is, that the improbability of the charge was the true ground upon which the acquittal took place; and certainly nothing could wear more the face of improbability than that, if the crime alleged had been committed, it would have been kept secret from the month of October to the June following; but it becomes still more improbable, when the situation of the parties is considered: the one a young woman of education and modesty, and the other a young man living in the same parish. Can any one believe, that the daughter of a clergyman could have been so ignorant of the state of society as not to know, that she would have been sufficiently protected from the violence with which she said she was threatened; or that she would, after having been so atrociously abused, under any feelings of terror, have lost a moment in proclaiming her disgrace, and asking for vengeance on her violater? but still less likely is it that she would have concealed a disgrace to which her own sister had been an eye-witness. These, I apprehend, were the grounds on which the acquittal took place, and not, as has been stated, on a mere rule of law. If the young woman had been treated with the violence she has described, she must and would have told her parent. That she was with child is a matter beyond doubt, and it might, by possibility, happen that this young man was the father of that child; but the violation must be put altogether out of the question. Even this surmise, which I have made for the benefit of the young woman, is set aside by the oath of the young

man himself, who swears most positively that he never had any connexion with her whatever; and that his evidence is at all deserving of discredit, I can in no respect discover. He is a respectable young man, and has given his testimony in a very unquestionable manner. I protest I was most anxious and desirous, for the sake of this unfortunate family, that something might occur which would lessen the enormity of their. guilt. The natural compassion of one's feelings in seeing a man of education, and in holy orders, work up his mind to an offence for which there is no palliation, without using a harsher observation, led me to hope some circumstance might arise to lessen the enormity of his guilt. It is with pain, however, that I am driven to say no such circumstance has transpired. What could be the motives for concealing the real father, and fixing it on an innocent man, is beyond our ability to discover? If the charge of violation against James Harris is false, the next question for our consideration is, did the defendants agree to bring forward the charge, knowing it to be false ? respect to the young women, as they both swore to being present when the fact took place, no doubt of their guilt can exist. As to the father, perhaps the evidence is not so conclusive. In the defect of the evidence against the father, you have nothing but the general circumstances of the case, and the palpable falseness of the charge. You will consider whether the natural sagacity of a man of good education could really have persuaded him to give credit to so foul

With

foul a charge. If you are not fully satisfied of his guilt, you will acquit him by your verdict. The same observation applies to the daughters; but if you think they were all privy to the conspiracy, you will find your verdict accordingly.

The jury, after a few minutes consultation, found all the defendants Guilty.

Mr. Baron Graham immediately proceeded to pronounce sentence on the defendants. He observed, that during the whole of his judicial life he never felt more pain than in the performance of his duty on the present occasion. It was impossible to imagine a case more melancholy than that which was now before him: a clergyman of the Church of England, a character which stood so high in this country, convicted on the clearest and most satisfactory evidence, of of the most abominable and atrocious conspiracy-a crime which became still more dreadful from his having induced his two unfortunate daughters to follow him in his career, and to bear a part in his foul load of infamy. He confessed he knew not how to do justice. Compassion for the infirmities of human nature might induce him to alleviate the severity of punishment; but in this case all compassion was swallowed up in the contemplation of the scene before him-a scene which presented to his view a man, who, in spite of the benefits of education, and the dictates of religion, had sunk to the last degree of human crime.

The sentence of the court was, that the Rev. Robert Woodward should be imprisoned in the comnon gaol of the county of Bedford

for two years; and that his daughters, Sarah and Susannah, should each be imprisoned one year in the same gaol.

The defendants seemed deeply affected with their situation. Mr. Woodward is a man about 50 years of age. His eldest daughter, Sarah, has nothing prepossessing in her manners or person, and is about 25. The youngest, Susannah, is rather a pretty girl, of fair complexion. Their fate has excited but very little commiseration in the county.

COUNTY MEATH ASSIZES.

Trial of Roger O'Connor, Esq. Second Day, Tuesday, Aug. 5.

A FEW minutes afternine o'clock this morning, Mr. Justice Daly resumed his seat on the bench, and the trial of Mr. O'Connor was immediately proceeded in.

When the officers of the court had taken their places at the table, Benjamin Rikey, Esq. the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, inquired, as is usual in cases where more than one prisoner is arraigned for the same offence, whether he (O'Connor) would join with his alleged coadjutor in the felony, in the challenges? He answered, that he would not.

It was then intimated to him by Mr. Rikey, that he would be tried separately from Martin M'Keon, who had just arrived in the custody of the under gaoler, and taken his station in the dock. Notwithstanding this intimation, the trial of M'Keon was subsequently proceeded in.

Some desultory conversation here ensued, between the counsel for the prosecution and Mr. Bennett, one of Mr. O'Connor's counsel, in reference to the panel, and to the manner of the challenges; and after the usual formalities, the names of the panel, which were very numerous, were called over, on a fine of fifty pounds.

A considerable portion of time was consumed in recalling the panel, and owing to the many challenges made on behalf of the crown and prisoners. Notwithstanding the number that appeared to their names, the panel became exhausted, and it was now found necessary in order to complete the jury (four of the number of which were yet deficient) to select from those challenged, previously to the following gentlemen, who tried the issue, being

sworn :

John Ruxton, Esq.
Henry Walsh, Esq.
James Kellett, Esq.
Henry Owens, Esq.
William Henry, Esq.
Christopher Carleton, Esq.
John Ross, Esq.
Frederick Dyas, Esq.
Robert Sterne Tighe, Esq.
Thomas E. Barnes, Esq.
John Otway Cuffe, Esq. and
James Somerville, Esq.

The four gentlemen last mentioned were those who had been objected to by the crown, but were called and sworn after the panel was exhausted.

The jury having been sworn, the prisoners were formally given them in charge.

It was suggested by Mr. O'Connor's counsel, that lists of the several witnesses to be examined on either side should be handed in to the judge, in order that they might be commanded to with

draw, until respectively called upon to give evidence. In this arrangement the court and counsel for the prosecution readily acquiesced, and they, the witnesses, were ordered to retire accordingly.

The indictment having been read, Mr. Sergeant Jebb, as leading counsel for the prosecution, stated the case against the prisoners. The learned counsel confined himself to a simple relation of the facts which grounded the alleged charges of felony, and adverted in brief terms to the evidence and circumstances upon which he was instructed those charges would be sustained. In reference to Mr. O'Connor, personally, he regretted, as much as any individual even amongst the friends of that unfortunate Gentleman, the unhappy situation in which he was placed; and sympathizing, as he did, in common with those around him, in its painfulness, he declared he should feel the most sincere gratification in his acquittal.

Mr. Bartholomew St. Leger, of Dublin, coal-factor, was the first witness called. He was the person from whom the watch and keys, for which the prisoners were arraigned, were stolen, and he merely proved that the mail was robbed on the 2d of October, 1812, at Cappagh-hill; that he was a passenger; and that these articles were taken from him.

The next witnesses were John Pollock, and Arthur Hill Cornwallis Pollock, Esqrs. Clerk of the Crown for the province of Leinster, who proved the record of the conviction of Richard Waring (brother to one of the approvers) for the mail robbery in question.

Michael

share of the money taken from the passengers amounted to 80l. O'Connor took the same proportion which the others got; but he compelled Heavy and Savage to pay him 100l. each for the protection he had afforded them when they had broken out of Trim gaol: the arms they brought back to Dangan, O'Connor saying they would answer for the attack on the Enniskillen coach, which was then intended, it having been understood that it was conveying money to the army. Witness had been sworn to secrecy by O'Connor on the 1st of January, 1812. The object was, that he should rob for arms, and become a Carder. A part of the oath pledged those who took it

not to pity the moans or groans of Orange-men, but to wade knee deep in their blood." O'Connor stated, that when he should have a sufficient number of Carders embodied, he would surprise the plans of Government. Witness had been tried for the mail-robbery, and murder of the guard, and was acquitted. He then went to the county Cavan, and was arrested and tried there for passing some of the notes which had been taken out of the mail, but was acquitted. He was afterwards taken up for a robbery in the county of Dublin, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in February, 1817. About three weeks after the sentence he gave information. He had been attended by his clergyman, and had made his confession in consequence of the advice he received from him. A Captain Mockler had called on him at Kilmainham, a few days previous to the day appointed for his execution.

The Captain stated the object of the visit to be, to know whether he (the witness) had ever said that he intended to go down to Meath, to try whether he could get a shot at him (Mockler). Witness denied he had ever spoken of or intended any such thing. Mockler said he believed him, though he was told that he had such a purpose in view. Mockler then proceeded to make some remarks, from which witness understood that there would be some hopes of pardon if he made a discovery. Witness thereupon observed, that as for Mr. O'Connor he had always given him the best advice, and that he would not be where he was if he had taken the advice. Witness was asked, whether it was true that O'Connor had given him the advice, and he answered, it was not true. He was then asked by a juror, whether at the time he made that statement to Mockler, his clergyman had not been attending him, and for a considerable time previous, and whether he had not received the sacrament from him; to which he replied, that his clergyman, Dr. Lube, had been attending him nearly three weeks, and that he had administered the sacrament to him different times. The day of execution was drawing near, and Dr. Lube had held out no hopes of his being saved: and that notwithstanding all these circumstances he told the falsehood to Mr. Mockler, not wishing to implicate Mr. O'Connor. The day after the conversation with Mr. Mockler, Dr. Lube had called on him. Witness then told him he had something particular to communicate; that hopes of pardon had