The crown prosecutor watched the prisoner's counsel.
Upon the prisoner himself all other eyes were fixed.
There was no reply.
"Business proceeded." The "Clerk of the Crown," rising to ask the usual question--"If Mr.Mitchel had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon him ?" "I _have_," he answered, and after a momentary look at judges, jury-box and sheriff, he slowly continued: "I have to say that I have been tried by a packed jury--by the jury of a partisan sheriff--by a jury not empanelled, even according to the law of England, I have been found guilty by a packed jury obtained by a juggle--a jury not empanelled by a sheriff, but by a juggler." Here he was interrupted by the sheriff rising, and, in high indignation, claiming the protection of the court.
"That is the reason," continued Mitchel, "that is the reason why I object to the sentence being passed on me." "That imputation," interrupted Lefroy, "upon the conduct of the sheriff I must pronounce to be most unwarranted and unfounded." And this discriminating judge continued to show that the imputation was so--concluding with the assertion that the sheriff "had done his duty in the case." Then without pausing, he proceeded to the usual lecture, full of hypocritical cant with which British judges usually preface their awards, however infamous.

He alluded to the personal condition of Mr.
Mitchel, and expressed his regrets that a person of such merits should be in such circumstances, Then having dilated on the enormity of the offence, he assured Mr.Mitchel that he had been found guilty of many heinous charges against the Queen and the Imperial Crown, and among others, of felonious intending to levy war upon that gentlewoman, and that the evidence was furnished by the prisoner's self.

"How, therefore," he continued, "you think yourself justified in calling it the verdict of a packed jury, and thus imputing perjury to twelve of your countrymen--deliberate and wilful perjury--" "No," interrupted the prisoner, "I did not impute perjury to the jury." "I understood," said the speaker on the bench, "that you had stated, in arrest of judgment, that you had been found guilty by a packed jury." "I did," was the reply.
Robert Holmes rose, during the judge's speech, and said, "My lords, with the greatest respect, what I said was, that though he might be statutably guilty, he was not, in my opinion, morally guilty.

I repeat that opinion now." This avowal, so boldly and firmly made by the veteran Republican, was answered by all the audience, not pensioned, with plaudits.
Baron Lefroy would say no more on that point, only that the court could not acquiesce in a line of defence "which appeared to it very little short of, or amounting to, as objectionable matter as that for which the prisoner had been found guilty.
"I," replied the aged advocate, "I am answerable for that under your Act of Parliament." Loud applause followed.

"Are there no policemen in court ?" shouted Baron Lefroy.