are filled with admiration for his moral greatness and transcendant virtue. But that he lived under a diviner dispensation, we might have supposed his felicity hereafter to have been that ascribed by the poet to Cato, being surrounded by the spirits of departed virtue, and giving laws to the assembled just; and even now, it may not be presumptuous to believe it may be a portion of his unspeakable felicity to behold from his habitation in the skies the results of his illustrious labours here on earth. America has been frequently referred to in the papers read to the jury, and the reference dwelt on to the prejudice of the traversers. England has no reason to fear comparison with America or her institutions. I prefer the system under which we live; but I am shocked in contemplating the absurd caricatures of America drawn by the popular writers of the day. Considering what America is and what she was, I exclaim with the Roman historian, "Civitas incredibile memoratu est, adepta libertate, quantum brevi crenerit." A political writer may corrupt the public taste, deprave the morals of society, and lavish praises on the character of the Eighth Henry, the profligate Charles, or the bigot James, and may hold out as examples of virtue a Domitian and a Nero, and he is safe. The Attorney-General will never prosecute such offences against good taste or truth; but if the same writer ventures to celebrate the benefactors of mankind, the Attorney-General will prosecute the author as guilty of sedition against the State.

Gentlemen, the whole case is now before you, and is emphatically for your decision. You have seen the many instances where the crime of conspiracy was attempted to be fastened on Englishmen, in which English juries refused to concur. In that terrible book containing the State Trials of England, where the real history of that country is written, there are many instances of truth stifled, justice scoffed, and innocence struck down. On the other hand, there are memorable examples of victims rescued from oppression by the honesty and courage of British juries. Hardy, who discussed the great question of Parliamentary Reform, thus was saved; thus was rescued Horne Tooke; with their conviction freedom of discussion might have perished. At an earlier period still, in the days of the Second James, when the seven Bishops were accused of conspiracy for asserting the rights of Englishmen, a jury delivered a verdict of acquittal, and the shouts of joy with which it was received proclaimed your freedom. Even in the days of Cromwell, after he had waded through slaughter to a throne, and under the sacred names of Liberty and Religion trampled upon both, the tyrant found the virtue of a jury to be beyond his power. The forms of justice he dare not abolish while an Englishman lived; and we have it upon record, that when in the plenitude of his power he prosecuted for a libel upon himself, there were twelve honest men to be found who had the courage to pronounce a verdict of not guilty, thus provingI quote the words of a patriot lawyer, who, in reference to that

immortal precedent, exclaimed: "When all seemed lost, the un"conquerable spirit of English liberty survived in the hearts of "English jurors." Gentlemen, the true object of this prosecution is to put down the freedom of discussion of a great public question. Viewed in this light all other considerations sink into insignificance. Its importance becomes vast indeed. A nation's rights are involved in the issue; a nation's liberties are at stake; that won, what preserves the precious privileges you possess? The exercise of the right of political discussion-free, untrammelled, bold. The laws which wisdom framed the institutions struck out by patriotism, learning, or genius-can they preserve the springs of freedom fresh and pure? No; destroy the right of free discussion, and you dry up the sources of freedom. By the same means by which your liberties were won can they be increased or defended. Quarrel not with the partial evils free discussion creates, nor seek to contract the enjoyment of that greatest privilege within the narrow limits timid men can prescribe. With the passing mischiefs of its extravagance, contrast the prodigious blessings it has heaped on man. Free discussion aroused the human mind from the torpor of ages; taught it to think, and shook the thrones of ignorance and darkness. Free discussion gave to Europe the Reformation, which I have been taught to believe the mightiest event in the history of the human race; illuminated the world with the radiant light of spiritual truth. May it shine with steady and increasing splendour! Free discussion gave to England the Revolution, abolished tyranny, swept away the monstrous abuses it rears, and established the liberties under which we live. Free discussion, since that glorious epoch, has not only preserved but purified our Constitution, reformed our laws, reduced our punishments, and extended its wholesome influence to every portion of our political system. The spirit of inquiry it creates has revealed the secrets of nature; explained the wonders of creation, teaching the knowledge of the stupendous works of God. Arts, science, civilization, freedom, pure religion are its noble realities. Would you undo the labours of science, extinguish literature, stop the efforts of genius, restore ignorance, bigotry, barbarism, then put down free discussion, and you have accomplished all. Savage conquerors, in the blindness of their ignorance, have scattered and destroyed the intellectual treasures of a great antiquity. Those who make war on the sacred right of free discussion, without their ignorance imitate their fury. They may check the expression of some thought, which might, if uttered, redeem the liberties or increase the happiness of man. The insidious assailants of this great prerogative of intellectual beings, by the cover under which they advance, conceal the character of their assault upon the liberties of the human race. They seem to admit the liberty to discuss, blame only its extravagance, pronounce hollow praises on the value of freedom of speech, and straightway begin a prosecution to cripple or destroy it. The open despot avows his object is to oppress or to enslave; resist

ance is certain to encounter his tyranny, and perhaps subvert it. Not so the artful assailant of a nation's rights, he declares friendship while he wages war, and professes affection for the thing he hates. State prosecutors, if you believe them, are ever the fastest friends of freedom. They tell you peace is disturbed, order broken, by the excesses of turbulent and seditious demagogues. No doubt there might be a seeming peace-a deathlike stillness-by repressing the feelings and passions of men. So in the fairest portions of Europe this day, there are peace, and order, and submission, under paternal despotism, ecclesiastical and civil. That peace springs from terror, that submission from ignorance, that silence from despair. Who dares discuss, when with discussion and by discussion tyranny must perish? Compare the stillness of despotism with the healthful animation, the natural warmth, the bold language, the proud bearing, which spring from freedom and the consciousness of its possession. Which will you prefer? Insult not the dignity of manhood by supposing that contentment of the heart can exist under despotism. There may be degrees in its severity, and so degrees in the sufferings of its victims. Terrible the dangers which lurk under the calm surface of despotic power. The movements of the oppressed will, at times, disturb their tyrant's tranquillity, and warn him their day of vengeance or of triumph may be nigh. But in these happy countries the very safety of the state consists in freedom of discussion. Partial evils in all systems of political governments there must be; but their worst effects are obviated when their cause is sought for, discovered, considered, discussed. Milton has taught a great political truth, in language as instructive as his sublimest verse: "For this is not the liberty which we can hope, that no grievances ever should arise in "the commonwealth; that let no man in this world expect; but "when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily re"formed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty obtained that wise "men look for." Suffer the complaints of the Irish people to be freely heard. You want the power to have them speedily reformed. Their case to-day may be yours to-morrow. Preserve the right of free discussion as you would cling to life. Combat error with argument-misrepresentation by fact-falsehood with truth. "For who "knows not," saith the same great writer," that truth is strongnext to the Almighty. One needs no policies nor stratagems to "make her victorious; these are the shifts error uses against her "power." If this demand for a native Parliament rest on a delusion, dispel that delusion by the omnipotence of truth. Why do you love, why do other nations honour England? Are you-are they dazzled by her naval or military glories, the splendour of her literature, her sublime discoveries in science, her boundless wealth, her almost incredible labours in every work of art and skill? No; you love her—you cling to England because she has been for ages past the seat of free discussion, and, therefore, the home of rational freedom, and the hope of oppressed men throughout the world. Under the laws of England it is our happiness to live. They breathe the spirit of liberty and rea

son.

Emulate this day the great virtues of Englishmen, their love of fairness, their immoveable independence, and the sense of justice rooted in their nature; these are the virtues which qualify jurors to decide the rights of their fellow-men. Deserted by these, of what avail is the tribunal of a jury? It is worthless as the human body when the living soul has fled. Prove to the accused, from whom, perchance, you widely differ in opinion, whose liberties and fortunes are in your hands, that you are there, not to persecute, but to save. Believe you will not secure the true interests of England by leaning too severely on your countrymen. They say to their English brethren, and with truth: We have been at your side whenever danger was to be faced or honour won. The scorching sun of the East and the pestilence of the West we have endured to spread your commerce, to extend your empire, to uphold your glory. The bones of our countrymen whitened the fields of Portugal, of Spain, of France. Fighting your battles they fell; in a nobler cause they could not. We have helped to gather your imperishable laurels. We have helped to win your immortal triumphs. Now, in time of peace, we ask you to restore that Parliament you planted here with your laws and language, uprooted in a dismal period of our history, in the moment of our terror, our divisions, our weakness-it may be-our crime. Re-establish the Commons on the broad foundation of the people's choice; replace the peerage, the Corinthian pillars of the Capitol, secured and adorned with the strength and splendour of the crown; and let the Monarch of England, as in ages past, rule a brilliant and united empire in solidity, magnificence, and power. When the privileges of the English Parliament were invaded, that people took the field, struck down the Ministry, and dragged their Sovereign to the block. We shall not be ready to imitate the English precedent; we struggle for a Parliament, its surest bulwark. That institution you prize so highly, which fosters your wealth, adds to your prosperity, and guards your freedom, was ours for 600 years. Restore the blessing, and we shall be content." This prosecution is not essential for the maintenance of the authority and prerogative of the Crown. Our gracious Sovereign needs not State prosecutions to secure her prerogatives, or preserve her power. She has the unbought loyalty of a chivalrous and gallant people. The arm of authority she requires not to raise. The glory of her gentle reign will be—she will have ruled, not by the sword, but by the affections–that the true source of her power has been, not in terrors of the land, but in the hearts of her people. Your patience is exhausted. If I have spoken suitably to the subject, I have spoken as I could have wished; but if, as you may think, deficiently, I have spoken as I could. Do you, from what has been said, and from the better arguments omitted, which may be well suggested by your manly understandings and your honest hearts, give a verdict consistent with justice, yet leaning to liberty; dictated by truth, yet inclining to the side of accused men, struggling against the weight, and power, and influence of the Crown, and prejudice more overwhelming still; a verdict to be

applauded, not by a party, but by the impartial monitor within your breasts, becoming the high spirit of Irish gentlemen, and the intrepid guardians of the rights and liberties of a free people.

MR. MACDONOGH.

May it please your Lordships, Gentlemen of the Jury,

In this case I am counsel for Mr. Richard Barrett, the proprietor of the Pilot newspaper. He stands indicted for an unlawful, malicious, and seditious conspiracy against the laws and Constitution of the realm. Associated with him in that indictment are two Members of Parliament, one of them a gentleman of high rank in the Profession of the law, holding a patent of precedence under the Crown, and entitled to precedence next after Her Majesty's Sergeants. But this prosecution takes a wider range, and aspires to a loftier flight, for it involves in its moral condemnation millions of the Irish people. The counsel for the prosecution admit they have no direct or express evidence to establish this conspiracy, but they represent their case as one of presumptive proof-of circumstantial evidence; it becomes, therefore, of importance, that you should reflect upon the true principles of judgment in such a case, for to you is confided the duty of hearing and determining (guided by the wisdom of the Court) upon facts and probabilities, and those presumptions which the law entitles you to make.

Gentlemen, I presume that you are familiar with the principle, that every man enters a court of justice with the presumption of innocence in his favour. It requires in the prisoner no station or place in society to raise such a presumption. The law of England is a law of justice, and it does not narrow or restrict its presumptions of innocence to any particular class of the Queen's subjects. I have the assurance and authority of the law for telling you, that the law of the land presumes every man to be innocent till the contrary is proved. It is so laid down in Roscoe, Crim. Law, 16. And how is this proof to be made? not by exciting suspicion, not by creating doubts or difficulties, or placing the prisoner in an equivocal position; no, to justify a verdict of guilty, it is not enough to collect from the evidence, that the defendant, in any particular case, may be guilty, or probably is guilty, but his innocence must be quite incompatible with the fair result of the whole proof. It was the emphatic declaration of Lord Kenyon, that "no man ought, or can be convicted in Eng"land, unless the Judge and the jury have a firm assurance that "innocence cannot, by any possibility, be the victim of conviction and "sentence." You may have heard it said, that circumstantial evidence is, sometimes, safer than direct testimony. That is so in one case only, namely, where the circumstances are utterly incompatible with the innocence of the party. But, Gentlemen, the utmost caution is necessary in giving weight and effect to evidence of a circumstantial character; Roscoe, Crim. Law, 17-20. Now, if the most guarded