APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



271 



under which the lord-lieutenant of 

 Ireland must be a Protestant, where 

 Protestants were found guilty of a 

 violation of the law, they received 

 a pardon, because they were Pro- 

 testants ; and that, on the contrary, 

 the Catholic is suffered to be per- 

 secuted because he is a Catholic — 

 and this libellous publication upon 

 the office of the lord-lieutenant of 

 Ireland, is founded on the reason- 

 ing I have mentioned, and like- 

 wise is attempted to be illustrated 

 in that infamous and convicted 

 publication, by stating that " at 

 the Summer assizes of Kilkenny, 

 1810, one Barry was convicted 

 of a capital offence, for which he 

 was afterwards executed. That the 

 man's case was truly tragical — he 

 was wholly innocent — he was a 

 respectable Catholic farmer, which 

 the duke of Richmond knowing, 

 suffered him to be executed, be- 

 cause he was of the Catholic re- 

 ligion ;" and, therefore, gentle- 

 men, the imputation in this news- 

 paper, is but an adoption of the 

 libel in the " Statement of the 

 Penal Code.'* If any thing was 

 to confirm this being the true ob- 

 ject and meaning of this libel, it 

 is only necessary to read further. 

 (The attorney- general then read 

 the publication further). The lord- 

 lieutenant is here charged with 

 being a murderer : because he must 

 be a Protestant gentleman : it will 

 be for those who are to defend the 

 traverser to interpret this libel in 

 a mild and inoffensive sense. Hap- 

 py is it for every subject of our 

 free constitution, we are protected 

 from the arm of oppression by the 

 GreatCharter— the Bill of Rights — 

 the Habeas Corpus Act — and the 

 Trial by Jury. These are the pro- 

 tection of the subject against arbi- 



trary power from any quarter ; 

 and I will say this, that such are 

 the habits of the people, resulting 

 from our free constitution, that 

 even the disposition to oppression 

 does not at this time exist. I may 

 safely say to you, gentlemen of 

 the jury, after your long experi- 

 ence of the character and conduct 

 of the duke of Richmond, that it 

 is not in his nature, if it was in 

 his power, to be guilty of op- 

 pression to any man. What, then, 

 is the meaning of this collection 

 of abuse, this combination of au- 

 dacious libel and outrage, against 

 him and his predecessors ? It has 

 only one object — you maj' see to 

 whom it is addressed. It is ap- 

 pealing to the religious prejudices 

 of that part of the community, 

 which has been already too far 

 misled by misrepresentation, and 

 calculated to disaffect the popula- 

 tion of the country in their obedi- 

 ence to their lawful government— 

 to excite in their minds hatred 

 against those whom the laws have 

 appointed to rule over them — 

 and prepare them for revolution, 

 by exciting them to a civil and 

 religious war. I say, no less atro- 

 cious are the motive and malig- 

 nant purposes of this publication. 

 Another part of the libel is in the 

 words (the attorney-general then 

 proceeded to read the rest of the 

 libel. He then proceeded to ob- 

 serve). 



" Gentlemen of the jury — this 

 is the language of a subject to 

 the representative of majesty — 

 in such audacious and seditious 

 language does this ruffian traduce 

 and vilify the public functionaries 

 of the state, so as to threaten the 

 public peace, and the security of 

 the government. How can we 



