marked by that consultation, in order to charge any man, who was present and did not say anything concurring, with the guilt of that consultation. It is necessary that he should have notice that the guilty purpose was to be debated upon that the meeting was convened for that purpose. But let me recal your attention to this, and you will feel it bearing strongly upon that case. The silence of a man at such a meeting is not criminal to the degree here charged. Then suppose his disclaimer necessary-suppose the law considered every man as abetting what he did not disavow-remember that the wretch now sought to be affected by his silence at a meeting, was one hundred miles distant from it. There might have been a purpose from which his soul had recoiled. Is this then evidence upon which to convict the prisoner? There is no statement of any particular purpose-no summons to confer upon any particular purposeno authority given to any meeting by a deputy named; and let me remind you, that at the last meeting, if there were the gossipings and communications you have heard,. there was not any one man present who attended the first meeting, nor is there any evidence to show that the prisoner had ever spoken to any one man who attended the last meeting, upon any occasion; and yet the monstrous absurdity contended for is, that although Weldon proposed no subject for discussion-although he proposed no meeting-although he did not know that any purpose was to be carried into effect, because he was then one hundred miles off, he is still to suffer for the foolish babble of one individual to another. You are to put all proceedings together, and out of the tissue of this talk, hearsay, and conjecture, you are to collect the materials of a verdict, by which you directly swear that the man is guilty of compassing the King's death. But suppose a man were to suggest a treasonable meeting—that the meeting takes place, and he does not go-the first proposal may amount to an evidence of treason, if it went far enough, and amounted to an incitement. But suppose the meeting held be a distinct one from that which was suggested, and the party does not attend, it appears to me, that the act of that meeting cannot be considered as his overt act. The previous incitement must be clearly established by evidence, and I rely upon it, that the subsequent acts of that meeting, to which I am supposing he did

not go-particularly if it be a meeting at which many others were present who were not at the first-I rely upon it, I say, that no declaration of any man (and more decidedly, if it be by a man not privy to the original declaration), can be evidence upon which a jury can attach guilt to the party. It is nothing more than misfeasance, which is certainly criminal, but not to the extent of this charge. To affect any man by subsequent debate, it must be with notice of the purpose, and if the meeting be dictated by himself it is only in that point he can be guilty; because if you propose a meeting for one purpose, you shall not be affected by any other-no matter what the meeting is-however treasonable or bad. Unless you knew before for what purpose they assembled, you cannot be guilty virtually by what they have done.

Gentlemen, I do not see that any thing further occurs to me upon the law of the case, that I have not endeavoured in some way to submit to you. Perhaps I have been going back somewhat irregularly. Gentlemen, there remains only one, and that a very narrow subject of observation. I said that the evidence upon which the life, and the fame, and the property of a man should be decided and extinguished, ought to be of itself evidence of a most cogent and impressive nature. Gentlemen, does it appear to you that the witness whom you saw upon the table comes under that description? Has he sworn truly? If he has, what has he told you? As soon as he discovered the extent of the guilt he quitted the fraternity. Do you believe that? Hart told him that ALL the Protestants were to be massacred. "I did not like," said he, "the notion of massacreing ALL." Here is the picture he draws of himself-he an accomplice in the guilt. I did not ask him-"Have you been promised a pardon?" I did not ask him-" Are you coming to swear by the acre?"— but I appeal to the picture he drew of himself upon the table. What worked his contrition? Is it the massacre of one wretch? He was unappalled at the idea of dipping his hands, and lapping the blood of part of the Protestant body-it was only heaps of festering dead that nauseated his appetite, and worked his repentance and conversion. Is your verdict to be founded upon the unsupported evidence of a wretch of that kind? His stomach stood a partial massacre-it was only an universal

deluge of blood that made him a convert to humanity! And he is now, the honest, disinterested, and loyal witness in a court of justice! What said he further? "As soon as I found from Hart, their schemes, I went to Mr. Cowan." You saw, gentlemen, that he felt my motive in asking the question. "You abandoned them as soon as you found their criminality?" Because, had he answered otherwise, he would have destroyed his credit; but as it is, he has thrown his credit, and the foundation of it, overboard. If Lawler be innocent, Weldon must be So. He saw that, and, therefore, he said he thought it no crime to kill the King. Therefore, gentlemen, my conscience told me, that if he felt no remorse at plunging a dagger into the heart of his King, he would feel no trembling hesitation at plunging a dagger into the breast of an individual subject, by perjured testimony. Those workings of the heart which agitate the feelings at the untimely fate of a fellow-creature touch not him, and he could behold with delight the perishing of that man who had a knowledge of his guilt. He has no compunction, and he betrays no reluctance at drinking deep in the torrent of human blood, provided it leaves a remnant of the class. What stipulation can you make between a wretch of that kind and the sacred obligation of an oath? You are to swear upon his oath; a verdict is not to be founded upon your own loyalty—not upon what you have seen or heard spoken disrespectfully of the government or the King. Your honest, pure, and constitutional verdict can be founded only upon that sympathy that you feel between your own hearts and the credibility of the witness. It is a question for you. Will you hazard that oath upon the conscience of such a man? A man influenced by hope and agitated with fear-anxious for life and afraid to die, that you may safely say, "We have heard a witness, he stated facts which we could not believe; he is a wretch, for he thought it no crime to murder his King; and a partial massacre appeared to him to be meritorious!" Is it Is it upon the testimony of that nefarious miscreant-the ready traitor the prompt murderer-I retract not the expression, if I did, it would be to put in its place a word of more emphatic and combined reprobation; is it upon that evidence, I say, you will pronounce a verdict, establishing the most aggravated degree of criminality known to our law, upon the person of that man,

supposed by the law to be innocent, until his guilt be proved? I know not whether the man be a good subject or a bad one: it is not necessary for me to know nor for you to inquire; but I exhort you finally to remember, that in Great Britain, so anxious has the law been to guard against the perfidiousness of such men, that no less than two concurrent witnesses are necessary there in cases of treason. I call not upon you to adopt that law; but to show you the principle, that there should be strong evidence satisfying the mind of a jury. I commit the decision of this case to your consciences, not to your humanity-I commit it to your determination upon the sound principles of justice and law.

After Mr. Curran had sat down, he rose again, and said he had closed without stating any evidence, from a conviction that it would be unnecessary; and added—“It is desired to produce some evidence which I will not oppose in a case of life. There is evidence to show that Lawler is not credible."

Curran examined witnesses to this effect, but Weldon was found GUILTY, and though Leary, another prisoner, was acquitted, under precisely similar facts, Weldon was hanged.

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

May 4th, 1795.

On the 4th of January, 1795, Lord Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland, charged with the carrying of Catholic Emancipation and the pacification of Ireland. The causes of this proposed concession were the rapid progress of the United Irishmen, and the still more rapid progress of the French armies, who had driven the Spaniards behind the Pyrenees, the Austrians behind the Rhine, destroyed the Duke of York's army, and prepared the occupation of Holland, in the winter of 1794-5.

On the 22nd of January, Parliament met, and heard a most plausible speech. It imposed on Grattan; he outdid Ministers in loyalty to the stupid and barbarous King, and illiberal and insolent government of England. An Emancipation Bill was read a first time, but ample supplies were voted, and antiGallican frenzy got up among certain classes, before it was found that Beresford and the King were too strong for Fitzwilliam and Pitt. The Viceroy was recalled, the Emancipation bill defeated, but the supplies and the frenzy were appropriated by the ministers. On the second reading of the bill a debate of great length and ability took place. I regret the inferiority of the report of Curran's speech :

I mean not, at this late hour, to trouble the house at large on the question. I have from the first been a friend to the deliver

ance of the Catholics. I think their claims irresistible on every principle of policy and justice. I have more than once given my reasons for that opinion. It is not necessary now to repeat them. Never did a cause stand less in need of additional defence. Very little therefore will I now add; particularly as the speech of a right honourable gentleman has made it manifest that gentlemen have come with their minds prepared upon the subject, and that it is a question of division, and not of debate. I feel myself forced to rise to set right some things that have been asserted in the debate. An honourable and learned gentleman has been pleased to mix the names of the Catholics with that of Mr. Jackson, who was lately tried for treason. It is only justice to that body of our fellow-subjects to say, in the presence of the AttorneyGeneral, who conducted that prosecution, that not one syllable was said upon the trial, nor did any circumstance whatsoever appear, that could warrant even a suspicion of the most distant intercourse between any one Catholic and that unfortunate man ; and I am glad of being able to make this assertion in this public place, in order that if any calumny of that sort should be ever uttered against them, it might be known to be most malicious and unfounded. I must animadvert on the impropriety of talking so familiarly of the names of individuals in parliament. It is abusing the absent, who ought to have at least opportunity of answering—or of saying, what they probably would say—that they thought such aspersions unworthy of reply. It is also asserted, that the bill was penned in a particular quarter, on which the learned gentleman has been very liberal of contemptuous language-I beg to assure him he is mistaken; the bill was not penned by those persons.

If it be blameable, it is only just to say where the guilt is chargeable. Part of the guilt is with myself-I have assisted in framing this bill. The right honourable mover has the greater part of the guilt to answer for; I am at a loss, however, to find out in what this guilt consists. I have thought of it much, but I cannot find out the criminality. The nation is of my opinion -every persuasion is of my opinion; I am convinced, therefore, not of its guilt, but of its justice. I am satisfied that if Ireland is to be saved, it can be done only by the emancipation of the Catholics, and the union of the people. It is no longer