbe style , title , honour , and royal _nime of the imperial crown , and with having uttered or declared Buch intention in one Ret of counts . The second charged an intention on the part of the prisoner to levy war against the _Queen _. in order to compel her to change her measures and counsels , _asd with having uttered and _declared that intention by certain publications The Attorney-General opposed the motion , aad the court having coincided with him , Mr Bun withdrew his motion _.
The learned counsel , after a few introductory remarks , Baid it was necessary that the jury should believe , on their oaths , that the prisoner was guilty of the precise offences charged in the indictment . They might believe his conduct to be wrong ; nay , they might believe it to be absolutely wicked , or tbat the publications _bBissned to the world were highly dangerous to the publio peace of this country ; but on their solemn oaths they could not find him guilty , unless tbey considered him to be gnilty of the aotual and precise offences charged in that indictment . If writings ba wrong , and calculated to excite _inBurrectiop , the law _provided an abundant remedy . These writings were , and he admitted it , seditious ; he could not contend that they were not . He was not there to lead them a ? _tray . He admitted that if the
Attorney-General had instituted a prosecution for sedition , and the jury believed tbe prisoner to be tha the writer and pub'i her of those artiele 3 , they ought to find him gnilty _; but this was not a prosecution for sedition , a conviction for that offence would be followed by penalties the severest which the mild spirit of the British law permitted a court to inflict . The present was a prosecution under an act which was cautiously guarded ; therefore he called upon the jury to dismiss from their minds everything tbat had been said about the dangerous character of tbe arti cles . They were not trying a prisoner for sedition , but whether he had brought _himse'i under the provi _sionBofahigWy penalact , involving , short of the sacrifice of life , the highest consequences . Tbe act had been t ermed aa uncenstitutional and severe one : it was one
which , in the hands of weak jurers—jurors who were not intelligent jurors—whomightbealarmed and made instruments of , the most grievous oppression under which a country ever groaned . But loving constitutional freedom as he did . all he asked was to give him an honest and intelligent jury to construe tbe act , and he had no fear of the result . The learned advocate then queted the act of parliament , and continued . There were two intentions charged , as were stated . They were upon their oath to say , first , the _intentitn of the heart of the prisoner ; secondly , did be express and declare that intention- They had no inference of law to try . There was no state of facts from which the coHrt could call upon them to draw an inference ; but they sheuld , as fallible men , penetrate into tbe
heart of the prisoner , find ont his intention , and then say was that intention expressed , nttered , and declared . They should , therefore , in the first place , be satisfied cf two distinct matters : _ona waa that the prisoner compassed , devised , and intended to depoBe the Qneen ; and tbe other to levy war against her Majesty . It occurred to him to be a difficult matter to find belli intents , er either , npon the evidence . Now , in considering this important matter , they would remember how difficult it was in the ordinary intercourse of life to judge aright of men ' s intentions even from external acts and appearances , and if so , he ( Mr Bntt ) wonld ask how much more difficult would it be for a jury to loek into a man's breast , and upon their oaths fsj that he intended , devised , and
imagined the deposition of tbe Queen , and purposed levying war against her . That wa 3 the difficult duty tbey were called on to perform—the tremendous issue they were expected to find ; in fact , they were asked by the Attortey General to assume th .- character of the Deity—the S ? arener of men ' s hearts—and speculate on what the prisoner at the bar might , or might not , have intended to do . He was merely on tbe subject of _intention : and let tbem for a moment suppose a man sitting _dewn and writing an artiele highly reprehensible and calculated to withdraw allegiance from the throne , and yet that he did so without having any treasonable _intentiens ; if such a case occurred , the party charged would be entitled to an acquittal under the act in question ; therefore they would see
the vast importance of considering ealmly the nature oftbe charge aad also of the statute . A republicanand he ( Mr Butt ) would , before he resumed his seat , show that the prisoner was not a republican—if he expressed his opinions calmly , might be guilty of no offence ; bnt if a man sat down and wrote articles calculated to disturb the public peace he was liable to penalties . And he admitted that the prisoner wag . in his opinion , liable to those penalties for publishing seditious articles ; but he was not guilty of the more grave offence laid to his charge , that of intending to depose tbe Queen , and of levying war _agamst her . What were the intentions charged ? A great deal of the speech of the Attorney-General appeared to agfDms tbat the offence ef levying war _agair . _sther
Majesty would entitle a jury to find a verdict of gnilty agaiDSt thB prisoner , if even nothing else were proved . Now be ( Mr Butt ) would take the liberty of denying the _aecuracyfof tbat doctrine—beeause , as he understood the law , it was necessary not only to prove an intention of levying war , but that it waa to be levied for a particular purpose ; and tbat puroose was to _compel the QaeeD , by force and constraint , to change her measures and councils . Now , if he were right in his construction of the law , and the court would judge upon that point , ever * i ( the prisoner _intended to raise a rebellion in Ireland , but sot for the purpose of de poiinz the Queen , he _wsald be entitled to an acquittal ; if he intended to do eo , _tnd not remove the sovereign from her seat on the throne , the offence
_cbargf d wonld not be complete ; in fact , nothing short of proof of a settled purpose of deposing her Majesty would warrants jury in convicting . Even proof 0 _^ _inteadisg to effect changes in public measures would not be _snfBeient ; it wonld be absolutely necessary to show that her Majesty was attempted to be made to change them by force and constraint . Ite { Mr Butt ) would go so far as to say that if the prisoner purposed and intended to force the houses of parliament to make alterations by intimidation and constraint , and that he used no restraint towards her Majesty , that he would not be legally guilty under the statute on which the indictment was founded . He might go so far as to take the field against her Majesty ' s troops , to compel the House of Lords and House of Commons
to ehange tbe law , if be did not use threats to intimidate the sovereign . What was the evidence npon which they were called on to find a verdict which would have the effect of ssnding bh client from hiB country for tbe remainder of his life ? The law required that every one about publishing a newspaper must go the Stamp-office , and there make a declaration thit be was the proprietor , and a number of every publication oi that paper Bhould be sent to the office signed by the proprietor . The crown had merely proved proprietorship , and open it alone no jury would be safe in finding a verdict of guilty intentions on the prisoner's part to depose the _Qubbd , and levy war against her . Now let tbem consider how it was shown tbat the prisoner even intended or declared to depose the Queen , or levy war against her ; and if he ( Mr Butt ) showed the jury that the prisoner did _ not know frequently what was
published in tbe _Tbibusk , would they find him guilty from articles read from it , the manuscripts of which were not even shown to be in his handwriting ? The question would therefore resolve itself into tbe consideration , whether the libels read by the crown to support their casa , and not proved to be written by the _prisoner , showed intentions on his part to depose the sovereign , and to levy war against her , to force her by threats and intimidation to change her councils . No evidence of intention was given , acd how could they convict under the statute ? The case was a most _pecaliar ens , because , as they were aware , there was another prosecution _againat a joint proprie - ter of the same paper , and it was impossible that both proprietors had written the same articles . One and both proprietors were answerable , perhaps , for sedition , and if sa , they might be prosecuted for it ; but no jury could Bay that a grave charge could be sustained .
Baron Pennefather asked Mr Burr if it were his intenUen to call any witnesses ? Mt Bntt , < _J . C , replied in the affirmative , but _epf / _O . _gessitaticn this intention wa 3 abandoned .
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
The Solicitor-General addressed the Jury in 'eply . Baron Pennefather charged the Jury . He called attention to a statement made by prisoner ' s counsel —that they had served notice on the Crown to produce manuscripts found in the Tridcnk O _& ce , and remarked that no evidence was given of the service of that notice , nor had any call been made in court to produce the manuscript , for the purpose of showing that the prison ? r was not tbe author of _tbosipublzcations . He did not understand the counsel ol the prisoner to argue tbat the prisoner bad not a criminal intent , but he understood him t » say that he had not the intent charged in the indictment ; he _agreed with the learned counsel for the prisoner that the jury could not convict the prisoner unless it appeared to them that he had that intent , and expressed it by this publication . It appeared to him that the publications in some degree at leaat went to thmaintenance
e of both intention ? , and , thsre fore , it was fit for him to mention the intentions charged to the jury , and then refer to the _publicationstperable themfoferman opinion as to what intention this person had . If they considered the prisoner a object was to excite rebellion and war , they would Bee if they could draw from these publications what the object or objects of that war mu ? t have been . Was it intended by tbat war to dissolve the union with Great Britain ? to take from the Qoeen her royal style and name of Queen of tbe United _Kiugdom of Great Britain and Ireland ? Was it to erect Ireland into a separate and in dependent state , unconnected with any other in the world ? If such were the intention he was bound to tell tbem it was an intention within the purview of the ac t of Parliament With respect to the intention of levying war , if that war were levied to prevent the ex port of provisions from this country , could that object be attained wivbout an alteration of the measures of
the Sovereign ? If that alteration was to be obtained by force or war , it wonld fall within the cbarge in the indictment . With _rospect to levying war against the Queen for the purpose of forcing her to change her measures , it was totally immaterial in tbe consideration of the question whether war ensued or aot , or even that the attempt was made and proved abortive , if the intention waa conceived by the prisoner , and if he manifested that intention by the publications given in evidence . They had heard of the _insurrectioa that had taken place , ar , d of the manner in which it terminated . They heard of the misery that would ensue if it proceeded further , and of the certain portion of misery that did ensue in
consequence of its being carried so far ; but all these matters were entirely beside the queBtion they had to try . They had merely to consider whether the prisoner had the intentions alleged , and whether he had declared and published them in the paper in question . The jury would read those papers _dispassionately , and form their opinion upon them calmly , jn 9 tly , and deliberately . —Fiat justitia mat cesium . Mr Butt . —I understood you to say , my lord , that I admitted the prisoner had the intent imputed ; but I merely meant the articles . Baron Pennefather —You are quite right , and I never intended to convey anything else . Foreman . —Can we get the act of Parliament ?
Baron Pennefather . —No ; in a case before Lord Tenterden it was ruled , that it was not proper to send up an act oi Parliament to a jury , but the court _wouldststethe substance of it to them . MrLongley ( Crown counsel ) . —They have the indictment , my lord , and the very words are in it . The jury retired at 3 quarter past three o ' clock , and at lour o ' clock they again appeared in the jurybox . Foreman . —The jury are anxiouBto inquire if ite publishing of the articles in the paper irould render the prisoEer guilty under the Felon Act , j ust as much as if he bad written tbe articles himself . Baron _Peanefather . —The fact of his being registered proprietor is prima fade evidence againet him _; it may be rebutted , but in this case it has not been rebutted _. The jury again retired .
At half past five o ' clock thejury again came into court . Clerk of the Crown . —Have you agreed to jour verdict ? Foreman . —No . I d _? _n'ttbitk there is the slightest chance of our agreeing . Some of the gentlemen seem to bave a difficulty about prima facie evidence . Tbey don ' t seem to understand what your lordship said about it . _Baren Pennefather . —If the indictment was for publishing this newspaper I would be bound to tell you that the declaration made by tbe prisoner in the Stamp Office on tbe 15 : h of June was conclusive evidence of his being tbe proprietor and publisher of that paper . But the indictment is not per se for publishing tbis newspaper . It charges him with making the publication with the intention of _deposing the Queen from her royal style of Queen of
the United Kingdom . So to find out his intention you _muBt be of opinion that he knew the contents of tbe papers published , and he had an of opportunity of showing his innocence . He is conclusively shown to be proprietor and publisher , but tbe question is _whetbsr he kr _. ew the contents of what was _publisked . That is necessary to fasten upon him an intention to depose the Queen and deprive her of her royal name-A Juror : Some of the jurors not knowing the meaning of prima facie , wish to know whether your lordship meant to convey that prima facie evidence was sufficient to convict tho party under the FeloDy Act . There is a difference of opinion amongst ns oa that point . Some of the jurors hold that your lordshi p stated tbat if there was prima facie evidence of the prisoner ' s guilt we should at once find him guilty ; others attach a different meaning to the phrase , and we wish to have your lordship ' s opinion .
Baron Pennefather : I did not mean , gentlemen , to direct yon , or to tell you that , in point of law , because he was proprietor and publisher of the paper he necessarily knew its contents . But I told yon it was evidence tbat be did know the contents , and tbat you were to form your judgment on the whole of the case , reading the documents and the other evidence , namely , his signing this document in the Stamp Office , and that you are to eee whether you are _Eatisfied tbat he was not only the proprietor and publisher , but that he knew the contents . The _knowledge of the contents is necessary , as appears to me , to enable you to form an opinion as to whether he did intend to deprive the Sovereign of her atvle and dignity .
A consultation took place between tbe jurors in their jury box , and it was again announced by a juror that they could not agree . Baton Pennefather . —You must retire , gentlemen . I cannot discharge you at present . A Juror . —There is no chance of agreeing . The jury retired _. and bailiffs wereplaced over them . At ten o ' clock the jury were again oalled in . Clerk of the Court . —Gentlemen , have you agreed ? Foreman No : and there is not the slightest chance of our agreeing . Tbe jury were then _lacked up for the night .
Denis Hoban , printer of the Tribune , was arraigned for printing seditious articles in that paper . The prisoner submitted and handed ia an affidavit in mitigation . Testimony was produced as to his character , and it was stated that his polities differed from tbe views advocated in tbe Tribuhe , and that he merely undertook to print the paper aa a matter of business . The Attorney-General left the matter to the Court . He would not say a word which could lead to the supposition that any excuse wrnld tend to mitigate the charge made _against the prisoner . Baron Pennefather . —Our feeling is , that we cannot hold that a person who , even incautiously , allows his name to be made use of for such a purpose is f ntirely free from blame . The Court promised to consider the matter .
MORE BILLS . Attorney-General , —I have to apply to ysnr lord ships not to discharge the City Grand Jury to-day I have a few other bills to send up .
DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT . _Satebdav , August 12—The Court was opened amidst intense silence ; thejury were called out . Aa they took their places , fatigue was visible on their faces and persons . One feeble old gentleman seemed nearly overcome . Mr Alley , the Clerk of the Crown , then called over the names of tbe jury , to which they severally answered . —Clerk of tte Crown : Gentlemen of the jury , have you agreed to your verdict ? —Foreman ( Mr Oldham ) : No : there is not the slightest chance of our agreeing . This announcement was received with a murmur , which was instantly su ppressed . Baron Pennefather : Under the circumstances , Mr Attorney , it does not appear to the court that we should endanger the lives or health of the jurors by keeping tbem any longer . Attorney-General : I have no possible desire tbat they should be kept any lenger than is necessary .
Baron Pennefather : The jury cannot endHre this kind of ordeal beyond a certain time , and we cannot subject gentlemen who have come here to discbarge an onerous duty to dangers affecting their lives or health . On the second day they had been sent to their room at four o ' clock , and tbey had been retained there until now ( a quarter to eleven ) . He mu 3 t discharge them , they Baying at the same time that there was no probability of their coming to a verdict . Attorney-General : One of the gentlemen does really appear ill . Juror : I am about sixty _yesra ef age , and I might expect to be allowed to retire , The jury was then discharged on the grounds as set forth on the record , ' That further confinement wonld be dangerous to their healths and lives . ' The prisoner was conveyed back to Newgate . From tte reporter of the Horning Chronicle ,
Mr _O'Dohbrtt _' s _Juev . —Oa making inquiries relative to Mr O'Doherty ' _sjury and with reference to the number opposed to a conviction , I bave learned tbe following particulars : —When the jury first ap _« _geared in court to announce that they could not agree , _thsre were five of them in favour ef an acquittal . When they appeared in court at a later hour of the evening , the number against a eoavietion was re duced to four ; and those _fger . _vihss . tbey were looied
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
up for the night , held unwaveringly to their opinion . However , when morning arrived , the number was reduced to three , and before they finally came into court , the num ber was reduced to two . One of these _J ? J ° n _^ Reid _) is an Englishman ; the other juror ( Mr Birmingham ) is a Cafcaohc _. aud the only Catholic on thejury .
THB QUEBIf V . THOMAS J > . BBILLT . Clerk of the Crown : Crier , call Thomas Devin Retlly . The crier called Mr Reilly , and repeated the call outside the court , but there was m _aBswer . Charles Henry West and Michael O'Reilly , ( Thos . D Reilly ' _s bail ) were called upon _toproducohisbody , or forfeit their recognisances . Sir Colman O'Loghlen : It was impossible for Mr West to take 8 ny steps to bring in the body of Thomas Devin Reilly , because he ia in custody himself under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Aot , aad cannot take him into custody . Baron Pennefather : But the party has been disabled by bis own act .
TBE QUBEN V . J . F . FITZPATRICK . _fhe defendant was charged with carrying a pike between two and three o ' clock in the _morninu , and i _» er i deDyin _8 that he had it . The party did not attend—bis _recognisances were e 3 treated _, and a Bench warrant _iss-ued for hia apprehension . Some persons charged with having arms iu their possession submitted , and were sentenced to a day ' s imprisonment . TRUE HILLS AGAINtT THE PRINTER CF THE ' FELON *
NEWSPAPER . True bills were found against Mr Shaw , the printer of the _Feloh newspaper . Foreman of the Grand Jury : We have disposed of all the bills before us , and perhaps you will discharge us ? Chief Baron : For this d 3 y , gentlemen , you may retire , but we require your attendance on Monday . Baron Pennefather : We hope to discharge you _' on Monday . TRIAL OP MR _MAUTIN OP THE ' FELON . '
Dublin , Monday , August 14 th . —The trial of Mr John Martin , proprietor of the lately _suppresaed Felon _newspaper , commetced this day ( Monday . ) Several hours of the time of the court were wasted with the usual preliminary discussions . It was juBt two o clock before the _Atto-ney-Genoral rose to state the case for the orown . The day ' s proceedings were _commenced with the arraignment of Mr Martin , who was charged with having published in the Fklon newspaper certa n articles of a felonious character , to deprive the Queen of her style , honour , and title , be ., and levy war against her Majesty .
Mr Butt , Q C , applied for a copy of the indictment , which , after a long _argumeat , in which the _attorney'General and Solioiror-General _epposed the motion , was promised to the learned counBel by the counsel for the crown . Mr Butt then applied to the court for permission to have an affidavit sworn by Mr Edward O'Rorke , attorney for Mr Kevon Izod O'Doherty , to enable him to make an application of a very important cbaracter . Mr O'Rorke then bandei ia tha affidavit , to which a copy of tbe Dublin Evbhino Post , of last Saturday evening , was attached , and took the usual oath . The Attorney-General objected to the application being made at that stage of the proceedings ; it was made on behalf of Mr Kevon Izod O'Doherty , and the court was then about proceeding with the trial of John Martin .
Mr Butt replied that be made the application on behalf of Mr O'Doherty , but the _mattar affected Mr Martin and every other penon who might be charged with a political offence at that Commission . It involved tbo pure administration of justice , and he would tell the ceurt tbat he would not feel himself in a position to defend any one of tbe prisoners unless leave were given to him to make the application . He did not like to interrupt the arraignment of the prisoner , or he would have made the application before he was arraigned . The Chief Baron said , that tbe court should hear what was the nature ol the application to enable it to judge whether it _ought to be made . Mr Butt said , that the application was for an attachment against an individual for contempt of that court , and the most audacious attempt to pervert the course ef public justioe ever made or brought before the notice of a court .
The Solicitor General said , that it was , therefore , the more important to make the application formally and legally , in order that , if necessary , a prosecution for _perjury might be instituted against the party making tbe affidavit , Baron Pennefather eaid , that , as it was an application for an attachment _against a third person , he apprehended that such an affidavit aB was sworn upon tbat occasion need not , and ought not , be entitled in tbe case immediately before the court . Mr Butt , Q . C ., then said , that bis application was for an attachment againBt the proprietor and editor of the Dublin EvesingPost , and that he be required to attend tbat court to answer for Baid contempt . The affidavit of Mr O'Rorke stated that he purchased a copy of the Dublin Evening Post , wbich was published on Saturday evening , at the office , in Suffolk _, street ; that paper , he alleged , circulated extensively amongst tho persons who served as jurors for the city of Dublin ; and the publication of the evening to
which he referred , contained what purported to be a report of the trial of Mr Kevon Jz _? d O ' Doherty , ac companied by comments wbich were calculated to in * timidate jurors , and obstruct tbe due administration of justice . The learned gentleman read tbe article , and continued : — The obvious insinuation in the article was , tbat only one of tho jury was dissentient , and the remaining eleven were disposed to find Mr O'Doherty guilty ; and the plain and palpable meaning of the document was , that the _dlstectient juror _sympathised with the _insurrection , and the clubs by whichit was fomented . The article further alleged that no defence had been made for the prisoner . He would no , say that that was a libel upon himself , but be wonld say that it was a libel upon the administration of justice . For himBelf , he would say that be had made a defence , which was not disapproved of by the oro wn counsel or the court . The learned gentleman contended that bis motion should be granted .
Tbe Chief Baron said , that the court , having looked over the article , felt bound to say that it was not such a publication a * ought to have eone forth to the readers of any journal at the period at which it appeared . Nothing could be clearer than the observation , tbat it was calculated to excite feelings of hostility towards an individual who was charged with an offence , and pending proceedings which were to be instituted against him . Such a publication might amount to a very serious offence ; it might amount to a libel upon the administration of justice , and might be calculated to interrupt and taint the course of justice at the very fountain-head ; and if such publications had the effect of intimidating jurors or exciting in their minds prejudices , they being , under the constitution , the proper tribunal to try tbe guilt or innocence of accused parties in such cases , they amounted to a contempt of court . The benoh condemned strongly the article complained of , but declined to act upon the suggestions of the learned counsel .
Mr Butt then applied to the court to bave the trial of Mr Martin postponed for a day , on the ground that he was not yet quite prepared to defend him , owing to the statement nude by the Attorney-General on Saturday , to tbe effect that ho would put Mr O'Doherty on his trial once more on that day . Another ground for this postponement was to be found in tbe fact that a variety of new matter had been introduced into the indictments whioh did not appear in the original informations , being articles published in the Felon since tho period of Mr Martin ' s arrest . Tho crown would not , he thought , be inconvenienced if the _application was granted , _ps Mr _Ferguson was then prepared to defend Mr Williams , the other proprietor ot the Irish Tribune , _whoae trial might therefore at once- be proceeded with . The Attorney-General stated that the crown were not prepared at that moment to go into any case with the exception of that of Mr Martin .
Baron Pennefather was of opinion tbat there waa abundance oi time for Mr Butt to read over the new matter in the indictment before he would be called on to defend bis client . The jury panel was then read over by the clerk of tbe crown , each juror being called upon a penalty of c £ 50 . However , a considerable number of jurors absented themselves notwithstanding the largeness of the fine . After a good deal of fencing a jury was sworn-The _Atterney-General proceeded to state the case for the prosecution , which he said waa very Bimilar to the case of the * Queen v . O'Doherty , * tried during the previous week , although it differed in one point materially , and tbat was—that the prisoner , Mr John Martin , was not only the sole proprietor ol the Irish _Fblon , but was likewise _registered aB the sole printer and publisher ; whereas , Mr O'Doherty , tbe
_pruoner in the other case he alluded to , was only registered as joint proprietor , and was neither the pub lisher nor printer . The learned Attorney-General then went on at some length to state tbe law of the case under the late Act of Parliament , and to mention the circumstances under which Mr Martin originally started the Felon—namely , after the conviction and transportation of Mr John Mitchel , the proprietor of the United Irishman , whose steps he professed to follow in the very first number of hia paper . He then read the several articles relied on for the prosecution , from five several copies of _* he Felon , and contended that , under the statute , if the jury believed Mr Martin to be the proprietor , printer , and publisher of that paper , they oould not _heeitate to conviot him upon the indiotment , for the articles themselves could not bear a second interpretation . [ Left speaking ]
TvEaDAT , August 15 —Thecourtsat at ( en o ' cleck . The prisoner John Martin was placed at the bar , and bis trial was resumed . The crown examined tho following witnesses in support of their caso : — Mr Vernon ( registrar of newspapers at the _Stampoffiee ) proved the declaration made by Mr Martin a * the Stamp-office , and his _eignature thereto . The purchase of the several copies of _$ « P P >; need in evidence waa proved ,
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
Luk § Prouder deposed to the circumstances that took place in the police office when Mr Martin was brought before the _magistrate . On that occasion the clerks m the police office read the headings of the articles . n Solicitor General . —Did the magistrate ask the prisoner it be wished to bave the articles read _? Sir Colmap O'Loghlen —We object to the evidence of any declaration which was made by the prisoner in the police office , because ho was in custod y . There is another objection . The Aotof Parliament requires tbat any declaration made by the prisoner should be reduced to writing , but in this case no such deolaration has been reduced to writing . The conrt allowed the question of the Solicitor-General to be put to the witness .
Witness—The magistrate asked if he wished to have the articles read . The prisoner said he did not —that he was the responsible person morally . The dates of the newspapers containing the artioles were tbe 24 th June and the 1 st July . Solicitor . Genera I . —Do you _rscollect that the prisoner said anything else ? Witness . —He said he wished to state the cause of his keeping out of the way of the warrant . He said he did not wish to be tried by the judges who Bat at the previous commission . To Mr Butt —I was present when tbe seizure was made at the Felon office . The manuscripts Beized upon were lodged with Mr Pemberton , solicitor to the police cf mmisBioncrB . Baron Pennefather . —Was what the prisoner said taken down in writing ? Witness . —It was not .
Mr Tyndall ( police magistrate ) corroborated the evidence given with respect io what occurred in the police office . Constable James Christy proved , that on the night j of the 3 rd of July be saw persona going into thej Felon office about a quarter to twelve o ' clock ; saw them come out again ; they carried with thera two portfolios , or _laree-sized covers of books . Ho followed tbem to _Heytesbury , where they entered the house , No . 11 , and he saw co more of them . Richard Kemmis ( Crown Solicitor ' _g-office ) proved nn attested copy oi the record of tho conviction of John Mitchel . Mr _Pesabarton proved that be had examined the paperB seized in the Felon officp . He did not find the _manusoripts from which the articles in the Felon newspaper would appear to hava been printed . Mr Butt . —Was there any letter there from Mr Martin to Mr _Brenan ?—Witness . —I cannot say , my belief is , there was not .
Attorney General . —I next propoae to offer in evid « Bce the first number of the paper , dated J une 241 i . The object ia to show from the contentB of this publication the whole character of this newspaper . Mr Butt objected , and Mr HolmeB , on the game gide , __ submitted that nothing should be admitted in evidence except what was pertinent to tbe issue to be tried . The Attorney-General should f oint out specifically what he meant to rely uponr Attorney-General—But the first question is the admissibility of the document . If your lordships decide vhe evidence is admissible , I have not the slightest objection to put my finger on the precise article 1 mean to read . The court having allowed the learned gentleman to proceed he proposed to read the title of the paper , the Irish Felon , and what followed that—namely , ' successor to the United Irishman . '
Sir Colman O Logblen again interposed , fori the _pnrpose of objecting to tibe course adopted by the crown . i The court thought the crown was at liberty to do ' , what was proposed . It was not an overt act in itself , \ or a thing in itself that would constitute an overt act ; but it might be explanatory , and bring home to the prisoner the knowledge of an overt act . I The Attorney General next proposed to read the ' mo to of the paper , wbich consisted of an extract ( from the works of Theobald Wdfe Tone . Mr Butt contended that this could not be received . The Attorney-General—This is a general count ; I propose to fffor it in evidence under that count . * Mr Butt . —I submit yoti cannot de so , _'Baron Pennefather . —Would you be satisfied to take a verdict on that particular count ? The Attorney-General —No , my lord .
Baron Pennefather . — That is the teat . Under that general count you offer evidence which could r . o * . be of any value to tbat count , because it is itself valueless , but would be used to sustain other counts . If it were a thing that did not _amount to an overt act , it might be received as explanatory ; but if it did amount to an overt aot , it could not ba received . The orown then intimated that they did not press the point . The headings of the articles were read for the jury , and tbe case of tbe crown closed .
Mr Butt , Q . C , proceeded at a quarter to one o ' clock to address the jury for the prisoner . It was not ( he commenced by observing ) in the mere language of affectation—be confessed that he rose to address them with a deep sense of responsibility , not merely on account of the individual before them , but becauee he felt _that the result of that trial and the verdict the jury had to pronounce to a very great extent involved the liberty of every man in the country , fie should have _baen g / ad i f tbe task bad fallen on other and abler hands , not tbat heshrunk from meeting , if it were necessary , in his own person the prejudices that were abroad , aad that might , perhaps , identify the advocate with those whom he may defend ; and with the reverence that became him , and with
the _solemnity which be felt was not _unsuited to tbat scene and to that occasion , be humbly implored that the Great Judge—of whose perfect tribunal every human judgment was an imperfect representationthat every part of that solemn tribunal might rightly adjudicate that day—that the judge might receive wisdom from Ilim , without whose knowledge' not a sparrow could fall to the ground , ' to hold the scales of justice with a Btcady and untrembling hand—that tte jury might be enlightened to do justice to the prisoner at the bar , according to the settled rules of British law , by which alone tbey had a right to try him , and that tbe trial might be so conducted by tbem all , by the judges of the bench , and by the counsel for the crown and for the prisoner , that the liberties of
the country mi _^ ht come umcathed and _ummperuled through the ordeal . There were two things which hia client Was entitled to demand from the bands of the jury ; first , that he should be tried by the great principles of EngliBb . law , one of which waa that they should find him guilty of tbe preeise cbarge againBt him in tbs indictment , or wholly acquit him , nnd the other was that the evidence should be evidence of that charge alone , and that they be eatisfied not by inference or specu ' ation , but by certain demonstration —such as would carry conviction to tbeir mindsnot tbat the jury might convict , but that it was impossible for them , as honest men , to acquit him . He asked the jury to observe the charge brought against him , and to take down the precise terms of it laid in the indictment , of the whole or integral part of which they should convict him , or he should be
wholly acquitted . The indiotment stated , that ' on the 24 th of June the said John Martin did felo _niously confess- imagine , invent , devise , and intend to depose the Queen from her style , honour , and royal name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom , and tbat said felonious _compazines , imaginations , and intentions , he did then and there feloniously express , utter , and declare by then and there feloniously publishing certain printing in a certain number of a certain newspaper . ' That oharge was varied in other counts bv imputing the intention to be not to depose the Queen , but ' to levy war against her within that part of the United Kingdom oalled Ireland , in order to compel her by force and constraint to change her measures and counsels , ' and that this last-mentioned intention he did ' express , utter , and declare , ' by the papers in evidence before them . The If arned _counsel then entered into a close
and ingenious _argument , similar in substance to what he had successfully advanced in the trial of Mr _O'Dogberiy . The offence whioh tho jury had to determine contained two separate and distinct _things , and unless they were satisfied as to both , they could not find the prisoner guilty . They must ascertain as a positive fact , the existence of which they could not doubt as honest men upon tbeir oaths , that there was in the mind and tbe heart of the prisoner at the bar before he wrote these articles an intention to depose the Queen , or levy war against her for the purpose of compelling her to change her measures and councils . They must be further satisfied upon their _oathc , that he not merely had that intention in his mind , but that he uttered , expressed , and declared
that intention by the particular article expressed in the indictment . Having referred to the severe _penalties which attached to the statute which it weakly or tyrannically administered would be a great inroad upon the freedom of tbe press and the public , he impressed on thejury that if they did not find the prisoner guilty within that act , he waa still left to the old ; onstitutional safeguards of the common law . Tflt ' _-y were not then to try whether it was necessary for the public safety that such offences were to be repressed , but whether the prisoner came under tbat highly penal act of parliament . He made that observation because the Attorney-General had endeavoured to iifluence their _mindB , by speaking of the inconvenience of not holding tbe publisher responsible _, lie asked thejury to rootfrom their minds that
expression of the Attorney General , for tneir _basincas was not to try whether Mr Martin was responsible er not for the publications , but _-whether he did utter , exprefSi and declare such intention as was charged . Responsible , no doubt , his client was as the proprietor if he published a libel , or for a seditious writing ; but that was no » the question which they were sworn to try . But they must be satisfied by their oaths and their consciences _bb to the two distinct matters of fact charged in the indietment . The intent could not be implied as a matter of law , but tbey should find it is » matter of fact ; and althou gh there bad been prima facie evidenca of that fact given t & them by the Crown , there was no other evideace that would _cwrce thera , or upon whioh they were bound to find . He elated this with confidence , be . cause he felt entitled to , refer them to what took .
Clokkel. August 8-The Rising Id Ireland ...
place on a former trial , when the learned jud _. e bad laid down this principle . Having warmly and eloquently eulogised the impartiality of the charge _delivered by Baron Pennefather in the trial of _O'Dogherty , the learned counsel stated that , on _Ihs authority of that cbarge , the question tkey bad to try was one which _commecded itself to their own judgments , and in which the bench could not pivo them any _directions , and if they shrunk frem the responsibility , they would forfeit and betray the liberty of jurors and the liberty of every man hereafter accused , and violate tbe oaths which they bad taken . He then contrasted the _faithfulness with which _Englishmen had always diarharged their duties as jurors , in _preventing , as far as _pcssihle , tho
encroachments of law upon the constitution , and the neglect which in this respect Chief Justice Bushe charged upon Irish Juries . The learned cou ' _-sel then adverted to tbe articles , only two of which , aa charged in the indictment , bad been written by his client , and these , he contended , did not bear out the accusation , _wbiJe tbe entire of the nine mentioned in tbe indjetraeht bore the _(^ natures of the writers ; and even if Mr Martin could be considered copnisant of them , the question remained nn to whether be was guilty of the intent charged , and he was indicted not fcr publishing the intentions of others , but hi * own intention . Ho then went on to reply to tho statement of the Attorney-General with reference to the foundation of the Irish Feloh after tke transportation of Mr Mitchel , and an article in the _firet number regretting that he had been permitted to be
made a convict of , and representing him in strong terms to have been unjustly sentenced , ne related the history of Mr Martin , who was a native of the county Down , a Presbyterian endowed with _, the sturdy notions of independence wbich characterise that class , a graduate of the University , and an early friend of John Mitchel , aBd a person of _property , not , aa he had been represented , an adventurer , ne recapitulated the circumstance of Mitchel ' s conviction , and dwelt strongly on the exclusion of certain jurors from the panel in his case . Believing his friend to have been unjustly victimised , in a momen _<) of imprudent enthusiasm , Mr Martin had , he contended , in order to vindicate his memory , instituted his paper under the title of the Irish Felon , believing that there was nothing disgraceful in the title under Its circumstances . The Attorney-General had pro-Bounced the article treasonable which denounced the
conviction of Mitchel , but who were the instructors of Mr Martin in pronouncing a sentence under tha circumstances unjust ? Lord John RusspII , Lord Clarendon , James Henry Monahan . Mr Butt then referred to the expressed opinions of the prisoners , the Lord Lientenant , and tbe Attorney-General himself , that the conviction bad , in tbe case of tho late Mr _O'Coanell , lost its moral weight , because Roman Catholics has been Btrnok off thejury who tried him . He then commented in _indignant terms on tbe go * vernment having allowed stamps to be issued for tbs _Fblon which they charged with being illegal even iu its title , and permitted Mr Martin himself to writs from prison one of the articles which they now prosecuted , in order that they might accumulate evidence against their victim . _Lst them not listen , then , in she name of common humanity , to the Attorney-General , when be told tbem that he was there to prosecute what he bad himself permitted . The learned counsel then adverted to the articles
written by Mr Martin , and quoted a speech delivered by him on the 17 th of March , in which his sentiments in favour of peace and the constitution , and rights of property were fully disclosed , in order to show that be did not entertain the intent charged . He strongly relied upon tbe legal point which ne had urged , that thejury could not find gui'ty of _fiEnstructive felony , and impressed on them the necessity of being able to satisfy their consciences as to tha matter of fact which they had to determine . Having argued at considerable length on tbe question of his client ' s responsibility , be proceeded to comment on tke _condition of the country , as affording e _& use for the indignant feeling manifested in the publicstions , and having made an eloquent and impressive appialto tha jury , read letterB fr _* m the writers ci some of the articles , acknowledging the authorship , aBd concluded his address at a quarter to five o ' clook .
Joseph Martin , the brother of the prisoner , _waaproduced to prove the speech made by the prisoner at the Repeal meeting in Newry . The A _ttorney-General objected to the reception of tke evidence . Sir Colman O'Loghlen cited in support of their right to examine the witness , the case of Home Tooke and the Queen v . _O'Connell . The evidence was admitted , and the witness wss examined , lie proved the correctness of the report of the speech referred to by Mr Butt . Sir Colman 0 _"Loghlen called on the Attorney * General to produce Mr Lalor's letter . The Attorney-General . —You can produce Mr Lalor himself . Mr Lalor waa not , however , produced , and the _oaae for the priecmer closed .
The _Selicitor-General replied on the paitof _tajn cpjwn , and the court adjourned . PROBABLE _POSTPONEMENT OF MB DUFFY ' S TRW / . The foreman of the grand jury applied to his lord * ship to discbarge tbe jury . Barcn Pennefather called the attention of the _Attorney-Generai to the application , for the purpose of ascertaining his opinion with reference to it . Attorney-General . —I don't know at present , my lord , if they may be discharged . I mean to apply on affidavit to postpone Mr Doffy ' _s trial . Baron _Penaefather ( to foreman ) . —We must « - quest of you to attend to morrow . The court then adjourned .
' August 19, Ib48. The. R .N.O£Tberff ¦ ...
August 19 , ib 48 . THE _. . N _. O _£ _TBERff ¦ STAR . 7
The Whigs. From The Beginning This Whig ...
THE WHIGS . From the beginning this Whig rump has been in a false position . In opposition—ay , and in office —they encouraged treasonable and irrational demands—they raised wild hopes and extravagant passions ; and now they cannot allay or quell the devil of their own raising . How long did they foment for their own base purposes tbis treasonable repeal cry , which has ended in rebellion ? Morally , if not legally , the blood of every traitor who falls ha tbe field or on the scaffold is , and ought to be , oa their guilty and most incapable heads . Tbe Whigs are in this position , that they dare not , do _wbatte
will , harm a hair ef Mr John O'Counell ' s bead That middle-aged , mercantile , money-making , little mouther and trader in treason , possesses certain papers of a deceased agitator which would for ever ruin the character of the Melbourne Ministry aiul the Whig Radical rump that has succeeded te their places . These papers would prove the criminality and complicity ot the Lambs , the _Duncannons , the Russells , the Greys ( who are receiving £ 18 , 000 per annum of " the _" public money ) , the Lam » , downes , the _Palmerstons , and the Hobhouses . — Morning Herald .
Durham.—Scenb In Court.—At The Darhara A...
Durham . —Scenb in Court . —At the Darhara Assizes , a stalwart Irishman ot tbe name of Edward Coyle , pleaded guilty , before Mr Justice _CreBSWi / h , Co a cbarge of housebreaking , and requested hia lordship to favour him with a seven years' transportation . Aa the circumstances of the case , however , did _bbS justify hia lordship in extending to bim the wished _, tor boon , he substituted instead a twelvemonths' imprisonment ; upon hearing which , the would-be tourist growled out in a tone transported with anger — 'Thankye , y er honour , ' and stooping down—¦
before any one was awaie of his intentions—pulled off one of his iron-shod brogues * and burled it at his _lotdsbip ' s bead , The formidable missile , which might have put an abrupt termintion to his lordship '? judicial labour ? , struck him somewhere on tha breast , _mortfortunately without inflicting any serious injury . After tegaining his composure , of _whichthn suddenness ot the act had for a moment deprived him , his iordBhip is said to have observed , in a slightly disconcerted toteto these arcund him , 'This comes , you Bee , of thwarting people ' s wishes / The prisoner was immediately removed ,
Execution er Mary May . —CnEUtsFor . D , _Mendsy . —This morning , Mary May , who was convicted at the last Essex _AsB-zes of tbe murder other brother , at Wix _, by poisoning him with arsenic , for tho purpose of obtainining the allowance from a burial club at which Bhe ha J entered his name without his know _, ledge , was executed in front oi the county gaol in this town . Alter her condemnation , the unfortunate woman , who was thirty-one years of age , formed tha design ef starving _berseli to death , and for a _tiffiS obstinately refused to take any food , but hunger at length subdued her , and since _tbeij she had taken her meals regularly and slept soundly , sullenly deny . ing her guilt , and treating : ber fate as a matter of indifference . Great exertions were made to ssve tbe culprit's life , both by her legal defenders and Otherfe but the reply of the Home Secretary to two raerao . rials presented Io him on tbe _subject was , that iesr crime was so horrible , and her guilt so clear , that ha oould not recemmend an extension ot the royal
mercy . Preparatory to her execution the prisoner was removed from the old gaol to the new prison , and en Sunday the condemned sermon was preached , rTtlich Appeared to produce some impression en bar mind . An immense multitude assembled in front of the gaol , including , as usual on these occasions , a large fiumber of females . The prisoner crossed tha yard and _aseeided the drop with comparative Uinta ness . Calcraft Boon completed tbe fearful arrangements , durinswhich tbe prisoner continued to muaa dreadfully . The drop then fell , and being a large heavy woman she died with a slight struggle . Thb Victim Fund . —An elegant BiUBical box , _presented by Mr E . Burly , of Manchester , to tin Chartist council , for the families of the victims , wii be balloted for , in a month from this date , by lob . _Beriptiena of sixpence each . Lccal secretaries ate _reqnoBted to receive sub scriptions , names an * addresses of _salwaibeou , and forward the same to Thw , Ormesher _, 52 , _Btidgw & _teMtreet _, _Msacljester _,
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), Aug. 19, 1848, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns3_19081848/page/7/
-