The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-09 00:00:00

OCTOBER 9, 1848.

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, SATURDAY MORNING.—The Freeman's
Journal of this morning contains the letter addressed
to Colonel (now General) Napier by Mr. Thomas
Young, and which was offered (but not received) in
evidence by the counsel for Mr. Smith O'Brien. It
runs as follows:

"My dear Napier,—Sir 11. Banbury told me of your
wise determination not to become' a Parliament man'
at least for the present. The offer was very- tempting,
and you have the more merit in declining. I refrained
from writing to you while the matter was undecided, for
I did not wish to obtrude my opinion, but I felt that
reason was against your acceptance, as your health, your
purse, and your comfort would all have surf 'red by your
attendance in the House of Con non=. The history
must have been laid aside. You could not, moreover,
have been a calm and silent member, but would have been
exerting yourself to push onward the movement faster
than it probably will march, or than, perhaps, all things
considered, it is desirable it should march.
" Let us go back a moment.
" The display of energy and a readiness to act on the
part of the people when the Duke of W— was on the
eve of coming in, was greater far than I expected. I
speak not of the Cockneys, but of the men in the north
—Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham. Aro you aware
that, in the event of a fight, you were to be invited to
take the command at Birmingham. Parkes got a frank
from mo for you with that view, hut had no occasion to
send it. Had he written I should have fired a dispatch
at you with my friendly and anxious counsel, and en-
treaty to keep you quiet, and not to stir from Fresh-
ford. It is not well to enter early into revolutions ; the
first fall victims. What do you think would have
happened ? The Reformers (Place, &c.) talked big
to me, and felt assured of success. The run upon the
banks and the barricading of the populous country
towns would have brought matters to a crisis, and a
week they—the Reformers—thought would have finished
the business. They meant so to agitate here that no
soldiers could have been spared from London and the
army is too small elsewhere to have put down the rebels.
In Scotland, I believe, the most effectual blow would
have been struck, and it seems difficult to have resisted
the popular movement. Tho Tories, however, say the
Duke would have succeeded. No doubt the discipline
under which soldiers live might have proved a stronger
element than the public anthusiasm,—/. e., unless the
latter was universal or extensive ,and then it would have
carried all before it. The task would have been to
bring back society to its former quiet state! Thank
God, we have been spared the trial; but, as a matter of
speculation, tell me what you think would have been the
result. Am I right in imy conjecture that you would
have refused the Birmingham invite, and kept your
sword in its scabbard?

"Yours ever truly,
" T. Y.
" Thanks for your first volume. Jones has come back
better."

The Freeman thus explains the circumstances
under which this extraordinary letter has been laid
before the public :
" Before we place this remarkable document before
the public it is due to the gallant, brave, and generous
soldier to whom it was addressed to state how its exist-
ence became known, and the circumstances under which
its contents have been divulged. The gallant Napier
returned an indignant reply to Mr. Young, stating thp.t
he received his sword from the hands of his Sovereign,
and that against that Sovereign ho would never un-
sheath it. The Whigs, through the secretary of their
chief, applied to the loyal soldier, requesting that the
letter should be returned, in order that this written evi-
dence of the conspiracy' might be destroyed. Colonel
Napier's reply was worthy his brave deeds and honoured
name. He peremptorily refused—stating, at the Sflritt`
time, that he would never divulge its contents, or allow
it to be made public, until the Whigs should capitally
prosecute a British subject for the otlence of which they
themselves were guilty. But the same soldier's honour
that pledged him to secrecy under certain circumstances
pledged him to render this letter and the conspiracy it
disclosed matter of history whenever the Whigs should
dare attempt to deprive of life a British subject, whose
only imputed crime was to follow the course of policy
adopted by themselves in '32. That daring attempt—
daring as coming from conscious conspirators—has been
made upon the life of Smith O'Brien, and the gallant
General has kept his word."

for no man over entertained a greater horror of blood-
shed, or a more decided hostility to the invarion of pro-
perty than Mr. O'Brien. Had it not been for the single
letter to the Mining Company there was not a shred
of evidence in the case to go to the jury to consider.
The purpose of writing"the letter:to the Mining Company
was to protect their property from injury, and that the
workmen in their mines should not suffer for their
generous devotion to him. But then it was said that he
enforced that by a threat; but surely if a threat were
contained in it, it was not that of a man of authority—
of an emperor—or of a commander! "If the Irish
revolution should succeed (ho wrote) the whole of the
property of the Mining Company would be confiscated."
But tho jury should recollect there was to be a real
revolution in the country—at least so it was said—
and ho need not reminu the jury what effect it
created on all of them when proclamations were
issued on the subject by the Lord-Lieutenant. Did
they not all believe that it had actually broksn out,
before they even heard of the existence of the letter to
the Mining Company? Mr. O'Brien thought to work
on the fears of the company, but he did so solely and
exclusively for the benefit of those who had protected
him. It was no part of his (Mr. Fitzgerald's) duty to
explain that letter, but it was for the Attorney-General
to make out the intent; and if he did not show them it
was treasonable, or if they entertained a doubt that it
was not consistent with the entire case, it was for them
to find a verdict of acquittal. With regard to Mr. Duffy's
letter, he (Mr: Fitzgerald) admitted that Mr. O'Brien
intended to bring about a revolution—but it was to re-
store the constitution of 1782 by the means of repealing
a single Act of Parliament—Mr. Duffy thought that if
Mr. O'Brien kept behind, a bloody chaos would ensue.
For what purpose, then, did Doctor Gray—(A laugh)—
he meant Mr. Daffy—write that letter to Mr. O'Brien?
He said, " You are behind the movement, and the con-
sequence will be that chaos will follow." All his client
wanted was, justice administered according to the law
of the land. The Learned Gentleman having resumed
his seat,
The Court consulted for a few moments, after which
The Lord Chief Justice BLA.CKBURNE, addressing the
prisoner, said,—William Smith O'Brien, I have now to
inform you that if you mean to address the jury you are
now at liberty to do so, and that you cannot be heard
after the Solicitor-General bas commenced his address
for the Crown. If you wish to consider with your
friends whether you will address the jury or not, we
will retire for a short time, and on our return you can
state your decision.
Mr. O'Brien—l am able to answer the question at
once. lam quite ready to leave the decision of my case
to the jury as it stands and as it rests on !the arguments
of my counsel; and I have only, in conclusion, to thank
the gentlemen of the jury fur the patient attention they
have given to the arguments in the case.
The Court then adjourned for a short time, and on
their Lordships' return,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose to reply on the part
of the Crown. The case which had undergone so
much serious and deliberate investigation was nearly
drawing to a close, and the duty devolved upon him
of making some observations en the whole of the
case as it appeared in evidence. They must all feel
indebted to the gentlemen of the jury for the
serious and marked attention they had paid to the pro-
gress of the case, because it showed they felt the im-
importance of it and the extent of the responsibility
which rested upon them in their decision. They must
all be sensible that the question was one by which not
merely the man at the bar, but the dearest interests of
society were intimately affected. The offence with which
the prisoner was charged was the highest known to the
law. It involved the most serious and important inte-
rests of the State. The consequences were so awful,
that in proportion to the enormity of the crime, the
jury should pay the case their most profound atten-
tion, and should be satisfied, on proof unquestionable
and unambiguous, of the guilt of the party charged.
At the same time, if the jury should be satisfied
of his guilt without reasonable doubt or hesitation,
it was their bounden duty, at all risks, and regardless
of the consequences, to give a just and fearless verdict.
The counsel for the prisoner called on the jury for a just
and impartial verdict. Surely those concerned for the
Crown could ask them for nothing else. In the case
before them, the jury must feel he had a duty to per-
form very different from that which devolved upon the
gentlemen concerned for the prisoner at the bar. Every
latitude the law could by possibility allow they were
fairly entitled to avail themselves of, in order to accom-
plish the acquittal of their client. His duty was dry and
ought to be unimpassioned. He could only say he would
do his duty to the best of his ability, and that in the exe-
cution of it he would be obliged to occupy a considerable
portion of their time. It would be the last address from
counsel, and then the duty would devolve on the Court,
standing impartially and justly between the Crown and
prisoner, to lay the facts before them, and to state what
were the bearings of the law on the case. Mr. O'Brien
was charged with thel offence of high treason. In ad-
dressing himself to tho evidence ho would endeavour to
simplify the charge as much as possible, and to that end
would confine himself to this case—that Mr. O'Brien had
committed treason by levying war against the Crown.
They had heard much of the exhibition of the national
will, and of the, manner in which the popular feeling
should be expounded. He would not ventnre on so dan-
gerous a sea of definition. The risk and hazard of men
assembling together in enormous bodies. armed and
organized for the purpose of exhibiting the popu-
lar will, might be allowed by the constitution as legal,
but one step beyond that would involve every man of
them in the guilt of high treason. With respect to the
evidence adduced of the past life and opinions of Mr.
O'Brien, he (the Solicitor-General) was not there to
deny that a person might avow peculiar political opinions,
and might institute clubs and associations to express
those feelings and opinions to the public. Mr O'Brien
was an ardent Repealer. But if, actuated by pride, pre-
judice, zeal, or ambition, any person should exceed the
limits of the law, and was betrayed into such an offence
as that with which the prisoner stood charged, .it was
no defence to produce his former companions to state
that the opinions he had previously expressed did not
amount to the crime of treason. If he were to be
found guilty on the evidence, such opinions could not
weigh a feather in the scale. Mr. O'Brien was charged
with the levy of war. His Learned Friend (Mr. Fitz-
gerald) bad told the jury that this was an artificial
crime. He did not understand what that meant. The
charge against Mr. O'Brien was for havingcommitted the
plain definite offence of high treason under the statute of
Edward 111. The levy of war under thrt statute must be
for a general public purpose. It would not daif it were to
assert private interests or to avenge a private wrong, no
matter how much violence or force were used in doing so.
It would be his duty to call their attention to the evi-
dence on which it was sought to establish this charge
against the prisoner, first remarking that a levy of war
for any purpose, real or imaginary, provided it were
general and public, was high treason. The Attorney-
General, on the part of the Crown, did not seek to go
further than March, 1848, when Mr. O'Brien delivered
a speech at the Confederation, which he would ask them
to consider, that they might ascertain the purpose of the
insurrection which broke out in July. He believed the
speech to be most important, because it clearly and unam-
biguously established the fact that a change had come
over Mr. O'Brien's political opinions between March and
July. The revolution in France, which had subsequently
caused so much human misery and so much national
calamity, had warped and influenced the minds of men
so far that many of them were led to extremities of which
they previously would have entertained no notion. Mr.
O'Brien accordingly seemed at that time to look to
measures he had not before contemplated, and in that
speech to set forth the means by which he sought to ac-
complish his object. The Solicitor-General then proceeded
to read the speech which has been so often the subject
of observation during these trials, and to dissect it pas-
sage after passage. The words used by Mr. O'Brien
were, he argued, plain upon this point—that the inten-
tion of employing physical force to effect changes in the
government of the country was prominent in his mind,
and that the only question on the subject was the time
which he would select for its employment. The Crown
did not prosecute the speech as an overt act of treason,
but they put in evidence because it cast light on the in-
surrection in July. He threatened the landlords with
confiscation of their property to the national treasury ,•
he alluded to the establishment of an Irish national
guard, an Irish army, and an Irish Parliament, and he
advised the people to fraternise with the soldiers and
police. In these and all other similar passages Mr.
O'Brien seemed distinctly to look forward to a revolu-
tion to be effected by force. He spoke of French aid,
and invoked French sympathy in their "coming strug-
gle." What construction could the jury put on these
words but that which they bore in their plain common
acceptation ? It was plain Lamartine at that time
was in such a position that he did not wish to get into
difficulties with foreign countries, and Mr. O'Brien was
anxious to explain to his party that the reception he had
received in France was not so discouraging as it appeared.
The Learned Solicitor-General then read the speech
made by Mr. O'Brien on his return from the mission to
France, in which he stated that he had not gone there to
solicid armed aid, and that if he had done so, the nation
would not have been justified in giving him an answer.
But he went on to remark that there wore men there
from whom they might expect aid at a subsequent pe-
riod, and to allude to Arthur O'Connor, who was " un-
fortunately unsuccessful in 1798." The Learned Solici-
tor-General next read the letter from the American
sympathisers in Philadelphia, signed by Mr. Tyler, and
contended that the mission of Mr. Meagher to America
which was spoken of in the letter of that gentleman from
Cahirmoyle, was undertaken in reference to the promises
made by the writer. Next he came to Mr. Duffy's letter
which was found in Mr. O'Brien's portmanteau, and in
which the former urged the prisoner to beware of the
errors of Lafayette, while he assimilated their posi-
tions. The Learned Gentleman commented with great
severity on the spirit and purpose of this letter.
Duffy's letter bad been addressed to the prisoner to sti-
mulate and urge him into this fatal movement. The in.
sidious suggestions it contained were sent* -Mr. Duffy
in order to operate on Mr. O'Brien's proud nature, and
to induce him to take the leadership, and that step
which had led to such deplorable results. For Mr.
O'Brien he felt sincere and deep regret. He wished
that unfortunate gentlemen had not listened to the diabo-
lical tempter who was luring him on to the terrible pre-
cipice on which he stood.