The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-07 00:00:00

tlemen, to the best Fissions of your nature, not to believe
the man who would say he would shoot even the women
who came there perhaps to rescue their husbands and
children from death. lie would shoot every woman in
the crowd—cruelly, remorselessly, relentlessle, with
pleasure—(Applause)—and I ask you not to believe that
man. I now come to the evidence of Sergeant Melao-
nough, who, though he was sent up to Dublin to give in-
formation to the Inspector-General, never told him that
Mr. O'Brien used these words. I call on you, therefore,
to disbelieve those words, which are so inconsistent with
the whole character and conduct of the prisoner. I
now call your attention to the evidence of the policeman
Carroll, and with reference to him, Mr. O'Brien (who is
represented to have used the words "slaughter away")
says it would be unmanly to attack an unarmed man,
Carroll then says he gave an advice to Mr. O'Brien, con-
taining an allusion to the fact that he would not be
supported by the priests, who, of course, are always
introduced. Carroll tells him his object could not
be effected except by blood; and the reply of Mr.
O'Brien is, that he wanted no blood. Therefore
you cannot entertain a doubt that the interpretation
I have given you of the transaction is the right one.
Gentlemen of the jury—there are several documents in
this caw; one of them is a map, which I have been called
upon to explain. I decline to do so, and I shall leave it
to the Solicitor-General to make out the guilt of the pri-
soner from the possession of this map, or of the Ordnance
map, or of any other map. But there is a document, the
importance of which Ido not mean to deny. I mean the
document given to Mr. Cullen, of the Mining Company.
The letter is dated the 29th July, 1848; and, as the
Attorney- General asserted, was written on the eve of
an intended conflict. But as I think it has already ap-
peared from the evidence that the conflict which actually
took place was purely accidental, it is impossible that it
could have been written with reference to an expected
or believed resistance. I don't know whether you ob-
served from the evidence or not, but it is the fact, that
by this time Mr. Meagher had left the company of Mr.
O'Brien. Nothing could be more remote from their' con-
templation, therefore, than the idea that they should en-
gage in a conflict. The letter was written from the col,
lieries, and is dated on the 29th of July; and in con-
struing this letter, you must take the whole of it together,
Mr. O'Brien stated in the document that he felt the col-
liers ought to be encouraged for the noble stand they
had made in affording protection to him. It is plain,
therefore, that he wants that the colliers should not be put
out of employment, as several had been discharged about
three months before. But does he say that they had as-
sisted him to overturn the constitution, to levy war upon
the Queen? No, but there appears the same personal
matter all through, the protecting himself from arrest.
Then he goes on to remark that the price for the raising
of coal and culm should be paid by contract; but this is
anything but a revolutionary prooeeding, beesuse he
proposed that the men should continue at work, and that
they should be paid by contract, as, in point of fact, I
am informed that that practice has been since adopted.
Men who are engaged in revolutions do not begin by
settling the price of coal; next, he makes a suggestion
which shows that he did not contemplate the destruction
of the bonds of society, for he recommends that a brisk
demand should be encouraged by lessening the price.
Mr. Smith O'Brien—By lowering the price.
Mr. WHITESIDE-Oh, yes, it is by lowering. It is a
most singular document, I admit, but it is plain that it
does not contemplate anarchy if the company did not
comply with this request, but would distress the people,
then Mr. O'Brien would instruct the colliers to occupy
and work the mines on their own account. I admit
that this is quite an unjustifiable threat, but still it was
a mere local and partial outrage. Then follows the un-
justifiable statement, that if the Irish revolution should
succeed—if the company distressed the people, their
property would be confiscated ; that, on the contrary, if
they observed neutrality, then their property would be
protected. Now, in construing this document, you
must :take the whole of it, and if you find that Mr.
O'Briines object was to frighten the company into bene-
fiting the men in their employment, that will bo a natu-
ral interpretation to its meaning. But it would be ab-
surd to apply it to levying war upon the Queen, for if
it did the letter would never have been written at all.
Emmett never talked of the price of coals when he
planned his revolution, nor did the men who talked of
killing the Lord Lieutenant. I admit that he meant to
frighten the company into employing the colliers and
paying them, but that was all. In Lord George
Gordon's case he gave letters of protection to several
persons, and they were protected, but this was not held
to be high treason. So there was a letter given in the
case of Watson proposing to attack the Tower and the
Bank, yet Watson was acquitted. That Mr. O'Brien
used the word "Irish revolution" I admit; but the words
have been used a hundred times to mean a moral revolu-
tion; and, therefore, there is no proof to show that
this was a bloody and a criminal revolution. I admit
that he has assumed here that which he had no right to
assume, but that is not high treason. This is the inter-
pretation of the letter, and this is the grand document,
be it remembered, on which the Crown relies. Then
there was a document found in Mr. O'Brien's portman-
teau; and I ask you if that is to be used as conclusive
evidence against Mr. O'Brien I admit that the last
letter was important, but I am not at all troubled as
to this. There is not a public man in this country
who has not received a number of letters which he
never troubled himself to answer, nor condescended
to notice. The letter has no date; it has neither
cover nor envelope; it was not said to be sent by
post, nor delivered by messenger, nor is there
any explanation how it got into the portmanteau.
How is one man's guilt to be inferred from the letter
which another man writes? The only thing by which
you could in the slightest degree infer that he approved
of it at all is, that he kept it. But surely that would not
be conclusive in a case like this. Having read Mr.
Duffy's letter, he continued! This is, in fact, a letter
stimulating the person to whom it is addressed to engqge
in a course which the writer believes the other does not
heartily assent to. When it was written, or what was
the object of the writer, we do not know. I only say, on
the part of my client, that he has betrayed nobody, and
that he accuses nobody. The same remarks apply to
the document from America, ;and the address from the
Enniscorshy Club, and in the letter addressed by Mr.
Meagher to him, dated Cahirmoyle, there is absolutely
nothing. There is, gentlemen of the jury, one piece of
evidence still remaining, and I am not here to gainsay its
importance—the evidence of Dobbin. I have reserved it
to the last. After having taken you through the trans-
actions of the Confederation and the League, through
the whole conduct of the party accused, I think I
have proved to you that no crime of treason has
been committed, which, I admit, has nothing to do
with his trial or his punishment for any other offence—
which has nothing to do with hit crimes against the
public peace, or the public authorities—it would not pre-
vent his prosecution for these crimes to-morrow, though
spy;there to plot—they were
I admit it would not take away his life. Mr. Dobbin
counter-plot." We have a
that is clear. To use
plotting,appearsh iwitness
own
comes
and
nmpt
dnhe
phrase—"
a sfcharactererw went:tforward
der
went
one
tfnoatthis
capacity, there must be
rule of law which is never departed from, that when a
some important part of his story in which he is con-
firmed. My first objection to his evidence is, that there
is not a particle of it confirmed, from beginning to end.
He says that he was a member of the Red Hand Club,
and that, in his capacity of member or president of that
club, ho attended three meetings of the Irish council—on
the 13th, on the 19th, and on the 21st of July. Now,
abstracted from the balloting papers, which I
a
shall speak of afterwards, what pow rt of his evidence
is confirmed? I wish I had him
Now, I know that ho was an engineer—that he ceased
n upon the table.
to be an engineer; and what he stated upon
the table is true—he descended into the capacity of
an attorney s clerk. I should like to have got
from him the reason why. I admit there was a meeting
held on that day ; but I insist, as I shall be able to
prove, that it was a public meeting, where certain reso-
lutionsouslanguage, werea adopted
admit.pt ed andl
published—couched alt wuadsacain-
audacious agitation—to be sure it was; it was conducted
On the most approved principles on which this country
has so long been so misgovtrned. But nobody saw Dobe
bin there. How was it that none of the constabulary
who were outside were called to prove that they saw him
go up ? There was not a meeting called in the city of
Dublin which the police—and very rightly—did not
watch in crder to preserve the public peace. Yet not a
men of them was called to say that they saw him enter
the'tneeting. Do you think the Crown forgot to give that?
Do you think that the able, and astute, and experienced
Attorney-General—do you think that the Solicitor-
General, who is, perhaps,
mere experienced still in cri-
minal matters—do you think that they forgot that? No,
depend upon it; but then when no evidence can be had,
why then nothing can be made of it. Then again as to
the secret meeting of the 19th, we have no confirma-
tion of it; but on the contrary we have the evidence
of the respectable reporter here (Mr. Hodges), who
did not falsify a single word, and who has sworn to Mr.
O'Brien's speeches, in which he repeatedly denounced all
secret meetings. It would have been vital evidence if a
policeman could have been brought who saw him walk
up stairs. Do you think they did not know the value of
it ? Why gentleman, since this trial commenced, they
have sent to Dublin for two policemen who deposed that
they had seen the title of the " Red Hand Club" on the
window of a house ; and yet they allowed these polices
men to go down from that table without asking them if
they had ever seen Dobbin enter it. Did you observe
that ? I did ; and it is most significant. There is not
then a particle of • evidence to confirm this witness.
What was to prevent him from
saying, I saw all the
jury at these meetings, and they stood behind Mr.
O'Brien's back ? If anything tends to the acquittal of
the prisoner, it is those very
balloting papers. Those
papers have not been proved to have been found on the
person of eft Lalor, but because they were proved to
have existed they were produced. But who proved
them ? The informer. Whose was the story? The in-
former's. But how was that information confirmed ? I
admit there is the handwriting of a great many others
upon them. But who has proved their handwriting ? No
one—the Crown has admitted it could not prove them;
but I hold they were bound to prove it, and it was per-
fectly possible to do so. They were aware of the ne
cessity of corroborating the the testimony of the witness,
and yet no attempt was made to produce any such evi-
dence. I hold, therefore, gentlemen, that as consider-
able doubt exists, with regard to the genuineness of these
balloting papers, I call on you, in conformity with the
great principle of our law, to give the benefit of that
doubt to my client. The informer swore that when
they went to the ballot to elect a "war directory," it
was agreed that no clergyman should be voted for. Now
that was as distinct, as clear, it was as positive as any
statement that ever came from the lips of a witness in a
court of justice. Notwithstanding that there appear to
have been tight votes given to one clergyman (the Rev.
Mr. Kenyon), and one for another (the Rev. Mr. O'Mal-
ley). Now, if there was any criminality.attached to that
proceeding, which I deny—the fact being that the di-
rectory was elected to conduct the affairs of the clubs—l
ask this question: does the Government expect to convict
the Protestant gentleman in the dock, whilst the Roman