guilt of the prisoner. The humanity of our law declares that in offences of the lowest kind, innocence shall be presumed, until guilt shall be established by full and sufficient evidence. And if such be the rule in offences of the lowest kind, how much more strongly will it apply in cases of such an enormous nature as the present?-Sad experience has indeed shown, that however heinous and improbable a charge may be, it is but too often sustained by proof: yet juries should take special care, that the proof in such cases be full and satisfactory. You have been told, that under an act of parliament, frequently alluded to in the course of this trial, persons indicted of treason shall not be convicted, except upon proveable evidence. But, gentlemen, though that act never had been made, you would draw the rule from your own hearts, and you would say, you never would find a fellow-creature guilty of an offence for which his life must be forfeited, except upon evidence full and complete in your minds, and such as ought to satisfy your consciences. Gentlemen, it was admitted, and in my opinion wisely admitted by the counsel for the prisoner, that if the evidence which you have heard were credible, it would support the indictment. And certainly if that evidence be such as you shall deem sufficiently deserving of credit, it will, in point of law, support the indictment; for I think the majority of the overt acts (and one alone would be sufficient) have been proved, if the evidence deserves credit. And, gentlemen, even if the testimony of two witnesses were necessary, upon which I do not think myself called upon to give any opinion at present, two witnesses have given evidence of an overt act here, that is, of the prisoner's having become a member of the United Irishmen in order to assist the king's enemies. If, therefore, the evidence of O'Brien and Clark be such, as you think you ought to give credit to, it will, in my mind, be sufficient to sustain the indictment and support a verdict of conviction.

But, gentlemen, the great question is, whether the evidence which you have heard this day can be considered as proof or not? whether it be such as would justify you in finding the prisoner guilty?-I not only think as Mr. Justice Chamberlain does, that if you were sitting to determine, whether Clark and O'Brien in the testimony they gave this day,were guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury or not; and if you should be of opinion that they were, you ought to acquit the prisoner at the bar; but I will go farther, and say, if you have a doubt upon that question-if your minds be in a state of balance, you ought in that case to acquit the prisoner, because to justify a verdict of conviction to yourselves and to your country, the evidence upon which you decide should be above exception, and not evidence upon which you entertain any doubt.

The testimony of O'Brien is the most material in this case. Lord Portarlington has been

produced to confirm him. Their testimony has been compared. Lord Portarlington said, that O'Brien came to him the latter end of April-O'Brien ascertained it to be upon the 28th, that he informed his lordship he had entered into a society of United Irishmen— that there was to be a funeral attended by 10,000 men-but he understood it was to be a sham funeral, for the man had been buried before. His lordship was positive this conversation passed at the first interview. He stated also, that O'Brien informed him of the meditated attack upon the Ordnance stores in the Castle. Lord Portarlington said, he could not be certain, whether that had been mentioned in the first interview with O'Brien, or not. But he did say in the course of his testimony, that he did not recollect any thing material to have been mentioned at any interview subsequent to the first. It appears, that the funeral did take place, and it was at Coghran's that the witness received his directions to go to the funeral. The impression upon my mind was, that the witness had not till that evening heard any thing of that funeral. What the impression upon your minds is, you are to determine. However, I feel it my duty to say, that I do not think it impossible to reconcile the testimony in this respect; because it appeared, that the witness had been in close intimacy with Hyland, and others of the fraternity for some days; and therefore it might well happen that in the course of those days he had heard of the funeral intended to be had, and coupling that with the fact of the funeral having actually taken place, it furnishes a strong inference, that he did hear it at some former day.

However, lord Portarlington farther told you of the meditated attack upon the Ordnance, and he certainly did say, that though he could not be positive that the communication of that circumstance was made at the first interview, yet he said, he did not think any thing material was mentioned upon the second. From O'Brien's testimony it ap pears, that he did not hear of the intended attack upon the Ordnance until the 7th of May, when it was mentioned for the first time at the Sheaf of Wheat. Therefore it seems most extraordinary indeed, that he should upon the 28th of April mention a fact, which, according to his own testimony, he knew nothing of until the 7th of May. If then, you suppose he communicated at the first interview this meditated attack upon the Ordnance, it will follow, that he must have known of it before the 28th of April, and therefore his assertion, that his first knowledge of it was upon the 7th of May is not founded in fact.-And at all events, there is a cloud flung over the testimony of O'Brien by lord Portarlington, which renders it strange and unaccountable indeed, that those persons whose testimony might have removed that cloud and have satisfied your minds, have not been called; namely, Mr. Higgins, colonel

Henniker, and Mr. Cook, by whom the witness was examined in the committee room of the Parliament House, neither has major Sirr been produced.

Clark, the corporal, was indeed produced to corroborate O'Brien's testimony, and in my apprehension, if he deserves credit, he has gone a very great way to corroborate O'Brien. Clark said, he was sworn by the prisoner to the test oath; that he heard the prisoner brag, that he had upon the night when the sixteen men were apprehended, effected his escape by being taken for an officer. So that if you believe Clark's testimony deserving of credit, it will go a great way to sustain that of O'Brien. However, Clark did say, that he was not in court yesterday; afterwards he did say, that that was a mistake, that he was puzzled and did not understand law. But according to my notes, and as I best recollect, when he was asked, where he went to from this, he said, to Ormond-quay; and on the counsel's asking him-" What! from this?" he answered "No, not from this, but from the outside of the Court-house," an answer which seemed to me to have been deliberately given, and on recollection, and not the result of embarrassment or mere mistake, as he wished to represent it; and if this either satisfies you that he meant to commit perjury, or excites a doubt in your minds as to that fact, it takes away so much from the credit of his testimony, as to make it extremely hazardous indeed to build a conviction upon it.

Gentlemen, on the part of the prisoner five witnesses have been examined. I shall just touch upon the most material points of their testimony. O'Brien positively denied, that he ever said he was a revenue officer: he repeated it again and again, saying however, that he could not account for what he might have said, when he was drunk. John Clarke swore, that O'Brien expressly stated himself to be a revenue officer, and that he was sober when he made that declaration. Cavanagh swore, he said he was a revenue officer, and that Fitzpatrick had been removed. Howell, Mr. Wilson's clerk, swore the same thing, and that being charged with the falsehood, he went off, and did not make his appearance again.

Here then are three witnesses, of whose credit you are to judge, all swearing that O'Brien, when sober, said he was a revenue officer; thereby directly contradicting what O'Brien himself had sworn as to that fact. As to his character you had a witness who swore that he knew O'Brien from his childhood, and that he would not believe him upon his oath: an account has also been given of his conduct, to show that he is a man of improper manners, and of profligate character, which, though not sufficient of itself to overthrow his credit, yet united with the other circumstances given in evidence, ought certainly to have weight. It is possible, no doubt, that a man of a profligate disposition

may tell truth; but such a disposition will deserve the consideration of a jury, when about to determine upon the evidence of such

a man.

And after his general character and particular conduct in life, have been thus impeached, does not the observation which was made before recur with double force, that it is strange and unaccountable, that not one of the persons to whom he appealed, as it were, for the truth of his testimony, has been produced, or a single individual in the community brought forward to sustain his character, or shield it from the imputations cast upon it?

On the whole, gentlemen, you are the sole judges of the credit due to witnesses. If you are of opinion, that O'Brien and Clark deserve your credit; that their testimony is unexceptionable, and unimpeached, I do think that, in point of law, it is sufficient to sustain the indictment.

But I repeat, that you ought to be satisfied beyond all possibility of doubt, that the testimony which you have heard is true, and unquestionable as to the facts it stated, before you ground a verdict of conviction upon it.

The jury retired for a quarter of an hour, and brought in a verdict-Nor GUILTY.

In consequence of the late sitting on the trial of Finney, the Court did not sit on Wednesday the 17th.

On Thurday, the 18th, at the sitting of the Court, Mr. Attorney General rose and addressed the Court:

My lords; On the last day of the sitting of this Court, Patrick Finney was tried for high treason; the charge against him was founded on examinations in themselves so strong, so clear and consistent, and confirmed by so many collateral circumstances, that any magistrate who should omit to bring him forward, or any prosecutor who should omit to proceed against him, would be guilty of a dereliction of that duty which he owed to his country; from the time of his arrest, it has been the constant endeavour of the officers of the crown to bring him to trial as speedily as possible, and that endeavour has been opposed only by the prisoner himself; on his part the trial has been repeatedly deferred, and once on the day of his trial, he attempted farther delay without success; the length of confinement therefore cannot be complained of as a grievance either by him, or those involved in the same charge; on the trial, the evidence for the prosecution appeared as full, as circumstantial, as consistent, and satisfactory as could have been expected, and it was only by a long examination into the past life and character of the principal witness, and by resorting to persons and modes of informa tion to which the prosecutors could have no access, that it appeared that no credit ought

§

to be given to the testimony of that witness; that he is not to be believed is now established by a jury of the country; under these circumstances it would be indecorous in the counsel for the crown, and inconsistent with the principles on which a prosecutor ought to act, to proceed against the other prisoners, accused by the same witness. I therefore humbly move that they be now brought up and discharged in the usual way from the indictments against them, submitting it however to the Court, that under the circumstances of the case, they ought to be obliged to give security for their good behaviour.

have now been acquitted of the crime with which you were charged; but I expect that you will give security for your good behaviour, and also testify your allegiance to the king, by your oath in open court. You are acquitted of the charge of treason; but it appears from unquestionable testimony, wholly independent of O'Brien's evidence, that you are by no means free from blame; you were assembled in an unusual number, for some purpose which you have not dared to explain, and which you were conscious required secrecy, as appears by the centinels posted to guard your meeting, and the watch word for admission into it; what the purpose of that meeting was, however, I am now ignorant;

Mr. Justice Chamberlain.-I think Mr. M'Nally's declaration has done him the highest honour, and I do add, that no defence could have been more correctly or ably conducted. I entirely subscribe to what has been said on both sides; it is clear from all the circumstances, that there never was a case more fit to be brought to trial, and to be laid before the public in all its parts, and I believe that the impression on the minds of the hearers was the same as on mine, that the life of the prisoner was in the utmost danger, until his defence was fully gone into, and the life and character of the witness, O'Brien, were fully developed, so as that it appeared to the jury, in which I entirely concur with them, that he ought not to obtain credit on his oath in a court of justice. The conduct of the prosecutor is precisely what it should be, to bring forward the charge, when it appeared to be well founded, and to relinquish it now, when that foundation appeared to be unsound.

Mr. Baron Smith. I believe we all thought the story of O'Brien true, methodically related as it was, until we heard the prisoner's defence; and I entirely concur in every thing that my brother Chamberlain has said-I have only to add, that the counsel for the prisoner conducted themselves in his defence not only with the greatest ability and propriety, but also with a proper attention to those paramount duties which counsel ought never to forget in the exercise of their profession.

The other persons accused of high treas on were then brought up, and having joined in their challenges, were committed to the jury together, and no witness being produced, were of course acquitted; they were then addressed as follows by

ciety, called United Irishmen, I expect you to withdraw from so foul a conspiracy; if you have entered into it, the oath you must have taken might have warned you of the baseness of their purposes; it begins, I admit, plausibly; to form a brotherly union amongst all religions is in itself an object not only innocent, but meritorious, and one which we all wish to see effected; but in the next passage, the wicked purpose begins to appear, to bring about an equal representation of the people of this country, studiously avoiding the insertion of parliament, is an undertaking of the most dangerous tendency, and so artfully drawn up, that it appears to be the work of no common man: Let me, therefore, again caution you against the crimes into which it may lead you, and which appear to be nothing short of an attempt to effect a violent and forcible revolution in the country: the remainder of the oath consists of an engagement not to inform or give evidence against any member of that society; have you reflected, that every prosecutor has by the law. of the land, a right to require your attendance to give evidence on any trial in a court of justice? there you must swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then you will find yourself bound by the oath of this society to commit deliberate perjury. I therefore once more exhort and intreat you, if you have entered into that society, to continue in it no longer.

Mr. Baron Smith.-I believe, and indeed. I am sure, that many, too many persons have been seduced into the society of United Irishmen, and have been the dupes of the remorseless ambition of some, and of the unfeeling profligacy of others: if you ever have been in that society, I hope you were amongst the least guilty of its members, and that you are become sensible of its wicked and dangerous tendency; what is now required of you is not unreasonable; and if you shall make any objection to take the oath of allegiance required of you, it will be strong evidence of guilty design.

The Prisoners then took the oath of allegiance and were discharged, having also entered into recognizances for their good be