be entitled to thirty-five peremptory challenges, and as many more as he could show reasonable cause for challenging. He would be entitled to a list of witnesses for a length of time previous to his trial, in order to enable him to sift their character, and, if it was bad or vile, to be able to make that important circumstance appear to the jury, so as to set aside such testimony in the whole, or in part, as the case might warrant; and two witnesses, at least, must swear to the same treason before he could be affected. He would also be entitled to a copy of his indictment five days, at least, before his trial, in order to apprize him of the exact nature of the charge to which he was to apply his defence. And, lastly, he would be allowed, by his two counsel, to make a defence, by observations upon the law and the fact of his case, and to utter, fully and boldly, whatever might tend to direct the consciences, or inform the understandings of his jury, as to his intention, which is, in other words, as to his innocence or guilt.

For what reason, might be matter of curiosity, but nothing to the present case, there was less protection and less indulgence to the accused in Ireland, but still there was a great deal, in case of treason, to make the law esteemed. But, see how all these wise and boasted provisions of freedom and glories of the English law will be filched away, if high treason, (for such it is, if any thing,) specially prosecuted by the crown, out of the stock-purse of the nation, by the king's attorney-general, and other select and able lawyers of the crown, in times so heated, and a situation so critical, that, if ever there was occasion for these blessed protections against prejudice and power, it is that time; when so great a part of the community is accused, and secret informers publicly advertised for, if high treason be tried under this insurrection act, made hastily on the spur of an unfortunate occasion, and happily, if not already expired, shortly about to do so. The prisoner will be tried, it is true, and possibly be found guilty; but it will be a finding contrary to the most sacred

law, and a violation of that statute which stands now almost singly the glory of our national jurisprudence, and the bulwark of public security. Better would it be to wait until the legislature should repeal or suspend this statute, if they so thought fit, as they had already done the habeas corpus act, than for a court of justice thus directly to do so by trying under another form that which, if it be any thing, is high treason. For, thus, the unfortunate prisoner is deprived of every safeguard, and even of that natural right of the accused, to explain his own intentions and reasons upon the nature of the testimony offered against him.

Perhaps, a few observations by those whose professions have taught them to discriminate between the fictitious and artful relations of a hired informer and the simple tale of truth, might tend to save the life of an innocent and honest man; if so, terrible, indeed, would be the consequence of the prevention. That peculiarity in our law, that, though in cases of the smallest import, counsel shall be heard at length, whereas in capital felonies their mouths shall be shut, is reconciled by supposing the judge a counsel for the prisoner; but that was a forced supposition, and against the fact and nature of mankind. The makers of the wise statutes of treason knew that judges were men in a station greatly exposed to influence, and guarded against their frailties. They knew that judges, however upright in their intentions, could not take the pains of studying a prisoner's case, as he himself or his counsel could; and that in any cause which implied a contention between the higher order of society and the lower, with which he had neither intercourse nor fellow feeling, it required virtue, sagacity, and magnanimity enough, to be merely indifferent. That a most cogent reason for adhering to the good old law, and the exact and precise classification of offences was, that, in this very case, though the prisoner was tried and acquitted under this indictment, yet it could not be pleaded in bar, without avérments dangerous and difficult to an indictment for high treason, which might

be supported by the identical testimony, and thus a man might be twice put in jeopardy of his life for the same offence.

Mr. Attorney-General made a very short reply to these arguments; he called upon any man to say in what instance he had prosecuted with any unbecoming rigour; and whether, on the part of the crown, throughout the circuit, the business had not been conducted as mildly and as mercifully as possible. He also made some observations upon what seemed to him an extraordinary motion, where the counsel for the prisoner sought to have their client tried for a deeper and more penal offence than that for which he had been already indicted by the crown. He could not conceive that the gentlemen expected any further benefit from this motion, than to give them an opportunity of addressing the passions of the audience.

The Lord Chief Baron, after hearing the counsel for the prisoner at length, refused the motion, observing, that he had heard it patiently, by which it might appear, that the prisoner had no cause to complain of rigour or hardship'; although arguments seemed not so much directed to him, as artfully and ingeniously designed, under the pretence of addressing the court, to affect the minds of the jury and bystanders.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.

On this the counsel for the prisoner called a witness of the name of Charles M'Claverty, in order to discredit and contradict the testimony of Wheatly, who swore, that in January last he overtook Wheatly, with one Serjeant Millar, on the road from Ballyclone to Carrickfergus; they went together into an alehouse on the road side to drink, when a man, who was lying on a bed in the room where they sat, spoke to Millar, and claimed acquaintance with him, having served with him abroad. Nothing happened there, till Wheatly called the witness out and proceeded on the road together..

That Wheatly asked this witness whether he knew Orr the prisoner at Carrickfergus, and whether he would go to the gaol in order to befriend him? and the witness answering, that he neither knew Orr, nor could get into the gaol if he wished it, Wheatly pressed it, saying, you must try to do it, and all you have to tell him is, that if he will give me a coloured coat and some money I will desert, and if he will provide Lindsay with another coat and two guineas, I will persuade him to desert also, adding, that Lindsay was as ready to desert as himself. That it was for his principles that he (Wheatly) had been flogged at Ballymoney, and that he was so true that he had destroyed the United Irishmen's papers at the time of taking off his coat, which made him sorry, as he had preserved them through all the towns. That Wheatly again pressed the witness to go to the gaol for the sake of the prisoner, to which the witness replied, that if he did go, Orr, would not trust him, as he was a stranger; upon which Wheatly held out his hand with a cartridge, calling it a secret note to serve as a token that he came from a soldier;, he at the same time said, that it was not he, but Lindsay, that swore against Orr, and that Lindsay was so faise, that he would swear the hill of Howth was no bigger than a pound of candles! Here he stated that Serjeant Millar came up, and the conversation ceased. That he the witness, when he arrived at Carrickfergus, got a pass from a magistrate into the gaol, where he was introduced by one Storey to Orr, to whom he told what had passed between him and the soldier-Orr's reply was, that the soldier must be a villain. Upon returning to Wheatly, he was again urged to carry a message into the gaol to Orr, but refused.

John Young called, further to contradict Wheatly. He proved that Wheatly had told him, that he was not only drunk when he enlisted in Scotland, but that he had taken the test oath, so as to suit his own mind, which saying Wheatly had denied on his cross-examination.

To impeach the testimony of M'Claverty, the same Ser

jeant Millar, who was found to be in court, was brought upon the table, and swore, that no such conversation had passed between Wheatly and M Claverty, because if it had he must have heard it, as he walked with them from their leaving the house where they stopped to drink, till they came within a quarter of a mile of Carrickfergus.

[Here the evidence closed.]

The Lord Chief Baron summed up from his notes, and particularly dwelt upon the testimony of Wheatly, which he thought as satisfactory as any he had ever heard, insomuch, that he was convinced he must have had an education greatly above what usually falls to the lot of men in his situation, and proceeded in a strain of observation highly complimentary to the witness, adding, that so far as Lindsay's testimony went, it confirmed what he had said. His lordship seemed to have conceived a different impression of the prisoner's witness, M'Claverty, upon whom he made severe animadversions, observing at the same time, that he was contradicted by the Serjeant Millar.

The jury retired about 7 o'clock, and remained till 6 the next morning, when they came out to meet the 'judge, and were desirous of giving a verdict, so qualified as to save the prisoner's life. When asked by the clerk of the crown if they were agreed, no answer was made for some time-the question being repeated, the foreman, much distressed, answered, "we leave him in your lordship's mercy, he is in your lordship's mercy!" On which the judge desired them to return and consider of their verdict. Ten of them only returned, two remaining without. They returned again, and very nearly the same thing was repeated, and it was not till the third time, the foreman still hesitating to pronounce the word Guilty. Mr. M.Naghtan, one of the jury, reprimanded the foreman, calling upon him to pronounce the prisoner guilty upon which the foreman, who was a man in years,