lowest and most ill-informed of that defcription who could be guilty of practices fo abominable and fo abhorrent from his nature was it to fay any thing that could have the most remote ten dency to divide fellow-chriftians, that were it not neceffary to explain the fubfequent teftimony he would never have alluded to it. The facts be had stated had been proved in many counties of Munfter, and in many others it had appeared, that there had been a scheme laid, and steps taken to fubvert the government and overthrow the eftablished religion.-How this plan was concerted, and by whom it was to be carried into execution, whether by French emiffaries or by thofe abominable democratic clubs which have been formed in many parts of the kingdom, it was not for him nor for the jury to determine. Thofe offenders had gone fo far as to levy money ➡a guinea was paid by every person who took the oath to the committee-man who adminiftered it, and a fhilling a piece to the common men. The Defender-maker had fuch practice that he became as well known as the fhoemaker of the village. In ftating thefe facts he did not mean to over ftep the ftrict line of duty, nor to exafperate the jury against the prifoner;-it was ne ceffary he should state these facts for understanding the evidence.

The crime with which the prifoner ftood charged was of the most awful nature in its confequences both to him and to the public. It aimed at nothing less than the deftruction of the government we live under, the life and property of every individual. But this crime, great indeed in its own nature, received aggravation, if fuch a crime could be aggravated, from the peculiar fituation of the prifoner; he was a foldier ferving in his majesty's 7th regiment of dragoons as fuch he was fworn to defend his king by an oath which other men are not bound to take. This circumftance certainly rendered it the less likely that he could be guilty of the crime, but if the crime was proved, it added greatly to its enormity.-This man it would appear from the evidence, adminiftered an oath to Lawler, &c. [Here Mr. Attorney General gave a short recital of the evidence of Lawler, which, as we give it at length, makes it unneceflary to repeat this part of the Attorney Generai's speech.]

He concluded by fome obfervations on the oath and catechifm. That claufe which mentions allegiance to the king, "fo long as he should live under the fame government,' was an evident de monftration that it was meant to fubvert the government as it narrowed the term of his allegi

ance.

"

That part of the catechifm which named the national convention could mean no other than the French affembly, for there was at that time no other national convention in the world; and the allufion to the "cock crowing in France over all the world," could mean nothing but an intent to fubvert the government and kill the king, as had been done in France.

William Lawler was produced for the crown, and examined by the Solicitor General-He is a gilder-worked in England and Ireland-ferved his apprenticeship here-went to England in 1791, remained about two years-while in England was

(a member of the London Corresponding Society on his return to Ireland had a letter of introduction to H. Rowan, from Mr. Eaton, printerdelivered it to Mr. Rowan's fervant - called about a week after and faw Mr. Rowan-faw him in the street and Newgate fince-after arrival in Ireland he became member of a fociety, but knew not its name-it ufed to meet in a room in Hoey's-court-after that was diffolved he be came a member of another.-Next entered into Philanthropic Society-remembered John Burke, and Mr. Galland, as belonging to it-He heard Burke is gone away. Was alto member of Telegraphic Society at fame time (asked the object of this fociety-objected to, and objection granted by the court until counsel fhould fhew a privity between that fociety and the prifoner.) Was brought afterwards to be concerned with Defenders. A fortnight after the Fermanagh militia left Dublin E. Brady, and Kennedy, brought him to Weldon, the prifoner at the bar, to be fworn-faw Weldon at the ftables belonging to the horfe barrack-when he met Weldon, Brady introduced him. Weldon, then brought the witness to a public houfe-In going to the houfe Weldon faid nothing, but asked him how he was at the house a naggin of whiskey was called for Brady told Weldon he should go for Flood who promised to meet him-Weldon defired Brady not to be longA boy came in and said his fupper was readyWeldon faid it was his fon.-Weldon then went out-Brady returned before Weldon with Clayton

witnefs and Kennedy were in the room toge ther-Weldon returned in a quarter of an hour. Weldon in drinking fome punch faid-" We had better make these two-meaning Clayton and witnefs.-Brady asked had Weldon a prayer-book, he said he had-Weldon took the prayer-book and defired Clayton and witness to take hold of it with the right hand-recollected nothing of converfation before he put the oath-was told the purpofe of the oath before-both of them held the book-had feen a paper-he_called it a teft-had feen the paper fince [one was presented to witness which he identified] was fworn to two papers by pritoner-[a paper was prefented to witness which he alfo identified J The court defired thofe papers to be read-which were thofe that had been copied in the indictment.Witnefs repeated his name in taking the oath.-After he was fworn Brady asked if Weldon knew any one who was to head the infurgents when they should rife. Weldon faid he believed there was one in the North who would head them. He told them that letters would be fent to the country to tell them when they were to rife.Weldon was afked by Kennedy how would every one be acquainted with it, and how would they (Clayton and witnefs) get to know it? He laid that the committee-men would acquaint them.-Nothing farther happened.Weldon faid he would tell Brady when there was to be a meeting of the Defenders, fo as that witnefs and the reit fhould know, and believed there would be a meeting of Defenders in the course of next week-Had feen the papers he wore to with Kennedy.-Weldon told witnefs he would give

the

the two papers to Brady before he would leave town, and faid he was going to Cork with his regiment. Did not fay for what purpose he was to give the papers to Brady.-Weldon told them the figns by which to know a Defender which were thefe-putting the hands joined on the top of the head-then bringing them both to the knees.The answer to this was drawing the palm of the right hand across the forehead and returning the back of that hand into the palm of the left. The reply to this was-by doing the fame thing with the left hand. Then came the pafs word-Eliphizmatis.

When the oath was taken, he, Weldon, afked if they liked the oath-he looked then at Brady who faid they knew what they have come here for.

Weldon then faid, laughing, "We know that if the king's head was off to-morrow morning, we would be no longer under his government." ." Witnefs afked him if he was not afraid of keeping the papers about him. He faid no, because he was never fearched ;-but at any rate, he cared not who faw the first (i. e. the cath) but the fmall paper was the principal oneHe faid the first paper was only a cloak for the army on account of fwearing to be true to the king-He said he had fworn feveral of the army -faw the papers in Kennedy's hand after Weldon went out of town-he knew them and challenged them at a place in Drury-lane-Brady brought witnefs to the meeting in Plunket-ftreet of Defenders-Kennedy was with him and many were affembled was asked for 6d.-they were putting down money as a collection for gun-powderBrady defired him to give 6d. -borrowed the 6d. from Kennedy-faw a perfon called Laughinton, who was faid to be a captain of defenders-understood from the company that they wanted powder, and were going to get arms, but not at that time-Brady and Kennedy told him there was to be a meeting-faw fome of this company after ward at Stoney-batter and corner of Arbour-hill -faw Brady afterward, but he did not give notice of this latter meeting-this meeting was of Defenders [this allowed by court to be no evidence, as no foundation was laid for it by fhewing the connection between this meeting and Weldon, or his agent Brady]-faw the oath in Murphy's hand-law the fign ufed but never at a meeting, for there must be fome prefent who knew him to be a defender-One Walfh a taylor, went with him to Stoney-batter-he knew him by the figns to be a Defender-Parker a fhoemaker was also there, whom he knew by the fign to be a Defender.-Cooke, a school-mafter, was at the meeting at Stoney-batter.-The meeting was at Murphy's, corner of Stoney-batter.-One Leary was alfo there-Witness frequented thefe meetings as a Defender was a Defender he believed about three months.-On question by the court, he faid that the men, (Walth, Parker, and Cooke) whom he faw at Stoneybatter-had all given the figns.-This the court faid, eftablished the ground for making the proceeding of this meeting, evidence.

Hart brought in a young man and fwore him.The young man was not willing at firft.-Hart told him that the object of the meeting was to

get arms to affift the French when they would come-Witnefs faw a fmall paper laid upon a book-Witness ceafed to be a Defender, and told Mr. Cowen of his having been foIt wis after there was a meeting at Nowland's in Drurylane-There were at this meeting, Hart, Cooke, Dry, Tottenham, Kennedy, and Flood.-He told Cowen the Monday following, on account of what Hart declared at that meeting fart at that meeting alked him if Dry and Coffee were not Proteftants? Witnefs faid he believed they were-Hart faid he was forry, for he would not fit in company with one.-Notice was given that there would be a meeting on Sunday.-Coffee was then in the chair, and wanted to know how many Defenders there were in Dublin, that officers might be fet over them-heard nothing at Drury-lane about arms.-At Stoney-batter, Hart made the members fwear they would on Monday night come there and bring arms as they were going out to get arms on that night. The oath he conceived was the oath that Defenders had taken to obey the committee man.-The notice of rifing in the North not mentioned.

Crofs examined by Counsellor Curran. Witness was a Proteftant, and had been fo always but had denied his religion among the Defenders in confequence of what Brady had told him-Was brought up as a Proteftant, and taught there was a God, and the fuffering of his fon for the redemption of man, confidered the foundation of his oath in this belief.

"Have you never denied your belief of a God," faid Mr. Curran,

He hefitated, and the question was objected to by the Attorney General, and the objection was allowed.

"Then," faid Mr. Curran, "I won't prefs the queftion-fince this protection is put about you, I am fure it must be neceffary for you."

He did not like the idea of maffacring ALL the Proteftants-and it was communicated by Hart. The converfation of Hart, not the first time he had heard the idea of deftroying the Protestants, but he did not think until then that they meant to deftroy ALL the Proteftants.-Learned from Brady they would rife.-Weldon had told him there would be a meeting in Thomas-streetand that Brady would tell witnefs.—Weldon went out of town before the meeting in Plunket-treet Brady did not fay that he asked witness to go in confequence of Weldon's defire.-At Stoneybatter the firft mention was made of the French.-Could not tell how long between the meeting at Plunket-ftreet and that at Stoneybatter. Did not make a speech at Plunketstreet-Saw no perfon as fecretary-but faw a man putting down money he had collected.— Neither Brady nor Kennedy were at Stoneybatter.-Cooke was not at Barrack-ftreet at the first meeting when witness was there.-Weldon had never mentioned Hart's name, nor Cooke nor Walsh to witnefs. Hart ftarted mention about the French.-No man was appointed as chairman.-Hart fpoke of the French to the young man he was to fwear.-Nobody else faid any thing more on the fubject of the French.The only mention then of the French was at

Stoney

tion affixed any definite idea to this cant, the title which marks the fovereign the DEFENDER, of his people, will, in the estimation of law, when applied to him be a mark of honour, but when applied to a common man be a term of opprobrium and of guilt? Certainly it did not, and therefore the term DEFENDER, when attempted to be used in any other meaning fhould always be difcarded by a fenfible court. The witness, fuch as he is, fuch as he was, with all his zeal for the furtherance of public juice, which he was once ready to violate by the maffacre of his fellow fubjects-with all his anxiety for his fovereign's fafety, whom he was ⚫once ready to affaffinate, does not fay that the meaning of this word Defender, had ever been explained to him. It was, however, the province of the jury, to confider whether this oath, innocent or nonfenfical as it might appear, was yet a cover and a bond of a treasonable affocia tion. What has been faid to induce them to give it this interpretation? The prifoner laughed when it was read! Was laughing a proof of treafon? But he had faid, "if the king's head was off to-morrow, we would be no longer under his government."-Could even this expreffion be a proof of the enormous crime of treason? Certainly it could not-though no doubt it was fach an expreflion as muit have a tendency to bring the perfon who uttered it into disrepute. If it was asked why but to cover a treasonable purpose are all these fufpicious circumstances? It was not for him, nor was it the prisoner's duty to account for them in defending himself against this charge, because it is not circumstances that render innocence doubtful, but full proof that makes guilt and treafon indubitable, which the law requires-He again faid, therefore, that there was no proof to fubitantiate the indictment. Was there a word spoken by the prifoner about a defign against the king? Was there a word spoken on that fubject even at any of the fubfequent meetings whofe acts have been admitted as evidence against the prifoner? Was there even fo much as a defign mentioned to correct the abuses of government? Was there a hint dropped of a public grievance? No fuch thing is proved by the folitary witness in all his accuracy of detail.

But was there any propofition made of affifting the French? No! What then was there proved on which to reft the charge? Why in one of thofe papers it was asked "Where did the cock Crow over all the world?" This appeared not to be very explicit evidence-yet this cock was the only proof brought by Mr. Attorney General, to fhew a defign to kill the king! The jury he knew, were aware that the statute of Edward III. on which this indictment was founded, was framed to prevent vague and conftructive treafons, to bring the crime within the ftrict letter of law, and to make full proof neceffary to conviction. All the dreadful and horrid uncertainty which had prevailed in cafes of treafon, before the paffing of this act, and which had shed upon the fcaffold, fome of the best blood of England would again run in upon us if dubious words fhould be taken as full proof, or if a jury fhould convict on the conftruction of a zealous witness. Hib. Mag. Jan. 1796.

The true rule to afcertain what evidence should be deemed fufficient against the prifoner was, if the evidence be fuch as that-if falfe, its falfehood may be fo proved as to convict the witness of perjury.-But what evidence can prove or difprove a fhrug or a fmile? In a word, there could be no fafety to the honour, the property, or the life of man, in a country where fuch evidence as that which had been now given, would be deemed fufficient to convict a prisoner. Weldon, he obferved, was prefent at only one meeting with the witnefs-it was not even pretended by the profecutors that the guilt did reft on the first conversation. He had expected therefore to hear that the witness would have fworn to his having been enlisted by Weldon to affitt the French.-Nothing like this had been fworn. He had worn to nothing in which Weldon was concerned, but the figns (which were incapable of proving any thing) and the oath and before he would quit this part of the evidence, he would again call on the jury maturely to weigh what proof they had received that the terms of this oath were equivocal.

The obvious way of interpreting any writing was by the common meaning of the words.--Ie was true indeed, that words may be made to fignify arbitrarily any ideas, and that therefore treafonable meaning may be attached to words which in their ordinary fignification are innocent.-Butt that this was the cafe with refpect to the oath in question what proof had been adduced?

If then the charge were fuffered to rest on the prifoner's own conduct there could not be a doubt about his acquittal.-But there was other mat-t ter introduced. First it was proved that Brady had given the witness notice of a meeting in Plunket-ftreet, and that. Weldon had referred witness to Brady for this information. He did fo, but he did not tell the witness that there was any scheme in contemplation which was to be matured in that or any fubfequent meetings.Belides Weldon had left town before that meeting took place, and when it did take place, no treasonable matter occurred.

With respect to the meeting at Stoney-batter, in which the witness faid he first heard the defign of aflitting the French mentioned, two obfervations occurred, first, That where the law makes the act of confulting criminal, it requires that the confultation should be between the members of the body, and does not take the expreflion of ONE man as an act of conluitation in the affembly.-Secondly, That granting the meeting at Stoney-batter to have been criminal becaule one man faid fomething to another about affitting the French, yet was Weldon to be affected by it, affected even to the shedding of his blood, though he was an hundred miles diftant at the time?A jury should be very cautious indeed how they eftablished fuch a precedent! There was no doctrine of English law fo plain or to well afcertained as that a man is to be criminally affected only by his own conduct, and there was no law, there was no fecurity, there was no reafon where the life of a man was liable to forfeiture on account of the act of others, conftru.vely applied to him. a man were to be obnoxious to the