servative of that blessing and of the Constitution itself, is the Liberty of the Press; that is the great bulwark of our free Constitution, we have a trial by jury, and of the Freedom of the Press you are the guardians. You, gentlemen, are by the Constitution appointed to decide upon all these questions touching the Freedom of the Press. The Freedom of the Press cannot be destroyed but in two ways, 1st, by the overweening power of the Crown, 2dly, by its own licentiousness corrupting the minds of the people; and when it is destroyed, then will our Constitution be at an end. While the Press is left open to cool and fair discussion upon legal and public topics of Grievance and Constitution, so long will the freedom of our Constitution endure, and whenever an attempt is made to controul it, you will step in and guard and protect it, as you would your property, your lives, and your liberties; you will secure it from licentiousness; if, thro' the timidity of a jury, licentiousness it is not punished, its freedom cannot exist. What does the paper which is the subject of this question purport to be? it looks for a reform of parliament, it calls to arms the citizens under pretence of supporting the government by resisting it, by speaking of grievances which cannot be endured, it is overawing the parliament. If such licentiousness be tolerated, then the Freedom of the Press will be destroyed. You, gentlemen, will consider whether this paper contains in itself internal evidence to shew, that the motives of its publication were not for the purpose of reasoning with the people, or for the necessary correction of any evil in the Constitution, but to excite sedition and tumult. If in that case you believe that Mr. Rowan published it, then you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you are of opinion, that this was a cool and dispassionate paper, reasoning with the people in a becoming manner, acknowledging the authority of the law, then you will acquit him. Further, let the tendency of the paper be what it may, if you are of opinion, he did not publish it, then you must acquit him. We will produce a witness to shew he published an individnal paper-we will prove that he took several others and dispersed them abroad-if you believe the evidence, it will be impossible but that you must be satisfied he is guilty. Thus stands the evidence.

I have stated that the traverser was Secretary to the United Irishmen. It will be proved thus:-he published that paper; if he did, he acknowledged the contents of it to be true, and the paper states him to be Secretary of the Society. Gentlemen, such is the case as it appears to me on the part of the Crown. I will not pretend to anticipate what may be offered by the gentlemen on the other side. Two topics, however, have occured as likely to be introduced :-one is, the case of

the

the Volunteers-the other, the functions of a jury under the late Act of Parliament. Upon the first, I have said abundance to satisfy you. I will suppose however, that this paper was addressed to the old volunteers: what then?-The tendency of the paper was to excite those volunteers to commit actions that would tarnish the honour acquired by their previous conduct. Let them shew that the proclamation (against which this was a counter-proclamation) went against the old volunteers -it meant no such thing-it describes them so and so. But there were among the old volunteers men actuated by new principles and new motives, that it became the duty of government to suppress them. For your sake they did so-no government should be influenced but by the prosperity of the whole state. But in what respect did these men resemble the old volunteers-Not in a single feature; these men were assembled by the call of the United Irishmen in Back-lane; the ancient Volunteers were asembled by the call of Government and the Lord Lieutenant, who distributed arms among them from the arsenal, for the public defence; they added to these out of their own pockets whatever they thought necessary; they were collected to support that Constitution which is now sought to be overturned. Were these new volunteers of that description? Were they so formed? How were they equiped? The green cockade was adopted in the place of the black. see no necessity for this; but fearful that men will have recourse to such topics to cajole you, I think it necessary to take notice of them. Secondly, as to the Act of Parliament within this kingdom, I am not aware that it operates here; but even by it, as it now stands, and I told you so before, you have an undoubted right to enter into the guilt or innocence of intention upon this occasion, as you would upon the trial of any other offence. Gentlemen, to you, and most willingly, I commit this case; I desire no more than that you will by your verdict vindicate the Freedom of the Press, and punish the licentiousness of it."

EVIDENCE on the Part of the CROWN.

I

John Lyster deposed, That on Sunday forenoon the 16th of December, 1792, he happened to pass thro' Cope-street (Dublin), and perceiving a great croud in the fencing-school of one Pardon, he went in-was told by Mr. Rowan, that no one with coloured clothes could be there, but was shewn a gallery, to which he went-thought the assembly consisted of about one or two hundred persons, some of whom were dressed in the old, others in the new Volunteer uniform-among those in the room were Messrs. Rowan, Tandy, and Kenny, whom he had known before-there was a table in the room, on which were

a

1

a great many printed papers-a bundle of those papers was taken up by Mr. Rowan, and distributed among the persons below; some thrown up to the gallery, one of which he got; and some thrown out of the window to the mob-Mr. Rowan read a paper to the company, which, so far as he read, was precisely similar to the one he had-Soon after this, having occasion to call on Mr. Pollock (Attorney) for the purpose of transacting some private business, he was asked by him, if he had been at the meeting in Cope-street? To which he answered yes, and related the whole affair, and shewed the paper he had got-Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, waited on him the next day, and was made acquainted with all the particulars of the meeting-since the deponent had obtained an Ensign's commission in the Army thro' the interest (as he said) of Eis relation Lady Hobart-This deponent was witness to two bonds given by his father to his brother, the one for 5001. the other for 3001.-the bonds were put in suit-the signatures of his father were denied he was, as a subscribing witness, sworn on the trial-the jury could not agree, and there was no verdict the case was referred, and the Arbitrators awarded only 2001. Deponent took the charge of one Peter Hamilton, a lunatic-went with him to England, and came back again-during his having the custody of the lunatic, he obtained from him a note for 1501.-he had brought suit on the note-after the death of the lunatic, his executors had filed a bill in Chancery to be relieved from the note-he had not yet recovered the money.

Wm. Morton's testimony relative to the meeting in Copestreet, was nearly similar to that of John Lyster's, but did not prove a publication by the Defendant.

EVIDENCE on Behalf of the TRAVERSER.

Francis Blake said, he could not positively say that Lyster was not to be credited on oath, but "he should hesite, he should doubt."

Juhn Smith knew not much of Lyster, but from what he did know, he should give very little credit to any thing in should say, even on oath.

Mary Hatchell" Lyster is not be credited on oat!.."

Here the testimony closed.

A few moments before the Defendant's Counsel rose, a guard of soldiers was brought into the Court-house by the Sherlit

Gentlemen of the

Mr. CURRAN for the Defendant. Jury, When I consider the period at which this prosecution is brought forward; when I behold the extraclinary saf guard of armed soldiers resorted to, no doubt for the preservation of

peace and order: when I catch, as I cannot but do, the throb of public anxiety which beats from one end to the other of this hall; when I reflect on what may be the fate of a man of the most beloved personal character,* of one of the most respected families of our country; himself the only individual of that family, I may almost say of that country, who can look to that possible fate with unconcern? Feeling as I do all these impressions, it is in the honest simplicity of my heart I speak, when I say that I never rose in a Court of Justice with so much embarrassment, as upon this occasion.

If, gentlemen, I could entertain an hope of finding refuge for the disconcertion of my mind, in t e perfect composure of yours; if I could suppose that those awful vicissitudes of human events, which have been stated or alluded to, could leave your judgments undisturbed and your hearts at ease, I know I should form a most erroneous opinion of your character: I entertain no such chimerical hopes; I form no such unworthy opinions; I expect not that your hearts can be more at easė than my own; I have no right to expect it; but I have a right to call upon you in the name of your Country, in the name of the living God, of whose eternal justice you are now administering that portion which dwells with us on this side of the grave, to discharge your breasts as far as you are able of every biass of prejudice o passion; that if my client is guilty of the offence charged upon him, you may give tranquility to the public by a firm verdict of conviction; or if he is innocent, by as firm a verdict of acquital; and that you will do this in defiance of the paltry arti.ces and senseless clamours that have been resorted to in order to bring him to his trial with anticipated conviction. And, gentlemen, I feel an additional necessity of thus conjuring you to be upon your guard, from the able and imposing statement which you have just heard on the part of the prosecution. I know well the virtues and the talents of the excellent person who conducts that prosecution; I know

how

Mr. Rowan is justly entitled to the character of a GENTLEMAN, a charater often affumed, but often misunderstood.—Having received a liberal education, he paffed a confiderable time in Paris, where he affociated with the moft polifhed circles of that celebrated capital; he after. wards ferved feveral years as an officer in the British army.-To an ample fortune, a commanding figure, a marking countenance, and elegant accomplishments, were added a courage and a generofity that would have diftinguished him even in the times of Chivalry. Soon after his return to his native country, he refcued an innocent young woman from the fnares of that hoary lecher Lord This generous action, which was accompanied with fome perfonal rifque, brought Mr. Rowan into public notice and deferved popularity-but he foon found, that relieving diftreffed damfels was not the way to recommend him to the favour of the rulers of the nation; his exertions in another caufe were unfuccefsful; and his fair fortunes, and well-founded expectations, were shipwreck'd in the tempeftuous and deftructive ocean of Irish politics.

how much he would disdain to impose upon you by the trappings of office; but I also know how easily we mistake the lodgement which character and eloquence can make upon our feelings, for those impressions that reason and fact and proof only ought to work upon our understandings.

Perhaps, gentlemen, I shall act not unwisely in waving any further observation of this sort, and giving your minds an opportunity of growing cool and resuming themselves, by coming to a calm and uncoloured statement of mere facts, premising only to you, that I have it in the strictest injunction from my client, to defend him upon facts and evidence only, and to avail myself of no technical artifice or subtilty that could withdraw his cause from the test of that enquiry, which it is your province to exercise, and to which only he wishes to be indebted for an acquittal.

In the month of December 1792, Mr. Rowan was arrested on an information, charging him with the offence for which he is now on his trial. He was taken before an honourable personage now on that bench, and admitted to bail.

He remained a considerable time in this city, soliciting the threatened prosecution, and offering himself to a fair trial by a jury of his country; but it was not then thought fit to yield to that solicitation; nor has it now been thought proper to prosecute him in the ordinary way, by sending up a bill of indictment to a grand jury. I do not mean by this to say that infor mations ex officio are always oppressive or unjust; but I cannot but observe to you, that when a petty jury is called upon to try a charge not previously found by the grand inquest, and supported by the naked assertion only of theKing's Prosecutor, that the accusation labours under a weakness of probability which it is difficult to assist. If the charge had no cause of dreading the light-if it was likely to find the sanction of a grand jury, it is not easy to account why it deserted the more usual, the more popular, and the more constitutional mode, and preferred to come forward in the ungracious form of ex officio information.

If such bill had been sent up and found, Mr. Rowan would have been tried at the next commission; but a speedy trial was not the wish of his prosecutors. An information was filed, and when he expected to be tried upon it, an error, it seems, was discovered in the record. Mr. Rowan offered to wave it, or consent to any amendment desired. No-that proposal could not be accepted--a trial must have followed. That information, therefore, was withdrawn, and a new one filed, that is, in fact, a third prosecution was instituted upon the same charge. This last was filed on the 8th day of last July. Gentlemen, these facts cannot fail of a due impression upon you. You will find a material part of your enquiry must be, whether Mr. Rowan is