On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
jir Duff * tried on this indictment ; but when it in cB gg £ s » td that applications are to ba made to postpone those trials , I may nti , perhaps , discharge my duty as I ou ? ht if I allew myself to be embarrassed by ihe bills found for feleBy when I hate the grounds to send up bills for high treason . Perhaps , I have not done my duty as I ought in sending up bills fgr felony when I might hare £ ent up bills for high treason ; but , if the c * se is not determined at the present commission , the Court . I trust , will not , by any act out oi their way , oblige me to tike any coarse that would fetter my discretieu in sanding up bills for treason .
Mr Butt . —It is my de 3 iie , my lord , to conduct this cass calmly and temperately , and therefore I will not offer one word of reply to the admirable specimen of calmness and good temper of the learned Solicitor-General . As te any observations of Mb on myself , my conduct is before your lordships and the public ; it is cot in his power to prejudice me with either , for official station does not always confer authority . I feel the reason bronght forward by the Attoraey-GeHerai is anotker strong ground why Mr Duffy ' s plea should be received . I had last night the prigoner's instructions that he wonld stand his trial this oommissioB , and was ready to do so . I will tell ihe conrt what is unprecedented ; it is unprecedented { hat an Attorney-General should stand up in court and adopt this mode ef proceeding when a prisoner is about to apply for a pastponement of his trial , on grounds which common hutnaa'ty should indues aim to listen to , namely , the publio excitement at prefect existing .
The Attorney-Geaer&l . —I mu 3 t interfere ; there Is bo affidavit . Mr Bctfc . —The Attorney-General has threatened that if the counsel for the prisoner exercises the un-¦ d ipbted right of applying to postpone the trial of this mac , he would abandon this bill and send up ona for high treason . The Attorney General—I sail no such thing . Mr Bait . —I csll npon the court to interpose fastween the prisoner and the unconstitutional threat of the Attorney-General . Let them allow the prisoner to plead , and the Attorney-General to take his erarse .
The Chief Baron . —We do not see anything in the case to induce ns to proceed with the arraingment of the prisoner . The proceedings oi the commission are etiil pending ; the commission is not sbout to close , and another case was fixed for this morning . We shall not proceed with the arraignment of Mr Daffy , but shall proceed , as we were about to do , with the trial of Doherty . The Q , obek v . Keyik Izio O'Doherty —Felony . —Kevin Izod O'Doherty was tfcen placed at the bar , to take b . 13 trial on the charges on which he was arraigned en the preceding day , namely , for imagining , devising , and intending to depose the Qneen from her royal style , title , and honour , of the
imperial crown of the United Kingdom , which imagination , intention , &c ., were indicated by articles published ia the Tkibttns newspaper , and also for intecd-£ ng , < fec , to levy war against her Majesty- On the case having been called on , and proclamation for a jury haviDg been made , the clerk of the crown called over the panel , about half of whom answered to their aaiEes . At the suggestion of the Atteraey-Ganeral the conrt ordered that the absent jurors should be called on a fine of £ 20 each , whieh croduced a slight increase to the number present ; But that penalty having failed in procuring the desired effect , the Chief Baron ordered that those absent should fee called on a fise of £ 50 , and a few additional jurors haviBg answered , the court proceeded to ssear a
jary . At this period of the proceedings a gentleman of the bsr , in robes , complained to the court that he snd several others of the profession were put ta great icconvensenee , there not baring beea any place provided for their accommodation . Sir Colman O * Lo = h ' en suggested that the range of seats over the dock , which were exclusively occupied fay policemen , should be cleared fer the accommodation of the bar . Th 3 High Sheriff said , that the police who occupied those seats had been placed there bj his orders ; that the scen 3 -which occurred in the dock at t e commission before the last , had been of Buch a character as to warrant him in taking the precaution of placing policemen in the vicinity ef the dock .
Tie first juror called , and sworn as foreiraD , was Mr Samael Bagot Oldham . The second called was John Joseph Nolan , wh& was desired by the crown solicitor to stand by . Mr Bntt and Sir Colman O'Logalen severally contended that the crown was bound to show causa for setting aside a juror . The Attarney . General rose , and addressing the juror eaid , Mr Nolan , are you security for Mr Delany one of the party of the Natiok ? Mr Nolan : I am . Attorney-General : Then stand by . Mr Butt contended that , according to the 9 Lh of Gea . IV ., the crown had not the right of peremptory challenge , without showing cause , and the court was bound to make a rule on the subject . Baron Pennefather : It is by the order of the Oourt the jurors objected to are commanded to stand by . *
John ' Phayre was the next juror called , to whom counsel for the prisoner objected , pn the grounds that ie n > a buries ? ef the city of Dublin , and as the property of convicted felons became confiscated to the corporation of Dublin , the juror now called to the boak had an interest in the conviction of the prisoner at the bar , inasmnch as property so confiscated was c& ' . culated to swell the borough fund , by which means a boroEgh rate might be avoided , or reduced in the amonnifto be struck . ^ fter a lengthened argument , in which Sir tolman O'Loghlen aiid Mr Butt were heard for the prisoner , and the Attorney and Solicitor-General ¦ were heard for the crown , the Chief Baron , in
• whose opinicn B * ron Pennefather concurred , decided tkat the challenge oa the part cf the prisoser could not be allowed , on the grounds that if the oourt "wsre to set aside the juror on the objections shown , it would haTe the effect of disqualifying almoBt the entire panel ef the city , as every man on that panel was presumed to be rated to the poor l * w , and accordingly , entitled to votea 3 a burgess for the return of the town council of the city of Dublin to the corporation . The challenge having been disallowed the juror was again called to the book , and challenged peremptory by the attorney for the prisoner . He was , therefore , fiaally desired to stand by . Richard Ulysses Burgh ww then sworn .
After several challenges had been disposed of the following jury were sworn : —Samuel Bagot Oldham , Kichard Ulysses Bnrgh , Edward Birmuighsin , Richard Collier , Georee Teates , William Read , George Nesbitt , John Kershaw , Blaney Mitchel , Charles Mathers , John Johnson . Thomas Stewart Mr Alley ( clerk ofthecrowB ) stated to the jury that the prisoner at the bar stood indicted , under the Act for the better security of the Crown and Governmeat of these cauntriea for publishing certain articles in the Tribune newspaper .
The Attorney-General then proceeded to state its case for the crown . He said the prisoner stood charged with a very gerion 3 offence , aud the consequences to him would be Berioua . The law did not fix any certain pnnishment to the offence , but left it ia the discretion of the court . It might be punishable by transportation for life , or imprisonment . There could be no doubt as to the evidenca to be prodnced . for it all consisted ef facts admitted . The charge was founded on ft recent act ofparliamenw , which , in a few words , defined the offence . It was to S £ > to » to depose the Queen from the etyle . title and honour of the royal name ; and also did coBpasB J ? i . „ ^ against her Majesty , in order to compel he to clange her measures or ceuncils . The charge 5 w « nt «• gn faP as to say that he did levy war , but do
Sit he compassed and imagined so to . u wou . a S Efficient to know the prisoner entertained the felonious Intent , in order t 6 fix On him the gHllt . Mr O'Doherty , at the tine those documents were published , was the proprietor of a newspaper called the Tsjbdsb which came into existence m the month . 01 June , which circumstance was of very great imporfemes . The paper came oat after the suppression of another paper , whose proprietor was punished ier the very ro dfo . ee of which Mr p'DJerty nsw stood charged . He had hoped that after the punishment of Mr Mitchel , it would not have again been necea-arj for him to address a jury en the same sub iect but he was woefully disappointed . Tae paper was bronaht out to fill up the space vacant by the
Buoprefsion of Mr Mitchel ' s paper . The paper comnencedbr holding up Mitchel as a martyr , whose example sbculd ba followed ; and he regretted to say that Mr O'Doherty did follow it . The object of Mr Mitchel was to make the harvest , about which they ¦ were all so anxious , the signal for rebellion , by appealic to the peasantry to hold their own gram . The first article commenced by being headed ' Our Ear-Test Prospects . ' ( The Attorney-GeneraI then , read the article in question . ) He would * A them ' « ¦ what object was that article published ? Was it not that the people should take the harvest and . lake their tail-it in the blood of the English foe .- That TTOUld be to make Ireland a separate kingdom , and therefore to deprive her Majesty of the crown of this
kingdom . , » The Attorney-General next proceeded to read an article from the same paper , entitled 'Courage , and extracb from * 85 rie 3 Ol nOtlC 93 in the TRIBORE , ¦ entitled , ' Oar War Department . ' Those invocations to the god of battle had , unfortunately , grown into a camp , and therefore the tffecti of euch doctrines could no longer be mistaken . A council of 300 wa 3 recommended for the purpose of rais ng the country into armed and simultaneous insurrection . What did armed and simultaneous ineurrectien mean { rat to make war ou the authorities ? The article
Stated that the crown , which stood ia the way of the people , and the harvest , should perish . There could be , therefore , no mistake as to the intent of the article—no other mefniDg attached to it , except that ia the indictment . The prisoner seemed to have entered on his dangerous career withh&eyes wide open , « cd fully aware of all the consequences likely torewit horn bis cmiaei . Probably , he might havebeen ae enthusiast woo twlieved that the eaurse he pur-« ed wu calculated to benefit niiewntry . He did wt taow vhit exUaua&z cfenmUM smgtt w
Untitled Article
adduced in his favour ; bnt this much he did know that firmness was a necessary virtue on the part of juries who were Bworn to preserve the administration of justice in its purity , and he would , therefore , agk that jury calmly to read over these publications in their box , and not to give more weight to the observations he had made upon them than the articles _ them 3 » lve 3 fully warranted . So far a ? his reason and judgment enabled him to do so , he had attempted to lead them to the conclusion thai ; all these articles bore but a single meaning . Let the jury , therefore , discharge their duty in a firm , honest , acd fearless manner , by bringing in that verdict which it was their duty , according to the solemn oaths they had taken to find , he would say , regardless to all personal consequences to tbemselveE , whatever those conseqnsncea might be . The learned counsel then resumed his Roat .
Mr Charles Vernon , registrar of newspapers in the Stamp-Office , was then sworn and examined by Mr Serjeant O'Brien . This witness proved the prisoner to bs one of the registered proprietors of the Irish Tribute newspaper , and identified bis handwriting in two numbers of tha paper , which had been lodged in the usual manner , according to law , in the Stsmp-effiee . ConstabU Mortimer Redmond , of ihe detective police , identified one of the prosecuted newspapers as havine been purchased by him at the Teibune office , No . 11 , Trinity-street , on the Sth of July . At fire o'clock the court was adjourned to Friday morning . The Chief Baron discharged thejury for the day , having cautioned them againBt cjnvers ng with any person on the subject of the trial , or forming their judgment till they had heard the remainder of the case .
THE DEFENCE . Friday , Aug . 11—On thejudgwof the commission taking their seats , Mr Butt . Q _ . C ., moved that the Attorney . General should elect upon which of the two distinct charges in the indictment he would prosecute the prisoner . The first was alleged to be an intention to deprive or depose the Queen from the style , title , honour , and royal name of the imperial crown , and with having uttered or declared such intention in one set of counts . The second charged an intention on the part of the prisoner to levy war against the Queen . in ordtr to cimpel her to change her measures and counsels , and with having uttered and declared that intention by certain publications . The Attorney-General opposed the motion , and the conrt having coincided with him , Mr Bun withdrew his motion .
The learnsd counsel , after a few introductory remarks , said it was necessary that the j ary should believe , on their oatbs . that the prisoner was guilty of the precise offences charged in the indictment . They might believe his conduct to be wrong ; nay , they misht believe it to be absolutely wicked , or that the publications he issued to the world were highly dangerous to the publio peace of this country ; but on their solemn © iths they could not find him guilty , unless they considered him to be guilty of the actual and precise offences charged in that icdictaent . If writings be wrong , and calculated to excite insurrectios , the law provided an abundant remedy . These writings were , and he admitted it , seditious ; he could not contend that they were not . He was not there to lead them a'tray . He admitted that if the
Attorney-General had instituted a prosecution for sedi . tion , and the jnry balieved the prisoner to ba the ths writer and publi her of those article ? , they ought to find him guilty ; but this was not a prosecution for sedition , a eonviction for that offence would ba followed by penalties the severest which the mild spirit of the British law permitted a court to inflict . The present was a prosecution under an act which waa cautiously guarded ; therefore he called upon the jnry to dismiss from their mind 9 everything that had been said about the dangerous character of the arti cles . They were not tryin ; a prisoner for sedition , but whether he had bronght himseif under the provi-BI 0 Q 6 of a highly penal act , involving , shortof thesacrificeoflife , thehighegtconsequence 3 . Tbe act had been ( ermed bb unconstitutional and severe one : it was one
whhh , in the hands of weak jurors—jurors who were tot intelligent j urors—wfc o might bealarmed and made instruments oi . the most grievous oppression under which a conntry ever groaned . But loving constitutional freedom as he did . all he asked was to give him an honest and intelligent jury to construe the act , and he had ro fear of the result . The laarnedadvocate then queted the act of parliament , and continued . There were two intentions charged , as were stated . They were upon their oath to Bay , first , the intenti-n of the heart of the prisoner ; secondly , did he express and declare that intention . They had no inference of law to try . There was no state of facts from which the court could call npon them to draw an inference ; but they should , as f&llible men , penetrate into the heart of the prisoner , find out his intention , and then
say was that intention expressed , uttered , and declared . They should , therefore , in the first place , be satisfied of two distinct matters : one -was that the prisoner compassed , devised , and intended to depose the Qaeen ; and the other to levy war against her Majesty . It occurred to him to bB a difficult matter to find bsth inteats , or either , upon the evidence . Now , in considering this important matter , they would remember how difficult it was in the ordinary intercourse of life to judge aright of men's intentions even from external acts and appearances , and if so , he ( Mr Butt ) would ask how much more difficult would it be for a jury to loek into a man's breast , and upon their oatliB say that he intended , devisfd , and imagined the deposition of tbe Queen , and purposed levying war against her . That was the difficult duty
they were called on to perform—the tremendous is 3 ue they were expected to find ; in fact , they were asked hy the Attortej General to a ? snme tn - character of the Deity—the Searcher of men ' s hearts—and speculate on what the prisoner at the bar might , or might not , have intended to do . He was merely on the subject of inteitton : and Ut them for a moment suppose a man sitting dewn and writing an article highly reprehensible and calculated to withdraw allegiance from the throne , and yet that he did so without having aey treasonable intentiens ; if such a case occurred , the party chargei would be entitled te an acquittal under the act in question ; therefore they wouid see tbe vast importance of considering calmly the nature of the charge asd also of the atatuta . . A republicanand he ( Mr Butt ) would , before he resumed hi 3 seat ,
Ehow that the prisoner was not a republican—if he expressed his opinions calmly , might be guilty of ne offence ; but if a man sat down and wrote articles calculated to disturb the publio peace he was liable to penalties . And he admitted that the prisoner was , ia hii opinion , liable to those penalties for publishiag seditious articles ; but he was not guilty of the more grave offence laid to his charge , that of intending to depose the Queen , and of levying war against her . What were tke intentiens ehaf ged ? A great deal of the speech of the Attorney-General appeared to assume that the offence ef levying war agah . st her Ma-J 98 ty would entitle a jury to find a verdict of guilty aeaicst the prisoner , if even nothing else were proved . Now he ( Mr Butt ) would take the liberty of denying the accuracy ' of that doctrine—because , as he
understood the law , it was necessary not only to prove an intention of levying war , but that it was to be levied for a particular purpose ; and that purnose was to compel the Queen , by foree and constraint , to change her measures and councils . Now , if he were right in his construction of the law , and the conrt would judge upon that point , eveB if the prisoner intended to raise a rebellion in Ireland , but not for the purpose of de poiinz the Queen , he weuld be entitled to an acquittal ; if he intended " to do so , and not remove the sovereign from her seat on the throne , the offence charged would not be eomplete ; in fact , nothing short of proof of a settled purpose of deposing her Majesty would warrant a jnry in convicting . Even proof o inteadicg to effect changes in public measures would not be sufficient ; it would be absolutely necessary to
show that her Majesty was attempted to be made to change them by force and constraint . He ( Mr Butt ) would go bo far as to say that if the prisoner purposed and intended to force tbe houses of parliament to make alterations by intimidation and censtraint , and thatheesed no restraint towards her Majesty , that he would not be legally guilty under the statute on which the indictment was founded . He might go so far as to take the field against feer Majesty ' s troops , to compel the House of Lords and House of Commons to ehange the law , if be did not use threats to intimidate the sovereign . What was the evidenoe upon which they were called on to find a verdict which would have the effect of sending bis client from hiB country for the remainder of his life ? The law required that every one about publishing a newspaper
mnstgothe Stamp-office , and there make a declaration thit he was the proprietor , and a number of every publication of that paper should be Bent to the office signed by the proprietor . The cronn had merely proved proprietorship , ard upon it akne no jury would be safe in finding a verdict cf guilty intentions on tbe prisoner ' s part to depose the Queen , ard levy war against her . Now let them consider how it was Ehown that the prisoner even intended or declared to depose the Queen , or levy war against her ; and if he ( Mr Butt ) showed the jury that the prisoner did not know frequently what was published in the Teibuhk , would they ficd him guilty from articles read from it , the manuscripts of which were not even shown to be in his handwriting ? The
question would therefore resolve itself into the consideration , whether the libels read by the crown to support their case , and not proved to be written by the prisoner , showed intentions en his part to depose the sovereign , and to levy war against her , to force her by threats and intimidation to change her councils . No evidence ef intention was given , and how could they convict under the statute ? The case was a mo 3 t peculiar ene , becauise , as they were aware , there was another prosecution sgaiDSt ajoint propriBter of the same paper , and it was impossible that both proprietors had written the same articles . One and both proprietors were anBwerable , perhaps for sedition , and if bo , they might be prosecuted for it ; but no jury could say thst a grave charge could be
sustained . Baron Fenaefirtb sr asked Mr Bun if it were Ms intention teeall My witnesses ? Mr Bntt , Q . 6 ., replied in the affirmative , bat npQH fftUtfaftft W » »*« & » rTRSabKia ' on ed ,
Untitled Article
The Solicitor-General addressed the Jury w reply . Baron Pennefathor charged the Jury . He called attention to a statement made by prisoner ' s counsel —that they had served notice on the Crown to produce manuscripts found in the Tribune Office , and remarked that no evidenca was given of the _ service of that notios , tor had any call been made in court to produce the manuscript , for the purpoBOof showing that the prison ? r was not the author cf tbo 3 e publications . He did not understand the counsel of the prisoner to argne that the prisoner had not a criminal intent , but he understood him fc » say that ha had not the intent charged in the indictment ; he agreed with tke learned CDunsel for the prisoner that
the jury could not convict the prisoner unless it appeared to them that ho had that intent , and expressed it by this publication . It appeared to him that the publications in some degree at least went to the maintenance of both intentions , and , there fore , it was fit for him to mention the intentiens charged to the jury , and then refer to the publicationstoeEable themtoferman opinion as to what intention this person had . If they considered the prisoner ' s object was to excite rebellion and war , they would see if they could draw from those publications what the object or objects of that war must have been . Was it intended by that war to dissolve the union with Great Britain ? to take from the Qoeen her royal style and name of Queen of the
Uuitsd Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ? Was it to erect Ireland into a separate and independent state , unconnected with any other in the world ? If such were the intention he was bound to tell them it was an inteDtion within the purview of the act of Parliament . With reBpect to the intention of levying war , if that war were levied to prevent the ex port of provisions from this country , could that object be attained wivhout an alteration of the measures of the Sovereign ? If that alteration was to be ob > tained by lorce or war , it would fall within the charge in the indictment . With respect to levying war against the Queen for the purpose of forcing her to change her measures , it was totally immaterial in the consideration of ( he question whether war ensued or cot , or even that the attempt was made and
proved abortive , if ths intention was conceived by the prisoner , and if he manifested that intention by the publications given in evidence . They had heard o * the insurrectioa that had taken place , acid of the mannerin which it terminated . They heard of the misery that would ensue if it proceeded further , and of the certain portion of misery tbat did ensue in consequence of its being carried bo far ; but all these matters were entirely beside the question they had to try . They had merely to consider whether the prisoner had the intentions alleged , and whether he bad declared and published them in the paper in question . The jury would read those papera dispaasicnately , and form their opinion upon them calmly , justly , and deliberately . —Fiatjustitia ruat caslum . Mr Butt . —I understood you to say , my lord , that I admitted the prisoner had the intent imputed but I merely meant the articles .
Baron Pennefather —You are qaite right , and I never intended to convey anything else . Foreman . —Can we get the act of Parliament ? Baron Pennefather . —No ; in a caae before Lord Tenterden it was ruled , that it was Bot proper to send up an act of Parliament to a jury , but the court would state the substance of it to them . Mr Longley ( Crown coussel ) . —They have the indictment , my lord , and the very words are in it . The jury retired at a quarter past three o'clock , and at four o ' clock they again appeared in the jurybos . Foreman . —The jury are anxious to inquire if tke publishing of the articles in the paper would render tke prisoner guilty under the Felon Act , just as much as if he had written tbe articles himself .
Baron PeHneiather . —The fact of his being registered proprietor is prima facie evidence agaii » t him ; it may be rebutted , but in this case it has l ot been rebutted . The jury again retired . At half past five o'clock thejury again came into court . Clerk of the Crown . —Hare you agreed to jour verdict ? Foreman . —No . I d ? n't thick there is tbe slightest chance of oar agreeing . Some of the gentlemen Beam to have a difficulty about prima fade evidence . They don't seem to understand what your lordship said about it .
Baren Pennefathe ' . —If the indictment was for publishing this newspaper I would bo bound to tell you that the declaration made by the prisoner in the Stamp Office on the 15 : h of June was conclusive evidence of his being the proprietor ar . d publisher of that paper . But the indictment is not per se for publishing this newspaper . It charges him with making the publication with the intention of deposing the Queen from her royal style of Queen of the United Kingdom . So to find out hia intention you muBt be of opinion that he knew the contents of the papers published , and be had an of opportunity of showing his innocer . ee . He is conclusively shown
to be proprietor aud publisher , but the question is whether he knew the contents of what was published . Tbat is necessary to fasten upon him an intention to depose the Queen and deprive her of her royal name-A Juror : Some of the jurors not knowing the meaning of prima facie , wish to know whether your lordship meant to convey that prima facie evidence was sufficient to convict tho party under the Feloiiy Act . There is a difference of opinion amongst us oa that peint . Some of the jurors hold that your lordship Btated that if there was prima facie evidence of the prisoner's guilt we should at once find bim guilty ; others attach a different meaning to the phrase , and we wish to have your lordship's opinion .
Baron Pencefather : I did not mean , gentlemen , to direct you , or to tell you that , in poiBt of law , because he wa 9 proprietor and publisher of the paper he necessarily knew its contents . Bat I told you it was evidence that he did know the contents , and that you were to form your judgment on the whole of the case , reading the documents and tbe other evidence , namely , his signing this document in the Stamp Office , and that you are to see whether you are satisfied that he was not only the proprietor and publisher , tut that he knew the content ? . The knowledge of the contents is necessary , as appears to me , to enable you to form an opinion as to whether he did intend to deprive the Sovereign of her style and dignity .
A coBsunahon took place between the jurors in their jury box . and it was again announced by a juror that they could not agree . Baion Pennefather . —You must retire , gentlemen . I cannot discharge yon at present . A Juror . —There is no chance of agreeing . The jury retired . and bailiffs were placed over them . At ten o ' clock the jury were again called in . Clerk of the Court . —Gentlemes , have jou agreed ? Foreman . —No : and there is not the slightest chance of onr agreeing . The jury were then licked np for the night .
Denis Hoban , printer of the Tribune , was arraigned for printing seditious articles in that paper . The prisoner submitted and handed ia an affidavit in mitigation . Testimony was produced as to his character , and it was stated that his politics differed from the views advocated in tbe Tribune , and tbat he merely undertook to print the taper as a matter of business . The Attorney-General left the matter to the Court , He would not say a word which could lead to the supposition that any excuse would tend to mitigate the charge made against the prisoner . Baron Pennefather . —Our feeling ib , that we cannot hold that a person who , even incautiously , allows his name to be made use of for such a purpose is entirely free from blame . The Court promised to consider the matter .
MORE BILLS . Attorney-General—I have to apply to year lord ships not to discharge the City Grand Jury to-day I have a few other bi'ls to send up .
DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT . Satbbdat , August 12 . —The Court was opened amidst intense silence ; thejury were called out . As they toak their places , fatigue wa 9 visible on their faces and persons . One feeble old gentleman seemed nearly overcome . Mr Alley , the Clerk of the Crown , then calied over the names of tbe jary , io which they severally answered . —Clerk of tie Crown : Gentlemen of the jury , have you agreed to your vcrdiot ? —Foreman ( Mr Oldham ) : No ; there is not the slightest chance of our agreeing . This announcement was received with a murmur , whieh was instantly aupprossed . Baron Pennefather : Under the circumstances , Mr Attorney , it does not appear to the court that we should endanger the lives or health of the jurors by keeping them any longer . . Attorney-General : I have no possible desire that they should be kept any longer than is necessary .
Baron Pennefather : The jury cannot endure this kind of ordeal beyond a certain time , and we caonot subject gentlemen who have cpme here to discharge an onerous duty to dangers affecting their lives or health . On the second day thay had been sent to their room at four o'clock , and they had been retained there until now ( a quarter to eleven ) . He must discharge them , they saying at the same time thattntre was no prebability of their ooning to » verdict . Attcrney-General : One of the gentlemen does 16 Juror ? famabout sixty years ef age , and I might expect to be allowed to retire , Thejury w » then discharged on the grounds " set forth oa the record , -That further confinement would be dangerous to their healths and livea . The prisoner was conveyed back to Newgate . From tie reporter of the Honing Chronicle .
Mr O'D 3 hertt ' 8 Jury . —Oh making inquiries relative to Mr O'Dohertj ' sjury axdirith «««*" ; *? the number opposed to a conviatiflia , I h * ve learneu the followiEg particulars : —Whea the jury first appeared in court to annewmee teat they could not agree , there were five of them in favour of an acquittal . When they appeal in court at ft l » ter hour Oi the evening , the number agaiast a conviction wasI rodaced to four ; sip A tte » fow , when tiey were lww «
Untitled Article
np for the night , held unwaveringly to their opinion , llinever , when morning arrived , the number was reduced to three , and before they finally came into court , the number was reduced to two . One of these jurors ( Mr Reid ) is an Englishman ; the other juror ( Mr Birmingham ) ia a Catholic , and the only Catholic on thejury . THE QUEEN V . THOMAS D . RBIIXT . Clerk of the Crown : Ciier , call Thomas Devin Reilly . The crier called Mr Reilly , and repeated the call outside tbe court , but there was no aEswer . Charles Beery West and Michael O'Reilly , ( Thos . D Reilly ' a bail ) were called upon to produce his body , or forfeit their recognisances . Sir Colman O'Loghlen : It was impoB 9 ib ! e for Mr WeBt to take any steps to bring in the body of Thomas Devin Reilly , because he is in custody himself under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act , and cannot take him into custody .
Baron Pennefather : But the party baa been dia abled by his own act .
TUE QUEEN V . J . P . FITZPATRICKfhe defendant was charged with carrying a pike between two and three e ' clock in the morninif , and a ! . erv J u 8 dec y ' 8 that be had it . The partj did not attend—hiB reepgnisances were estreated , and a Bench , warrant issued for his apprehension . Some persons cbarged with having arms in their possession Buomitted , and were sentenced to a day ' s imprisonment , TRUE BILLS AGA 1 NJT TUB PRINTBR CP THE ' FELON *
NEWSPAPER . True bills were feund against Mr Shaw , tbe printer ot the Felom newspaper . Foreman of the Grand Jury : We have disposed of all the bills before ub , and perhaps you will discharge Chief Baron : For this day , gentlemen , you may retire , but we require your attendance on Monday . Baron Pennefather : We hope to discharge you on Monday . TRIAL OF MR MARTIN OF THE ' FELON . '
Dublin , Monday , August 14 th—Tho trial of Mr John Martin , proprietor of the lately suppressed Feloh new ? paper , commenced this day ( Monday . ) Several hours of the time of the court were wasted with the usual preliminary discussions . It was just two o'clock before the Atto-ney-General rose to state the case for the crown . The day ' s proceedings were commenced with the arraignment of Mr Martini who was charged with having published in the Fklon newspaper certain articles of a felonious character , to deprive the Queen of her style , honour , and title , &c , and levy wsr against her Majesty .
Mr Butt , ( J . C ., applied for a copy of Ihe indictment , which , after a long argument , in which the attorney-General and Solicitor . General opposed the motion , was promised to tho learned counsel by the counsel for the crown . Mr Butt then applied to the court for permission to have an affidavit sworn by Mr Edward O'Rorke , attorney for Mr Kevon Izod O'Doherty , to enable him to make an application of a very important character . Mr O'Rorke then handed in tha affidavit , to which a copy of the Dublin Evbkino Post , of last Saturday evening , was attached , and took the usual oath . The Attorney-General objected to the application being made at that stage of the proceedings ; it was made on behalf of Mr Kevon Izod O'Doherty , and the court was then about proceeding with the trial of John Martin .
Mr Butt replied that he made tbe application on behalf of Mr O'Doherty , but the matter affected Mr Martin and every other person who might be charged with a political offence at that Commission . It involved the pure admisistration of justice , and he would tell the ceurt tbat he would not fed hiraseJfin a position to defend any one of the prisoners unless leave were given to him to make the application . He did not like to interrupt the arraignment of the prisoner , or he wauld have made the application before he was arraigned . The Chief Baron said , that tho court should hear what was the nature of the application to enable it to judge whether it ought to be made . Mr Butt said , that the application waa for an attachment against an individual for contempt of that court , and the mo ? t audacious attempt to pervert the coiirae of public justice ever made or brought before the notice of a court .
The Solicitor General said , that it was , therefore , the more important to make the application formally and legally , in order tbat , if necessary , a prosecution for perjury might be instituted against the party making the affidavit , Baron Pennefatber said , that , as it was an application for an attachment against a third person , he apprehended tbat such an affidavit as was sworn upon tbat occasion need not , and ought not , be entitled in the case immediately before the court . Mr Butt , Q . C ., then said , that his application was for an attachment against tho proprietor and editor of the Dublin Evening Post , and that he be required to attend tbat court to answer for said contempt . The affidavit or Mr O'Rorke stated that he purchased a copy of the Dublin Evening Post , which w&b
published on Saturday evening , at the office , in Suffolk-Btrcet ; that paper , he alleged , circulated extensively amongst tho persona who served as jurors for the city of Dublin ; and the publication or' the evening to which he referred , contained what purported to be a report of the trial of Mr Kevon Izad O'Doherty , accompanied by comments which were calculated to in * timidato jurors , and obstruct the due administration of justice . The learned gentleman read the article , and continued .- —The obvious insinuation in the article was , tbat only one of thejury was dissentient , and the remaining eleven were disposed to find Mr O'Doberty guilty ; and tbe plain and palpable meaning of the document iras , tbat the dissentient juror sympathised with the insurrection , and the clubs by which it was fomented . The article further a'le » ed
that so defence had been made for the prisoner . He would not say that that was a libel upon himself , but be would say that it waa a libel upon the administration of justice . For himself , he would nay that he had made a defence , which was not disapproved of by the orown counsel or the oourt . Tbe learned gentleman contended that his motion should be granted . Tbe Chief Baron said , that the court , having looked over the article , felt bound to say that it waa not such a publication as ought to have gone forth to the readers of any journal at the period at which it appeared . Nothing could be clearer than the observation , ' chat it was calculated to excite feelings of
hostility towards an individual who was charged with an offence , and pending proceedings which were to be instituted against him * Such a publication might amount to a very serious offence ; it might amount to a libel upon the administration oj justice , and might be calculated to interrupt and taint the course of justice at the very fountain-head ; and if such publications had the effeot of intimidating jurors or exciting in their minds prejudice ? , they being , under the constitution , the proper tribunal to try the guilt or innocence of accused parties in such cases , they amounted to a contempt of court . The bench condemned strongly the article complained of , but declined to aot upon tbe suggestions of the learned counsel .
Mr Bntt then applied to the court to have the trial of Mr Martin postponed for a day , on the ground that he was not yet quite prepared to defend him , owing to the statement made by the Attorney-General on Saturday , to the eSeot that ha would put Mr O'Dehert ; on bis trial once more on that day , Another ground for this postponement was to be found in the fact that a variety of new matter had been introduced into the indictments which did not appear in the original informations , being articles published io the Felon since the period of Mr Martin ' s nrrat . The crown would not , he thought , be inconvenienced if the ipplicatioa was granted . j > s Mr Ferguson was then prepared to defend Mr Williams , tho other proprietor ot tho Irish Tribune , whose trial might therefore at once be proceeded wi'h . The Attorney-General stated that the crown were not prepared at that moment to go into any case with the exception of that of Mr Martin .
Baron Pennefather waa of opinion that there was abundance of time for Mr Butt to read over the new matter in the indictment before he would be called oa to defend his client . The jury panel was then read over by the clerk of tbe crown , each juror being called upon a penalty of c £ 50 . However , a considerable number of jurors aboented taemselveB notwithstanding the largeness ef the fine . After a good deal of fencing a jury was sworn-The Attorney-General proceeded to Btate the case for the prosecution , which he said was very similar to the case of the ' Queen v . O'Doherty , 'tried during the previouB weeh , althoagh it differed in one point materially , and tbat waa—that the prisoner , Mr John Martin , whb not only the soie proprietor of the Irish Felon , hut waa likewise re ? istered aa the sole printer and publisher ; whereas , Mr O'DoheHj , the
prisoner in the other case he alluded to , waa only registered aa joint proprietor , and wasneitherthe pub lisher nor printer . The learned Attorney-General then went on at some length to state tte law oi the case under the late Act of Parliament , and to mention the circumatanoes under which Mr Martin originally started the Felon—namely , after the conviction and transportation of Mr John Mitchel , the proprietor of the Unijbd Irishman , whose steps he professed to follow in the very first number of his paper . He then read the several artioles relied on for the prosecution , from five several copies of the Fslo . n , and contended that , under the statute , if the jury believed Mr Martin to be the proprietor , printer , and publisher of that paper , they oould not hesitate to convict him upon the indictment , for tbe articlea themselves could not bear a second interpretation . [ Left speakiBg J
Tuesday , August 15 —The court sat at teno ' olock . The prisoner John Martin waa placed at the bar , and his trial was resumed . The ofown examined the following witnesses in support of their case : — Mr Vernon ( registrar of newspapera ot the Stampoffice ) proved the declaration made by Mr Martin at the Stamp-office , and hiB signature thereto . The purchase of the several © opieg p | ttfi PW me . ia eTidease w& » ptoT « d ,
Untitled Article
Luke Prender deposed to the circumstancea that took place in the police office when Mr Martin was brought before the magistrate . On that occasion the clerks in the police office read the headings of thearticleB . Solicitor General . _ Did tho magistrate ask the prisoner it he wiahed to have the articles read ? Sir Ulraan 0 Loghlen -We object to the evidence of any declaration which was made by the prisoner in the police omce , because he was in custody . There is another objection . The Actof Parliament requires that any declaration made by the prisoner should be reduced to writing , bat in thia caaenosuoh declaration has been reduced to writing . The court allowed the question of the Solicitor-General to be put to the witness .
Witness . —The magiatrate asked if he wished to have the articles read . The prisoner said he did not —that he waa the responsible person morally . The datea of the newspapers containing tho artioles were the 24 th Jane and the 1 st July . Solioitor-Generai . —Do you recollect that the prisoner said anything else ? WitnesB . —He said he wished to state the cause of his keeping out of the way of the warrant . He said he did not wish t 3 b 3 tried by tho judges who sat at the previous commission . To Mr Butt —I was present when the seizure waa made at the Fblon office . The manuseripts seized upon were lodged with Mr Pemberton , solicitor to the police commissioners . Biron Pennefathar . —Was what the prisoner said taken down in writing ? Witne 8 B . —lfc was not .
Mr Tyndall ( police magistrate ) corroborated the evidence given with respect to what occurred in ihe police office . Constable James Christy proved , that on the night of the 3 rd of July he Baw persona going into tho Felon ofhee about a quarter to twelve o ' clock ; sa * them come out again ; they carried with them two portfolios , or larce-sized covers of books . He followed them to Heyteabury , where they entered the house , No . 11 , and he saw no more of them . Richard Kemmis ( Crown Solicitor's-office ) proved ^ n attested copy 6 { ^ record of the con 7 iotion f John Mitchel . Mr Pes&berton proved that he had examined the papers seized in the Felon office . He did not find theraanuBCriptafrem which the articles in the Felon newspaper would appear to have been printed . Mr Butt . —Was there cny letter there from Mr Martin to Mr Brenan ?—WitneBs . —I cannot say , my belief i » , there was not .
Attorney General . — I next propose to offer in evidep . ee the first number of the paper , dated J une 24 * h . The object is to show from the contents of thia publication the whole character of thia newspaper . Mr Butt objected , and Mr Holmes , on the samo side , submitted that p . othing should be admitted in evidence except what was pertinent to the issue to be tried . Tne Attorney-General should point out specifically what he meant to rely upon . Attorney-General—But the first question is the admissibility of the document . If your lordships decide the evidence is admissible , I have not the slightest objection to put xny finger on the precise article 1 mean to read . The court having allowed the learned gentleman to proceed be proposed to read the title of the paper , the Irish Felon , and what followed that—namely , 4 successor to the United Irishman . '
Sir Colm&B O'Loghlen again interposed , for the purpose of objecting to the course adopted by tbe crewn . The court thought the crown was at liberty to do what was proposed . It waa not an overt act in itself , or a thing in itself tbat would constitute an overt act ; but it might te explanatory , and bring home to the prisoner the knowledge of an overt act . The Attorney General next proposed to read the mo to of the paper , which consisted of an extract from tha works of Theobald Wtlfe Tone . Mr Butt contended that this could not ba received . The Attorney . General . —This ia a general count ; I propose to effar it in evidence under that count . Mr Butt . —I submit you cannot da so . Baron Pennofather . —Would you be satisfied to take a verdict on that particular count ? The Attorney-General , —No , my lord .
Baron Pennefather . — That is the test . Under that general count you offer evidence which could eo ' . bB of any value to that count , because it ia itself valueless , but would be used to sustain other counts . If it were a thing that did not amount to an overt act , it might be received as explanatory ; bufcif it did amount to an overt act , it could not ba received . The orown then intimated that they did not presa the point . The headings of the articles were read for the jury , and the case of the crown closed . Mr Butt , Q .. C , proceeded at a quarter to one o'ekek to addres 9 the jury for the prisoner . It was eot ( he commecced by observing ) in the mere language of affectation—be confessed that he rose to address them with a deep sense of responsibility , not
merely on account of the individual before them , but because he felt that the result of that trial and the vordict the jury had to protounce to a very great extent involved the liberty of every man in the country . lie should have been glad if the task had fallenon other andablerhaDds , notthatheshrunkfrom meeting , if it were necessary , in his own penon the prejudices that wero abroad , and that might , perhaps , identify the advocate with those whom he may defend ; and with the reverence that became him , and witb the solemnity which he felt was not unsuited to that scene ard to that occasion , he humbly implored tbat the Great Judge—of whese perfeot tribunal every human judgment was an imperfect representationthat © very part of that solemn tribunal might rightly adjudicate that day—that the judge might receive
wiedem from Him , without whose knowledge ' not a sparrow could fall to the ground , ' to hold the scales of justice with a steady and untrembling hand—that thejury might bs enlighteued to do justice to the prisoner at the bar , according to the settled rules of British law , by which alone they had a right to try him , and that tbe trial might be so conducted by them all , by the judges of the bench , and by the counsel for tho crown and for the prisoner , that the liberties of the country might come unscathed and unimperilled through the ordeal . There were two things vihich his client was entitled to demand from the hands of the jury ; first , that he should be tried by the great principles ef English law , one of which was that they should find him guilty of the precise charge against him in the indictment , or wholly acquit him , and the
other was that the evidence should be evidence of that charge alone , and that they be satisfied not by inference or speculation , but by certain demonstration —such as would carry conviction to their mindsnot tbat thejury might convict , but that it was impossible for them , as honest men , to acquit him . He asked thejury to observe the charge brought against him , and to take down the precise terms of it laid in the indictment , of the whole or integral part of which they should convict him , or he should be wholly acquitted . Theindiotment stated , that ' on the 24 th of June the said John Martin did feloniously confes s , imagine , invent , devise , and intend to depose the Queen from her style , honour , and royal name ef the Imperial Crown of the United KiBgdom , and tbat said felonious compassinga , imagination ! , and intentions , he did then and there feloniously express , utter , and declare by then and there feloniously publishing certain printing in a certain
number of a certain newspaper . ' That charge waB varied in other counts by imputing the intention to be not to depose the Q ueen , but 'to levy war against her within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland , in order to compel her by force and constraint to change her measures and counsels , ' and that this last-mentioned intention he did ' express , utter , and declare , ' by the papers in evidence before them . The learned counsel then entered into a cIobc and ingenious argument , similar in substance to wbat he had successfully advanced in the trial of Mr O'Dogherty . The offence which the jury had to determine contained two separate and distinct things , and unless they were satisfied a 9 to both , they could not find the prisoner guilty . They must ascertain a ? a positive fact , the existence of which they could not doubt as honest men upon their oaths , that there was in tho mind and the heart of tho prisoner at the bar before he wrote these articles an intention ia
dfiposo the Queen , or levy war against her for the purpose of compelling her to change her measures and councils . They rnuBt be further satisfied upon their oathf , that he not merely had tbat intention in his mind , but that he uttered , expressed , and declared that intention by the particular article expressed in the indictment . Ha ? iDg referred to the stvere penalties which attacked to the statute which if weakly or tyrannically administered would be a great inroad upoa the freedom of tbe press and the public , he impressed on thejury that if they did not find the prisoner guilty within tbat act , he was still left to tbe old ; onstitutional safeguards of the common law . They were not then to try whether it was necessary for the public safety that such offences were to be repressed , but whether the prisoner came under tbat highly penal act of parliament . He made that observation because the Attorney-General had
endeavoured to it fluence their minds , by speaking of the inconvenience of not holding tbe publiaher responsible , lie askrd thejury to root from their minds that expression of the Attoiney General , for their buBinesB was not to try whether Mr Martin was responsible er not ' for the publications , but whether he did utter , express , and declare euch intention as was charged . Responsible , no doubt , bis client was as the proprietor if he published a libel , or for a seditious writing ; but that waa not the question which they were fiWOrn to try . But they must be satisfied by their oaths and their consciences as to the two distinct matters of fact charged in the indictment . The intent could not be implied as & matter of law , but thej should find it is a matter of faot ; and although there had been pn ' ma / acie evidenoe of that fact given to them by the Crown , there waa no other evidence that would coerce them , or upon which they were bound to find . Ha stated thia with confidence , because ho felt rotftled te refes ( beast t « tftat tools
Untitled Article
place on a former trial , when ihe learned jud ^ e had laid down this principle . Having warmly and eloquently eulogised tte impartiality of ihe charge delivered by Baron Pennefalhcr in the trial of O'D > gherty , the learned counsel stated that , on the authority of that charge , the question tkey had to try was one which commended itself to their own judgments , and in which the bench could aot give them any dirLctiocs , and if they shruck frem the responsibility , they would farfeit and betray the liberty of jurors and the liberty of every man hereafter accused , and violate the oaths which they had taken . He then contrasted the faitbfulnes-s with which Englishmen had always disfharged their duties as jurors , in preventing , as far as possible , the
encroaehments of law upon the constitution , and tne neglect which in this respect Chief Justice Bushe charged upon Irish Juries . Tbe learned counsel then adverted to tbe articles , only two of which , as charged in tha indictment , had bfen written by his client , and these , he contended , did not hear out the accusation , while the entire of the nine mentioned in the indictmrnt bore the signatures of the writers ; and even if Mr Martin could be considered cognisant of them , the question remained as to whether he was guilty ef the intent charged , and he wag indicted not fer publishing the intentions of others , but hia own intention . He then went on to reply to the statement of the Attorney-General with reference to the foundation of the Irish Fklon after the
transportation of Mr Mitchel , and an article in the first number regretting that he had been permitted to be imde a convict of , and representing him in strong terms to have been unjustly sentenced , He related the history of Mr Martin , who was a native of the county Down , a PreBbyterian endewed with the Bturdy notions of independence which characterise that class , a graduate of the University , and an early Yiend of John Mitchel , and a person of piopertv , not , .. a he had been represented , an adventurer . lie recapitulated the circumstance of Mitchel ' s conviction ; and dwelt strongly on the exclusion of certaiD jurors from tbe panel in his case . Believing hiB friend to have been unjustly victimised , in a momen >;> f imprudent enthusiasm , Mr Martin had , he contended , in
order to vindicate his memory , instituted his paper under the title of the Irish Fklon , believing that there was nothing disgraceful in the title under tha circumstances . The Attorney-General had pronounced the article treasonable which denounced the conviction of Mitchel , but who were tbe instructors of Mr Martin in pronouncing a sentence under the circumstances unjust ? Lord John Russell , l ^ ord Clarendon , JameB Hgnry Monahan . Mr Bute then referred to the expressed opinions of the prisoners , the Lord Lieutenant , and the Attorney-General himself , that the conviction had , in tbe case of the late Mr O'Cooaell , Io 3 t its moral weight , because Roman Citholica has been flfcruck eff Jhejury irho tried him . lie then commented in indigrant terms on the
government having allowed stamps to be issued tor the ? elon which they charged with being illegal even ia its title , and permitted Mr Martin himself to write from prison oce of the articles which they now prosecuted , in order tbat they might accumulate evidence against their victim . Let them not listen , then , in the name of common humanity , to the Attorney-General , when he told tkem that he was thereto prosecute what he had himself permitted . The learned counsel then adverted to ihe articles written by Mr Martin , and quoted a speech delivered by him on the 17 th of March , in which his Bentiments in favour of peace and the constitution , and rights of property were fully disclosed , in order to
show that he did tot entertain the intent charged , lie strongly relied upon the legal point which ha had urged , that thejury could not find guMy of constructive felony , and icopreBsedon them the necessity of being able to satisfy their consciences as to tha matter of fact which they had to determine . liar * ing argued at considerable length on the question of his client ' s responsibility , he proceeded to comment on the condition of tbe country , as affording cause for the indignant feeling manifested in the publications , and having made an eloquent scri impressive apptal to tha jury , read letters ' r ^ m the writers of some of the articles , acknowledging the authorship , and concluded hia address at a quarter to five o ' clock .
Joseph Martin , the brother of the prisoner , was produced to prove the sneeoh made by the prisoner at tha Repeal meeting in Newry . The Attorney-General objected to the reception of tke evidence . Sir Colman O'Loghlen cited in supportof their right to examine the witness , the case of Home Tookc and the Queen v . O'Coniaell . The evidence was admitted , and the witness was examined . He proved the correctness of the report ot the speech referred to by Mr Butt . Sir Colman 0 "Loghlen called on the Attorney " General to produce Mr Lalor ' a letter . The Attorney-General . —You can preduce Mr Lalor himself . Mr Lalorwaa not , however , produced , and thacaaa for the piisoner dosed .
The Selicitor-General replied on the part ol the crown , and the court adjourned . PRCBABLB POSTPONEMENT ( F MR DUFFl ' a TRIAL . The foreman of the grand jury applied to hia lordship to discharge the jury . Baron Pecnefather called the attention of the Attorney-General to the application , for the purpose of ascertaining his opinion with reference to it . Attorney-General . —I don't know at present , mj lord , if they may be discharged . I cean to apply on affidavit to postpone Mr Duffy ' s trial . Baron Peonefather ( to foremaD ) . —We must re « quest of jou to attf cd to morrow . The court then adjourned .
Untitled Article
THE WHIGS . From the beginning this Whig rump has been in a false position . Id opposition—ay , and in office —they encouraged treasonable and irrational demands—they raised wild hopes ar . d extravagant passions ; and now they cannot allay or quell the devil of their own raising . How long did thej foment for their own base purposes this treasonable repeal cry , which has ended in rebellion ? Morally , if not legally , the blood of every traitor who falls ia the field or on the scaffold is , and ought to be , on their guilty and moat incapable heads . The Whigs
are in this position , that they dare not , do whatiSc will , harm a hair ef Mr John O'Counell ' s head That middle-aged , mercantile , money-making , little mouther and trader in treason , possesses certain papers of a deceased agitator which would for ever ruin the character of the Melbourne Ministry and the Whig Radical rump that has succeeded te their places . These papers would prove the criminality and complicity ot the Lambs , the Duncannons , the Russells , the Greys ( who are receiving £ 18 , 000 per annum of tbe ^ public money ) , the Lans . dowries , the Palmerstons , and the Hobhouses . — Morning Herald .
Untitled Article
Dubham . —Scene im Court . — At the Darham Assizes , a Btalwart Iriebman of the name of Kdward Cojle , pleaded guilty , before Mr Justice CresBWt . ll , to a charg . 6 of houaebreaking . and requested his lordship to favour him with a seven years' transportation . As the circumstances of tbe case , however , did sot justify his lordship in extending to him the wishedtor boon , he substituted iDBtead a twelvemonths' imprisonment ; upon hearing which , the WOuld-ba tourist growled out in a tone transported with anger — ' Thank ye , yer honour , ' stooping
dewnbefore any ene was awai e of his intentions— pulled off one of hia iron-shod ' brogues' and burled it at his lotdship ' s head . The formidable missile , which might have put an abrupt teimintion to bis lordship ' s judicial labour ? , struck him somewhere on tin breaat , mostfrrtunately without icflictingany serious injury . After regaining his composure , of which the suddenness oi the act had for a moment deprived him , his lordship is Baid to have observed , in a slightly disconcerted tote to those around him , 'This comes , you see , of thwarting people ' s wishes . ' Tha prisoner was immediately removed .
Execution cf Mart Mat . —Cublmsfobd , Monday . —This morning , Mary May , who was convicted at thelast Essex Assizrs of the murder of her brother , at \ Vix , by poisoning him with arsenic , for the purpose of obtainining the allowance Irom a burial club at which BhebaJ entered hi 3 name without his knowledge , was executed ia front ot the county gaol in this town . Alter her condemnation , the unfortunate woman , who was thirty-one yeara of age , formed tho design ofstarvinghersell to death , and for a time obstinately refused to take any food , but hunger as length subdued her , and since then she had taken
her meals regularly and slept soundly , sullenly denying her guilt , and treating ter fate as a matter of indifference . Great esenions were made to save th « cuJprit'a life , both by her legal defenders and others , but the reply of the Home Secretary to two memoriale presented to him on the subject W 8 S , that her crime was so horrible , and her guilt so clear , that ha could not rec emmend an extension of the royal meroy . Pre paratory to her execution the prisoner was removed from the clil saol to the new prison , and on Sunday tho condemned sermon waa preached , which appeared to produce soae impression on her mind . An immense multitude assembled in front of
the gaol , including , aa usual on these cccsbigbb , a large number of femnleB . The prisoner crossed tho yard and ascended the drop with comparative firm « ness . CBloraft soon completed the fearful arrangements , during which thjM >? k 6 B $ U ? ontinued to moan dreadfully . The ^ ojfThSn felWaBA . being a largo heavy woman sheTdred witha slightBtrnggft . The Victim Fu 4 o > . —An- , elegant / mnpal bw , presented by Mr £ l Burly , of Manon « g » i to tM 3 harti * t council ^ feefami li eaof thou ^ mB , * ffl be balloted for , in * Wth **«? th » fiSt * iub > eoriptiena of sixjJtnte ^ aoh . ^ Local eettg ^ iefl aas requested to KC | iY < | rtbswipuo ^ n ^|| iBBi afi « , dreages of BHbscrifJeift tmifoiwri the flop to tltth o naestor , ( & , BpgwatepBtewt , Mapsfeifai
Untitled Article
fl ff ? nJ 9 t IM ? ' THE NORTHERN STAR . 7
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), Aug. 19, 1848, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1484/page/7/
-