verting to the proportion which the injury bore to his feelings; and the cause of that injury to his own conduct.

Could it be supposed that the tender feelings of conjugal affection and domestic comfort bear the same proportion as in humble and industrious life, in those ranks of fashionable dissipation, where, while the husband lavishes his time and for. tune at the club-house, the banquet, or the gaming table, night after night, the wife rolls her voiture, at midnight, from theatres to drums, from drums to routs, and from routs to masquerades, attended by her cudgeled footmen and blazing flambeaux, and dashing through all the rounds of fashionable rakery, from midnight till morning-In such a round of modern high life, the idea of domestic comfort and conjugal felicity, is mere Arcadian fancy. The learned Gentleman, in painting the injuries sustained by his noble client on this ground, knew very well he was painting from the scenes of "his early reading," and not from his own observations on modern manners; and if such feelings, under such circumstances, were only to be found in the romance of Sir Philip Sydney's Arcadia, the damages in such a case ought not to exceed the price of the book.

It was stated that Lord Westmeath's feeling were agonized, and his pride irreparably hurt, by losing "the consolations and comforts of his Lady's company and conversation!"-Lord Westmeath, in Ireland, rolling away with one equipage for months together, in all the rounds of fashionable luxury and amusement, in the enjoyments of the bottle, and the pageantry of the camp--And Lady Westmeath, in London, swaggering away in another equipage in all the rounds of fashionable dissipation and amusement-for months too-And then poor Lord Westmeath complains of "the loss of his comforts!" in the privation of his Lady's company and conversation, not more than 200 miles from him, by his own choice, for eight months together!The idea, was in fact, too ludicrous for the serious reflection of a rational and discerning jury.

One point, however, was most important for their consideration. It was whether the plaintiff in this case had taken that care of the morals and the conduct of his wife, which his authority, and his duty, as an husband, enabled and called on him to do? How did the fact appear in evidence?-Lord Westmeath comes over to Ireland-and leaving his wife in London, exposed to all those temptations which a round of gay life and fashionable levity might be supposed to present-with a fortune, an equipage, and an house at her command, complete mistress of her own conduct and propensities!

How stood the charge with respect to his client in this case? What had appeared from the evidence of the Clergyman?— Lady Westmeath, not as the learned Solicitor had painted her Ladyship, an innocent young female, inexperienced, and such

as

as might be supposed unwary and unripe in the ways of the world;—but an experienced matron, twelve years married, the mother of several children, and well practised in all the mysteries, modes, and dissipations of the gay world.—What was Mr. Bradshaw ? not an experienced rake, versed in the arts of seduction by the vicious practice of years, but the younger brother of a respectable family, not many years emerged from the controul of his tutor-and of an age young enough almost for the Lady to have been his mother.

Was this the young lady of innocence and inexperience, polished education, exalted sentiments, and refined feelings whom the learned Council had painted in such glowing and angelic tints-with the bloom of the plumb unbroken upon her cheek -and all the blossoms of youthful innocence flowering and flourishing around her?-Was the lady a bird of that age likely to be caught with the sort of chaff which his youthful client might be supposed to cast before her, if her own inclinations had not led her to be the DECOY without the necessity of stratagem? ·

Suppose that on the part of his client, he were to admit the whole of the facts stated in evidence-yet, would not the jury consider the rank and the years of the Lady-the utter improbability, that any advances of a criminal kind would have proceeded from a young gentleman, who, from his years, must be supposed inexperienced in the dissipations of fashionable life, as his client was; and would not the jury consider the uncontrouled freedom in which Lord Westmeath permitted his Lady to range through all the rounds of fashionable dissipation-exposed to all those temptations that beset a woman of levity-absent from her husband-unchecked by the vigilance of her friends,—and prone to every indulgence in pleasure and luxury, which her rank and fortune could supply.-And would not a jury thus considering, even if they believed the facts, make a wide difference indeed between the imputed guilt of his client, and that of a common seducer, who had triumphed over the chastity of an innocent and inexperienced female?-They must surely consider his client rather as the party seduced-and in estimating the damages, if they should think any were just ly due, they would apportion them to the feelings, and not to the rank of the plaintiff-they would consider, how lightly baggatelles and faux paux of this kind were thought of in the circles of HIGH LIFE.-They would consider how far his Lordship's own conduct and neglect were instrumental to the injury of which he complained-They would estimate the uncontrouled influence of modern and fashionable manners upon the minds of high rank and find such a verdict as, upon due consideration, became the good sense and conscientious justice of moral and discerning men.

Coun

Counsellor Saurin, on behalf of the Plantiff, said, that con sidering the strength of the Evidence adduced on behalf of his client, and the irrefragable proofs upon which his case had been substantiated, he felt no necessity to say any thing to the Jury, in reply to what had fallen from the learned Council on the other side; notwithstanding the eloquence and ingenuity with which he had argued, on behalf of his client; he should therefore rest with the discretion of the Court, for any observations upon the evidence, in this case, which might be deemed necessary for the direction of the Jury.

Lord Chief Baron Yelverton then addressed the Jury, observing, that the present case was of such a nature as required very little exertion indeed, on the part of the Plaintiff's Council, to aggravate the injury proved in evidence; a case, so attrocious in ́all its circumstances, so fraught with the most shameful and abandoned depravity, and so violatory to every principle of decorum, of virtue, of morality, and of female modesty, as, he thanked God, was not to be matched by any other example in this country.

The proofs in this case were manifest-were strong-were circumstantially corroborative of each other-and stood wholly uncontradicted by any evidence to the contrary.-The jury could therefore, in his mind, have no reasonable doubt of the fact. It would be then for them to consider, under all the circumstances of the case, the culpability of the defendant, and the nature and magnitude of the injury sustained by the plaintiff an injury, which no pecuniary consideration however great, could compensate, and he doubted not that the jury would find themselves justifyed in giving such damages, as, while their verdict marked the regards of moral and conscientious men for the sacred rights of the conjugal bed, should at the same time, hold out an example to check and deter the progress of a crime in this country, which, of late years, had made such alarming strides in another kingdom, whose fashions and whose vices we are too apt to borrow, and which, there was but too much reason to fear, were rapidly gaining ground in the fashionable circles of this country.

The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, Damages TEN THOUSAND POUNDS!

A

BRIEF ACCOUNT

OF THE

TRIAL

OF

WILLIAM ORR.*

CARRICKFERGUS ASSIZES.

MR. Wm. of time alas committed to gaol for High

R. Wm. Orr, a wealthy farmer of Faranshane, in the

Treason, under the following warrant of commitment, bearing date the 17th of September, 1796:

County of Antrim, By the Hon. Robert Stewart, commonly Scalled Lord Viscount Castlereagh, one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for said County.

to wit,

To the high and petty constables for said county, and their assistants, and to the keeper of his Majesty's gaol for said county at Carrickfergus.

I hereby send you the body of Wm. Orr, who stands charg ed by examinations upon oath, taken before the Rev. George Macartney, one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for said county, with High Treason, which examinations upon oath have been laid before me.

These are therefore in his Majesty's name, &c. &c. (Signed) CASLTEREAGH.

At

* This account of the trial of Wm. Orr the Editor has inferted in this. place, as a neceffary introduction to that of Peter Finerty. The admiraable fpeech of Mr. Curran on the trial of the latter, thought to be the moft brilliant in this collection, or perhaps in the English language, seemed to require fome illuftration from the melancholy and affecting story of Orr, who may be confidered as the protomartyr, or firft victim that fell in the late rebellion-a rebellion, becaufe it was unfuccefsful.

The Editor has to lament, however, that he cannot give a full and regular account of this trial, with Mr. Curran's fpeech at length, as the government prohibited all publications on the fubject, and threatened all printers with military execution if they attempted fuch a work.-See account of the destruction of the Star Office at the end of this trial.

At the Lent Assizes 1797, he was arraigned on an indictment framed under the Insurrection Act, for administering unlawful oaths; he then pleaded not guilty, but his trial was postponed on his affidavit, stating the absence of a material witness.

At the late assizes he was put upon his trial, on Monday the 18th day of September, before Lord Chief Baron Yelverton; two witnesses appeared against him, one of the name of Wheatly, and another of the name of Lindsey, both private soldiers in the Fifeshire regiment of Fencibles.

EVIDENCE for the CROWN.

Wheatly swore, That in April 1796, he had been in Scotland on furlough, and was on his return by Antrim to join his regiment then quartered at Derry. That he then, upon the 24th or 25th of that month, met with several persons, who swore him into the brotherhood of United Irishmen, and after. wards took him to the house of the prisoner, whom they found employed in sowing flax in his field. He swore that an assembly was called in the house of the prisoner, who acted as Chairman or Secretary, which he called a Baronial Committee; and that there it was debated, whether he should be entrusted with the printed constitutions of the Society, in order to promote the institution among his fellow soldiers. That it was agreed that he should have one. That an oath was thereupon administered to him by the prisoner, which was to keep the secrets of United Irishmen, and not for any reward or punishment to discover on them. The witness threw in many circumstances about arms and a Northern Star, which were shewn to him, also a drawwell to put the Aristocrats into.

He swore that all he did was through fear of his life which they threatened. That he was told they had armed men enough to get a reform by force, if they could not by fair means; and that if they did not get a reform by fair means they would over. turn the government. He said, the intention of the Society, and consequently of the prisoner, was to assist the French; that it was so explained to him, and that at that meeting it was so determined; and added many circumstances of aggravation, tending to represent the oath and the association as hienously wicked and treasonable. And at same time swore, that the book from which the oath was adininistered was given to him as his guide. On his cross examination by Mr. Curran, he denied that he had ever offered to desert, or asked money with that view from any body, but was offered money to induce him by a person in Belfast, which he refused. He was asked if he had sent any cartridges to Mr. Orr, when in prison, as a token? and answered he believed not. He was asked, whether he ever told any person that he had taken the test of a soldier in a certain way that suited his own mind best, and that he never was satisfied as a soldier? This he denied, but after some pause

went