racter of a man of integrity, and of honest fame? And, gentlemen of the jury, I call upon you to answer my question by your verdict; I feel myself imprest with the idea in my breast, that you will give your verdict of acquittal of the prisoner at the bar; and that by your verdict you will declare on your oaths that you do not believe one syllable that Reynolds has told you. Let me entreat you to put in one scale the base, the attainted, the unfounded, the perjured witness, and in the opposite scale let me advise you to put the testimony of the respectable witnesses produced against Reynolds, and the witnesses to the prisoner's hitherto unimpeached character, and you will hold the balance with justice, tempered with mercy, as your consciences in future will approve.

Let me depart from the scene of beholding human misery, should the life of my client, by your verdict, be forfeited; should he live by your verdict of acquittal, he would rank as the kindest father, and protector of his little children, as the best of husbands and of friends, and ever maintain that irreproachable character he has hitherto sustained in private life. Should our witnesses not exculpate the prisoner from the crime charged on him to the extent as charged in the indictment, I pray to God to give you the judgment and understanding to acquit him. Do not imagine I have made use of any arguments to mislead your consciences, or to distress your feelings. No; but if you conceive a doubt in your minds that the prisoner is innocent of the crime of high treason, I pray to God to give you firmness of mind to acquit him.

I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to the free exercise of your own judgments in the verdict you may give. I have not by way of supplication, addressed you in argument; I do not wish to distress your feelings from supplications; it would be the most unbefitting to your candour and understandings you are bound by your oaths to find a true verdict according to the evidence; and you do not deserve the station of jurors the constitution has placed you in, if you do not discharge the trust freely, and according to your consciences.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER.

Valentine Connor swore that he knew Thomas Reynolds; that he would not believe him on his oath; he spoke from a knowledge of his general character, and also from the transaction between Reynolds and Cope, which he did not think a fair one.

Ann Fitzgerald swore that Reynolds, in her opinion, did not deserve credit on oath; and her reason for thinking so was his conduct to Mrs. Cahil.

Henry Withrington said his sister had the misfortune to be married to Reynolds, and from his general character he did not believe him worthy of credit upon his oath-he said he was sent for to his mother's house, the Saturday before her death. Here it was observed by the court, that this witness contradicted the evidence, Reynolds, about the pitched sheet. Edward Withrington to the same effect.

Rev. Thomas Kingsbury, sworn on the part of Reynolds, said, that he had known him many years, and that he deserved credit upon oath. The case closed on both sides.

Mr. Ponsonby spoke to the evidence in behalf of the prisoner-and Mr. Saurin replied on the part of the crown.

Mr. Justice Chamberlaine. Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner at the bar stands indicted for high treason. One of the overt acts laid in the indictment is, that the prisoner at the bar with other false traitors, did enter into a conspiracy to levy war against the king, which is compassing or imagining the death of the king, which by the statute of the 25 Edw. III. is high treason. Although the natural death of the king was not the immediate consequence, the fact of levying war against the king might bring the life of the king into danger; and therefore the statute wisely provides to prevent it, by making it high treason to compass or imagine the death of the king. Whether such compassing or imagining was entered into on this side of the water, or in England, where the

king resides, makes no difference in the case, as the realm of Ireland is a part of the dominions of the king. As the levying war against the king cannot be done without endangering the life of the king, it is high treason to levy such war; and to overturn by force the government of this kingdom, is a compassing or imagining the death of theking, and also constitutes the crime of high treason. The indictment fully states the several overt acts to support the two principal counts in the indictment.

The learned judge expounded to the jury the several overt acts stated in the indictment, and said, if the jury were fully satisfied by the evidences that have been produced, that the prisoner did become a United Irishman for the purpose of overturning, by force, the government of this kingdom; and, to carry it into effect, he did assemble with others about the means of arming men for said purpose, and carrying on said rebellion; if on these, or any other overt acts, laid in the indictment, you, gentlemen of the jury, by the evidences you have heard, should be of opinion that any one of the overt acts is fully proved on the prisoner, it is sufficient to warrant your finding the prisoner guilty. You need go no further, if you find him guilty of any one of the overt acts laid in the indictment.

Now, gentlemen of the jury, it may be necessary to explain to you what the law is upon the subject of high treason. A great deal has been said by the learned counsel for the prisoner in this case, that, by the law of England, two witnesses are, in England, required to prove an overt act of high treason. By the common law of England, in cases of murder, if the jury shall believe the fact proved, one witness is sufficient, as in the case of Sir John Pennington. The common law of England, and the common law of Ireland, is the same, and though the Irish legislature never thought proper to expressly state it, I beg leave to say, I am most firmly of opinion, that the evidence of one single witness is sufficient to prove an overt act of high treason!

You, gentlemen of the jury, are to judge by the conduct of Bond, whether he was not connected with the Society of United Irishmen, who met in his house on the 12th of March. There was found on the prisoner at the bar, a paper purporting to be an address to the Society of United Irishmen; it was read in evidence, and will be material for your consideration; you will determine whether you believe Bond was a member of the Society of United Irishmen, and was in the habit of acting with them in their conspiracies, and this you will judge of from the evidence, parol and written, which has been produced before you in the course of this trial. If you believe the evidence of Reynolds, he told you that Bond was a United Irishman in February, 1797, and afterwards told Reynolds he wished him to be a colonel, i. e. colonel of the army for the county of Kildare under the Society of United Irishmen and, by written evidence, it appears, the intent of that society was, to overturn the constitution of this kingdom by force.

Gentlemen of the jury, upon the whole of this case, you will judge of the verdict you may give, by the evidences which have been adduced before you-you will judge of it as men of sense; you are to determine, on your consciences, whether you do believe that Oliver Bond, the prisoner at the bar, was a member of the Society of United Irishmen, or not. If you have any reasonable doubt upon your minds, you must acquit the prisoner. The whole is left to your judgment.

The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY.

Mr. Bond being asked what he had to say why judgment 1 of death should not be awarded, he tendered a paper purporting to have been the dying declaration of M'Cann (who was lately executed) that he was innocent. The court rejected the paper as being contrary to known practice.

Mr. Justice Day then pronounced the usual sentence of death against him in cases of high treason, and the prisoner was conducted back to gaol.

"

COUNSEL for the crown:-The Solicitor-General, Mr. Prime Serjeant, Messrs. Saurin, O'Grady, Mayne, Webber, and Ridgeway.

COUNSEL for the prisoner:-Messrs. Curran and Ponsonby.

OLIVER BOND

Was the son of a dissenting minister in the north of Ireland, and connected by blood, not only with many of the middle classes of the people, but also with those who figure in the first style of rank and fashion. His value, however, did not arise from respectable relationships, but from his own personal merits-his public and private worth as a member of society, as a merchant, a friend, a husband, and a parent; candid, generous, and charitable-no other individual stood higher in the estimation of his fellow citizens.

Such, in a few words, was the man who unfortunately became a United Irishman, and, of course, became suspected of an inclination to the crime of republicanism. But Mr. Bond did not suffer by the hands of the common executioner; so highly were the public interested in his favour, that even those who were adverse to his political opinions joined in the most earnest solicitations to government, to change or mitigate the sentence of death; so powerful and so general were the intercessions in his favour, that government did hesitate. Conferences were held, and negotiations* entered into between the castle agents and the leaders of the United Irishmen: the

* By one of these negotiations, a number of the prisoners had made an agreement with government to transport themselves to the United States when they were informed by Mr. Marsden, one of the under secretaries, "that the American ambassador to the court of St. James's, had objected to their going to that country," By this very unexpected interference, these gentlemen were prevented from making America the place of their asylum, and of bringing property with them to a very large amount.