LATE EUROPEAN NEWS. TRIAL OF MESSRS, WM. S. O'BRIEN, M.P., T. F. MEAGHER, AND JOHN MITCHELL, FOR SEDITION. (From the Morning Chronicle, April 17.) Dublin, Saturday.

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 237, 6 September 1848, Page 3

LATE EUROPEAN NEWS. TRIAL OF MESSRS, WM. S. OBRIEN, M.P., T. F. MEAGHER, AND JOHN MITCHELL, FOR SEDITION. (From the Morning Chronicle, April 17.) Dublin, Saturday.

This being the first day of Easter term, and the opening the »tate prosecution against Messrs. OBrien, Wjtcbell, and Meagher, considerable excitement prevailed in the hall of the Four Courts, and the immediate locality of the courts, for some time before the ordinary period for commencing business. At twelve o'clock the honourable Justice Crampton entered the Court, and the giand jury was sworn. Mr. Justice Crampto» proceeded to address them in the following terms :— Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the City of Dublin,— The recurrence of the presenting term has once more assembled you in that box, qncl devolved on you Ihe very iropou-

ant office of grand jurors. * * * * Gentlemen, I caunot enter into any detail of the particular cases that may be submitted to you. I have neither the wish nor tlie materials to enable met) do so. But I sIihII state to you generally, for your guidance, the nature of the charges likely to be preferred— the law applicable to them — and the proofs necessary to sustain them. The bills of indictment likely to be submitted to you, will, I understand, contain certain charges for the publication of seditious libels, and the speaking of seditious words. 1 refer here not to mere private libels or slanders upon individuals. These, though they may be the subject of criminal prosecution or action, are looked upon more in the luht of private injury thdn of a public oftence. But the matters to be brought before you involve a grave offence — an offenre against the State — an offence that comes under the general head of sedition. The term sfditioi is a comprehensive term, and it serves to include all those attempts to disturb the public peace which come short of high treason ; but the natural tendency of which ia to incite to insurrection and rebellion against the Crown and government. From the earliest period of our law sedition has been held to include high treason ; but though often closely allied to that highest of crimes, and always tending towards it, sedition is now held only as a misdemeanor, and punishable only with fine and imprisonment. It is a high misdemeanor, a grave offence — for its tendency and object are to incite opposition to the law and government— to bring the administration of justice and sovereign authority into contempt — to excite discontent and disaffection among the people— to create public distuibunce, tumult, and civil war, with all their pernicious consequences. In short, sedition i* disloyalty in action— a species of civil mutiny, or rising up against the sovereign power and the state. Gentlemen, you arp aware there can be no indictment for sedition in the abstract any more than for high treason or misdemeanor generally. For the purpose of the charge a seditious spirit must be evinced by overt acts, by doings, by writings, or by words. I will not here speak of seditious domg3 as contradistinguished from seditious writings or speakings, because it is probable your consideration will be confined to seditious writings and speakings ; and though these may appear to terminate in words they are often more dangerous than the musket or the sword. For an armed individual can do but individual injury, but a seditious speech, and, above nil, a seditious press, may stir up thousands and tens of thousands to combine for the destruction, of property. In such writings and speeches liberty is made the pretext, and the weak minded and ignoiant are deluded to believe that they are the slaves ot a foieign power, nnd that their freedom can be achieved only by trampling upon the law of the land, and subverting the government of the country. These preachers of sedition torget that there ii no pact of the world — I say it emphatically — there is no part of the world in which civil liberty exists to the same degree as> uuder the shelter of the British monarchy ; that in no other country would such writings and speeches be tolerated as remain unpunished with us. The subjects of the British emp re, all submitting to the sovereignty of the law, are free from individual dominion. Liberty of speech and writing, and liberty of action, are the birthright equally of every subject of the United Kingdom ; but the liberty, as secured to us by sovereign law, is legulated by the tame laws, and has its necessary limits. la our free country no censorship oa the press or 011 the tongue exists. Every man is tree to write and free to ipeak fas he is free to act ; but Ie is as responsible to the laws for what he writes and speaks as he is foi nhat he does. He is tree, but he must not use his liberty as a cloak for sedition. He shall not, under the pretext of exercising his own rights, violate the legal rights of others. Above a'l, he must not piesume to insult the Sovereign or her government, under the security of that constitution which is the protector of his own person and of his own property. If he does so, gentlemen, he is a tiaitor to the law, and he must ans.ver it. Gentlemen, private libels are redressed by private remedies. Political libels are those which form the subject matter of that sedition I have spoken of; and, gentlemen, while political writings or speeches are confined within their le^al limits, they are not only allowable, they are not only justifiable, but they are entitled to respect and praise. A man may lawfully and beneficially discuss and criticise the measures adopted by the Queen and her ministers, provided he does bo fairly, temperately, and with respect, without imputing to them corrnpt or improper motives ; within the same limits a man may lawfully comment on the laws and constitution of the realm, the acts and proceedings of the hoases of parliament, of the courts of justice and the administration of the lawi, and this he may do in our free country freely and boldly. Our law will no r permit any narrow or strained construction to be put on his writing! or words, nor hold him accountable for hasty and intemperate expressions. In these discussions, or the ability of his own eloquence, the utmost latitude is allowed him to exercise his judgment; but if he advisedly pass the limits of free discussion, if he wilfully trespass beyond the bounds, then it is the seditious spirit is manifested; and thus it is, gentlemen, and this is the material subject for your consideration — ifj from the whole scope and tenor of these speeches and writings — if, from the whole scope and tenor it appears that their object and tendency are to alienite the affection of the people from the Sovereign or the government— to teach them that they are enslaved and oppressed by England, or the English government— to sow dissensions between different portions or classes of the Queen's subjects — to bring the admiuistration of justice into dtsiepute — to stimulate the people to procure by force of arms changes in the law and government of the country — to tamper with the fidelity of the Queen's peace-officers or soldiers — to invoke the aid of foreign powers against the lawful authority of the state — to encourage multitudinous meetings for the display of physical force in order to intimidate the government — to encourage the disaffected to procure arms, for the purpose of civil war against the government, or to excite to tumult or rebellion— all and every such speeches are clearly sedition ; all and every such writings are clearly seditious libels ; they come immediately within the category of sedition, and are closely allied to high treason. Gentlemen, I do not mean here to enumerate all the clauses of such word 3 or writings which nny be used for the purpose I have stated ; but I have mentioned enough to describe their general character, and to enable you to deal with ths bills which will be made the subject of your inquiry. I know, gentlemen, there are some who disapprove of all the prosecutions, and especially of what are called state prosecutious ; that there are some who exhibit a morbid feeling towards offenders, and are comparatively careless about the safety of individuals or the public, and that such persons are disposed to look with an especially indulgent eye upon what are called political offences, as if an offence or crime lost its effect by having the whole public for its object. But I own I cannot sympathise with such philanthropists, as they may call themselves. I cannot but view high treason as the greatest and most dangerous of all offences that can be committed against human laws, involving, as it does, every other crime connected with violence and blood. I cannot but view also seditious attempt! to stimulate the caul-

titude into insurrection as an offence of the giavest character. The motive for such offrnccs may not be traitorous; it may be meiely selfish ; it may be a desire for low popularity, or a love of notoriety, even at the expense of degradation. Tlvc sedition uttei'eil may be but the effusion of a heated imagination, or \h<s effects of a mischievous restlessness of mind ; bat whatever the motive, be it moie or Icsb culpable, the dangers to the community fiom such practices are exact'y the s>une. The piinciplea which «Udh Wr)flld inculcate are inconsistent With all government. They are as hostile to the spirit of the British constitution as they are at variance with the precepts of the Gospel of truth, and they have icreived no countenance from the gieit constitutional lights ot the lav in former days— the Hales, the Holts, and the Mantfields, or our own Bushes or Plunlcets, or other eminent interpreters of the constitutional law. And, gentlemen, if ever there, was a time when the application of such principles was dangerous, it is emphatically the present — a time of change, ot excitement, and of popular commotion unparalleled in fh° history of nations. Not, gentlemen, that I enteitain any apprehension of the stability of our own institutions. The revolutionary tide which ia sweeping away continental thrones from their unsteady buses, rccoiU m broken waves from the solid and well-balanced fabric of the British constitution. The sound good sense, the love of order, and the affectionate loyalty which have for ages characterised the great majority of the British people, directed by the vigilance and energy of a paternal government, with the blessing of the Great Being in whose hands are the destinies of nation^, have hitherto been the shield of the British nation and of her glorious institutions, anJ are, I do believe, the suiust guarantees' for our constitution. You will remember always that the higher and the more penal the ciime charged against any patty, the more satisfactory must be the proof required to support that charge. It is true, gentlemen, yours is but a preliminary inquiry. You are called upon to consider whether the parties shall be put upon their trial; and you can receive no evidence but evidence in support of the bill. The party against whom a bill is found has a right to a public trial by a petit jury of his peers before he can be pronounced guilty, or made the subject of punishment. But, on the other hand, gentlemen, it is no light thing to put a man on his trial for a serious offence. S'ich a proceeding should be adopted only on a clear prima fttie ca-e — upon such proof as, if uncontradicced and unexplained, would justify you as a pet.it jury in finding a verdict of guilty. I n the oases likely to go before you, there are two points for your special consideration. First, the publication or speaking of the seditious writings or words charged in the indictment, and the motives and intentions of the parties accused. Secondly, the criminal character or otherwise of the writings or woi ds so set out in the bill of indictment. The first enquiry ia a mere matter of tact, and its result will depend upon the testimony of the witnesses whose names will be endorsed on the back of the bill. These only you will examine. The second inquiry involves a question of law— that is as to the character ot the writings. Such questions are usually for the consideration of the court ; but in libel cases the law has devolved upon juries the determination of the legal question also. It is no doubt the n«ht of ihe jury ; and it is the duty of the court to give them its advice and assistance, as I have endeavoured to do on the present occasion ; hiu the determination and decisioi of the guilt of the pirty accused rests in your hinds. If you are satisfied by the evidence laid befo c you that the writings or words chaiged in the indictment were published or spoken by the parties charged, and w.th the view and motives imputed in tlie indictment ; and if you are also satisfied that they aie according to the views which I have taken the liberty to suggest—libellous and seditious in their character — you will find the b.lls to be proven. But if, on the other hand, you are not satisfied ou these points, then you will find no bills. The Foreman asked if the bilU of indictment would be sent up to-day ? Mr. Bourne, clerk of the Crown. — Yes; here they arc. 'iwo large rolls of parchment were then handed up to the Foreman, and the jury retired to their loom.