Now let us inquire whether the offences charged in this indictment are a levying of war, or simply resisting with a high hand the constituted authorities of the land. It is said that there was an organized government, and that charge is sought to be sustained by evidence, particularly by a pamphlet that has been produced, and which was taken from the person of the prisoner. But. gentlemen, it would not necessarily follow that overthrowing the Commonwealth of Virginia was contemplated by anything which appears is that pamphlet. How many harmless organizations have existed in the world at caracas times, surrounded with nil the outside forms and machinery of government! aye, even as harmless things as debating societies have been so organized, congresses created, resolutions and laws discussed, and any one reading the bulletins and reports issued from time to time from these associations would say, why here is a miniature government within the very limits of our State. No matter what name they may take, no matter under what form of organization they are bound together, no matter what offices they may create, it be not a proof of crime against the State. These men named in the indictment have been characterized by the attorney as a marauding, thieving, murderous clan; and surely it is not such people that could subvert a government and raise another upon its ruins. Such associations as I have alluded to, you are well aware, have their laws and regulations, and even they prescribe death for violations of their taws. But that does not contemplate the overthrow of any existing legitimate government, but only an association for governing, controlling and directing themselves in their dealings with one another, but having no purpose or idea whatever of overthrowing, usurping or destroying the legitimate government.

But I will remark further, with reference to this matter, that you cannot find this man guilty of treason except you have it proved incontestably before you that he was associated with others for the purpose and with the object of overthrowing and of organizing a government, and to subvert the Commonwealth of Virginia. Now, I say with reference to that hook so much relied upon by the prosecution, that if it prows anything it proves that the attempt, if any such was designed, was to establish a government in opposition in the Government of the United States, and not to subvert the Commonwealth of Virginia. All the terms used, all the officers to be appointed, have reference to a government like the United States. The pamphlet does not say what territory this association, or government, is to exercise jurisdiction over. Its proposed empire is not defined. It has fixed no territorial limits, and, therefore, if it means anything at all, it alludes to the government of the whole United States in general, and not to this State or any other in particular.

But as this book or code of laws has been put in evidence, I tell you, gentlemen, that you must not select any particular part of it--you must take it all as evidence, every part of it must be taken, one part as much as another, except the prosecution produce evidence satisfactorily contradicting any portion of it. From the contents of that book it is clear that these men did not contemplate the overthrow of the State government, but simply an amendment or repeal of obnoxious laws, or what they deemed to be such. I speak of this matter because you are compelled to find that the prisoner was guilty of all those matters contained in the several counts. But they haw failed in establishing any one of these charges. The prosecution say that he is guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Commonwealth, and that is the only specific charge they have made on fact. And how do they attempt to support it! Did not the prisoner, they say, actually send to the tavern and procure provisions and feed the enemies of the Commonwealth? Did he not feed the slaves, and are they not enemies of the State? Was not that act, therefore, furnishing aid and comfort to the enemy? I was surprised to hear this part of the subject commented upon. I was surprised that in that connection, by an association of ideas no doubt very ingenious and felicitous if they could be traced out, he burst forth into that sublime apostrophe to freedom which the prosecuting attorney delivered the other evening in tones and action and language of such surpassing eloquence that none who heard him might be told that he had received his inspiration in the State which urns the ashes of Patrick Henry. And when I remember the cause we are here trying, and the circumstances which surround it, I remember also the appeal that that gentleman made to you, presenting a daguerreotype to your view of the anxious faces which hung around the court, invoking a verdict on the prisoner. But that style of appeal was not confined to the prosecuting attorney alone. His distinguished associate, gentlemen, presented to you a touching picture of dishevelled tresses of frightened beauty, enough to excite the feelings and shatter the nerves of any one. I can but rejoice, gentlemen, that his stirring tones were not echoed from hill top to hill top, from mountain to mountain, to excite and spread alarm from one end of the State to the other, but that, on the contrary, they died away within these walls.

Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner is charged with having given aid and comfort to the enemies of the State, and, in despair, they are driven to rely upon this charge, for it is the only one specifically made. But I will leave this part of the case, and proceed. The prisoner is charge with conspiring with slaves to rebel and make insurrection. Here, again, we are bound to make the same distinction in regard to treason. There is a manifest distinction between the effort made to run away with slaves, or inducing them to run away, and attempt to excite them to rebellion and insurrection. Now, what is meant by insurrection and rebellion? It means a rising up of slaves against the authority of their masters--not a running away, although freedom may be the ultimate object. But it means a rising up against the masters, against the whites, against the State. Insurrection contemplates riot, robbery, murder, arson, and all the crimes which follow an insurrection, more especially a servile insurrection.

Now, what are the facts of the case? I cannot discuss them; but I will ask you, as men disposed to do justice to the State, to sit down and inquire among yourselves if any one Witness has entitled of aught showing that Brown or his associates said or did anything to any one slave to induce him to rise in rebellion? What was it that was really done in this matter? Slaves were taken possession of, and for a temporary purpose placed in the Arsenal or some of the public buildings at Harper's Ferry. But what was the evidence of Colonel Washington himself, who testified more or, this subject than any other person? He says that not a slave seemed to have a heart in the matter. The slaves themselves did nothing. They were taken there, and there they quietly remained. The only slave that lifted his hand was old Phil, Mr. Allstadt's servant, who, according to my recollection, and at the suggestion of Brown, the prisoner, drilled some port-holes in the wall.

And let me here remark, that the law as regards rebellion is the same regards treason. A man may be engaged in an illegal act; any body of men, any body of slaves may be so engaged, and they may resist the lawful authorities sent against them, even to the shedding of blood, and yet it is not rebellion nor treason. Let us suppose that a body of slaves are seeking to escape; they are aided in that attempt by a body of white men; their escape may be effected by white men--they are pursued by the authority of the State, their capture is attempted--they resist, and defend themselves even to the loss of life, yet that does not constitute rebellion--they are amenable to punishment, but not to the penalty of rebellion. This is all I need to say upon this subject.

The next crime charged against the prisoner is murder. Now, there are nine specifications of murder in the first degree. Five of these come under the head of murder in the first degree as premeditated murder, which is punishable with death; four others, where death happens without it being the original intention of the party to commit murder, but which, however, come under the head of first degree, if the party was at the time in the commission of some other offence--such as rape, arson, robbery or burglary. If a party is engaged in the commission of any of these crimes, and death, though not designed, ensues, then the offender is liable to the penalty of death. Now, as regards the death of the citizens at Harper's Ferry, when they took place the prisoner and his men were not engaged in the commission of any of these offences--such as arson, rape, robbery or burglary. If they were there in resistance to the authority of the laws of Virginia--if, while resisting that authority these deaths ensued, was there that premeditated malice aforethought which the law requires to make a man guilty of murder? There was one death ensued in the early part of the first night at Harper's Ferry, but how it happened no one knows--whether it was accidental or not. Nor can it be known, whether he was accidentally shot by one of Brown's party or by one of the citizens themselves. The night was dark, and his death might have been accidental or otherwise; but now none can tell. I can only say as my client says to me on this subject: "Why should we shout a negro?--that was not our object." And so I say. Gentlemen, you cannot believe for one moment--you do not believe; the evidence will not allow you to believe; the law will not allow you to believe--that there was any malice or deliberate intention to shoot that negro, if he was shot by Brown's party at all; and, therefore, gentlemen, I shall pass that charge by without further comment. Should I be asked why this man should not be brought within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia so as to punish him--was he to go unquit by justice for his offences?--my answer would at once be: No, gentlemen, not for one moment. All I ask of you is that he be charged and convicted according to your own laws.

This Commonwealth of Virginia has made laws to protect her citizens--has made laws which hedge them round and protect them on every side. She has within the borders of her population made such laws as she deems all-sufficient for the protection of that species of property which some, perhaps, would wish to deprive her citizens of. But whatever may be done hereafter; whatever may be considered necessary for the protection of life and property in time to come, it is the boast of our institutions that no man can be punished beyond what the law allows. If the punishment is not severe enough; if it is not ample enough, broad enough, will the law rest until it is properly remedied? The law can be made and altered from time to time, so as to meet every emergency of the State. If, then, your rights, your interests, your property, your lives are not sufficiently protected, there is a power is this grand old Commonwealth sufficient to protect them at all tinges We, however, have no post facto law We punish no man but by virtue of the law as it exists at the time the alleged offence was committed.

The prisoner at the bar is amenable to your laws. None can deny that. Frame your indictment against him to-day, charging him with enticing away your slaves, with interfering with that species of property, and his confessions are as thick as the leaves upon your forest trees that he was among you for that purpose. Frame your indictment, and the moment it is read he will plead guilty to it and submit to the penalty of his crime without a murmur. But contemplating nothing more, dreaming of nothing more, he asks that the aegis of your laws may be thrown around him; not that he flinches from his fate, whatever that may be, but that he may not be stigmatized with guilt of crimes which he never contemplated, and which he believes in his heart he never committed. Of course as the law has been violated it must be vindicated--that I understand, and so does he. It is not true that public feeling and sentiment demand his immolation. It is not true that the public safety requires that he should be punished contrary to law. I speak thus in vindication of your own laws. I desire to preserve them unsullied and unstained, and that they be not perverted or distorted w suit this case, and to do a wrong instead of being applied to the punishment of what is wrong, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the statute and the law will not justify this man's conviction on the charges laid down in the Indictment. And why should this wrong be attempted? It is not true that there is any danger from the popular feeling. It is not true that there is danger to the State, either from within or without.

Think of it, gentlemen, calmly and dispassionately. Here stands a man of whom you know something. He is a man of indomitable will, of sleepless energy of purpose, possessed of a spirit of perseverance that turns back from no difficulty, and endowed with a constitution that will endure and overcome everything. He, with all these qualities fitting him for snob an enterprise, was engaged for months and months prosecuting it, and how did he succeed? Despite of all his efforts, despite these energies of mind and body which he threw into the work, and that unbending will of his which never faltered nor slept, he was able throughout the length and breadth of the United States to gather round his standard some twenty-one men both black and white. Can it be supposed, gentlemen, for a moment, that there is fear to be apprehended from such a man, who, in the zenith of his power, when he had a name in history, and when something might be hoped for the cause in which he was engaged, could only, throughout the whole country, raise twenty-one men? Is it to be supposed for a moment, I ask, now, when he is struck down to the earth, his few followers scattered or destroyed--now, when the fact is known that the South is alarmed and armed in every direction ready to repel any enterprise of this kind, is anything to be feared? No, gentlemen, there is not the remotest danger of your ever again witnessing in your State anything akin to that which lately occurred. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to make these remarks. I know it is the duty of the Jury to be blind to everything that bears not upon the case. Justice is represented as blind, seeing nothing, but dealing only with the facts which relate to the case. I believe you will take this ease and deal with it fairly, and dispose of it under the ruling of the Court. We heard, during the progress of this investigation, reference made to the conduct of some parties who took an active part in the late events at Harper's Ferry. But, gentlemen, the courage spoken of was physical courage, that courage which would induce men, whenever necessary, to face danger, no matter from what quarter it might come or in whatever form it might present itself This courage commends itself to your highest regard. This is physical courage. But there is another sort of courage which soars far above that which is mere physical. It is moral courage. It is a courage which will enable the true man, who is blessed with it, to raise himself above the influence of prejudice, self-interest, or popular excitement. It is a courage that withstands all temptations, and fearlessly rises above the petty considerations which influence more ignoble minds. It stands unflinchingly to meet the seething waves of popular excitement of commotion, and will not be turned aside from that which is humane and truthful. Now, gentlemen, if there be anything of this kind in your hearts--if yon suppose there is anything more required than simple justice to be meted out to this unfortunate man--you have this day an opportunity of exhibiting that true moral courage of which I have spoken; and through the longest day you have to live you will value nothing more precious than the remembrance of the fact that you acted rightly, and justly, and mercifully in the day of danger.

You, gentlemen, have this day a great opportunity of evincing true moral courage by dealing with this case as I have feebly pointed out, if you can do so justly and preserving your oaths intact. Whatever you do, preserve your honor untarnished, preserve also the integrity and reputation of the Commonwealth, so long renowned for her justice, for truth and for chivalry unstained. I feel, gentlemen, that I have not done justice to the case; but I have said what I desired to say, situated as I am, closing simply with these remarks, which I make on behalf of my client, and at his request, that he has not a particle of exception to take to the testimony of the witnesses examined during the trial. He deems it only a wonder amid the excitement of these scenes, that the truth, as he declares it tube, should be so fully developed. He believed that the desire of one and all of the witnesses was to do him ample justice; that whenever they could speak in commendation of his (Brown's) humanity, in the means he had taken to spare the effusion of blood, and to preserve from harm his prisoners, they came cheerfully forward to do it. He desires, also, as the least he can do, to express his grateful thanks to Captain Simms, who voluntarily came forward from another State, because, as he said, he wished to see justice done to a brave old man. Gentlemen, with these remarks I submit the case, as far as I am concerned, into your hands.

Mr. Chilton spoke of the embarrassment with which he undertook the case. He intended to do his duty faithfully, and had come to deal with the prisoner not as Captain Brown, leader of this foray, but simply as a prisoner under the charge of violating the law. If that law did not warrant a conviction, he should endeavor to make that appear to the Jury. Still he would say that he had no sympathy with the prisoner. His birth and residence, until within a few years, had been in Virginia, in connection with the institution of slavery. Although now a resident of the District of Columbia, he had returned to his native State to spend the remainder of his days, and mingle his dust with her soil. No other motive operated on him than a disinterested one to do his duty faithfully. He regretted the excitement respecting the case, but was glad to hear the Judge say on Saturday that he desired to try this case precisely like others. He desired, and the whole State, and the whole South desired, that the trial should be fair, and it had been fair. Circumstances had interrupted its progress. Counsel were here without proper preparation, but indulgence had been granted, and they made no complaint. They should do the best they could under the circumstances, and could not complain of the excitement. It was natural. He hoped it would not interfere with the course of justice, or east a stain upon the bar of the State. The Jury had sworn they were unbiased, and he presumed they would firmly discharge their oaths in bringing in a verdict. He could not understand, from the opening of the prosecution, on what grounds these charges against the prisoner were attempted to be sustained. The Commonwealth Attorney indulged in a strain of abuse of the prisoner, and pronounced sentence on him without waiting the verdict of the Jury, thus usurping the place of the Judge.

There were three distinct charges. The first was of treason. This was an offence at common law. The word is derived from a French word, signifying betrayal. Treason means betrayal of trust or confidence, the violation of fidelity or allegiance to the Commonwealth. He maintained that treason could not be committed against a Commonwealth except by a citizen thereof. In the present case the whole proof shows that this prisoner is not a citizen of Virginia, and he therefore cannot be found guilty of treason. The indictment charges the prisoners with committing every act composing treason. They are charged with levying war against the State, and exciting slaves to insurrection; but there was no proof that they committed these acts charged--no proof that they resisted any process issued against them as violators of authority of the Commonwealth. They were rather guilty of resisting Colonel Lee, which was resistance to the Federal Government, and not to the Commonwealth. He had read carefully the prepared Provisional Constitution, and regarded it as ridiculous nonsense--a wild, chimerical production. It could only be produced by men of unsound minds. It defines no territory over which it is intended to operate, and says that we, that is the signers of the document, not all citizens of the United States, do establishment the following Provisional Government. What is it? It is an association or copartnership; they are to own property in common and regulate its tenures; it did act contemplate a Government, but merely a voluntary association to abolish Slavery; did not even undertake to levy taxes, which is essential to any Government. It does not appear that this association was to be established in Virginia, or where it was to go into effect. This was not treason. Is it the adoption of a Constitution or establishment of a Government? By no means. Those parties had a mere imaginary Government to govern themselves, and nobody else, just like governing a military company or debating society. Even if they intended to set up a government over the other, they did not do it. There was a principle that every piece of evidence was to be construed most favorably to the accused, who should have the benefit of every doubt. In considering the evidence they must consider the whole of it--they must take the declarations of the prisoner in his own favor as well as against himself.

Now look at the 46th Article of this Provisional Constitution, which expressly declares that the foregoing articles shall not be construed to encourage the overthrow of any State Government or General Government, and lead to a dissolution of the Union, but simply as amendment and repeal. This was on evidence before the Jury, being submitted by the prosecution. Again, the prisoner is charged with conspiring with slaves to make an insurrection. No proofs show that the slaves entered into a conspiracy, and unless that was the case there was no conspiracy

One party cannot conspire alone. Each charge is to be considered alone by the Jury. If they believe the evidence, it does not warrant the conviction of treason, and they must consider the charge of conspiracy just as if no charge of treason had been made. One count in the indictment was not to be brought in to aid another. He considered the prisoner had a right to be tried on one charge st a time, and entirely disconnected with any other. The Court had, however, overruled the motion on Saturday, and hence the importance of making this point clear to the Jury, so that they might not confuse the various offences, and the evidence relating to each. Next, as to murder. It was a very angular way of doing an indictment. Five prisoners are charged with the murder of tour men. That they might have jointly done it he could understand, but that they could severally have done it, he declared it was almost impossible for the prisoner to make a defence against such a charge. It was too loose and vague. By the laws of Virginia there was but one specific murder punishable as capital, and that was deliberate, premeditated murder. The prosecution charged the prisoner with murder in the first degree, but he argued that evidence in this ease did not sustain the charge. The prisoner's conduct in the engine-house showed no malice, according to the testimony of Col. Washington and Mr. Allstadt. However ridiculous his project, which it would seem could never have entered the mind of a sane man, he might still have believed he could carry out that project without bloodshed. At any rate, no sane man could suppose he expected, with a mere handful of men, to accomplish his object by force, and it is but fair to take his declarations, especially when compared with his acts, that he intended to shed no blood, except in self-defence, unless you should believe, beyond the slightest doubt, that those declarations were untrue, and that the prisoner was actuated by malice in taking the lives of those who never did him harm, and against whom no cause for malice existed. As to Hayward, there was no proof as to how he met his death, or who killed him, or for what cause, and, as his colleague had remarked, the prisoner had no motive to kill negroes. The subsequent contest resulted in loss of life, but the prisoner endeavored to avoid that conflict for the purpose of saving life, and therefore could not have been actuated by malice, which is necessary to constitute murder in the first degree. Even if the prisoner were guilty of murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, yet neither was a capital crime, and not the crime charged in the indictment. He did not know bat that Brown was justified in returning the fire when fired upon under the circumstances. It was a sort of self-defence, and very probably, had a little more time been allowed, those men could have been taken into custody without loss of life. He charged the jury to look on this case, as far as the law would allow, with an eye favorable to the prisoner, and when their verdict should be returned, he trusted that every man in the community would acquiesce in it. Unless the majesty of the law were supported, dissolution of the Union must soon ensue, with all the evils which must necessarily follow in its train.