where[1] how I stubbornly resisted the advice of my friends and the decision of my counsel to object peremptorily to Mr. Burke when he was called, but I have not hitherto disclosed the grounds of my confidence in the suspected juror. The night before the trial Mrs. Burke called on my wife at Merton, and admonished her not to permit her husband to be objected to. "His daughter and myself," she said, "will take our seats in the gallery opposite him, and if the evidence enables an honest man to find a verdict of acquittal he need not return home if he goes against Mr. Duffy."
Mr. Burke was firm for an acquittal.[2]
It may be assumed that these exposures and this coup manqué made a recourse to the old system impossible and effectually secured my escape from conviction. They contributed largely to both these ends. But at least half my success was owing to Lord Clarendon's enmity and the illegitimate measures his law officers took to gratify it. I shall return to the theme presently, but I desire in the first place to pause for a moment on some transactions which occurred between my first trial and the final one.
John Martin, though a convict awaiting transportation in Richmond Bridewell, entered warmly into the spirit of this defence:—
"I was and am proud of your 'Notices.' I feel that the plan of defence adopted or permitted by the rest of us was not only wanting in provision for resisting the main body of the enemy's force—his jury-packers—but also wanting in moral dignity and suggestive of moral injury to our cause.
"Now, you may recollect, to my shame, that I have all along been talking mighty big about real constitution and real law, and yet I was too lazy and too cowardly to act in accordance with my own principles when I was to be put upon the country. But you, whom I used to scold for not fully agreeing in my doctrines about 'law' and 'constitu-
- ↑ "Four Years of Irish History," chap. x.
- ↑ Mr. Burke proved not only a steadfast juror, but a constitutional student of uncommon force. Lord Brougham attacked him savagely in the House of Lords, and he replied in a letter vindicating the rights of a juror with notable knowledge, vigour, and courtesy. Cynical writers indeed suggested that Mr. Butt could not have done the work better. And perhaps he could not.
