United Parliament, given security to property and life in Ireland? Let the murders that disgraced the country let the late Special Commissions answer. Had the Union fostered their manufactures-had it enriched the landlords of Ireland? Let them go and ask the shopkeepers of the city whether they could get their accounts paid by the struggling gentry of Ireland? Had it elevated the condition of the agricultural population? Did they hear the other day that it was lately proved in a court of justice, that a woman kept the dead corpse of her child, instead of giving it Christian burial, that she might preserve her own life by devouring its flesh? Did not every man agree in saying the present state of things could not continue; and what was that prosecution for but to repress that sentiment? He would appeal to them as Irishmen, and in doing so he did not think he was doing wrong, when he reminded them that the traverser was charged, pleaded not guilty, and in legal phrase, "put himself on his country." It was as his countrymen they were to try him, and not as aliens. The learned gentleman said in conclusion, - Gentlemen of the jury, proclaim that the day for insulting Ireland has gone by, and tell the British Minister that he is a traitor to the Queen who advises her to found the British power in Ireland upon any other than the affections of the Irish people. The Chief Justice having recapitulated the various charges contained in the information against the traverser, said that, in considering the speech made by him it would be their duty to read it and understand it as the persons to whom it was addressed understood it; for it was no matter what passed in the speaker's mind when speaking, his intentions were only to be judged by his words, which should be considered as bearing the meaning they appeared to import; for the law did not allow a man to put a different construction on his words from their ordinary meaning. With regard to the question of Repeal, the Union they knew consisted in the Acts of the Irish and British Parliamentsthe Acts of the two Legislatures, Acts which could only be repealed by an Act of the Imperial Legislature. There was no other power by which the Repeal of the Union could be legally obtained, and it was perfectly lawful for any one to contemplate that object, for it was the right of every man to send representatives to Parliament for the purpose, to petition Parliament, and to adopt any other legal course he thought proper. Within the limits of law every man had a right to ask for repeal; but, however he might do so, he was not to be allowed to carry out his views by force, or the threat of force, or of foreign invasion, foreign troops, foreign money, and foreign assistance; such acts were acts of treason if carried out, and advising their adoption was sedition. There fore, if it was their opinion that the traverser's speech was of this character, they should consider it seditious, and seditious in a high degree. His Lordship then referred. to Mr. O'Brien's speech as read by the Attorney-General, and the addresses adopted to the French people, on which he commented at length. The topics of defence, the unmeasured condemnation of the Act of Union, and the various abstract questions touched upon by the traverser's counsel, should not lead them astray from the real question to be decided, which he had no doubt they would honestly decide, regardless of prejudice. The jury retired at half past six o'clock. When the Court met on the following morning at ten o'clock they were called into court, when they informed his Lordship that there was no likelihood of their agreeing, and they were, with the consent of the Attorney-General, discharged. May 16th. THE QUEEN V. T. F. MEAGHER. In this case Thomas Francis Meagher was arraigned on an ex officio information, filed by the Attorney-General, for uttering a seditious speech on the 15th March last, at the Irish Confederation; being the same occasion on which Mr. Smith O'Brien had delivered the speech for which he had just been tried and acquitted. As the result in this was the same as that in Mr. O'Brien's case, it is unnecessary to give the details of the trial. Two facts, however, may be noticed. Upon the jury being called into court, they were asked by the Lord Chief Justice-Are you likely to agree, gentlemen? The Foreman.-We are not, my Lord. Mr. Ferrall (one of the jurors). -We are all agreed, my Lord, but one, and he is a Roman Catholic. The other fact which it is desirable to notice is, that these are the speeches so much referred to in the subsequent trials for high treason. COMMISSION COURT. DUBLIN. Before MR. BARON LEFROY and MR. JUSTICE Moore. THE QUEEN V. JOHN MITCHELL. The traverser in this case, Mr. John Mitchell, was the proprietor of the United Irishman newspaper, and was arrested under a warrant charging him with felony under the 11th Vict. c. 12, entitled "An Act for the better Security of the Crown and Government." Two several bills of indictment were found by the Grand Jury against Mr. Mitchell for this felony; to each of these he handed in a plea praying that the indictment might be quashed, on the ground that one of the jurors is a member of the Council of the borough of Dublin, and as such disqualified. As these were merely dilatory pleas, on the 26th April, the Attorney-General, for the purpose of avoiding delay, entered a nolle prosequi to each, and filed ex officio informations against Mr. Mitchell. To this Mr. Mitchell put in a plea in abatement, on the ground that as the indictment found against him by the jury had not been quashed, but only a nolle prosequi had been entered, he could not be called upon to answer an information except upon the oaths of twelve men. The Crown demurred to the plea as insufficient, and the Court held the plea to be bad. The Attorney-General then called upon the traverser to plead forthwith. He pleaded "Not Guilty." May 24th, A true bill having been found against the traverser by the Grand Jury, he was called upon to plead to the indictment; but his counsel raised another objection, and pro posed to apply to the Court to quash the indictment altogether, on the ground that there were two distinct charges of felony contained in the indictment, whereas by rule of law it was clear that two distinct felonies could not be charged in the same indictment. This contained a charge that the traverser endeavoured to take away the style, honour, and royal name of our Sovereign Lady the Queen; and, second, that he had sought to levy war against Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. The Court overruled the objection there was no inconsistency or repugnancy in the two felonies charged in the indictment-the two felonies charged only varied the offence, but did not vitiate the indictment. Sir Colman O'Loghlen then applied for leave to demur to the indictment, and plead over to the felony; and then for the postponement of the trial on the ground that they had not been able to serve a material witness. These dilatory proceedings passed, the trial was appointed to be had on the 25th May. The Court-House presented a scene of great excite ment. May 25th. The panel being called over, Sir Colman O'Loghlen, on behalf of the prisoner, handed in a challenge to the array, on the ground that it had been arrayed in a favourable and partial manner to our Lady the Queen, and to the prejudice of the said John Mitchell. The Crown joined issue. Triers were appointed. The subject was argued at great length. The principal objection was to the disproportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants. The triers found against the traverser, and a jury was then sworn. John Mitchell was then placed at the bar, and arraigned for felony. The Attorney-General stated the case on the part of the Crown, and pointed out at great length the distinction which existed between the law as amended by the recent statute, and what it was previously, and then read in succession the passages of the traverser's speeches and writings, which were the foundation of the criminal charges, upon which he commented as he proceeded. Before April last, there were in activity several associations of politicians, whose object was, by legal and constitutional agitation, and the formation of a public opinion in their favour, to accomplish the repeal of the Legislative Union of the two countries. In such an object there was nothing illegal. But a party separated itself from those so associated, with the professed intention to gain the repeal of the Union by force and violence. In that state of things, the Crown and Government Security Act had been passed, making it a transportable felony to compass or intend, either the deprivation and deposition of the Queen from Her style, honour, and royal name of the imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, or the levying war against Her in Her kingdom, to force Her to change Her measures or counsels. The present prosecution had been instituted against Mr. Mitchell for a contravention of this law; and the evidence of his crime consisted in reports of speeches made by him, and of articles written by him, both published in his paper called the United Irishman, since the passing of the Act. The first publication founded on for the prosecution was the re port, in the United Irishman of a sures: "Can I repudiate the last speech He would respectfully ask of "No; all the seditions and own (Loud cheering.) are in this land, I have stomach for them all. But, sir, have we not had in Ireland somewhat too much of this adopting and avowing, as also repudiating and disavowing, what has been said or done by others? Might we not, perhaps, act with advantage less as parties, and more as mere men, each of us on his individual responsibility? In short, (Hear, hear!') a party I have long felt that I belong to a party of one memberwhose basis of action is to think and act for itself—whose one fundamental rule is, to speak its mind. Its secretary, committee, librarian, and treasurer, are all one in the same person; and in its proceedings, I assure you, there reigns the most unbroken unanimity. Seriously, sir, I know no other way of insuring both honest unanimity and independent co-operation than this very way of mine; and with these views and sentiments, you may be sure I am not likely to misconceive the motive of your kindness in asking me to join your party to-night. I am here, I believe, as your guest on one account I am here not as a alone; you will say whether I state it truly. Jacobin (which I am not), nor as a Communist (which I am not), nor even as a Republican (which I am), but simply and merely because I a bitter and irreconcilable enemy to the British Government." am After a review of "the cause," and some advice as to succeeding steps, Mr. Mitchell went on: "It is better that the leaders should be called to encounter danger in the courts of justice first, than that it should fall on a people not yet prepared in the field. But while we meet the enemy in the Queen's Bench, we have a right to call upon you to sustain us by a firm and universal avowal of your opinion. On the constituents of Smith O'Brien especially devolves this duty. While the British Parliament calls his exertions 'trea son' and 'felony,' it is for his constituents to declare that in all this treason and felony he is doing his duty by them. And more than this-it is your duty further to prepare systematically to sustain him, if it come to that, in arms." What these arms were for, was made plain in immediately subsequent words : "May I presume to address the women of Limerick? It is the first time I have ever been in the presence of the daughters of those heroines who held the breach against King William; and they will understand me when I say, that no Irishwoman ought so much as to speak to a man who has not provided himself with arms." "No lady is too delicate for the culinary operation of casting bullets. No hand is too white to make up cartridges. And I hope, if it be needful to come to the last resort, that the citizens of Limerick, male and female, will not disgrace their paternal and maternal an cestors.' Mr. Mitchell had, then, a stomach for all the treason that had been uttered, and far more; he was ready to fly to barricades and to invoke the god of battles; and he was a Republican in principle: what, then, was the aim of the advice to arm, to cast bullets, and to go into the field? and what the significance of the allusion to a Provisional Government? What was to become of the Queen if a Provisional Government were formed? But if any doubt were possible on the intentions of Mr. Mitchell as disclosed by the contents of his paper of the 7th May, all such doubts must be removed by an article in the number of that paper published on the 15th May. The Attorney-General read at length a letter addressed by Mr. Mitchell "To the Protestant Farmers, Labourers, and Artisans of the North of Ireland;" observing that Mr. Mitchell himself was a native of the North. That article concluded with these words-: A "I tell you frankly, that I, for one, am not 'loyal. I am not wedded to the Queen of England, nor unalterably attached to the House of Brunswick. In fact, I love my own barn better than I love that house. The time is long past when Jehovah anointed kings. The thing has long since grown a monstrous imposture; and has been already in some civilized countries detected as such, and drummed out accordingly. modern king, my friends, is no more like an ancient anointed shepherd of the people than an archbishop's apron is like the Urim and Thummin. There is no divine right now but in the sovereign people. And for the 'institutions of the country,' I loathe and despise them: we are sickening and dying of these institutions fast; they are consuming us like a plague, degrading us to paupers in mind, body, and estate; yes, making our very souls beggarly and cowardly. They are a failure and a fraud, these institutions-from the topmost crown jewel to the meanest detective's note-book, there is no soundness in them. God and man are weary of them. Their last hour is at hand; and I thank God that I live in the days when I shall witness the utter downfall, and trample upon the grave, of the most portentous, the grandest, meanest, |