oped to encompass him. The astute and practised gentlemen thus
suspected, strong in the consciousness of deep legal knowledge, and
ready practical skill and science, may justly despise the petty
attacks of those who affect to doubt their professional ability and
attainments. Some in high places have not hesitated to hint, on one
occasion, at collusion, and to assert, that a certain prosecution
failed, because there was no real desire to punish.

Such is the substance of the various questions and speculations to
which the legal events of the last thirteen years have given rise. We
have now collected and enumerated them in a condensed form, for the
purpose of tracing their rise and progress, and in order that we may
demonstrate that, though there may possibly exist some reasons for
these opinions, founded often on a misapprehension of the real
circumstances of the cases quoted in their support, that they have, in
fact, little or no substantial foundation. With this view, therefore,
we shall briefly notice those trials, within the period of which we
speak, which form the groundwork of these charges against the
executive, before we proceed to state the real obstacles which do, in
fact, occasionally oppose the smooth and _rapid_ progress of a "State
Prosecution."

The first of these proceedings, which occurred during the period of
the last thirteen years, was the trial of Messrs O'Connell, Lawless,
Steel, and others. This case perhaps originated the opinions which
have partially prevailed, and was, in truth, not unlikely to make a
permanent impression on the public mind. In the month of January 1831,
true bills were found against these parties by the Grand Jury of
Dublin, for assembling and meeting together for purposes prohibited by
a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant; and for conspiring to do an act
forbidden by the law. By every possible device, by demurrers and
inconsistent pleas, delays were interposed; and though Mr O'Connell
withdrew a former plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty to the counts
to which he had at first demurred--though Mr Stanley, in the House of
Commons, in reply to a question put by the Marquis of Chandos,
emphatically declared, that it was impossible for the Irish
government, consistently with their dignity as a government, to enter
into any negotiation implying the remotest compromise with the
defendants--and that it was the unalterable determination of the
law-officers of Ireland to let the l