stroyed, when it is stained with the effusion of blood, and it is much to be regretted, when the terrors of the criminal law are obliged to be resorted to, to enforce obedience to the common law of the land by the people, for the sword may cover the land with millions of deluded men. Is it become necessary to hurl destruction round the land, till it shivers into a thousand particles, to the destruction of all moral law, and all moral obligations? By the common law of the land, no subject is to be deprived of life, but by a trial of his fellow subjects; but, in times when a rebellion prevails in any country, many suffer without the semblance of a trial by his equals. From the earliest period of history down to the present time, there have been, in some parts of the earth, instances where jurors have done little more than record the opinions given to them by the then judges, but it is the last scene of departing liberty. I have read that in the period of the rebellion, in the last century, in England, that jurors, on trials by the common law of the land, have been swayed in their determination by the unsupported evidence of an informer, and aftertimes have proven their verdict was ill-founded, and the innocence of the convicted persons had afterwards appeared. Trials on charges of high treason are of the utmost moment to the country, not merely with respect to any individual, but of the importance it is to the public, that they should know the blessing of trial by jury, and that the jurors will solely determine on their verdict by the evidences, and maturely weigh the credit of the witnesses against the prisoner.

At some of these trials of late date, some of you have been present, and you know that the objects of the court and of the jurors are to investigate the truth from the evidence produced, and the jurors are sworn to decide and to bring in a true verdict according to the evidences. One witness has been examined on this trial, who, I think, does not deserve credit; but it is you who are the sole judges whom you will give credit to; but though you know this witness has

given evidence on two former trials, and though the then jury did give credit to his testimony, yet you are not to determine on the faith or precedent of any former jurors, but you are to be solely guided by your own consciences; and you will observe, we have had here two more witnesses to impeach the character of Reynolds, that were not produced on the former trials, and you will, no doubt, throw out of your minds whatever did not come this day before you in the evidence. You will find your verdict flowing from conscious integrity, and the feelings of honourable minds; notwithstanding the evidence of the witness Reynolds, who has been examined upon the table, and whose testimony I need not repeat to you. Perhaps you may be inclined to think he is a perjured witness; perhaps you will not believe the story he has told against the prisoner at the bar, and of his own turpitude; you will do well to consider, it was through a perjured witness that a Russel and a Sydney were convicted in the reign of James II. If juries are not circumspect, to determine only by the evidence adduced before them, and not from any extraneous matter, nor from the slightest breath of prejudice, then what will become of our boasted trial by jury? Then what will become of our boasted constitution in Ireland? When former jurors decided contrary to evidence, it created great effusion of blood in former tines. Let me ask, will you, gentlemen, give a verdict through infirmity of body, or through misrepresentation, or through ignorance? You, by your verdict, will give an answer to this.

8

Gentlemen of the jury, you will weigh in your minds that many inhuman executions did take place in former times, though the then accused underwent the solemnity of a trial; the verdicts of those jurors are not in a state of annihilation, for they remain on the page of history, as a beacon to future jurors; the judges before whom the then accused were tried, have long since paid the debt of nature: they cannot now be called to account why they shrunk from their duty. I call

upon you, gentlemen of the jury, to be firm in the exercise of that solemn duty you are now engaged in; should you be of opinion to bring in a verdict of condemnation against my unfortunate client, for myself I ought to care nothing what impressions may actuate your minds to find such a verdict; it little regardeth me; but it much regardeth you to consider what kind of men you condemn to die, and, before you write their bloody sentence, consider maturely whether the charge against the prisoner is fully proved. If you should, on the evidence you have heard, condemn the prisoner to death, and afterwards repent it, I shall not live among you to trace any proof of your future repentance.

I said, I rose to tell you what evidence we had to produce on behalf of my client, the prisoner at the bar; we shall lay evidence before you, from which you can infer that the witness produced this day is a perjured man; we have only to show to you, as honest men, that the witness is not deserving of credit on his oath; we have nothing more to offer on behalf of my client, the prisoner at the bar. It is your province to deliberate in your consciences, on what evidence you have heard, and whether you will believe the witness you have heard on his oath, or not. Let me ask, will you, upon the evidence you have heard, take away the life of a man of this kind, as the prisoner at the bar, from his wife and from his little children for ever? I told you I was to state the evidences which we had to bring forward on behalf of my unfortunate client; I tell you it is to discredit the testimony of Reynolds; when you have heard our evidences to this point, I cannot suppose you will give your verdict, to doom to death the unhappy and unfortunate prisoner at the bar, and entail infamy on his posterity. We will also produce respectable witnesses to the hitherto unimpeached character of the prisoner at the bar, that he was a man of fair, honest character; you, gentlemen of the jury, have yourselves known him a number of years in this city; let me ask you, do you not know that the prisoner at the bar has always borne the cha

racter of a man of integrity, and of honest fame? And, gentlemen of the jury, I call upon you to answer my question by your verdict; I feel myself imprest with the idea in my breast, that you will give your verdict of acquittal of the prisoner at the bar; and that by your verdict you will declare on your oaths that you do not believe one syllable that Reynolds has told you. Let me entreat you to put in one scale the base, the attainted, the unfounded, the perjured witness, and in the opposite scale let me advise you to put the testimony of the respectable witnesses produced against Reynolds, and the witnesses to the prisoner's hitherto unimpeached character, and you will hold the balance with justice, tempered with mercy, as your consciences in future will approve.

Let me depart from the scene of beholding human misery, should the life of my client, by your verdict, be forfeited; should he live by your verdict of acquittal, he would rank as the kindest father, and protector of his little children, as the best of husbands and of friends, and ever maintain that irreproachable character he has hitherto sustained in private life. Should our witnesses not exculpate the prisoner from the crime charged on him to the extent as charged in the indictment, I pray to God to give you the judgment and understanding to acquit him. Do not imagine I have made use of any arguments to mislead your consciences, or to distress your feelings. No; but if you conceive a doubt in your minds that the prisoner is innocent of the crime of high treason, I pray to God to give you firmness of mind to acquit him.

I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to the free exercise of your own judgments in the verdict you may give. I have not by way of supplication, addressed you in argument; I do not wish to distress your feelings from supplications; it would be the most unbefitting to your candour and understandings you are bound by your oaths to find a true verdict according to the evidence; and you do not deserve the station of jurors the constitution has placed you in, if you do not discharge the trust freely, and according to your consciences.

1

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.

Valentine Connor swore that he knew Thomas Reynolds; that he would not believe him on his oath; he spoke from a knowledge of his general character, and also from the transaction between Reynolds and Cope, which he did not think a fair one.

Ann Fitzgerald swore that Reynolds, in her opinion, did not deserve credit on oath; and her reason for thinking so was his conduct to Mrs. Cahil.

Henry Withrington said his sister had the misfortune to be married to Reynolds, and from his general character he did not believe him worthy of credit upon his oath-he said he was sent for to his mother's house, the Saturday before her death. Here it was observed by the court, that this witness contradicted the evidence, Reynolds, about the pitched sheet. Edward Withrington to the same effect.

Rev. Thomas Kingsbury, sworn on the part of Reynolds, said, that he had known him many years, and that he deserved credit upon oath. The case closed on both sides.

Mr. Ponsonby spoke to the evidence in behalf of the prisoner and Mr. Saurin replied on the part of the crown.

Mr. Justice Chamberlaine Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner at the bar stands indicted for high treason. One of the overt acts laid in the indictment is, that the prisoner at the bar with other false traitors, did enter into a conspiracy to levy war against the king, which is compassing or imagining the death of the king, which by the statute of the 25 Edw. III. is high treason. Although the natural death of the king' was not the immediate consequence, the fact of levying war against the king might bring the life of the king into danger; and therefore the statute wisely provides to prevent it, by: making it high treason to compass or imagine the death of the king. Whether such compassing or imagining was entered into on this side of the water, or in England, where the

* ༐