It is my duty to state to you, we have evidence to prove to you, that the witness on the part of the prosecution is undeserving of credit, and it is my duty to apprize you, that it is your duty to examine into the moral character of the witness that has been produced; and it is of the utmost concern you should do this, as your verdict is to decide on the life or death, the fame or dishonour, of the prisoner at the bar. With respect to prosecutions brought forward by the state, I have ever been of opinion, the decision is to be by the jury, and as to any matter of law, the jury do derive information from the court; for jurors have, by the constitution, a fixed and permanent power to decide on matter of fact, and the letter of the law the sovereign leaves to be expounded by the mouth of the king's judges. Some censure on former occasions hath fallen on former judges, from a breach of this doctrine. Upon a former occasion I differed in opinion from the learned judge who then presided, as to what I conceived to be the law, as to what is to be construed in the law of high treason, as to the compassing or imagining the death of the king; I am not ashamed of the opinion in the point of law I entertained; I never shall be ashamed of it. I am extremely sorry I should differ from the bench in opinion on a point of law, but judges have had different opinions on the same subject. When an overt act is laid of compassing and imagining the death of the king, it does not mean, in construction of law, the natural dissolution of the king; but where there was not the fact acted upon, but confined merely to the intention a man had, the proof of such intention must, according to Lord Coke and Sir M. Foster, be proved by two witnesses in England; the stat. of Edw. III. provides against the event of the death of the king by any person levying war, whereby his life might become endangered. The proof of such overt act must, in England, be substantiated by two witnesses; how it comes not to be so settled and required in Ireland, is not accounted for.

Before the stat. of Edw. III. the law relative to high treason was undefined, which tended to oppress and harass the people; for, by the common law of England, it was formerly a matter of doubt whether it was necessary to have two witnesses to prove an overt act of high treason. Lord Coke

says, that in England, there must be two witnesses to prove an overt act; it seems he afterwards was of a contrary opinion; but in the reign of William III. a statute passed, and by that statute it appears there must be two witnesses; but when that statute came to be enacted here, the clause relative to there being two witnesses to an overt act of high treason is not made the law in Ireland, but why it was not required in Ireland is not explained. By the English act of William III. in England, the overt act must be proved by two witnesses, but it does not say so in Ireland; but, as the common law of England and the common law of Ireland is the same, the consciences of an Irish jury ought to be fully satisfied, by the testimony of two witnesses to an overt act; but, on this point, however, some of the Irish judges are of opinion, that two witnesses are not, in Ireland, required to substantiate an overt act: therefore their opinion must be acquiesced in. Let me suppose that Confucius, Plato, Solon, or Tully, or any other great philosopher, was of opinion, on any particular point, as suppose, for instance, that on the statute of William III. in order to have a just and equal 'trial, there must be two witnesses to prove an overt act; Blackstone and Montesquieu are of opinion we should have the equal protection to our liberties, why then should not a jury in Ireland require the same evidence, i. e. two witnesses here as well as in England? [The learned counsel referred to the statute of Edw. III. the act of Wm. III. on high treason, Blackstone's Commentaries, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, Coke, and Foster's Pleas of the Crown.]

Gentlemen of the jury, let me state to you, in the clearest point of view, the defence of the prisoner at the bar, and see what has been the nature of the evidence adduced. The

་

prisoner at the bar is accused of compassing or imagining the death of the king, and of adhering to the king's enemies. The evidence against him is parol and written evidence. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I will venture to observe to you, that as to the written evidence, if suffered to go before you by the court, it is only as evidence at large, but as to the credibility of it, that is for you to decide upon. Mr. Reynolds, in his parol testimony, has sworn, that he was made a United Irishman by the prisoner at the bar; Mr. Reynolds says he was sworn to what he considered to be the objects of that society; he stated them to you, but whether true or false, is for you to determine, by the credit you may give to his testimony. This is the third time Mr. Reynolds has appeared in a court of justice, to prosecute the prisoners. He says the objects of the United Irishmen are to overturn the present government, and to establish a republican form of government in its stead, and to comfort and abet the French, on their invading this kingdom, should such an event take place. You have heard his testimony: let me ask, do you think him incapable of being a villain? Or do you think him a villain? You observed with what kind of pride he gave his testimony; do you believe his evidence by the solemn oath you have taken? Or do you believe it was a blasted perjury? Can you give credit to any man of a blasted character? It has been the misfortune of many former jurors to have given their verdict founded upon the evidence of a perjured witness, and on their death-beds they repented of their credulity in conyicting a man upon false testimony: the history of former ages is replete with such conduct, as may be seen in theState Trials, in the case of Lord Kimbolton and Titus Oates. The then jurors convicted that nobleman, but some time after his death, the jurors discovered they had given implicit credit to a witness unworthy of it; and the lawyers of those times might have said, "I thank God they have done the deed." Does not the history of human infirmity gave many instances of this kind?

萨

Gentlemen, let me bring you more immediately to the case before you; had we no evidence against Reynolds, but his own solitary evidence; from the whole of his evidence you cannot establish the guilt of the prisoner at the bar; take the whole of his evidence into your consideration; it may appear he is unworthy of credit. He told you he got information from M'Cann on the Sunday morning, that the meeting was to be on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. Reynolds goes immediately to Mr. Cope, and gives him that information -on Sunday afternoon he goes to Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and shows him the orders issued by Captain Saurin to the lawyers' corps: then, said Lord Edward, I fear government intends to arrest me; I will go to France, and hasten them to invade this country-government has no information of the meeting of provincial delegates at Bond's. No, says Reynolds, that is impossible! Reynolds wrote to Bond he could not attend the meeting, as his wife was ill; Reynolds did not go to the meeting. Bond was arrested on Monday morning; on Monday evening at eight at o'clock, Reynolds goes to Lord Edward in Angier-street, met him, and goes again to him the next night, and Lord Edward conversed with Reynolds about his (Lord Edward's) going to France. Reynolds then went to Kildare; he gave the most solemn assurance to the delegates, at a meeting there, that he never gave information of the meetings at Bond's! Now see how many oaths Reynolds has taken! he admits he took two of the obligations to the Society of United Irishmen. He told you Lord Edward advised him to accept of being colonel of Kildare United Irishmen's army, and yet, he says, he afterwards went to Bond's, and Bond advised him to be a colonel. It appeared in evidence that Reynolds was a treasurer; he took two more oaths, one as colonel, and one as treasurer, and he took the oath of allegiance also, and he took an oath to the truth of his testimony, at the two former trials, and at this-on which do you give him credit?

Gentlemen, in order to narrow the question under your

consideration, as to what Reynolds said relative to Lord Edward's conversation, it is totally out of this case; it can have no weight at all on the trial of Mr. Bond for high treason, in the finding of your verdict. How, or in what manner, is the prisoner at the bar to be affected by it? I submit to your lordships, that the declarations of Lord Edward to Reynolds, when Bond was not present, is not attachable to the prisoner. Mr. Reynolds has given you a long account of a conversation he had with Mr. Cope, relative to the proceedings of the Society of United Irishmen, and Mr. Cope said, if such a man could be found as described by Reynolds, who would come forward and give information, he would deserve the epithet of "Saviour of his Country!" Thus, by Reynolds's evidence, it would seem that Mr. Cope was the little pony of repentance, to drive away the gigantic crimes of the Colossus Reynolds-but remember, said Mr. Reynolds, though I give information, I won't sacrifice my morality; I won't come forward to prosecute any United Irishman. No, no; like a bashful girl higgling about the price of her virtue, I am determined, says Reynolds, to preserve my character. I will give the communication; but do not think I will descend to be an informer. I will acquaint you with every thing against the United Irishmen, but I must preserve my credit. I tell you the design of the United Irishmen is to overturn the constitution. I will lead you to the threshold of discovery; but I won't name any price for reward. Pray don't mention it at all! Says Mr. Cope, a man would deserve a thousand or fifteen hundred a year, and a seat in parliament, or any thing, if he could give such information. No such thing is required, no such thing, says Reynolds. You mistake me; I will have nothing in the world but merely a compensation. for losses. Do you think I would take a bribe? I ask only of you to give me leave to draw a little bit of a note on you for five hundred guineas; only by way of indemnity for losses I have sustained, or am liable to sustain.

Gentlemen of the jury, don't you see the vast distinction