constitution dead? Do the gentlemen intend by way of argument to excuse this, as the consideration of a grievance? They tell the people they have no constitution, that they might look for another. Is this a cool disquisition upon a matter, that every man has a right to inquire into? Is not this to excite tumult? Liberty and Equality! Words, gentlemen, that it would be painful to me to observe upon to the extent to which they go, words that suggest but too much to every good and reasonable mind; there is no man in this kingdom who would not lay down his life to preserve true liberty and equality; but these are but deceptions to cajole the ignorant: the vulgar abuse of a constitution which we possess to the envy of the world. "Liberty and equality, words which we use for an opportunity of repelling calumny and of saying, that by liberty we never understood unlimited freedom, nor by equality, the levelling of property, or the destruction of subordination. This is a calumny invented by that faction, or that gang, which misrepresents the king to the people, and the people to the king, traduces one half of the nation to cajole the other, and by keeping up distrust and division, wishes to continue the proud arbitrators of the fortune and fate of Ireland." Is not this traducing the government? But attend, gentlemen, to their definition of liberty. "Liberty is the exercise of all our rights, natural and political, secured to us and our posterity by a real representation of the people; and equality is the extension of the constituent, to the fullest dimensions of the constitution, of the elective franchise to the whole body of the people, to the end that government, which is collective power, may be guided by collective will, and that legislation may originate from public reason, keep pace with public improvement, and terminate in public happiness." Certainly, gentlemen, the sentence is very sonorous, and agreeable enough to the ear; but to the mind it conveys nothing but this, that government is to be conducted by the will of every man, high and low, rich and poor, ignorant and learned; the people are to govern the people, and how they will do so, unhappily for mankind, has been learned from experience. Mark this next passage, gentlemen, for I confess I do not understand it. "If our constitution be imperfect, nothing but a reform in the representation will rectify its abuses; if it be perfect, nothing but the same reform will perpetuate its blessings." If our constitution be imperfect, nothing but a reform will render it perfect; if it be perfect, still the reform is necessary to keep it perfect. In whatever light it is viewed, reform is necessary, and a good constitution requires amendment as much as a bad one. I do not feel it necessary to dwell upon this, because it is so unintelligible, that it cannot deserve notice. But see next what endeavours have been used to render odious among the people, those forces upon whom our peace and tranquillity depend. "We now address you as citizens, for to be citizens you became soldiers, nor can we help wishing that all soldiers, partaking the passions and interests of the people, would remember that they were once citizens, that seduction made them soldiers, but nature made them men." How will my learned friend when he comes to speak of this part of the case satisfy you, that it was necessary in a publication of this sort, recommending a reform in parliament, and to be disseminated among thousands,

to tell the soldiers, the forces of the state, that their profession was dishonourable, that they were imposed upon, that they should not be entrusted with the protection of the state? Gentlemen, I am unwilling to dwell upon these passages, it is but necessary to mention them to shew their danger, if they deserve consideration you will give it to them, if not, you will not waste your attention upon them. "That nature made them men." It required no authority to satisfy them of that. "We address you without any authority, save that of reason, and if we obtain the coincidence of public opinion, it is neither by force nor stratagem, for we have no power to terrify, no artifice to cajole, no fund to seduce. Here we sit without mace or beadle." What they allude to, I suppose you, gentlemen, apprehend; they seem to disdain any distinction in civil institutions. "Neither a

mystery, nor a craft, nor a corporation.-In four words lies all our power, UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION and REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE. In these four words lies all the power of the United Irishmen, according to this publication, approved of by the traverser; he himself a member of that society, and secretary of the meeting which composed it. "Universal Emancipation!" By that I presume is meant the giving a right of voting, to every man in the community. "And Representative Legislature !" The meaning of these words, is but too obvious. The constitution is often in the mouths of men, when the destruction of it is in their hearts. If the plan of these people were carried into effect, where would be the House of Peers?— for our legislature, gentlemen, consists of King, Lords and Commons. When government is guided by the will of all the people and their force carried into action, where will be the House of Peers? Where will be our constitution? buried in the anarchy of republican power, formed from the dregs of the people. A government consisting of all the people, guided by the will of all the people; what sense but this can be put upon these words? If indeed the context of the paper shews you, gentlemen, that any thing else was meant, than as I interpret the words, you will take it altogether in that sense, in which it appears to have been meant. God forbid I should endeavour to wrest any thing to impute guilt to the gentleman, who now stands at your bar, that the whole of the paper does not warrant! But if the words bear that meaning which I give them, who will say, that guilt shall not be imputed to him? You will form your opinion from reading the whole, and comparing the several parts with each other. Here comes a sentence which will puzzle you a little, but which with some comment may be understood. "Yet we are confident that on the pivot of this principle, a convention, less still, a society, less a single man, will be able first to move and then to raise the world." Here is an open declaration of their wish to raise the people, not only of this country but of the whole world; a proof of peaceable intent. "We therefore wish for Catholic emancipation without any modification, but still we consider this necessary enfranchisement as merely the portal to the temple of national freedom; wide as this entrance iswide enough to admit three millions-it is narrow when compared to the capacity and comprehension of our beloved principle, which takes in every individual of the Irish nation, casts an equal eye over the whole island, embraces all that think, and feels for all that suffer.

The Catholic cause is subordinate to our cause, and included in it; for, as United Irishmen, we adhere to no sect, but to society—to no creed, but Christianity-to no party, but to the whole people. In the sincerity of our souls, do we desire Catholic emancipation; but were it obtained to-morrow, to-morrow would we go on as we do to-day, in the pursuit of that reform, which would still be wanting to ratify their liberties as well as our own. For both these purposes it appears necessary that provincial conventions should assemble preparatory to the convention of the Protestant people. The delegates of the Catholic body are not justified in communicating with individuals, or even bodies of inferior authority, and therefore an assembly of a similar nature and organization," (French language still occurring with French ideas) "is necessary to establish an intercourse of sentiment, an uniformity of conduct, an united cause and an united nation. If a convention on the one part does not soon follow, and is not soon connected with that on the other, the common cause will split into the partial interest; the people relax into inattention and inertness; the union of affection and exertion will dissolve; and too probably some local insurrections, instigated by the malignity of our common enemy, may commit the character and risk the tranquillity of the island.” Gentlemen, the paper mentions here the common enemy; as to who is meant by the expression, you will judge; did they mean those who were about to defeat their machinations, and who would not commit the tranquillity of the island to the convention to be assembled? It says "an assembly of a similar nature and organization is necessary." These are Gallic sentences and suited only to the soil of France. "Local insurrection may commit the character and risk the tranquillity of the island, which can be obviated only by the influence of an assembly arising from, assimilated with the people, and whose spirit may be, as it were, knit with the soul of the nation, unless the sense of the Protestant people be, on their part, as fairly collected and as judiciously directed; unless individual exertion consolidates into collective strength; unless the particles unite into one mass, we may perhaps serve some person or some party for a little, but the public not at all. The nation is neither insolent, nor rebellious, nor seditious. While it knows its rights, it is unwilling to manifest its powers; it would rather supplicate administration to anticipate revolution by a well-timed reform, and to serve their country in mercy to themselves."An address to the Volunteers to obtain universal emancipation holding out, that this kind of remonstrance should be attended to, before the power of the nation should be exerted. What meaning does a common understanding annex to these words? Was it not a threat? Was it not to spirit up the minds of the people against the members of parliament ? Was it necessary for the purpose of cool investigation, or to obtain constitutional redress, that the people should exert their power? and to threaten parliament, by telling them there was a force to be raised against them? Unless a reasonable account is given why this language was inserted, and what the meaning of it was, I must presume, it was for the purpose I mention. "The fifteenth of February approaches, a day ever memorable in the annals of this country as the birth-day of new Ireland; let parochial meetings

be held as soon as possible-[here you have an exact delineation of the French government]-let each parish return delegates, let the sense of Ulster be again declared from Dungannon on a day auspicious to union, peace, and freedom, and the spirit of the North will again become the spirit of the nation." Now, gentlemen of the jury, you will mark this next sentence, and it will be a clue to the whole. "The civil assembly ought to claim the attendance of the military associations, and we have addressed you, citizen soldiers, on this subject, from the belief, that your body, uniting conviction with zeal, and zeal with activity, may have much influence over your countrymen, your relations and friends." The nation is in danger from foreign foes and from domestic enemies-so they state. The proclamation calls forth the forces of the state. The United Irishmen raise their audible voice, and call the people to arms. For what? Is it to assist the government to repel the foreign enemy, and seditious foe? But how? A convention is to be assembled, and they are to call around them the national forces. The convention was to meet at Dungannon-there assembled, were these forces to repress foreign foes and domestic sedition? Gentlemen, it is but too obvious for what purpose this was intended: this sentence speaks the language of the whole of this paper—and if it had been drawn with more art than it is, here is the clue to the whole :-the force of the nation was to be assembled under the controul of the convention, assembled under the great seal of the United Irishmen, who say they are not a corporation; but who have a corporation seal:-For what purpose? to obtain universal emancipation and representative legislature! They are held up as such a force and controuling power, as must produce that effect upon the king, lords and commons. An effect which they profess to have designed for the good of their country-if they did, they should seek its accomplishment, by reason and by argument. But to publish a call to arms to that power and authority which for years this country has respected, and from which, certainly, since 1784 every blessing in society has been derived (and every man who looks for those blessings of life, otherwise than by a due regard to all ranks of men, blasphemes the God which made us all)-I say, to call upon the whole body of the people to rise in arms, and be their own rulers, is a species of government, which, when it comes, will be an equal misfortune to the poor and the rich. The rich would lose that which they enjoy, and more—the power of contributing to the necessities of the poor-industry will no longer continue to have the motives to labour and those habits of economy which the protection of a mild constitution encourages, but the people will be turned out to a system of plunder, robbery and murder, such as we find prevailing in another country. The paper goes on and recites, "We offer only a general outline to the public, and meaning to address Ireland, we presume not at present to fill up the plan or pre-occupy the mode of its execution, we have thought it our duty to speak-Answer us by actions. [An open invitation to force and violence.] You have taken time for consideration. Fourteen long years are elapsed since the rise of your associations; and in 1782 did you imagine that in 1792 this nation would still remain unrepresented ?" These Volunteers of 1782 had not all these schemes in view-but this Society

F

here expressly tells the people, with arms in their hands, that they remain unrepresented; and adds, "How many nations in this interval have gotten the start of Ireland? How many of our countrymen have sunk into the grave?" What is meant by nations having got the start of Ireland? is it the revolution in France; they indeed have gotten the start of Ireland in calamity and distress, long may they hold their distance, and that long may be the period before we shall overtake them, is my most sincere and earnest wish.

Such is this paper—I have read it accurately. Gentlemen of the jury, it is for you to consider the whole of it, and determine whether it was published by Mr. Rowan, and whether it be a libel or not? If you should be of opinion that Mr. Rowan is guilty of publishing this paper, then you are to consider whether it is a libel or not? Gentlemen, it is the peculiar felicity of this country, the great blessing of our constitution, that we have a trial by jury; in France it is polluted; but it is the boast of our constitution that we have a trial by jury, and the great preservative 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, first, 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 guard your property, your lives, and your liberties; you will secure it from licentiousness. Where its licentiousness is not punished through the weakness or timidity of a jury, its freedom can no longer exist. What does the paper which is the subject of the present 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 individual 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