The following is the newspaper account of the arrest of Mr. O'Connell, the first of th three occasions of his life when the law and the constitution were sought to be violated, in order to stop, and crush with its author, his legal and constitutional agitation for the rights of Ireland :

"MR. O'CONNELL.

"Mr. O'Connell was held to bail on Monday evening, to answer a charge of having uttered seditious expressions at the Catholic Association. The prosecution is instituted by the Attorney-General, and the chief magistrate of police, Alderman Darley, was the person to whom the duty of placing Mr O'Connell under recognizances was confided. Nobody could have discharged it in a more correct or gentlemanlike manner. The particulars are given else-, where.

"It is understood that this proceeding has taken place in consequence of a particular allusion to Bolivar, said to have been made by Mr. O'Connell, at the meeting of the Association on Thursday last. The reports of the speech in which the allusion was contained are at variance with each other and the accuracy of the whole has been questioned.

"That upon which the prosecution is said to hinge (namely, Saundlers's report) has been in an especial manner impugned. It is possible, therefore, that the exact words of Mr. O'Connell have not been given to the public at all. When we recollect the disadvantages under which reports are taken at crowded public meetings the haste with which they are afterwards transcribed for the printers of a morning newspaper-and the very different bearing which changes, apparently very minute, in the form of expression will give to the sentiments of an orator, this conjecture does not seem at all unreasonable or unlikely.

"But even if the accuracy of the report which is said to be relied upon were proved (notes of admiration and all, for Saunders introduced no less than seven of those expressive marks), we confess we should be at a loss to discover the sedition, taking the report as a whole-the only fair and legal way of taking it --with its numerous saving clauses. It is right, however, we should add, that the Morning Register declares this report to be a 'foul misrepresentation.'

"The occurrence has created a great sensation in town, and one which will be felt all over the country to its remotest extremities. Yet it is not an event to which we attach much importance. Who that knows Mr. O'Connell can for a moment suppose that he could intend to utter seditious language, and where is there a better judge of what is, and what is not, a violation of law?

"We subjoin an account of some proceedings connected with this subject, which took place at the head office of police yesterday :

"About the hour of one o'clock, the reporters of The Freeman's Journal, Saunders, and The Morning Star attended before the magistrates of the head police-office, in pursuance of a request from the magistrates, communicated by letter from C Pemberton, Esq., chief clerk of the police establishment. The gentlemen already mentioned having been introduced to the presence of the magistrates, Mr. Hayden, proprietor of The Star, attended by a friend, entered at the same time, as did also Mr. Bric.

"The Magistrates addressed Mr. Bric, and inquired in what capacity he attended.

"Mr. Bric replied, that he understood there was an examination going förward, and he attended in consequence.

"The Magistrates informed Mr. Bric that the examination was intended be private, upon which Mr. Bric immediately retired.

"The Magistrates then addressed Mr. Hayden and his friend, and askel f they attended as reporters?

"Mr. Hayden replied that the gentleman with him was a barrister.

"The Magistrates observed that the same objections as to Mr. Bric applied to Mr. Hayden's friend; rpon which this gentleman also retired.

Mr. Hayden was then addressed by the magistrates, and asked if he attended as a repcrter?

'Mr. Hayden, in reply, said that he intended to protest against the examnation of his reporter.

"The Magistrates suggested that the reporter should be left to his own dis retion, as he was in attendance pursuant to their request.

"Mr. Hayden said he objected to the examination of his reporter, because he thought the whole affair a joke upon the part of the Attorney-General; but supposing it to be a serious proceeding, he would not permit any of his people to become the accusers of any one.

"After a few observations, Mr Hayden and the reporter withdrew. There then remained a reporter from the Freeman's Journal and Saunders.

"Counsellor Graves to the reporter of the Freeman's Journal, after the preliminary questions as to whether he attended the meeting of the Catholic Association on Thursday, asked if he had taken a note of Mr. O'Connell's speech?

"The Reporter asked, which speech?

"The MAGISTRATE--The speech in which the passage appears respecting Bolivar.

"The REPORTER-That passage has not appeared in the Freeman's Journal. "The MAGISTRATE-That is not the question put to you. You are asked whether you took a note of that passage of Mr. O'Connell's speech in which :nention is made of Bolivar.

"REPORTER-I cannot answer that question without referring to my notes. "MAGISTRATE-Do you mean to say you could not answer the question without your notes?

"REPORTER-I do mean to say so, certainly.
"MAGISTRATE-Have you your notes about you?
"REPORTER-No, I have not.

"Alderman Darley, addressing the reporter of Saunders, asked what he could say upon the subject? The reporter was about to reply, when

"ALDERMAN DARLEY observed, that from the disposition evinced by the gentlemen of the press, it was unnecessary to pursue the examination further; and perhaps it would not be fair to require more from the reporter of Saunders. They had no power to compel the gentlemen to give information; but they wished to learn from them whether they had any objection to state what they knew upon the subject?

"The two reporters then retired.

"A reporter from the Morning Post was shortly afterwards introduced to the magistrates, and upon being asked respecting the report of Mr. O'Connell's speech, he declined replying to any question upon the subject.

"Another reporter from the Morning Post was subsequently examined, and was asked if the report of Mr. O'Connell's speech as it appeared in the Morning Post, containing the allusion to Bolivar, was correct; to which the reporter replied that it was in substance a correct report.

"The reporter was then requested to state from recollection the substance of the passage alluded to, which he did.

"This gentleman was afterwards sworn, and bound to prosecute at the next commission

"We understand it is to the Commission of Oyer and Terminer, which sits ol Be 3rd of January, the informations against Mr. O'Connell are made returnable. The name of the informer has not yet transpired."-(Paper of Dec. 22, 1824.)

PROSECUTION AGAINST MR. O'CONNELL ON A CHARGE OF DELIVERING SEDITIOUS WORDS.

We find the following article in a contemporary print:
:-

"Public attention is so likely to be excited by anything that relates to tis gentleman, that we enter into a detail of what has occurred with respect to this prosecution with a minuteness which, of itself, it very little deserves.

"At about half after five o'clock on Monday evening, as Mr. O'Connell had just returned from the committee of the Catholic Association, where a great deal of business had been transacted, Alderman Darley and Mr. Farrell, the constable of police, were ushered into his study. After the usual salutation, the alderman said that he came in his official capacity, to save Mr. O'Connell the trouble of attending at the office, to enter into a recognizance to appear at the next sessions, which he was directed by the Attorney-General to call on Mr. O'Connell to enter into.

"MR. O'CONNELL-Upon what charge, Mr. Alderman?

"ALDERMAN DARLEY-Upon a charge of having spoken seditious words at the last meeting of the Catholic Association.

"MR. O'CONNELL--What words am I charged with having spoken ? "ALDERMAN DARLEY-I am not at liberty to inform you; you must apply to the Attorney-General.

"MR. O'CONNELL-Can I even know the name of the informer?

"ALDERMAN DARLEY-I am not at liberty to tell you; you must apply a higher quarter. I come merely to inform you that legal documents have been laid before me, that entitle me to require from you a recognizance to appear at the next sessions. I wish to give you the least possible trouble. I have come to your own house for that purpose, and I will take your own recognizance without requiring any person to join you.

"MR. O'CONNELL-Then, Mr. Alderman, I submit at once. I will enter into the recognizance as I am not to know for what; and I am bound to say that you have done your part with perfect politeness and civility.

"The Alderman then produced a recognizance conditioned to appear at the ensuing quarter sessions, to commence on the 2nd or 3rd of January, we do not know which. The recognizance Mr. O'Connell executed, but said—'Why, Mr. Alderman, this directly interferes with my intended journey to England. Could you not take it, as there are yet no bills found, for the sessions after next, or for the term?'

"ALDERMAN DARLEY.-I have no discretion upon that subject; upon that also you must apply to the Attorney-General.

"MR. O'CONNELL (smiling).—There is one thing you'll admit, Mr. Alderman, that the Attorney-General will have no difficulty in getting a grand jury to find any bills he pleases against me.

"The alderman made no reply, but he and Mr. O'Connell shook hands an parted.

Such is the first scene of the prosecution.

We took accurate notes of the proceedings of the last meeting of the Association, and we believe we may say with some confidence, that a more ground

ess prosecution could not be instituted. It is an incident in the history of the country, more calculated to excite a smile, than any graver emotion."

We take the following from a second edition of the same:

"The seditious words imputed to Mr. O'Connell appeared in Saunders's NewsLetter. They are a foul misrepresentation of the real expressions used by the .earned gentleman, and we are this instant informed that he has caused a writ to be served on the editor of that paper."

"ARREST OF MR. O'CONNELL.

"FURTHER PARTICULARS.

"Morning Star, 24th December, 1824.

"MR. O'CONNELL having retained Mr. Kildahl of Sackville-street, as his solicitor,

"On Wednesday Mr. Kildahl waited upon the magistrates of the Head policeoffice, at eleven o'clock-Alderman Darley and Counsellors Lowe and Graves were in attendance.

“Mr. Kildahl, addressing the magistrates said, as solicitor for Mr. O'Connell, I request to know if there be any information on oath previously made before any of the magistrates to warrant the chief magistrate in calling on Mr. O'Connell to enter into the 'recognizance.'

"The magistrate replied that there was an information on oath.

"Mr. Kildahl then protested against the right of the magistrates to take further informations, after an arrest upon an information theretofore made before them. "The magistrate made no reply.

"Mr. Kildahl said his next duty was to require from the magistrates a copy of such information, and offered to pay any expense that might attend the copying thereof.

"The magistrates refused to give any copy, but added, that if they gave î copy there would be no expense.

"Mr. Kildahl then distinctly called on the magistrates to furnish him with the name or names of the persons who made such informations.

"This the magistrates peremptorily refused.

“MR. KILDAHL.-Well, if notwithstanding my protest you proceed to examine any further witnesses respecting the charge already made against Mr. O'Connell, will you permit such examination to be attended, on the part of Mr. O'Connell, by myself, his counsel, or agent?

"The MAGISTRATES-Certainly not; but inasmuch as Mr. O'Connell is not subject to the inconvenience of custody, we consider ourselves entitled to examine such other witnesses for the purpose of said inquiry, as we shall consider necessary, without allowing any attendance by or for him.

"Mr. Kildahl then withdrew.

Upon the return of Mr. Kildahl to Mr. O'Connell, the latter gentleman requested he would again repair to the police-office, and require to know who was conducting the prosecution.

"Mr. Kildahl having made the inquiry of the magistrates, they replied, 'we don't know, and refer you to the Crown lawyer.'

"Mr. Kildahl, finding all inquiry vain, thereupon addressed the following letter to Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor for the province of Leinster :

"Sackville-street, December 22, 1824.

"'SIR,As the solicitor of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., and on his behalf, I rerest to be furnished with a copy of the informations, by virtue of which he has been held to bail to appear at the next commission, which informations were not only taken altogether exparte, but the matter and particulars thereof have been hitherto withheld from Mr. O'Connell. Having made application for a copy of them to the magistrates of the head police-office, they refused to give it to me, and afterwards referred me to the law officers of the crown. I therefore apply to you for it. You are, of course, aware that it will be impossible for me to take any measure on Mr O'Connell's behalf until I shall have obtained such copy, the expenses of which I am ready forthwith to pay.

"I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

"Wm. Kemmis, Esq., Crown Solicitor.'

S. KILU AHL

"THE COMMISSION.

"The Judges sitting at the Commission are Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Jus tice Vandeleur, and not Jebb. as stated in our last.

"In the case of Mr. O'Conal, the witnesses examined were Mr. Nolan Elrington and Mr. Byrne (and not Kelly).

"About half-past five o'clock, when the grand jury had been two hours in their chamber, the foreman entered, and stated that the jury wished to ask a question.

"The Court said the question must be asked in open court, and by the whole of the jury.

"The jury then came into court, and the foreman stated that some of his brother jurors were not quite certain of the direction given to them on the subject of the indictment for seditious words. They wished to know whether tho identity of the individual, the identity of the words, and the intent must be proved, or whether the substance of the words would be sufficient.

"Judge Moore replied it would be enough to prove the use of words in substance and meaning the same.

"Mr. Justice Vandeleur said it was not necessary to prove the words literally --if the substance could be sworn to, the bills might be found. A case had been decided by one of the ablest judges in England, which established this rule The word outset' was charged where the word 'onset' was proved, and this proof was held to be sufficient, and a conviction went. Yet in that case the accused had the aid of one of the first lawyers the English bar had ever produced-it was only necessary to name Sir Samuel Romilly.

"The jury proceeded to retire. Whilst they were moving out of court, "MR. WALLACE begged leave, with much respect, to dissent from the doctrine laid down by the court in the very wide and abstract manner in which it had been stated. In the case cited the variation was only of one word, and word that could not alter the meaning of the passage. This was clearly quite different from a variation in a passage of such length as that presented here. The position laid down by Mr. Justice Vandeleur would lead the jury to suppose they had a right to substitute a totally different set of words from those contained in the indictment, and thus be prosecuted for one set of words, and convicted of having uttered another set.

“MR. JUSTICE VANDELEUR-Do the counsel for the accused mean to contena the words must be proved literally