convicted, and executed upon the evidence of the same three witnesses whose evidence had just been disbe lieved by the Dublin jury; although Bridge's body was never found, and two witnesses of good character swore that he had privately left the kingdom

a short time before he was said to have been murdered.'" To this Mr. Lewis adds, in a note-" O'Leary, in his answer to Bishop Woodward's pamphlet (London, 1787), page 20, states that Bridge was reported to have been afterwards seen in New

foundland. Sheehy's innocence is confirmed by Dr. Campbell's opinion, Phil. Survey, page 298. Dr. Thos. Campbell was a great admirer of Johnson, and he is mentioned by Boswell as being the author of this work, which he published anonymously. He was also the author of Strictures on the Ecclesiastical and Literary History of Ireland,' in the title-page of which book he is called Chancellor of St. Macartin's, Clogher."

Such is the account which Mr. Lewis adopts from Curry, of this remarkable case. It is the case and the account of it which have been uniformly produced to prove the cruelty and injustice of the Irish government. We find it difficult to pronounce whether it is more disgraceful to the Protestants who have accepted it from the original inventor, and have thus been the active retailers of his untruth, or to those of the Protestant body, who are more especially bound to know the history of their country, and who, in their indifference or their indolence, have permitted this scandalous fabrication to remain uncontradicted. There are, however, degrees of guilt in the active and passive participation in the falsehood. For example, we look on Mr. Lewis as far more culpable than Dr. Campbell, whose testimony he cites in corrobroation of the statement made by Curry. The passage in which Campbell notices the case of Sheehy is as follows:

"The only priest charged with fomenting these disorders suffered for his folly if he were guilty; but from what I have both heard and read upon this question, I am inclined to credit his own

declarations before his death, that he was innocent of the crime for which he was to suffer."-Phil. Sur. p. 298.

In support of this opinion, Dr. Campbell refers to a pamphlet, entitled, "A candid inquiry into the

We

causes and motives of the late riots in Munster, in a letter to a Noble Lord in England;" and thus indicates the authority on which his belief is grounded. Mr. Curry was the author, then anonymously, now well known, of that pamphlet. Dr. Campbell's opinion, therefore, resting, as it did, be received as a testimony distinct and on Mr. Curry's testimony, should not independent from that by which it was produced. It is, in short, a repetition, and ought not to be cited as a corroboration, of Mr. Curry's statement. do not accuse Dr. Campbell of evil design or culpable ignorance, in referring to a pamphlet of which the author was in his day probably unknown; but we hold Mr. Lewis guilty of a grave offence in pretending to prove the innocence of Father Sheehy out of the mouths of two witnesses, when he must have known there was but one, because he knew* that Mr. Curry was the author of the pamphlet from which Dr. Campbell had formed his opinion that Sheehy might not have been guilty.

As to Curry's account of the case of Sheehy, it is in no respect more incorrect than the other parts of his history, throughout which, every where, some atoms of misapplied truth may be detected. It is true that Sheehy was acquitted in Dublin, and that he was afterwards tried and condemned in Clonmel; but the circumstances under which he was remanded to the latter town appear, not in Curry's version of the affair, but in the following extract from Exshaw's Magazine, to which Mr. Curry, for another incident in the case, refers as authority :

Monday 10.-The Rev. Nicholas Sheehy, popish priest, was brought on his trial for high treason in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, which held a considerable time; and the jury, before they returned with their verdict, (which acquitted him,) were out more than two hours. In the course of the evidence,

there came out a murder, in which the prisoner appeared to be so much concerned that he was committed to Newgate, in order to be sent to Clonmel to be tried for the same."-Gentleman's Magazine, Feb. 1766. Exshaw, Dublin.

The Magazine for March contains the following

"Mr. Nicholas Sheehy (whom we mentioned at page 127) being lately transmitted to Clonmel, has since been tried there and convicted, with one Edward Meaghan, of Clogheen, of the murder of John Bridge. To this the evidence led which appeared against him on his trial in the King's Bench. The prisoners, at their own request, were separately tried, and by different juries. In the course of the evidence an alibi was attempted to be proved, but in this they failed; and in the cross-examination of the evidence for the prisoners, several particulars were corroborated which had been advanced by the evidence of the crown. 'Tis said others are to be tried for this murder, and it is expected an effectual discovery will be made of the uneasinesses that have been so long kept up in that country, which are said to be of a higher nature than at first suspected. The information that led to this has been collected with much pains and hazard. In February, 1765, the government, by proclamation, offered a reward of £300 for apprehending Mr. Sheehy, as bills of high treason were found against him, to which he did not then appear, but afterwards submitted. The unfortunate

Bridge lost his life for being suspected of serving government in this particular. Every step was taken to render the prosecution ineffectual, as some were committed to gaol for attempting to seduce the crown evidence.”—p. 190.

The following extracts are from the Freeman's Journal of March 18 and 22, 1766 :

"March 18.-We hear from Clonmel, that, on Saturday last, Lord Chief Justice Clayton and Mr. Sergeant Malone arrived there. On Monday the court sat. On Tuesday one Mandeville was found guilty of horse-stealing, and yesterday, Nicholas Sheehy, popish priest, and Edward Meaghan, of Clogheen, were, before both judges, convicted of the murder of John Bridge, by different juries. It is said, that the immediate occasion of the murder of Bridge was, that he had given informations against the priest and some others, and that he refused to take the whiteboy oath. We

also hear, that on the trial of Sheehy, he produced John Keating, of Tubberet, as evidence in his behalf, who, before he quitted court, was, by the Lord Chief Justice's order, taken into custody, being charged with the murder of a sergeant and corporal at Newmarket, in the county of Kilkenny," &c. &c.-" Kearney, a shopkeeper in the town of Clonmel, for an attempt to bribe off the crown evidence others were also taken into custody, against against Sheehy the priest, and several whom informations have been given."

"March 22.-Extract of a letter from

Clonmel, dated March 15.-Yesterday the assizes ended here. Sheehy the priest and Meaghan were executed on Saturday, pursuant to their sentence. On their trials they attempted to prove an alibi, and that Bridge is living, in both of which they failed, and some of their witnesses on the cross-examination tended to corroborate the evidence for the crown, which was delivered so clearly and circumstantially as not to admit of the least doubt. It is said that Sheehy, since his condemnation, confessed that he knew of the murder of Bridge, but denied that he committed it."

From these statements, and from the defence set up by Mr. Curry, and adopted by Mr. O'Leary and his other followers, it is not difficult to arrive at a proper conclusion. Mr. Sheehy's innocence is vouched by his own declahis defence, which Mr. Curry takes ration, and by the testimony offered in care to remind his readers, citing Exshaw's Magazine as authority, proceeded to the length of affirming that the man for whose murder Sheehy was tried, was seen alive after the time of his alleged death, so that he might, very probably, in the course of a few days more, be found reading the report of the trial for his imagined murder. Such Mr. Curry's citation is correct. evidence does appear in the report of the trial. To understand its value, and to understand the morality of the culprit in whose defence it was offered, it should be compared with the following passage from Mr. Sheehy's last declaration :

"The fact is, John Bridge was destroyed by two alone, who strangled him on Wednesday night, the 24th of Oct., 1764. I was then from home, and only returned home the 28th, and then heard he had disappeared! Various were the reports; which to believe I could not pretend to; until, in the discharge of my duty, one accused himself of said fact!

May God grant the guilty true repentance, and preserve the innocent. I recommend them to your care."*

Thus, then, according to the dying declaration of the Rev. Nicholas Sheehy, it appears that two witnesses were suborned to swear a direct and flagrant falsehood in his defence. He knew that Bridge had been murdered; and he permitted two men to perjure themselves for his sake, by swearing that the murdered man was alive. At the time when he made his dying declaration, in which he denied that he had committed the murder for which he was condemned, but made the confession which we have recited respecting his participation in perjury, there were, waiting their trial as accomplices in his crime, individuals for whose safety he was very solicitous. Surely it is not too much to say, that the man who could allow his own cause to be defended by perjury, would not scruple a falsehood to promote the cause of his friends. Wherever his declaration was believed, the evidence of witnesses for the prosecution against him and his associates would be damaged. A twofold effect would be produced. The administration of the law would be rendered odious, and compassion would be excited in behalf of those who were regarded as wrongfully convicted or oppressed. The advantages to his party of such a declaration as Sheehy made being thus apparent, the declaration itself containing proof that he was a man who would not refuse to take such advantages as false swearing could afford, it is a natural conclusion that he would not scruple to act the part which he would allow others to act, and to bear false witness for his neighbour, which should testify against those only whom he looked upon as natural enemies.

However well designed and constructed, the declaration failed. The friends whom Mr. Sheehy left for trial were convicted. They, also, declared their innocence; but they were not satisfied with denouncing the witnesses against them as false and perjured. They aimed at a more important object. While Sheehy and his

associates were in prison, some valuable information had been obtained by magistrates and gentlemen of the county of was to have acted the part of a witness Tipperary. One of the persons who in Mr. Sheehy's favour, Herbert by name, was himself accused of treasonable offences, and having been arrested, became a King's evidence. From his testimony, corroborated by that of some other witnesses, it appeared that the Whiteboy system was a military organisation, bound to yield obedience to the Pretender and the King of France-that the commissioned officers took an oath to that effect, while the allegiance of the private soldiers was secured by an oath of implicit submission to their leaders.

mation to this effect was given, are said Some of the persons to whom inforto have visited Sheehy's accomplices in prison, and to have endeavoured to procure from them further evidence respecting the conspiracy with which they had become acquainted. They wished to break it up by exposing its wickedness and absurdity, rather than by sacrificing numerous victims, and, it is probable, offered their good offices to procure a pardon for those who should prove themselves worthy of it, by assisting in their endeavours to relieve the country from disorder and disaffection. This was a charitable purpose, but it might be attended with ill consequences to rebellion. A dying declaration was called out, in terrorem, against activities so likely to prove pernicious. The names of the individuals who had negociated with the culprits were divulged. The convicts declared their innocence, and proclaimed to the multitudes sworn to

obey their orders that they had been offered pardon and life, if they would confess the truth of the charges against them, and furnish the government with further information. Thus they com. mended themselves as martyrs to their party, and marked out the individuals whom they named for victims. It was not easy to take a more effectual method of intimidating those persons who might have otherwise been active in sounding the depths of the conspiracy.†

The facts of the case for which

were all employed in this one case of Sheehy. 1st, Witnesses were disheartened; 2nd, Magistrates were menaced, and their endeavours to ascertain the extent of the plot discouraged; 3rd, King's evidences were tampered with; 4th, Their credit was impugned; 5th, And the crime of desiring to shed innocent blood was imputed to the Protestants.

It is, we acknowledge, difficult to believe that a man can be influenced to leave this world in the deliberate commission of a lie, which may occasion the loss of life. Recent events, however, have taught us that such things

may be; and even if we had not the remembrance of the Cork assizes to instruct us, the fact that a priest could allow men to perjure themselves in his defence would render it easily intelligible that he might teach them to share also a dying declaration, so as to benefit the cause of their church and country. The conscience of a Roman Catholic is not in his own keeping. He must yield a blind obedience to his priest; and we, unhappily, have not to learn, that some of those who make merchandise of souls have little remorse or pity.

Ir was upon a lovely evening in autumn as the Dover steam-boat rounded the wooden pier at Calais, amid a fleet of small boats filled with eager and anxious faces, soliciting, in every species of bad English and "patois" French, the attention and patronage of the passengers.

"Hotel de Bain, mi lor'." "Hotel d' Angleterre," said another, in a voice of the most imposing superiority. "C'est superbe-pretty well.'"

"Hotel du Nord, votre Excellence -remise de poste and delays' (quere relays) at all hours."

Commissionaire, mi ladi," sung out a small shrill treble from the midst of a crowded cock-boat, nearly swamped beneath our paddle-wheel.

What a scene of bustle, confusion, and excitement does the deck of a steamer present upon such an occasion. Every one is running hither or thither. "Sauve qui peut" is now the watchword; and friendships, that promised a life-long endurance only half an hour ago, find here a speedy dissolution. The lady who slept all night upon deck, enveloped in the folds of your Astracan cloak, scarcely deigns an acknowledgment of you, as she adjusts her ringlets before the looking-glass over the stove in the cabin. The polite gentleman, that would have Blown for a reticule or a smellingbottle upon the high seas, won't leave his luggage in the harbour; and the gallantry and devotion that stood the test of half a gale of wind and a wet jacket, is not proof when the safety of

a carpet-bag or the security of a "Mackintosh" is concerned.

And thus here, as elsewhere, is prosperity the touchstone of good feeling. All the various disguises which have been assumed, per viaggio, are here immediately abandoned, and, stripped of the travelling costume of urbanity and courtesy which they put on for the voyage, they stand forth in all the unblushing front of selfishness and self-interest.

Some tender scenes yet find their place amid the debris of this chaotic state. Here may be seen a careful mother adjusting innumerable shawls and handkerchiefs round the throat of a sea-green young lady, with a cough; her maid is, at the same instant, taking a tender farewell of the steward in the after cabin.

Here is a very red-faced and hot individual, with punch-coloured breeches and gaiters, disputing "one brandy too much" in his bill, and vowing that the company shall hear of it when he returns to England. There, a tall, elderly woman, with a Scotch-grey eye, and a sharp cheek-bone, is de positing within her muff various seizable articles, that, until now, had been lying quietly in her trunk. Yonder, that raw-looking young gentleman, with the crumpled frock-coat and loose cravat, and sea-sick visage, is asking every one "if they think he may land without a passport." You scarcely recognise him for the cigar-smoking dandy of yesterday, that talked as if he had lived half his life on the continent. While there, a rather pretty girl is