BRIEF ACCOUNT

OF THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM ORR.*

CARRICKFERGUS ASSISES.

WILLIAM ORR, a wealthy farmer of Faranshane, in the county of Antrim, was committed to gaol for high treason, under a warrant of commitment, bearing date the 17th of September, 1796.

At the Lent assises, 1797, he was arraigned on an indictment framed under the insurrection act, for administering unlawful oaths; he then pleaded not guilty, but his trial was postponed on his affidavit, stating the absence of a material witness.

At the next assises he was put upon his trial, on Monday, the 18th day of September, before Lord Chief Baron Yelver ton; two witnesses appeared against him, one of the name of Wheatly, and another of the name of Lindsay, both private soldiers in the Fifeshire regiment of fencibles.

1

This trial is here inserted as a necessary introduction to that of Peter Finerty. The admirable speech of Mr. Curran, on that trial, seemed to require an illustration from the melancholy story of William Orr, the Proto-martyr. The editor, however, has to lament that he cannot give a regular account of the proceedings, as government prohibited all publications on the subject, except their own-yet there were other publications, which brought on the destruction of the Star printing-office by the soldiery.

BVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN.

Wheatly swore, that in April, 1796, he had been in Scotland on furlough, and was on his return by Antrim to join his regiment then quartered at Derry. That he then, upon the 24th or 25th of that month, met with several persons, who swore him into the brotherhood of United Irishmen, and afterwards took him to the house of the prisoner, whom they found employed in sowing flax in his field. He swore that an assembly was called in the house of the prisoner, who acted as chairman or secretary, which he called a Baronial Committee; and that there it was debated, whether he should be intrusted with the printed constitution of the society to promote the institution among his fellow soldiers. That it was agreed that he should have one. That an oath was thereupon administered to him by the prisoner, which was to keep the secrets of United Irishmen, and not for any reward or punishment to discover on them. The witness threw in many circumstances about arms and the Northern Star, which were shown to him, also a draw-well to put the aristocrats into! He swore, that all he did was through fear of his life, which they threatened that he was told they had armed men enough to get a reform by force, if they could not by fair means-he said the intention of the society was to assist the French to liberate Ireland, &c.

On his cross-examination by Mr. Curran, he denied that he had ever offered to desert, or asked money with that view from any body, but was offered money to induce him by a person in Belfast, which he refused. He was asked, if he had sent any cartridges to Mr. Orr when in prison, as a token? and answered he believed not. He was asked, whether he ever told any person that he had taken the test of a soldier in a certain way that suited his own mind best, and that he never was satisfied as a soldier? This he denied, but after some pause went "unless it might be

on,

to some of the United Irishmen before I knew what they meant." He denied that he ever said he intended to desert, though he might have said he was drunk when he enlisted. Q. Had you ever any conversation with one Walker, a soldier, about being Up.

A. I never advised him to be Up.

Q. Had you ever any such conversation with Walker? A. I might endeavour to learn what he knew about being Up.

Q. Did you ever tell him he might take the oath of secrecy without going further?

1

A. I told him I would show him what was in my pocketbook, which was only a parcel of old letters.

Q. Did you ever tell him how you United Mer got powder from abroad in flax-seed hogsheads, and how you had smiths at work making you pikes.

A. I never told him of powder; what I might have told him about pikes was only in the way of a whim.

The second witness, Lindsay, did not attempt to swear any thing of the words, nor even of the nature of the oath, whether it was innocent or guilty, lawful or unlawful. He only said, he was in the room when an oath was administered, and of course was dismissed by Mr. Sampson without any cross-examination, as a witness, whether swearing false or true, totally immaterial.

[Here the evidence for the crown closed.]

The counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Curran and Mr. Sampson, now insisted, that, from the evidence in this case, if the prisoner was guilty of any thing, it was high treason—that they believed him innocent of that and every such charge; but, in order that that matter might be investigated according to the known law and constitution of the country, the present indictment must be given up, or quashed, and a bill for high treason sent up, otherwise it was in vain that the wisdom of

former times, that the experience of ages, and the voice of the wisest and most upright judges hath allowed and sanctioned the statute 25 Edw. III. called by Lord Coke the Blessed Statute, as the Parliament which enacted it was called Parliamentum Benedictum. It was in vain that this excellent statute, never deviated from but for the worst of purposes, and in the worst of times, had given to the accused of treason many securities against that power ever too likely to be exerted against an inidvidual accused and prosecuted by the crown, for any alleged offence directly against the royal power. Experience had shown how horribly the accusations for high treason had been multiplied by princes or their ministers. How hard it was for any subject to have a fair trial, against whom the angry brow of offended royalty was knit; against whom the treasure of the nation was lavishly employed; against whom influence, authority, and power, open and secret, were hostilely arrayed; when the sheriff might be a dependent on the bounty of the crown, as in times of baseness and oppression usually had been the case, since sheriffs ceased to be elected by the people; who might be induced to select from his county, not the indifferent, the disinterested, and unbiassed, to pass judgment upon their fellow creature's life, but the ignorant, the bigoted, the servile, or the mercenary; who, like the executioner, forgetting that they were sworn to judge of the guilt or innocence of the accused according to the evidence, and make true deliverance between the king and the prisoner, might only await the beckon of authority to do their office.

So careful had the law of England been to guard against the various ways by which power might oppress, and defence be borne down; against the partiality or frailty of judges, juries, factions and parties, that, in England, a man to be tried for such an offence as now was attempted to be proved, would, under the 25th Edw. III. have a list of his jurors delivered to him in due time, in order to be well prepared to challenge such as he did not think impartial. He would

be entitled to thirty-five peremptory challenges, and as many more as he could show reasonable cause for challenging. He would be entitled to a list of witnesses for a length of time previous to his trial, in order to enable him to sift their character, and, if it was bad or vile, to be able to make that important circumstance appear to the jury, so as to set aside such testimony in the whole, or in part, as the case might warrant; and two witnesses, at least, must swear to the same treason before he could be affected. He would also be entitled to a copy of his indictment five days, at least, before his trial, in order to apprize him of the exact nature of the charge to which he was to apply his defence. And, lastly, he would be allowed, by his two counsel, to make a defence, by observations upon the law and the fact of his case, and to utter, fully and boldly, whatever might tend to direct the consciences, or inform the understandings of his jury, as to his intention, which is, in other words, as to his innocence or guilt.

For what reason, might be matter of curiosity, but nothing to the present case, there was less protection and less indulgence to the accused in Ireland, but still there was a great deal, in case of treason, to make the law esteemed. But, see how all these wise and boasted provisions of freedom and glories of the English law will be filched away, if high treason, (for such it is, if any thing,) specially prosecuted by the crown, out of the stock-purse of the nation, by the king's attorney-general, and other select and able lawyers of the crown, in times so heated, and a situation so critical, that, if ever there was occasion for these blessed protections against prejudice and power, it is that time; when so great a part of the community is accused, and secret informers publicly advertised for, if high treason be tried under this insurrection act, made hastily on the spur of an unfortunate occasion, and happily, if not already expired, shortly about to do so. The prisoner will be tried, it is true, and possibly be found guilty; but it will be a finding contrary to the most sacred