On this page

• Text (3)

  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.

  • 

    tried this indictment Al ; G ^ ST 19 ' l...

  • 

    THE WHIGS. From the beginning this Whi g...

  • 

    Durham.—Scbke is Court.—At tho Dorhna Ae...

• 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.

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    Mr Duffy tried on this indictment ; but when it in s « Enested that applications are to be made to postpone th"se trials , I may not perhaps , discharge my 3 aty a ^ I oueht if I al ! sw myself to bo embarrassed by the bills found for feleBy when I have the grounds to seDQ" n P D ''' ' or ^ igb treason . Perhaps , I jjjre not dona my duty as I ought in sending up hills for felony when I might have sent « P bills for high treason ; but , if the oase is DOt determined at the present commission , the Co arN I trust , will not , by any act out oi their way , oblige me to take any course that would fetter my discre tion in sending up bills for treason .

    Mr Butt , —It is tny desire , my lord , to condnet this ckb calmly and temperately , and therefore I will not offer one word of reply to the admirable specimen ef calmness and good temper of the learned Solicitor-General , A ? to any observations of his on myeelf , 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 brought forward by the Attorney-General is another strong ground why Mr Duffy ' s plea should be received . I had last night the prisoner ' s instructions that he would stand bis trial this commissiop , and was ready to do eo . I will tell the court what is unprecedented ; it is unprecedented that an Attorney-General should stand np in court and adopt this mode ef proceeding when a prisoner is about to apply for a postponement of his trial , on grounds ^ which common humanity should indues Sim fo listen to , namely , the public excitement at prewtl existing .

    The Atiorney-Gsaeral . —I must interfere ; there is no affidavit . Mr Butt . —The Attorrjey-Ge 5 erai has threatened that if the counsel for the prisoner exercises the undoubted light of applying to postpono the trial of this mac , ha would abandon this bill and send np one for high treason . The Attormy Geneisl — I sail nosuch thing . Mr Butt . —I call upon the court to interpose between the prisoner and the unconstitutional threat of the Attorney-General . Let them allow the prisoner to plead , and the Attorney-General to iafee his esurea .

    The Chief Baron . —We do not see anything in the « se to induce ns to proceed with the arraingment of the prisoner . The proceedings of the commission srestill pending ; the commission is not about to -close , aad another case was fixed for this morning . We shall not proceed with the arraignment of Mr Daffy , bat shall proceed , as we wera about to do , with the trial of Doherty . The QcrEK v . Kxxrs Izod O'Dohestt —Felox ? . —Kevin Izod O'Doherty was then placed at the bar . to take his trial on the charges on which he was arraigned en ihe preceding day , namely , for imagining , devising , and intending to depose the Queen from her royal style , title , and honour , of the imperial crown of tha United Kingdom , which

    imagina-V ° , ' intention , & c „ were indicated by article published m the Tribune newspaper , and also for intending . & c , to levy war against her Mpjesty . On the cass having been called on , and proclamation for a jury having been made , the clerk of tbe crown called over the panel , about half of whom answered to their Barnes . At the suggestion of the Atterney-Ganeral , the court ordered that the absent jurors should be called on a fine of £ 20 each , which oroduced a slight increase to the number present ; bnfc tbat penalty having failed in procuring the desired effect , the -Chief Baroa ordered that those absent should ie called on a fine of £ 60 , and a few additional jnrors n & viBg answered , the court proceeded to snear a inry .

    At tbig period of the proceedings & gentleman cf ihe bar , in robe * , complsined to tha court that he and several others of the profession were put te great inconvenience , there not having been any place pro-Tided for their accommodation . Sir Colman O'Loah ' en suggested that tbe range of seats over the dock , which were exclusively occupied by policemen , should ba cleared fer the aeeera-Tuodafion ofthe bar . The High Sheriff said , that the police who occupied those seats had been placed there by his orders ; that the scene which occurred in the dock : at t ' -e csmaission More tbe last ; bad been of such 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 foreman , was MrSamael Bagot Oldham , The second called was John Joseph Nolan , whs was desired by the crown « o ! icitor to stand by . Mr Butt and sir Colman O'Logblen severally contended that foe cro * n was bound to show cause -for letting aside a juror . The Attomey . General rose , and addressing the juror said , Mr Nolan , are yonsscurity forMrD ? lany one of the party ofthe Nation ? Mr Nolan : I am . Attorney-General : Then stsnd by . Mr Butt contended that , according to the 9 th of -Geo . IV ., the crown bad not the right of peremptory challenge , without showing cause , and the court was bound io make a rnle on tho subject . Baron Pennefather : It is by the order of the court the jurors objected to are commanded to stand by . \

    John Phayrewas ihe next juror called , to whom counsel for the prisoner objected , en the grounds tbat he was a burgess ef ihe city of Dublin , and as tbe property of convicted felons became confiscated to the corporation of Dublin , the juror now called to the book had an interest in the conviction of the prisoner at the bar , inasmuch as property so confiscated was Calculated to swell tbe borough fund , b y which meats a birongh rate might be avoided , or reduced in the amount to be struck . Alter a lengthened argument , in whichSir Colman O'Loghlen and Mr Butt wera board for the prisoner , and tha Attorney and Solicitor-Genera ! ¦ were heard forth © crown , the Chief Baron , in

    whose opinion Baron Pennefather concurred , decided that the challenge on the part cf tie prisoner CDUld not be aliowed , on the grounds that if the court were to set aside the juror on the objections shown , it would have the effect of disqualifying almost the entire panel ef the city , as every man on that panel was presumed to be rated to the poor law , and aocordinelv , entitled to vote as a burets * for the return cf the town council of tbe city of Dublin to the corporation . The challen & e bavins beeu disallowed the juror was again called to the book , and challenged peremptory by the attorney for tbe prisoner ! He waft therefore , fiaally desired to stand by . Richard "Ulysses Burg h was then sworn . of the

    After several challenges had been disposed following jury were sworn : —Samu el Bagot Oldham , Richard Ulysses Burgh , Edward Birmingham , Bicbard Collier , George Yeate ? , William Read , George Nesfaitt , John Kershaw , Blaney Mitchel , Charles Mathers , John Johnson . Thomas Stewart . Mr Alley ( clerk of the crows ) stated to the jury that the prisoner at the fear stood indicted , under the Act for the better security of the Crown an d Government of these countries for publishing certain articlss in the T & ibusb newspaper . The Attorney-General then proceeded to state tha case for the crown . He said the prisoner stood charged with a very serious offence , and the consequences to bim would be serious . The law did not fix any certain punishment to the offence , bat left it in the 'discretion ofthe court . It might be punish

    able by transportation for life , or imprisonment , j Taere could benodoubt as to tbe evidence to be produced , for it all constated ef facts admitted . The charge was founded on a recent act of parliament , which , in a few words , defined the offence . It was to oouaplre to depose the Queen from the style , title , and honour of tbe royal name ; and also did coapass to levy war against her Majesty , in order to compel her to change her measures or councils . The charge did not go so far aa to say tbat he did levy war , but that he compassed and imagined so to do . it would be sufficient to know ihe prisoner entertained the felonious intent , in order to fix on him the guilt . Mr O'DAerty , at tbe th » these documents were published , was tbo proprietor of a newspaper called the Ts 3 rj 5 E , which came into existence in the month ol Jnse , which circumstance was of very great , important * . The paper esme out after tha suppression of sn ^ ther oswr . whose proprietor was punished fer

    the very same offence of which Mr O'DtoUtJ ? 9 W itiPd cbareed . He had hoped that after the punishment of Mr Mitchel , it would not have again been necessary for bim to address a jury on the same sun iect ; but he was wc * fully disappointed . Tne paper Vas brought oat to fill op the space vacant by the Bcpn-eaion of Mr Mitcbel's paper . The paper com-Bwcedb / holding up Mitchel as a martyr , whose example should ba followed ; and he regretted to say that Mr O'Doherty did follow it The object of Mr Mitchelwas to make tbe harvest , about . which they wsraal ) so anxious , the signal for rebellion , by

    appetfog to tho peasantry to hold their own grain , ifle first article commenced by being headed ¦ Ow Harrest Pro spects- ' ( The Attorney-General then read IS artffin qu estion . ) He would , « k itajji tor what object was that article published ? Was it not that the people should take the harvest and . lake their ttirr t in the blood of tbe English foe r That Sd be to make Ireland a separate kingdom , and therefore to deprive her Majesty of the crown of this The Attomey . General next proceeded to read an article from tbe same paper , entitled ' Courage , snd extracts horn a series oi notices in the Iribuse , entitled , 'Our War Department . ' Thoieinvocations to the gcd of battle had , unfortunately , grown into a camp , and therefore the effects of such doctrines could no longer be mistaken . A council of SOO was recommended for the purpose of raising the

    conntrv into armed and simultaneous insurrection . "Whet did armed and simu'tiuieous insurrectitn mean but io make wm on the authorities ? The article stated that the crown , which stood in the way of the people , and the harvest , should perish . There could be , therefore ; no mistake as to the intent of the article- —Eo ctfler meaning attached to it , except tbat in the indictment . The prisaner seemed to have entered on bis dangerous career withhiseyes wide open , and fullv aware ot all the consequences likely to result from his conduct . Probably , he might havebsen

    aa enthusiast wbo balieved that the course he puriaed was calculated to benefit bis country , lie aid a ? fcfa » w- lrhti ttfcawfrjg cireuaataaw migaifea

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    adduced in his favour ; but this much he did know , that firmness was a necessary virtue on the part of juries who were sworn to preserve the administration of justice in its purity , and ho would , therefore , ask tbat jury calmly to read over these publications in their box , and not to give more weight to the observations he bad made upon them than the articles themselves fully warranted . So far as bis reason and judgment enabled him to do so , he bad attempted te lead them to tha conclusion tbat all these articles bore but a single meaning . Let the jury , therefore , discharge their duty in a firm , bonett , and fearless manner , fay 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 themselves , whatever those consequences might be . The learned counsel then resumed his seat .

    Mr Charges Vernon , registrar of newspapers in the Stamp-tffice , was then sworn and examined by Mr Serjeant O ' Brien . This witness proved the prisoner to be one of ihe registered proprietors of the laisa Tbibunk newspaper , and identified his handwriting in two numbers of tho paper , which had been lodged in the usual manner , according to law , in the Stamp-ffSce . Constable Mortimer Redmond , of the detective police , identified one of the prosecuted newspapers as having been purchared by him at the Tbibusb office , No . 11 , Trinity-street , on the Sth of July . At five o ' clock the court was adjourned lo Friday morning . The Chief Baron discharged the jury for theday , having cautioned them against converse ? withany person on the subject of the trial , or forming their judgments till they had heard the remainder of the case .

    THE DEFENCE . FaroAT , Aug . 11 . —On the judges of the commission taking tbeir seats , Mr Butt , Q .. G-, 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 cauntB . The second charged an intention on the part of the prisoner to levy war against the Quean . in order to compel 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 tbe court having coincided with him , Mr Butt withdrew his motion .

    The learned counsel , after a few introductory remarks , said it was necessary that the jury should believe , on their oaths , that the prisoner waa guilty of tbe precise ofiencea charged in the indictment . They might believe his conduct to be wrong ; nay , they mieht believe it to be absolutely wicked , or that the publications he issued to the world were highly dangerous to the public peace of ibis country ; but on their solemn oaths they could not find him guilty , unless they considered him to be guilty of tbe actual and precise offences charged in that indictment . If writings bs wrong , and calculated to fexoite inaurrCC * tioB , 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 astray . He admitted tbat if the Attorney-General had instituted a prosecution for sedition , and the juty believed the prisoner to ba the the writer and pnbli-her of those article ! , they ought to find him guilty : but this waa not a prosecution for sedition , a conviction for that offence would be followed by penalties the severest which tha mild spirit of the British law permitted a court to inflict . The present was a prosecution under an act which was cautiously guarded ; therefore he called upon the jury to dismiss from their minds everything that had been said about the dangerous character of tbe articles . They were not trying a prisoner for sedition , but whether he had brought himself under the provisions of a highly penalact , involving , short of the

    sacrifice of life , the highest consequences . Tbe act had been termed an unconstitutional and severe one ; it was one wbiih , in the hands of weak jurors—jurors who were r otintelligent jurors—whomightbealarmedandmade instruments of , the most grievous oppression under which a country 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 bad eo fear of the result . The Itarned advocate then quoted the act of parliament , and continued . There were two intentions charged , as were stated . They were upon their oath to say , first , the intention ofthfi heart of the prisoner ; secondly , did he express and declare that intention . They bad 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 shsnld , as fallible men , penetrate into the heart of the prisoner , find out hia intention , and then say was that intentioa 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 Queen ; and the other to levy war against her Majesty . It occurred to him to be a difficult matter to find bath intents , er either , npon the evidence . Now , in considering this important matter , _ tbey 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 dimValfc would

    it be for a jury to loek into a man ' s breast , and npon their oaths saj that he intended , devis < d , and imagined the deposition of the Queen , and purposed levy ing war a gainst her . That was the difficult d uty they were called on to perform—the tremendous issue they were expected to find ; in fact , they were asked by the Attorr ey General to assume ttv character of the Deity—the Searcher of men ' s hearts—and speculate on what tbe prisoner at tha bar might , or might not , have intended to do . He was merely rn tbe subject of intettion : and let them for a content suppose a man sitting down and writing an article highly reprehensible and calculated to withdraw allegiance from tbe throne , and yet that he did so without having any treasonable intentiens ; if snch a case occurred ,

    the party charged would be entitled te an acquittal under the act in question ; therefore tbey would see the vast importanca of considering calmly the nature of tbe charge and also of the statute . . A rey ublicanand he ( Mr Butt ) would , before he resumed his seat , show that the prisoner was not a republican— : f he expressed his opinions calmiy , might be guilty of no offence ; but if a man eat down and wrote articles calculated to disturb the public peace he was liable to penalties . And be admitted that the prisoner was . ia his opinion , liable to those penalties for publbhiag seditious articles ; but be 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 the intentions charged ? A great deal of

    the speech of the AHoraey-General appeared to assnme tbat the offance of levying war agaisst her Majesty would entitle a jury to find a verdict of guilty against the prisoner , if even nothing else were proved . Now he ( Mr Butt ) would take the liberty of denying the aocBracy /" of that doctrine—because , aa 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 thai purpose waa to compel the Queen , by force and constraint , to change her measures and councils . Now , if he were right in his construction of the law , and the court would judge upon tbat joint , eves if the prisoner intended to raise a lebelliOR in Ireland , but not for the purpose of da pofine the Queen , he weald be entitled to an

    acquittal ; if he intended to do so , snd not remove the sovereign from her seat on the throne , the offence charged would not be complete ; in fact , nothing short of proof of a settled purpose of deposing her Majesty would warrant a jury in convicting . Even proof o inteHdiag to efect changes in public measures would not ba sufficient ; it would be absolutely necessary to show that her Mr jetty was attempted to be made to change them by force and constraint . He ( Mr Butt ) would go 80 far as to say that if the prisoner purposed acd intended to force the houses of parliament to mske alterations bv intimidation and censtraint , and that he nsed no restraint towards her Majesty , tbat he would not be legally guilty under tbe statute on which the iBdictmest was fcunded . He might go so

    far as to take the field against her Majesty's troops , to compel the House of Lords and House of Commons to change the law , if be did not use threats to intimidate tbe sovereign . What was the evidence upon which they were called on to find a verdict which would have the effect of sending bis client from his country for the remainder of his life ? The law required that every one abaufc publishing a newspaper must go the Stamp-cffice , and there make a declaration thit be was the proprietor , and a number of every publication ol that paper should be sent to the office signed by the proprietor . The crown had merely proved proprietorship , ard upon it alone no jury would be safe in finding a verdict of guilty intentions on the prisoner ' s part to depose the Queen , and levy war against her . Now let them consider how it was shown tbat the prisoner even intended __ or declared to depose the Queen , or levy war against her : and if he iMr Butt ) showed the jury that

    the prisoner did not know frequently what was published in the Tkibosb , would they find him gnilty frcm articles re ad from it , the mannecripts 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 tha prisoner , showed intentions on bis part to depose the sovereign , and to levy war against her , to force her by threats and intimidation to change her councils . No evidence of intention was given , ar . d how could they convict under the statute ? The case was a most peculiar ene , because , as they were aware , there was another prosecution against a joint propnet & rof the same paper , and it was impossible that both proprietors had written the same articles . One and both proprietors were answerable , perhaps , for sedition , and if so , they might be prosecuted for it ; but no jury could say that a grave charge could be sustained .

    Baron Pennefather asked Mr Butt if it were his intention to call any witnesses > Mr Butt , Q . C ., replied in the affirmative , but , upon GonsuUauou tbU iateatioB was abandoned .

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    The Solicitor-General addressed the Jury in reply . Baron Pennefather charged the Jury . He called attention to a statement made by prisoner ' s counse l ¦ -that they had served notice on the Crown to produce manuscripts found in the Tkibcne Office , and remarked that no evidence was given of the service of that notice , nor had any call been made in court io produce the manuscript , for the purpose of showing that the prisoner was not the author rf those publications . He did not understand the counsel of the prisoner to argue that the prisoner had not a criminal intent , but he understood him t » say that he had not the intent charged in the indictment ; he aireed with the learned e , mnsel for tha prisoner that

    the jury could not convict the prisoner unleas it appeared to them that he had that intent , and expressed it by this publication . It appeared to him that tho publications in some degree at least went to the maintenance of both intention ? , and , thfre fore , it was fit for him to mention the intentions charged to the jury , then refer to the publicationstoerable them to form an opinion as to what intention this person had . If they considered the prisener ' 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 Queen her royal style and name of Queen ofthe

    Umtsd 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 iotention he was bound to tell them it was an intention within th « purview of ihe act of Parliament . With respect to the intention of levying war , if that war were levied to prevent the export of provisions from this country , eonld that object be attained wivhont an alteration of the measures of the Sovereign . ' If that alteration was to ba obtained by force or war , it would fall within the charge in the indictment . With respect to levying war agaisst the Queen for tho purpose of forcing her to change htr measures , it was totally immaterial in the consideration of the question whether war ensued or cot , or even that the attempt was made and

    proved abortive , if the intentioa was conceived bf the prisoner , and if he manifested that intention by the publications given in evidence . They had heard o f the insurrection that had taken place , asd . of the manner in 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 so far ; but all these matters were entirel y beside the qurfllion they had to try . They had merely to consider whether the prisoner had the intentions alleged , and whether he had declared and published them in Ihe paper in question . The jury would read those papers dispassionately , and form their opinion upon them calmly , justly , and del / berately . —Fiat justitia ruat coslum . Mr Butt . —I understood jou to say , my lord , that I admitted tha prisoser had the intent imputed ; bat I merely meant the articles .

    Baron Pennefather —You are qo / le rifc ht , and I never intended to convey anything elao . Foreman . —Can we get the act of Parliament ? Baron Pennefather . —No ; in a case before Lord Tenterden it was ruled , that it was not proper to send up an act of Parliament to a jury , but the court would state the substance of it to tbem . Mr Longiey ( Crown counsel ) . —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 tour o ' clock they again appeared in the jurybox . Foreman . —The jury are anxious to inquire if tee publishing of the articles in the paper would render the prisoner guilty under the Felon Act , just as much as if he had written the articles himself .

    Baron Pennefather . —The fact of his being registered proprietor is prima facie evidence agan Bt him ; it may be rebutted , but in this case it has i ot been rebutted . The jury again retiied . At half past five o ' clock the jury again came into court . Clerk of tha Crown . —Have you agreed to j our verdict ? Foreman . —No . 1 dan't think there is the slightest chance of our agreeing . Some of the gentlemen seem to have a difficulty about prima facie evidence . They don't seem to understand what your lordship said about it .

    Baran Pennefather . —If tha indictment waa for publishing this newspaper I would be bound to tell you that the declaration made by the prisoner in the Stamp Office on tbe 15 : h of June waa conclusive evidence ot his being the proprietor ar . d publisher of that paper . But the indictment is not per se for publishing this newspaper . It charges bim with making the publication with the iutention of deposing the Queen from her royal style of Queen of the United Kingdom . So to find out his intention yon must be cf opinion that he knew tho contents of the papers published , and he had an of opportunity of showing his inrjocer . ee . He is conclusively shown to be proprietor and publisher , but the question is whether he knew tbe contents of what was published .

    That is necessary to fasten upon him an intention to depose the Queen and deprive her of her royal narae-A Juror : Some of the jurors not knowing the meaning of prima facie , wish to know whether yonr lordship meant to convey that prima facie evidence was sufficient to convict the party under the Felony Act . There is a difference of opinion amongst us os that paint . Some of the jurors hold that your lordship stated that if there was yrima facie evidenco of the prisoner ' s guilt we should at once find him guilty ; otheis attach a different meaning to the phrase , aud we wish to have your lordship ' s opinion . Baron Pennefather : I did not mean , gentlemen

    to direct you , or to tell you that , in point of law , because he was proprietor and publisher of the paper he necessarily knew its contents . But I told you it was evidence that he did know tho contents , and that you were to form your judgment on the whole of the case , reading the documents and the other evidence , namely , bis 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 contents . The knowledge of the contents is necessary , as appears to mp , to enable yon to form an opinion as to whether he did intend to deprive the Sovereign of her stvle and dignity .

    A consultation took place between the jurors ia their jury box . and it was again announced by a juror that they could not agree . Baion Pennefather . —Ton must retire , gentlemen . I cannot discharge you at present . A Juror . —There is co chance of agreeing :. The jury retired . and bailiffs were placed over them . At ten o ' clock the jury were again called in . Clerk ofthe Court . —Gentlemen , have you a ? reed ? Foreman . —No : and there is not the slightest chance of our agreeing . The jury were then hcked up for the night .

    Denis Hoban , printer of the Tbibuwb , was arraigned for printing seditious articles in that paper . The prisoner submitted and handed in 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 that 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 supp osition that any excuse would tend to mitigate the charge made against the prisoner . Baron Pennefather . —Our feeling is , 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 . Tha Court promised to consider the matter .

    MOBS BILLS . Attorney-General . —I have to apply to ysur lord ships not to discharge the City Grand Jury to-day I have a few other bi'ls to send no .

    DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT . Satebdat , August 12 . —The Court was opened amidst intensesilence ; the jury were called out , As they ioak their places , fatigue was visible on their faces and persons . One feeble old genl leman seemed nearly overcome . Mr Alley , the Clerk of the Crown , then called over the names of the jury , to which they severally answered . —Clerk of tte Crown : Gentlemen of the jury , have you agreed to your verdict ? —Foreman ( Mr Oldham ) : No ; there is not the slightest chance of our agreeing . This announcement was received with a murmur , which was instantly su ppressed . 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 . ... .. n . i desire that

    Attorney-General : I have no possible 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 carrot subject Gentlemen wbo have come here to discharge an onerons duty to dangers affecting their hves or health . On the second day they bad beeu Bent to their room at four o'clock , and they bad been retained there until now ( a quarter to eleven ) . m He mustflischarge them , they saying at the same time that then was no prebability of their coming to a verdict . Attorney-General : One of the gentlemen dees 't ^ U ^ about sixtyyeara of age . and I might expect to be a . 'lowed to retire , The jury wai then discharged on the grounds a set forth on the record , -That farther confinement would be dangerous to their healths and lives . The prisoner was conveyed back to Newgate .

    FroTnt ^ e reporter of tha Mornittg Chronicle . Mr O'Dohertt ' s Jurt . —Ob making inquiries relative to Mr O'Doherty ' a jury and with reference to the number opposed to a conviction , 1 have learneu the follo wicg particulars -. —When the jury nrst appeared in court to announeo that they could not agree , there were five , of tbem in favour of an acquit-UK When tbey appeared in court at a later hour oi tho evening , tha number against a conviction waaredacedto four ; V . d taos § four , whea they were mm

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    up , or the night , held unwaveringly to their opinion . Ho wever , when morning arrived , the number was reduced to three , and before tbey finally came into court , tho number wss reduced to two . One of these jurors ( Mr Reid ) is an Englishman ; tho other juror ( Mr Birmingham ) is a Catholic , and the only Catholic on the jury .

    TH qUKBN V , THOMAS D- RSIIXV . Clerk of the Crown ; Ciier , call Thomas Devin Reilly . The crier called Mr Reilly , and repeated the call outside the court , but there was m asswer . Charles Henry West and Michael O'Reilly , ( Thoa . D Reilly ' s bail ) were called upon to produce his body , or forfeit their recognisances , Sir Colman O'Loghlen : It was impossible for Mr West 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 has been disabled by his own act .

    THE QUEEN V . J . P . FITZPATRICK . The defendant was charged with carrying a pike between two and three o ' clock in tbe mornintr , and ^ Zu- dery ' 8 that he had it . Tbe party did not attend—his recognisances were estreated , and a tiencn warrant issued for his apprehension . Somo persons charged with having arms in their possession submitted , and were sentenced to a day ' s impriaon-TRTJE BIOS AOAlKtT THE PMNTEB tp THE « PBLOK

    NEWSPAPER . irue bills were found against Mr Shaw , the printer ol the i < eloh newspaper . ii ^ u - i of the Grand Jury : We have disposed of all the bills before us , and perhaps you will discharge Chief Baron : For this day , gentlemen , you may retire , but we require your attendance on Mondav . Baron Pennefather : We hope to discharge you on Monday .

    TRIAt OF MR MARTIN OP THE ' FKLOIf . ' Dtmuw , Monday , August 14 th—Tha trial of Mr John Martin , proprietor of the lately suppressed Fbloh newjpaper , commerced this day ( Monday . ) Several hours of the time of the court were wasted with tho usual preliminary discussions . It was just two o clock before the Atto-ne y-General rose to state the case for the crown . The day ' s proceedings were commenced with the arraignment of Mr Martin , who was charged with having published in the Felom newspaper certain articles of a felonious character , to deprive the Queen of her style , honour , and title , && ., and levy war against her Majesty .

    Mr Butt , Q . C ., applied for a copy of ( ha indictment , which , after a long argument , in which the Attorney-General and Solicilor-General epposed tho motion , was promised to the 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 Kevcn Izod O'Doherty , to enable bim to make an application of a very important character . Mr O'Rorke then handed ia tha affidavit , to which a copy of the Dublin Evemno Post , ef last Saturday evening ) waa attached , and took the usual oatb . The Attorney-General objected to the application beingmade at tbat 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 the 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 administration of justice , and he would tell tbe ceurt that he would not feel himself in a position to defend any one of the prisoners unless leave were gives to him to make the application . He did not like to interrupt the arraignment of the prisoner , or he would have made the application before he was arraigned . The Chief Baron said , that the court should hear what was the nature of tbe application to enable it to judge whether it ought to be made . Mr Butt said , that the application was for an attachment against an individual for contempt of that court , and tbe mo ? t audacious attempt to pervert the coarse ef public justice ever made or broughtbefore the notice ef a court .

    The Solicitor General said , that it was , therefore , the more important to make the application formally and legally , in order that , if necessary , a prosecution for perjury might be instituted against the party making the affidavit , Baron Pennefather said , that , as it waa an applicRtion for an attachment apainst a third person , he apprehended that 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 . i then eaid . that his application was for an attachment against the proprietor and editor of the Dublin EvgninoPost , and that he te required to attend that court to answer for said contempt . The affidavit ot Mr O'Rorke stated that he purchased a copy of ihe Dubun Evening Post , which was published on Saturday evening , at tbe office , in Suffolkstreet : that paper , he alleged , circulated extensively amongst tho persons who served as jurors for the city of Dublin ; and the publication of tha evening to

    which he referred , contained what purported to be a report of the trial of Mr Kevon Izod O'Doherty , ac « oompanied by . comments which were calculated to in * timidate . 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 ono of the jury was dissentient , and the remaining eleven were disposed to find Mr O'Doherty guilty ; and the plain and palpable meaning of the document was , tbat the dissentient juror sympathised With the insurrection , and tbe cluba by whichit was fomented . The article further aleged that no defence had been made for tho prisoner . He would nob say that that was a libel upon himself , hut he would say that it was a libel upon the administration of justice . For himself , he would say that he had made a defence , which was not disapproved of by the crown counsel or tbo court . The learned gentleman contended that his motion should be granted .

    The Chief Br . ron said , that the court , having looked over tbe article , felt hound to say tbat it was 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 , that it was calculated to excite feelicgs 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 of justice , and might be calculated to interrupt and taint the course of justice at the very fountain-head ; and if such publications had ths effect of intimidating jurors or exciting in their minds prejudices , they being , under tho 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 , feut declined to act upon the suggestions ofthe learned counsel .

    Mr Butt 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 effect that he would put Mr O'Doherty on his 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 tbe indictments which did not appear in the original informations , being articles published ia tha Felon since tho period of Mr Martin ' s arrest . The crown would not , he thought , be inconvenienced if the -pplication was granted , j > s Mr Ferguson was then prepared to defend Mr Williams , the other pro - prietor of tho IfiiSH Tribune , whose trial might therefore at once be proceeded with . The Attorney-General stated tbat the crown were not prepared at that moment to go into any oase with ihe reception of that of Mr Martin .

    Baron Pennefather was of opinion tbat there was abundance ot time for Mr Butt to read over the new matter in the indictment before ho 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 npon a penalty of £ 50 . However , a considerable number of jurors absented themselves notwithstanding the largeness of the fine . After a good deal of fencing a jury was sworn-The Attorney-General proceeded to state the case for the prosecution , which he said was very similar to the oase of the ' Queen v . O'Doherty , ' tried during tha previous we « k , althongh it differed in one point materially , and that was—that tho prisoner , Mr John Martin , was notonly the sole proprietor ot the Irish Fblon , kut was likewise registered as the sole printer and publisher ; whereas , Mr O'Doherty , the

    prisoner , w tho other case he alluded to , was only registered as joint proprietor , and was neither the pub lisher nor printer . The learned Attorney-General then went on at some length to state tte law of the case under the late Act of Parliament , and to mention the circumstances under which Mr Martin originally started the Felon—namely , after the conviction and transportation of Mr John Mitchel , the proprietor of the United Irishman , whose stops he proteased to follow iu the very first number of hie paper . He then read the several articles relied on for the prosecution , from five several copies of the Fblon , and contended that , under the statute , if the jury believed Mr Martin to be the proprietor , printer , and publisher of that paper , they conld not hesitate to convict bim upon the indictment , for the articles themselves could not bear a second interpretation , tl eft speaking ]

    , , , TcEJDAr , August 15 — Thecourtest at teno ' cleek-The prisoner John Martin was placed at tho bar , and his trial was resumed . The crown examined the followicg witnesses in support of their case : — Mr Vernon ( registrar of newspapers at tbe Stampoffice ) proved the declaration made by Mr Martin at the Stamp-ciSce , and his signature thereto . The purchase ofthe several $ opiea of tf . 0 P & PK used ia evidence waa proved ,

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    Luke Prender deprs-d to the circumstances that took place in the police office when Mr Martin * a * brought before the iuaj > i * : ratf . Oa that occasion jje clerks mtue police office read the headings ' of nr !« n » ! fl ? ene - r ? L r L «> o magiatrato a 8 k the prisoner it he wished to have the articles read ? in the police office , because he was in custody . There is another objection . The Actof Parli ament requires that any declaration made by tho prisoner should be reduced to writing , bat in this case no such declaration has been red uced to writing .

    The court allowed the question of the Solicitor-General to be put to the witness . u » ' ^"" r Witness .-The magistrate asked if he wished to have the articles read . The prisoner said he did not —that ho was the responsible person morallv , The dates of the newspapers containing the articles were the 24 th June and the 1 st July . Solicitor-Gcneral . —Do you recollect that the prisoner said anything else ? Witness . —He said he wished to state the cause of his keeping out of the way of the warrant . He eaid he did not wish to be tried by tho judges who sat at the previous commission , To Mr Butt —I was present when the seizure was made at the Felon office . The manuscripts se zid upon were lodged with Mr Pemberton , solicitor to the police ommissionerfl .

    Baron Pennefathej ' . —Was what the prisoner said taken down in writifig ? Witness . —lt was not . Mr Tyndall ( police magistrate ) corroborated the evidence given with respect to what occurred in tbe police office . Constable James Christy proved , that on the night ofthe 3 rd of July he saw persons going into the i elon office about a quarter lo twelve o'clock ; saw them come out a ah , . they carried with thera two fH * S JM r , ee 8 ized covers of books . He folfcS ft , , fty . totary . where they entered the house , No . II . and he saw no more of them . Richard Kemmis ( Crown Solicitor ' s-office ) proved Mr Pemberton proved that ho had examined the papers seized in the Felon office . He did not find the manuscripts from whioh the articles in the Fblon newspaper would appear to have been printed .

    Mr Butt . —Vt as there any letter there from Mr Martin to Mr Brenan ? -Witness . —I cannot say , my belief is , there was not . Attorney General . - I next propose to offer in evidence the first number of the paper , dated June 24 th . The object is to show from the contents of this publication the whole character of this

    newspaper . Mr Butt objected , and Mr Holmes , on tho same side , sabmitted that bothing should be admitted in evidence except what was pertinenl to the issue to ba tried . The Attorney . General should point out specifically what he meant to rely upon . Attorney-General—But the first question is tbe admissibility of tho docoment . If your lordabips decide ihe evidence is admissible , I have not the slightest objection to put my finger on the precise article 1 mean to read . The court having allowed the learned gentleman to proceed he proposed to read the title of the paper , the Irish Felon , and what followed that—namely , ' successor to the United Ieishman . ' Sir Colmaa O'Loghlen again interposed , for the purpose of objecting to the course adopted by the crewn .

    The court thought the crown was at liberty to do what was proposed , It wag not an overt act in itself , or a thinp in itself tbat would constitute an overt act ; but it might be explanatory , and bring home to i he 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 the works of Theobald W * lfe Tone . Mr Butt contended that this could not bo received . Tbe Attorney-General—This Is a general count ; I propose to offer it in evidence under that count . Mr Butt . —I submit you cannot da so . Baron Pennefather . —Would you be satisfied to take a verdict on that particular count ? The Attorney-General , —Nomy lord .

    , Baron Pennefather . — That is the test . Under that general count you offer evidence which could to . be of any value to that count , because it ie itself valueless , but would be used to sustain other counts . If it were a thing tbat did not amount to an overt act , it mieht be received as explanatory ; hot if it did amount to an overt act , it could not bo received . Tbe orown then intimated that they did not press the point . The headings of the articles were read for ths jury , and the caso of the crown closed .

    Mr Butt , Q . C , proceeded at a quarter to one o ' clock to address the jury for the prisoner . It was Rot ( he commenced by observing ) in the mere language of affectation—he confessed that he rose to address them with a deep sense of responsibility , not merely on account of the individual before them , but becauEe he felt tbat the result of that trial and the verdict the jury had to prorounce to a very great extent involved the liberty of every man in the country . He should have been glad if tbe task had fallen on other and abler hands , not that heshrunk from meeting , if it were necessary , in hia own person the prejudices that were abroad , and that might , perhaps , identify the advocate with those whom he may defend ; and with the reverence that became him . and with

    the solemnity which he felt waa not ununited to that scene ard to tbat occasion , he humbly implored that the Great Judge—of whpse perfect tribunal every human judgment was a » imperfect representationthat every part of that solemn tribunal might rightly adjudicate that day—that the judge might receive wisdem from Ilim , without whose knowledge' not a sparrow could fall to the ground , ' to hold the scales of justice with a steady and untrembling band—that the jury might be enlightened to do justice to the prisoner at the bar , according to the settled rules of British law , by which alone they bad a right to try him . and that tbe trial might be so conducted by them all , by the judges of tbe bench , and by the counsel for the crown and for the prisoner , tbat the liberties of

    the country might come unscathed and nuimperilled through the ordeal , There wera two things which his client was entitled to demand from the hands of the jury ; first , that he should be tried by the great principles of Enelish 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 specn ' ation , but by certain demonstration —such as would carry conviction to their mindsnot fhat the jury might convict , but tbat it was impossible for them , as honest men , to acquit him . lis asked the jury to observe the charge brought against him , and to take down the precise terms , of it laid

    in tbo indictment , of the whole or integral part of which they should convict bim , or he should be wholly acquitted . The indictment stated , that ' on the 24 th of June the said John Martin did feloniously confess , imagine , invent , devise , and intend to depose the Queen from her style , honour , scd royal name ef the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom , and that said felonious cempa ^ sings , imaginations , 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 was varied in other counts bv imputing the intention to be not to depose the Queen , but _ ' to hvy war against her within that part ot the United Kingdom called

    Ireland , in order to compel her by force and constraint to change her measures and counsels / and that this lasS-meDtioned intention he did ' express , utter , and declare , ' by the papers in evidence before them . Tbe learned counsel then entered into a close and ingenious argument , similar in substance to what be bad successfully advanced in the trial of Mr O'Dogherty . The offence which the jury bad to determine contained two separate and distinct things , and unless they were satisfied as to both , tbey could not find the prisoner guilty . They must ascertain as a positive fact , the existence of which they could not doubt as honest rren upon their oaths , that there was in the mind eni tho heart of tbe prisoner at the bar before he wrote these articles an intention to

    depose the Queen , or levy war against her for the purpose of compelling her to change her measures and councils . They must be further satisfied upon their oaths , that he not merely had tbat intention in his mind , but tbat he uttered , expressed , and declared that intention by the particular article expressed in the indictment . Having referred to the severe penalties which attached to the statute which ii weakly or tyrannically administered would be a f reafc inroad upon the freedom of the press and the public , he imprttsed on the jury that if they did not find the prisoner guilty within that act , he was still left to the old j onstitutional safeguards of tbe eommon law . They were not then to try whether it was necessary for the public safety that such offences were to be repres & sd , but whether the prisoner came under that highly penal act of parliament . He made that observation because the Attorney-General bad

    endeavoured to iifluenee their minds , by speaking of tho inconvenience of not holding the publisher responsible . Ho ask « -d the jury to rootfrom theirroinds that expression ofthe Attorney General , for their business was not to try whether Mr Martin was responsible er not for the publications , but whether he did utter , express , and declare such intention as was charged . Responsible , no doubt , his client was as the proprietor if he published a libel , or for a seditious writing ; but that was not the question which they were sworn to try . But they must be satisfied by their oaths and tbeir consciences aa to the two distinct matters of fact charged in the indictment . The intent could not be implied as a matter of law , but the ) should find it is a matter of fact ; and although there had heen prima facie evidence of that fact given to them by the Crown , there was no other evidence that would coerce them , or upon which they wore bound to find , He etated this with confidence , because , b 9 felt entitled to refer them to what took

    Gkohel. August 8 -The Rising « Ir*I"J ^ ...

    place on a former trial , whea ihe learned j ; id :. e had laid down this principle . Having warmly nail eloquently eulogised tte impartiality of tin charge delivered . by Barun PecfceiathGif in the trial of O'Digberty , the learned counsel stated that , on tho authority of that charge , the question they bad to try was one which commended itself to their own judgments , and in which the bench cnuld not give them asy directions , and if they shrunk frem the responsibility , they would fari ' eit and betray tho liberty of jurors and the liberty of every man hereafter accused , and violate the oaths which they had taken . He then contrasted the faithfulness with which Englishmen had always disrharged their duties as jurorsin preventing , as far as possible , the

    , encroachments of law upon the constitution , and the neglect which in this respect Chief Justice Bushe chargid upon Irish Juries . Tbe learned counsel then adverted to the articles , only two of which , as charged in the indictment , had been written by hi 8 client , and these , he contended , did not bear out the accusation , while the entire of the nine mentioned in the indictment bore the signatures of the writers ; and even if Mr Martin could be considered cognigact of them , the question remained aa to whether he was guilty efthe intent charged , and he wasindictfd . not fer publishing the intentions of others , but MS own intention . He then went on to reply to tho statement of the Attorney-General with reference to the foundation of the Irish Felon after the

    transportation of Mr Mitchel , and an article in the first number rej-rcUicg tbat he had been permitted tobe nnde a convict of , and representing him in strong terms to have been unjustly sentenced . He related the history of Mr Mortin , who was a native of the county Down , a Presbyterian endowed with the sturdy notions of independence which characterise that class , a graduate of the University , and an early friend of John Mitchel , aed a person of propertv , not , as he bad been represented , an adventurer . He recapitulated the circumstance of Mitchel ' s convection , and dwelt strongly on the exclusion of certain jurors from the panel in his case . Believing his friend to bare bsen unjustly victimised , in a momemjof imprudent enthusiasm , Mr Martin had , he contended , in

    order to vindicate his memory , instituted bis paper under tbe title of the Irisu Fklos , believing that there was nothing disgraceful in the title under the circumstances . The Attorney-General had pronounced the article treasonable which denounced the conviction of Mitchel , but who were the instructors of Mr Martin In pronouncing a sentence under tha circumstances unjust ? Lord John RusspII , Lord Clarendon , James Henry Monahan . Mr Butt then referred to the expressed opinions of the prisoners , the Lord Lieutenant , and the Attorney-General himself , that the conviction had , in the case of the late Mr O'Connell , lost its moral weight , because Roman Catholics has been struck off thejury who tried him . lie then commented in indignant terms en the

    government having allowed stamps to be issued for tha Fjilo . v which they charged with being illegal even in its title , and permitted Mr Martin himself to writa from prison one of the articles which they now prosecuted , in order tbat they might accumulate evidence against their victim . Let them cot listen , then , in the name of common humanity , to the Attorney-General , when he told tfcem that he waa there to prosecute what be bad himself permitted . The learned counsel then adverted to the articles written by Mr Martin , and quoted a speech delivered by him on tbe 17 th of March , in which his sentiment a in favour of peace aad the constitntisn . and rights of property were fully disclosed , in order to

    show that he did tot entertain the intent charged . He Strongly relied upon the legal point which be had urged , that thejury could not find guilty of constructive felony , and impressedon them the necessity of being able to satisfy their consciences as to the matter of fact which they had to de ? ermine . Hav ing argued at considerable length on the question of his client's responsibility , he proceeded to comment on thfi Condition Of tbe country , as affording cmhb for the indignant feeling manifested in the publications , and having made an eloquent and impreasiva appiai to the jury , read letters fr ^ m the writers « f some ofthe articles , acknowledging the authorship * and concluded his address at a quarter to £ vfl o ' clock .

    Joseph Martin , the brother of the prisoner , waBproduced to prove the soeeoh made by the prisoner at the Repeal meeting iu l ^ ewry . The A ttorney-General objected to the reception $£ the evidence . Sir Colman O'Loghlen cited in aupportof their right to examine the wiisess , the case of Home Toskeand the Queen v . O'Consell . Thefevidence was admitted , and the witness waa examined . Ho proved tha correctness of the reporS of tho speech referred to by Mr Butt . Sir Colman O'Loghlen callfd on the Attorney - General to produce Mr Lalor ' a letter . The Attorney-General . —You can produce Mr Lalor himself . Mr Lalorwas not , however , produced , and thecasa for the prisoner closed .

    The Solicitor-General replied on the part of ti « crown , and the court adjourned . PROBABLB POSTPONEMENT fP MB DCFfl ' s THIil .. The foreman of the grand jury applied to his lofasbip to discharge the jury . Baron Pennefather called the attention of the Attorney-General to the application , for the purpose ot ascertaining his opinion with reference to it . Attorney-General . —I don't know at present , my lord , if tbey may be discharged . I mean to apply en affidavit to postpone Mr Dtfiy ' s trial .

    Baron Pennefather ( to foreman , ) , —We must request of you to attend to morrow . The court then adjourned .

    Tried This Indictment Al ; G ^ St 19 ' L...

    Al ^ 19 ' lb 48 - _^ THE NORTHERN STAR .

    The Whigs. From The Beginning This Whi G...

    THE WHIGS . From the beginning this Whi g rump has been an a false position . In opposition—ay , and in ofilce —they encouraged treasonable and irrational demands—they raised wild hopes and extravagant passions ; and now they cannot allay or quell tte devil of tbeir own raising . How long did tbjgjr foment for their own base purposes this treasonable repeal cry , which has ended in rebellion ? Moralrjt , if not legally , the blood of every traitor who falls ia the field or on the scaffold is , and ought to be , OB their guilty and most incapable heads . The Wbiga are in this position , that tbey dare not , do \ vhat < fe

    will , harm a hair ef Mr John 0 'Council ' s head That middle-aged , mercantile , money-making , little mouther and trader in treason , possesses certain papers of a deceased ag itator which would for ever ruin the character of the Melbourne Ministry ami the Whig Radical rump that has succeeded te their places . These papers would prove the criminality and complicity ot the Lambs , the Buncannow , the Russells , the Greys ( who are receiving £ 18 , 000 per annum of the ' public money ) , the Lan ? ,. downes , the Palmerstons , and the Hobhousee . — Mornim Herald ,

    Durham.—Scbke Is Court.—At Tho Dorhna Ae...

    Durham . —Scbke is Court . —At tho Dorhna Aesizes , a stalwart Irishman ot the came of Edward Coyle , pleaded guilty , before Mr Justice CressweH . tB a charge of housebreaking , and requested hislordship to favour him with a seven years' transportation , As the circumstances ofthe case , hewever , did sot justify bis lordship in extending to him the wishedlor boon , he substituted instead a twelvemonths' imprisonment ; upon hearing which , the would-be tourist growled out in a tone transported with anger — 'Thankye , yer honour , ' and stooping

    dewnbefore any one was aware of bis intentions—pultm off one of bio iron-shod * brogues' and hurled it at his lordship ' s head . The formidable miasik , which wight have put an abrupt termintion to hia lordship ' s judicial labours , struck him somewhere on tha breast , moHtVrtunately without inflicting any serious iojurv . Arier lega ' wing bis composure , of which the suddenness ot the act had tor a moment deprived hiro , his lordship is said to havo observed , in a slightly disconcerted toreto these around him , ' This comes , you see , of thwarting people ' s wishes . ' Tub prisoner was immediately removed .

    ExscimoN cf Mart Mat . —Chelmsford , Monday —This morning , Mary May , who was convicttfl at the last Essex A ? sizf s of the murder of her brother , at \ Vix , by poisoning him with arsenic , for the ptwpose of obfcainining the allowance from a burial club at whifih she bai entered his name without his knowledge , wasexecnttdin front ot the county gaol in this town . Alter bar condemnation , the uniortunate woman , who was thirty-one years of age , formed the deafen of starving herself to death , and for a time obstinately refused to take nny food , but hunger as length subdued her , and sines then ^ e had taken her meals regularly and slept soundly , sullenly denying her guilt , and treat ng her fate as a rnatttr of indifference . Great exertions were made to save the culprit ' s life , both by her legal defenders and others , but the reply of the Home Secretary to two memorials presented io him on tbe subject was , that her crime was so horrible , and her guilt so clear , thathe

    could not reo mmend an extension of the royal mercy . Preparatory to her execution the prisoner was removed from the till gaol to the new prison , and en Sunday tho condemned sermon was preached , which appeared to produce soire impression on tsr mind . An immense multitude assembled in front of the gaol , including , as usual on these occasions , a large number of females . The prisoner crossed tha yard and ascended the drop with comparative firm * ness . Calcraft soon completed the fearful arrangements , during which the prisoner continued to moan dreadfully . The drop then fell , and being a larfo heavy woman she dUd with a slight struggle . Tub Victim FuND .-An elegant musical box , presented by Mr E . Burly , of Manchester , to the Chartist council , for the families of the victims , wffl be balloted for , in a month from this date , by «* - Boriptiens of sixpence each . . Local secretaries «* requested to receive subscriptions , ^ names »* «• , dresses of subscribers , and forward the suae to AM * Ormeghw , 52 , Bridgewater ' Streej , MfiBCflvSrWi

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), Aug. 19, 1848, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_19081848/page/7/