ward and took deliberate aim at the Lord Lieutenant's head; so good an aim that it struck the cushion of the next box, and with such force that it cut the cushion and rebounded on the stage. If it had taken effect, in all probability it would have put an end to his life. When I state that a bottle was thrown at the king's representative, and that implements of violence were flung at his person, such is the state of the public mind, that it is listened to as if it were a mere bagatelle, a jeu d'esprit, a trifle of which the Lord Lieutenant need not take any notice, and which is below the attention of the government and the law officers. Why, gentlemen of the jury, are we awake? Can we be insensible to the effect of such occurrences upon the honor and safety of the country? Can we reflect, without indignation, that such an outrage should be committed in a civilized country against the person of his majesty's representative, because he had the presumption, in opposition to a desperate gang, to execute the parting injunctions of the king in a manner not calculated to give offense or excite animosity? The sentiments of the audience were roused; some rushed up to the gallery. Graham first flung the heavy part of the rattle, and then the light. It will be produced to you. Forbes, as I have already stated, was a party to the entire system of the party, and was present at the sending the men from Daly's to the gallery with bludgeons. He stationed them in the upper gallery at their post. After the bottle and rattle had been thrown, he was observed in the lattices or pigeon holes, immediately adjoining the left side of the upper gallery, in which he had previously stationed the party; he was separated from them only by the spikes dividing those two parts of the house. He was seen actively encouraging the rioters; he held in his hand a whistle with which he sounded the alarm, and gave a signal which was answered through the whole house. He was asked by a magistrate why he used the whistle, to which he replied, "for fun." He was then arrested, but liberated on promise to give bail. Here Mr. Plunkett briefly referred to conversations of some of the traversers, after the affair at the theatre, to show that they boasted of what they had done. He then continued: 14. THE ACTION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AN EXERCISE OF WISE DISCRETION. Am I now to justify myself in your opinion, and in that of the public, for the exercise of my discretion in this ex officio informa tion, by which I have been enabled for the first time to bring these facts before the public? I ask any man who has a principle of candor or honesty in his composition, whether he is not bound to acquit me, and whether I should not have basely betrayed the king whom I serve, and the office with which he has honored me, if I suffered public justice to be stifled and obstructed? When these transactions were brought under the consideration of the government, the law officers were consulted by the magistrates. We bestowed the most patient attention and laborious investigation on the case; for five or six days we were occupied at this business. Every day some new light was thrown upon it, until it at length assumed an aspect so formidable as to lead us to the apprehension that his Excellency's life had been directly aimed at. When we learned that Forbes had avowed his approbation of the act; when, after the conspiracy had shown itself in its most desperate effects, he expressed his regret at its failure, and his determination to make another attempt more effectual; we felt, when called upon for our advice upon his application to be discharged, that we could not justify it to our conscience and our sworn duty, or to the respect due to the high personage and illustrious character who had been offered at, if we had suffered him to go at large till we knew the whole of the transaction. There was at that time evidence, not only sufficient to warrant a grand jury for finding a bill for conspiracy to murder, but even for a petty jury to found a verdict for conviction. It was one thing to consider the proper species of committal, and another in what way we should ultimately proceed. When that point came to be finally decided on, and we had reason to believe that the whole of the evidence was before us, our determination was not to proceed on the capital charge. It was infinitely better we should be censured for the tameness of our proceeding, than that we should be arraigned for its rigor. We felt that before we sent up an indictment containing a capital charge, we should be clearly satisfied that the primary object of the conspiracy was to take away the life of the Lord Lieutenant, and that, if any doubt rested on the case, it would be better to be blamed for the timidity and forbearance of the prosecution than exposed to the heavy charge of exerting a rigor beyond the law. We were glad to show in the instance of the most illustrious personage of the realm a strict observance of the law. What satisfied my mind against sending up a bill of indictment on a capital charge was this, that the object of driving the Lord Lieutenant by violence from the theater, and from the country, though it involved the imminent hazard of the life of the Lord Lieutenant, was distinct from the notion of a conspiracy to murder him. When it clearly appeared that the object was to put down the Lord Lieutenant's government and force him from the country, although this plot involved in it an outrage on his person, I did not think that in a capital case a jury could be called upon to say that murder was the aim of the conspiracy. Under these circumstances, therefore, we thought it right to send up the indictments for the misdemeanors which the grand jury have thrown out. The nature of these informations has already been laid before you. There are two distinct informations; one is for a riot and the other for a conspiracy to riot. The counts vary; but in each there is alleged, first, a conspiracy to riot, and then a conspiracy to hoot, groan, hiss and assault the Lord Lieutenant. In point of law, either or any part of these charges, if proved, will justify a verdict. I have no doubt of being able to prove the whole. I have stated this case without exaggeration against the traversers at the bar. I have no feelings in the discharge of my duty, except the desire faithfully to acquit myself of what I owe to my country and to my sovereign. I may have expressed myself with warmth, I hope not with intemperance. But after I have disabused your minds of the ten thousand falsehoods which have been circulated on this subject, I feel it would be trifling with public justice to say, that this was the act of a few misguided ruffians, growing out of any sudden impulse. It is a proceeding originating with a gang within the limits of this city, associated for the purpose of putting down the king's government, of driving the Lord Lieutenant from this country, and of showing that he has not the power, against their wishes and their authority, to discharge the duties belonging to his exalted station. SPEECH OF JOHN HENRY NORTH. OPENING FOR THE DEFENSE IN REX V. FORBES AND OTHERS.CONSPIRACY AND RIOT. IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DUBLIN, HILARY TERM, 3D GEORGE IV, FEBRUARY 5th, 1823. ANALYSIS OF MR. NORTH'S SPEECH. 1. A proceeding based upon an ex officio information, illegal and without precedent. 2. The charges and the evidence. 3. Loyalty the chief characteristic of Orange men. 4. Propriety of decorating King William's 5. The attorney-general's tribute to the 7. A protest against unmerited applause no 8. The defendants never contemplated personal violence. 9. The testimony of the Atkinson brothers discredited. 10. Sketch of Michael Farrell, and review of his testimony. 11. Arraignment of Proctor M'Namara, who saw the bottle "in transit." 12. The conduct of defendants not criminal.— 13. References to Bolingbroke, the Duke of The defendants embraced in the information in this remarkable trial were James Forbes, George Graham, William Graham, Henry Handwich, otherwise called Henry Handbridge, Matthew Handwich, otherwise called Matthew Handbridge, Robert Fletcher the younger, Thomas Kelly, William Brownlow, Richard McIntosh, William McCullogh, and William Heron, and divers other persons to the attorney-general unknown. There were two informations. The first charged a conspiracy, confederation and agreement to hiss, groan, insult and assault the Lord Lieutenant while he should be present in the theater, and to procure the same to be done. The second charged that the defendants did, with force and arms, unlawfully make a great noise, riot and disturbance in the theater, the Lord Lieutenant then and there being present, and did then and there, with force and arms, publicly and openly hiss, hoot, groan, insult and assault the Lord Lieutenant, and with force and arms throw, fling and cast at the Lord Lieutenant, with intent to strike and hit the Lord Lieutenant, "divers pieces of wood and copper, and divers glass bottles, in contempt of our lord the king and his laws, to the evil example of all others in like cases offending, and against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity." The counsel engaged in the cause were numerous. For the crown appeared the Attorney-Gen41 [641] eral (Mr. Plunket), the Solicitor-General (Mr. Joy), Sergeant Lefroy, Sergeant Torrens, Mr. Townsend, and Mr. Greene; Agent, Mr. Kemmis. For the prisoner James Forbes appeared Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Blackburne, Mr. Speer, Mr. Rolleston, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Perrin, and Mr. Law; Agent, Mr. Chambers. For Matthew Handwich and George Graham appeared Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Scriven, Mr. Speer and Mr. Hamilton. Mr. North appeared for Henry Handwich and George Graham. For William Brownlow Mr. Scriven appeared; Agent, Mr. Fearon. Upon the bench were the Lord Chief Justice (Charles Kendal Bushe) and Mr. Justice Jebb, Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Vandeuleur, associ ates. When the crown rested, Mr. Driscoll opened for the defense. Mr. North then delivered the following address, after which Mr. Johnstone spoke to the jury. The case was summed up by the Solicitor-General (Mr. Joy). The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Jebb charged the jury. The trial commenced on Monday morning, February 3d, and was closed late on Friday the 7th. The following day, the jury, having been unable to agree except as to the defendant Brownlow who was acquitted, was discharged. John Henry North died in September, 1831, at the early age of forty-two, without having gained the distinctions to which his abilities entitled him. He was a man of first-rate talents. His university career was one of the most brilliant ever attained, and no student within a century was graduated from Trinity College, Dublin, with greater honors. He had conferred upon him an optime, a mark of distinction seldom obtained, and only given as a recognition of the highest merit in every department of learning. When called to the bar it was fondly predicted that his career would form a new and splendid era in the annals of Irish oratory, but this expectation, for some reason, was not fulfilled. Speaking of his power as an advocate, Sheil says: "One qualification of a speaker he possessed in an extraordinary degree. For extemporaneous correctness and copiousness of phrase, I would place him in the very highest rank. All that he utters, wherever the occasion justifies the excitement of his faculties, might be safely printed without revision. Period after period rolls on, stately, measured and complete. There is a paternal solicitude-perhaps a slight tinge of aristocratic pride, in his determination that the children of his fancy should appear abroad in no vulgar garb. He is not like O'Connell, who, with the improvidence of his country, has no compunction in flinging a brood of robust young thoughts upon the world without a rag to cover them." His speech to the jury in the present case, though it cannot be regarded as a specimen of the first order of excellence, is an able address. His plea was rather ingenious. He advanced the theory that the real object of the Lord Lieutenant's presence at the theater was to test the popularity of his administration, and therefore the marks of approval or disapproval were not only justified, but were called forth by Lord Wellesley himself, and were the legitimate result of his visit. His tribute to the accomplishments of Lord Plunket as an orator, in connection with the latter's panegyric on King William, is one of the most finished passages in the speech. Mr. North spoke as follows: GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:-I rise to of Henry Handwich and William Graham. address you on behalf When these men ap |