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

ARREST FOR HIGH TREASON.

On Wednesday night Sergeant Luke Prender, of
the detective force, arrested Mr. Edward Trouton,
at, his residence, Besborough-terrace, North Circular-
road, on a charge of high treason. The warrant for
his apprehergion was signed by Colonel Browne,
Commissioner of Police, and he was committed to
.Newgate on the above charge. It was in reference
to him that the approver Dobbin swore, at the special
faAmmission,__he attended a meeting on the sth July,
'where Mr. Trouton was present, and stated that he
had been in England to organize the people; that
there were two towns in England from which 500
armed men would come over at a moment's notice
when the insurrection would break out ; also that
they had twe swivels ready to come over.

THE STATE TRIALS.
CLONMEL, THURSDAY, OCT. 5.
The Court sat at half-past ten o'clock, and some time
before that hcur Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Fitzgerald, the
prisoner's counsel, and Sir Colman O'Loghlen and Mr,
a% H. Barton, the assistant counsel, took their places in
court. The Crown officers were also in attendance.

Mr. WurrEsinE, on the arrival of their Lordships
and the jury, resumed his address on the part of the
prisoner. He said—Gentlemen of the jury, in the
vourse of what I addressed to you yesterday I endea-
voured to convey to you the principle on which the case
of the defendar:t rests; and I stated to you more than
once, that 6y the law, as it exists, supposing Mr. O'Brien
was convicted in Dublin when he was tried, and was
sentenced to prison, to break into that prison and rescue
hire out of it would not be high treason ; and much more
strongly must it appear that an endeavour to escape
-arrest dos not fall within the crime of high treason.
On that point I shall call y our attention to a decision of
Lord Hale, Ventria' Reports, p. 257. A captain of the
Guards arid the sergeant of his company were brought
into court on the prosecution of the sheriff of London
for rescuing a soldier of the regiment who had been
arrested for debt, It appeared that while the prisoner
was being conveyed from one prison to another the ser-
eant, by the captain's command, took thirty goldier3
nr‘d rescued the prisoner from the sheriff's officers.
Loma Hate, on hearing that ease, said, "If men took
upon themselves to rescue all the soldiers who are com-
mitted, they may be within reach of high treason, in
'consequence of the universality of the design, but this
keing One case it is not high treason, but it is rank mis-
demeanour." In that case the soldiers made as embus-
r. de and relcued- the prisoner, but the Learned Chief
justice of England says, " that is not high trea-
son," because it referred to a particular individual.
:Th,erefore, the acquittal on this charge follows as a mat-
Iter of course. I loft off yesterday at Carrick-on-Suir,
and called attention to the evidence given with respect
to the speech of Mr. Meagher, which was said to contain
langaage so gross that it was not likely that gentleman
ever used it respecting judges of the land. In many '
cases evidence of' this kind has been attempted to be
given to swell out the charge of high treason. I may
refar to one memorable case, in which the Attorney-
Gen oral of t:,at day acted very differently from the
colt] se adopted at present. There was a society in Lon-
don. which Lord Eldon thought might be prosecuted,
and he arrested every man of them. He ten ap-
plied for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, in re-
spect to the persons so arrested, and any others that
might fall within the same rule. He proceeded to try
them for the same offence, of which they were acquitted.
Amongst the papers there used were many documents
of this description—calling the House of Commons a
scoundrel house, and villifying the House of Peers; and
in Hardy's house a document of this kind was found,
written in verse:—

Why should we vainly waste our prime,
Repeating our oppressions;
Come, rouse to arms, 'tis now the time,
To punish past transgressions.
'Tis said that Kings can do no wrong;
Their murd'rous deeds deny it;
And since from us their power has sprung,
We have the right to try it.
Chorus—Come, rouse to arms, &c.
The starring wretch who steals for bread
But seldom meets compassion;
And shall a crown preserve the head
Of him who robs a nation?
Such partial laws we all despise;
See Gallia's bright example,
The glorious sight before our eyes,
We'll every tyrant trample.
Chorus—Come, rouse to arms, &c.
Proud bishops next we will translate
Among priest-crafted martyrs;
The guillotine on peers shalt wait,
And knights we'll hang in gartirs.
These despots long have trod us down,
And judges ire their engines;
These wretched minions of a Crown
Demand a people's vengeance.
Chorus—Come, rouse to arms, &c.

Our juries are a venal pack,
See justice topsy-turvy ;
On Freedom's cause they've turned aback,
Of Englishmen unworthy.
The glorious work but once begun,
We'll cleanse the Augean stable ;
A moment lost, and we're undone,
Come, strike while we are able.
Chorus—Come, rouse to arms, &c.
The golden age will then revive,
Each man shall be a brother,
In peace and harmony we'll live,
And share the world together.
In virtue trained, enlightened youth,
We'll love each fellow-creature ;
And future ages read this truth,
That man is good by nature.
Chorus—Come, rouse to arms,'&e.
There were many documents of that kind; and how did
the Attorney-General (Lord Eldon) then proceed? He
pat the books of the society on the table, and gave its
true history4liitlc is perfectly true that the members of
it said and to many things that ought not to be said
or written, and which were gross and scandalous libels,
as dll the allusions to official bodies in England were.
Still their advocates succeeded in satisfying the jury
that it was not high treason. A curious thing is recorded
of that trial. The Attorney-General took five days to
make out his case, and one of the jury said, " Never
while I live will I convict a man of high treason, when
it took the Attorney-General a week to prove it." Gen-
tlemen, the next stage in the transaction is when he
%rived at Mullinahone, and that is an important stage,
for you will recollect that in the statement of the
Attorney-General he said " the levying of war" com-
menced in Mullinahone. Three witnesses were exa-
mined with respect to the transactions there; namely,
Williams, Wiggins, and O'Sullivan, an ex-policeman.
It is worthy of observation, with respect to what
is said to have taken place at Mullinahone, that not
one being from that town has been produced to prove
it. No inhabitant, or resident, or shopkeeper, or house-
holder, is produced. The evidence relating to Mul-
linahone consists of two particulars; what is called the
marching in the town, and the visit to the police barrack.
Evidence was given with respect to a conversation be-
lween Mr. O'Brien and the Rev. Mr. Cahill, the priest,
'but it is very remarkable that the priest is not called as:a
-vitness: It is remarkable, also, that this class of gentle-
Teen always appear for an instant on the scene (as if to
protect the civil power, and save them from destruction),
and then vanish. However, it appears that the chapel
bells were sometimes rung, which one would think
might awaken their reverences, but yet they are never
called upon to give evidence of what occurred. No ,
doubt that such witnesses would be faithworthy, but
they rely upon a less agreeable sort of witnesses—they
rely upon the testimony of the constabulary, some of
-whom swore their informations as to words, just eight
'weeks altar he transactions occurred. One of the wit-

nesses, Williams, swore that Mr. O'Brien said to the
people, " By no means take advantage of the police;"
and then he said " there would be another form of
government in six weeks;" but the witness further
said, " that is not in my information." Now,
supposing those words to have a criminal meaning, the
man, when he made his information on the 6th of Sep-
tember, should have stated the fact. The witness said
that Mr. O'Brien followed up that expression by ano-
ther' namely, " that all vacancies should then be filled
up by Irishmen." Gentlemen, that would be a happy
day, whether we regard the poor-law, or the other esta-
blishments of the country; and I don't think, gentlemen,
you will be of opinion that that expression means high
treason. He merely said, that when there was an Irish
administration (which he always contended for), the in-
stitutions of the country would be filled by Irishmen.
The evidence of another witness showed that the phrase
used by Mr. O'Brien was, " Irishmen shall hold their
own situations as well as Englishmen," in which ex•
pression I am sure Mr. Attorney-General will most
cordially agree.—(Laughter). But what is there said
about the form of government, or as to whether there
should be a monarchy or a republic; or what is there
said about a republic at all? But that which was upper-
most in the mind of the prisoner—the fear of being
arrested—is referred to. But, I think, there is no book
or dictum to be found in which a case of that kind was
held to be the exposition of a treasonable intent in the
mild of the prisoner. One of those witnesses describes
the crowd in the streets as one consisting of 5,000 per-
sons, but the other two witnesses say there were only
2,000. And when you find a man in one particular ex-
aggerating so much the facts of the case, it is possible
that he may exaggerate in another. It is said that
armed people were about Wright's house, but it appeared
that they were merely a guard to protect Mr. O'Brien
from being arrested. Now we come to the transaction
of the visit to the police barrack. It is a transaction
which Mr. Attorney-General thought of a very serious
nature. Now, observe that the case here is, that the
prisoner was bent upon revolution. Now, a man
when once engaged in revolution must be bold
and daring; his actions must be well conceived
and sudden if he desires to ensure success; it is
not by civil speeches and politeness he can succeed—
there is no instance of it in the history of the world. Mr.
O'Brien is represented to have had a large body of men
at Mullinahonee—according to the Attorney-General's
statement, a sufficient force to effect what he wished; and
the argument is, that having the power he had the
wish, but the fact is, that having the power he had not
the wish. The whole force in the police barrack was
six men, and four only were in the house, but only two
are called, and I am sorry the Attorney-General did not
call a third, to see if one of those men was in the police
barrack at all, which is very doubtful. At all events the
barrack door lay open ; there was no obstruction to pre-
vent any one going in; the police were not alarmed by
what occurred the night before, for they left the door
open. Does this appear like a levying war in Mullina-
hone t It is impossible for a rational man to believe it.
It was said Mr. O'Brien was dressed something like a
military officer ; and what is meant by that is, that he
had on a cap, but that form of cap was worn by many
persons in Dublin. The late Mr. O'Connell wore a cap,
and it was said he was to be crowned at Tara; but that
was not generally believed to be true. It is no treason,
gentlemen, to wear a cap. If any of you choose
you may wear a cap in preference to a hat, and even
gold on your coats; but that will prove nothing against
you except you do something to bring you within the
law. The policeman tells us that Mr. O'Brien had a
stick with a spear-head on it in his left hand, and that
the other parties with him had guns. The policeman
told Mr. O'Brien, I cannot comply with your request,
we would sooner part with our lives than with our arms.
Mr. O'Brien said to them—" Did you not see the display
of last night; you had better follow me to Callan sad I
will place you under pay." Then he said that a barrack
would be attacked that day with 600 men in it. Now I
asked other policemen if they ever knew a police barrack
in the county containing 500 men in it, and one and all
of them answered that they did not know of any such.
But this i 3 a matter within their own knowledge; they
all know this better than we do ; and they state that six
to eight is the number of policemen in the :out-stations,
and forty is a large number in a populous town. Now,
do you believe that Mr. O'Brien would tell a policeman
such an improbable story as that, which the plie ernan
to whom he told it must have known to be a pure
fiction ? If you desire to impose upon a man wnom
you wish to persuade, you must tell him some-
thing which he is likely to believe, other-
wise the effect upon his understanding is ex-
actly the reverse of that which you wish to produce.
But, according to the policeman, Mr. O'Brien says,
" Follow me to Callan." But he was not going to Cal-
lan ; he did not take a single step on the road to Callan,
which the policeman knew very well, and therefore he
might as well have said ho was going to Cork. I mean
no reflection upon the veracity of many members of that
valuable body, the police, but it show. that a mut de-
posing to words six weeks after he heard them must be
listened to with great suspicion. The policeman goes on
to say that Mr. O'Brien told him he would give him an
hour to consider the matter, and that within an hour he
would return with 300 men. That is the allegation ;
let us now compare the conduct of Mr. O'Brien
with the statement. The policeman remained
in town four hours after this ; and this sanguinary re-
volutionist, who was to have raised the kingdom within
a w,ek, forgot his promise to come back for the four
muskets. But this is not all ; they afterwards
marched along the road for hours together, and nu
hostile party attacked, or even met them, and
they reached their place without molestation. The whole
transaction in the barrack lasted two minutes. The
levying of war was begun and ended in two minutes,
and those two minutes were sufficient, it seems, to place
the title and crown of Queen Victoria in imminent jeo-
pardy. Remember, gentlemen, that appearing in arms
is nothing—having arms is nothing —marching with
arms is nothing, else every Orangeman in the north
might be indicted and tried for high treason—it is levy-
ing,' war against the Queen that constitutes guilt; and do
you believe that war was levied oe the queen in the
course of these two minutes? It appears, turther, that
Mr. O'Brien indicated his treasonable intentions by
trailing his pike-head on the ground. It was not thus
they levied war in France. It was in a very different
mariner indeed that the pikemen there carried their
weapons. There was also a question about a flag. Now,
I admit evidence as to a flag would be important and
pertinent, and my Learned Friend would be justified in
referring to it if the evidence bore it out. But what
was the kind of flag sworn to in evidence? This was
another case of perverting innocent circumstances into
guilt, like the ascending of the round tower. The wit-
ness said this flag was a Scotch shawl.

The ATTORNEY- G ENERAL—A sash.
Mr. WHITESIDE —I beg your pardon; it was a Scotch
shawl.

Chief Justice BLACKIIIIRNE—We have got " sash " on
our notes.

Mr. WHITESIDE—Very well, my Lord, let it be a sash.
It was a Scotch sash, then, and it was worn to denote the
hostile bearing and intention of these parties against the
Queen. And what was this sash ? The witness said in
his cross examination that it was such as he had often
seen worn by gentlemen. Such was the style of this
prosecution. Innocent facts and circumstances were
coupled together to give to other facts a guilty intent,
which their intrinsic meaning could never bear. But it
is not a satisfactory thing that the Crown has not pro-
duced the other two witnesses who were in the police
barrack, as a single word here might have been of great
importance in this case. One of yourselves then asked
the witness, did he say what he wanted your arms for?
To which the witness said no, he did not. Then it is
plain that the purpose for which he wanted them might
have been innocent, and you will infer innocence rather
than guilt. Then some witnesses, who were very
obscure, deposed that some gentlemen got upon
a car, and after driving about the country, they came
to Ballingarry. Now if this evidence refers at all to Mr.
O'Brien, it leads me to make one observation—the
crowd which the witnesses say met Mr. O'Brien were
not with him. They came to meet him, they were n:t
under his control or authority. Having brought Mr.
O'Brien to Ballingarry, there were two witnesses whose
evidence he would direct their attention to, Egan and
Burke. Egan was an inhabitant of the town—a resi-
dent there, and therefore his evidence is important. At
first Egan saw no arms in the crowd. It appears to me
that all through the armed men only appeared when it
was necessary to protect Mr. O'Brien from arrest. He
gave us a report of one speech, and what was its pur-
port ? It was the same thing over again. In fact, the
speech he made at Enniscorthy might have been stereo-
typed for the whole. What proof is there here of gene-
ral design—of general treason—of revolutionary objects
or plans? A man does not embark in treason without
having some general notion of what he is going to
do. But, in this case, Mr. O'Brien in his speech only
asked for twenty men or thereabouts to guard him.
Did you ever before hear of a man who, being
bent on a treasonable design, tells the people that he
does not ask for assistance, but that all he wanted was
twenty men to guard him ? Accordingly there are
twenty men 'who do guard him for the night ; and :it
appears that Mr. O'Brien went to bed. Why, gentlemen,
heroes of a revolution do not sleep !—they watch, they
wake, they plan, they concoct what armies they shall
rout, art(' what towns they shall storm. But this man
speaks of no drilling—no military manoeuvring, though
the man li-tree in the town, and must have seen all that
passed. It is then proved that on leaving town Mr.
O'Brien dismissed his army, and whether that indicates
anintention to levy war I leave it to your judgment to
decide. But the.witness Sparrow deposes to the drilling.
He said there were about 500 people in the street, but
not more than thirty bad firearms, and that the others
had pikes, pitchforks, scythes, &c. Why those are just
the weapons which the peasantry would especially seize
when they rushed out, moved by a sudden impulse. I
don't say that their conduct was legal ; but certainly it
is not high treason. We says that the men were two
hours drilling ; but after they ware drilled, and the
army was ready for action, Mr. O'Brien got upon a com-
mon car and drove off. The army followed him as far as
Baron's Cross, when the army that was to revolutionize
the state dispersed and returned, and Mr. O'Brien went
on his say. The third witness, Burke, spoke to the
drilling, but in such a way as to be altogether different
from the account given by Sparrow. He speaks to shots
being fired by the people, but on a cross-examinationit
appeared that the shots were fired by the
for
people after
they ha'l dispersed from protecting Mr. O'Brien, it
appears that the 20 men who constitutedhis body guard
only accompanied him for a certain distance; having
done that they returned, and fired shots on dispersing.
Mr. O'Brien proceeded to the next place, where he ex
pected assistance. As far as we have gone there
has been no act done—no levying of war—no de-
monstration of hostility to the Queen—no mo-
lestation of property—no interference with the rights
of a single human being. Mr. O'Brien's first idea is
a wish to escape arrest. Now, let us see what is his
conduct at Killenaule. The Attorney-General thinks
he has proved his whole case by what occurred at
Killenaule. I agree with the Attorney-General that

, if there was any doubt in the case before, it is made
perfectly clear by what occurred at Killenaule, and I
am sure it is impossible that twelve men should say that
that gentleman meant to commit the crime of high trea-
son ; and remember it is all intention that you have to
try. We are now, at the 27th of July, on the eve of
the close of the whole transaction, and I ask you, so far
as we have yet gone, where is the evidence of levying
war ? I appeal to your reason—l appeal to nothing but
your reason—l have no right to appeal to anything else,
and I ask you, where was the army to levy war
Where is it ? It is gone—dispersed—scattered ; and
the leaders go away on a car, and come to a hotel,
where they sleep that night. His object evidently was
to move about from one place where he was known to
other places where he was not known, in one corner of
this country, verging towards the colleries, where he
thought he would be most safe from arrest. Now, this
is the real truth of the case. On the next morning
after they had come to Killenaule, a discharged police-
man, named Matthews, saw four pikemen. This was the
army, I suppose, that was to make war upon the Queen.
And now occurred a matter which makes it impos-
sible—utterly and absolutely impossible—to convict
Mr. O'Brien of the guilt of high treason. The wit-
ness saw two officers pass through the town, and at that
time there was no barricade. But after the officers passed
then the barricade was erected. Does Mr. O'Brien de-
sire these barricades to be erected? Does he say, now
we have an opportunity for fighting? He says not a
single word. He does not direct the people to make the
barricade. He is seen by the witness at the door of the
hotel while the barricade is erecting at the lower part of
the town. Now, why was the barricade erected? Evi-
dently because the people were afraid that Mr. O'Brien
would be arrested; and that the Attorney-General says
is high treason. I deny that. I deny that barricades
hastily erected—thrown up on the impulse of the moment
—amount to thigh treason. It was certainly a very
wrong thing to do. But what followed all this?
Twenty minutes after the witness saw the barricades
down, and the officer was cheered through the town.
Now, consider this: treason consists in the guilty intent
to make war on the Sovereign. But what is the in-
tent shown here? The partial and personal object of
protecting Mr. O'Brien from arrest; and when that was
accomplished, the army dispersed and returned to their
own homes. That is the evidence for the Crown—
the best they can get, after rummaging the country with
the whole police at their back. Then there are the two
soldiers who made sworn informations of the facts; and
it shows the danger and the madness of relying upon
words sworn at this distance of time, that in the sworn
informations they make no mention of the words used
by the crowd, " Kill the bloody soldiers"—and there are
no such words in the information. I appeal to you,
therefore, to put aside theso words as if they never had
been used. What was the evidence of Captain Long-
mere? That gentleman swore—and he gave kis evidence
with all the frankness of a British officer—that when he
was on his march he encountered a barricade at
Kille-
naule, behind which a number of people, armed and un-
armed, were assembled; that he was asked by one of
the people whether he had a warrant for the arrest
of Smith O'Brien, and on his replying in the negative,
the barricade was instantly taken down, and he and his
troop were allowed, unmolested, to proceed on their
march. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing
forward this part of the case, as it puts him completely
out of court—it completely exonerates my client from
the charge which has been made against him—namely,
that he had conspired to levy war against the Queen, to
resist her authority, and destroy her troops. That was
not the manner in which Frost acted; he fired on the
troops, and actually shot several of them. The object
of the Crown was to prove that Smith O'Brien had been
engaged in war and rebellion against the Sovereign;
but what is the fact? A body of troops are cn their
march—they encounter a barricade, and resistance
seemed determined on. A question is put to the officer
in command: it is this—" If you are on your ordinary
business we will not interfere with you; we are not
making war on the Queen or against her troops, nor
are we contending against the Queen's authority, but we
are prepared to prevent the arrest of Smith O'Brien.
have you, sir, a warrant for his apprehension?" On
the officer replying in the negative, the barricade was
removed forthwith. In an instant the entire transaction
is over—the whole affair did not last twenty minutes.
Not a trigger was pulled—not a stone thrown—not a
pike or a bayonet raised! And in our indictment,
which does not even charge that those troops were
marching on the service of the Queen, it is alleged that
O'Brien is guilty of high treason, because he happened
to be in a hotel in the adjoining village. That was on
the 28th of July. I have one more day to ac-
count for; and so far as the case has gone, I con-
fidently appeal to you for your verdict, satisfied,
as I am a living man, that you will decide as if
you were twelve rational Englishmen in that box, and
that there are not twelve men of that magnanimous nation
that would hesitate one minute in acquitting the prisoner
at the bar. They would naturally ask, what is that man
charged with?—High treason. Let us see, how do you
prove it? Oh, we prove it by an overt act committed at
iNfullinahone, and another at Killaraaule, where the re-
sistance and obstruction I have just mentioned were
offered. Would the evidence on these points, I say,
satisfy that jury of Englishmen ? I emphatically say,
" No." Does it occur to you that Mr. O'Brien intended
to shoot down one man? Do you not believe, if he had
spoken a single word, that the man behind the barri-
cade, who was armed with a rifle, would not have shot
the officer? Do you believe that Mr. O'Brien wished to
hurt one of her Majesty's troops, or shed one single
drop of blood? lam sure you do not. Idu not deny,
however, that those people might not be indicted for a
riot or a serious misdemeanour. My argument entirely
rests on this, that there was no levying of war against
her Maje.ty Queen Victoria, and I do assert that her
royal name and authority were just as safe and powerful
when the barricade was up as when it was down; and,
further, that the intention to save Mr. O'Brien from

arrest was the solo object and motive the people had in
view. I deny, in the most emphatic manner, that one
thought ever crossed the mind of Mr. O'Brien against
the authority or name of the 4deen, and I defy the
Learned Attorney-General to point out one single
sentiment contained in any speech delivered by him,
even in his most excited moments, at variance with
that respect, courtesy, and deference which is due t 2 the
royal lady whom wo are all bound to esteem, venelate,
and love. No, gentlemen, not even in the many speeches
reported by the policemen who were examined on this
trial has there been seen one scintilla of evidence to show
that he used ono expression which could be tortured
into disloyalty. I am done with Killenaule, and have
now arrived very nearly at the close of these trans-
actions. The Learned Gentleman then commented on
the evidence of the witnesses who deposed to the trans-
actions which occurred at the collieries, and argued that
the conduct of Mr. O'Brien there could only be accounted
for on the hypothesis that he was anxious to protect
himself from arrest. I now come, continued Mr. White-
side, to what appears to be the most important part of
the whole case; I allude to the affair at the widow Cor-
mack's; and let me say I do sincerely believe that the
whole cause of that affray arose from the anxiety of
Captain Trent to effect the arrest of Smith O'Brien.
The whole of this gallant gentleman's military glory
appears to rest on the achievements of that day, and I
am told he drew up a dispatch on the subject which
might take its place beside Gurwood's dispatches of
tho Duke of Wellington. I am even told he com-
menced it with a poetical phrase of a martial cha-
racter,—

" Who takes the foremost foeman's life,
Himself shall conquer in the strife.".
—(Loud laughter.) Having briefly adverted to the cir-
cumstances which occurred previous to the attack, and
stated that it would require a microscope to discover the
injury clone to the house by the people, he said, when
an account is given of such transactions, the jury and
Court should desire to know the amount of injury done
by those malignant assailants of the police. It is true
that Mr. Trent bore his blushing honours thick upon
him.—(Laughter.) He was wounded, but not killed,
for I saw him to-day.—(Laughter.) He cannot say
where he was wounded, but some policeman said to him,
" Do you know what, captain, you are wounded, al-
though you don't know it?"—(Laughter.) I asked him
did he go into the bed, and I am not quite sure that he
did not take a nap.—(Laughter.) I don't think the
valiant inspector was in the thick of the fight, but up
stairs while the firing was going on, and when all was
over he was most indefatigable in gathering up the
trophies of the campaign.—(Laughter.) But where
were the pikes or the bullets? I say this was a mere
irruption of the people, of an illegal kind, but cer-
tainly not for a treasonable object, and if the police
acted like men of sense there would have been no con-
flict at all, and when the police did commence the firing
they had it all to themselves. No proof was given that
a bullet was found, except by the evidence of a witness
who was not there at all. Even General M'Donald,
when examined, did not seem to know any more of the
bullets than Inspector Trent. The police were opposite
the open window, but there is not a scrape on one of
them; very unlike Mr. Frost's case, where the officer
and the magistrate, Mr. Philips, who was knighted, were
wounded. You should also recollect that Widow Cor-
mack has not
been examined; also that there were
women and children in the crowd; and men don't go to
levy war against the
is Queen with men and women along
with them. Thereone piece of evidence with respect
to which I desire to vindicate the honour of my client.
Itissaid
them
he cried
ai out;but
uto t
thesethe people,w o
rds were never uttered "Slash away, boys;
slaughter
by him; and I should observe that no account whatever
was drawn up of that transaction next morning, which
is a remarkable thing, there being magistrates next
door to them. The jury should view with the greatest
accuracy the consistency of the evidence given by the
police on this point. One policeman did not swear
that Mr. O'Brien used the words, and two swore he
did ; but there was another policeman present who was
not examined. It would appear from the evidence, that
in consequence of Mr. O'Brien's position at the time
it was said he used these words—if any person fired
either inside or outside, Mr. O'Brien himself would be
shot dead. Can it be believed that he would make use
of such language, when the effect must be, that
after making use of it he could not survive for one mo-
ment. Recollect that one of the police, named Moran,
who declared he used these words, also said that at the
time he had his bayonet on his carbine, within six inches
of Mr. O'Brien's breast. Yet he did not fire at him ;
and when I asked him why he did not fire when the
words ware used, he said, " I did not hear him make
use of --" and he then stopped. and would not say a
wold more. By another witness, who swore Mr.
O'Brien used the expression, the words are varied, and
it was said by him that the words used were—" Slash
away, and we have them all." That discrepancy is of
importance, particularly when yen. recollect that
another of the policemen present was not examined at
all ; and the keeping back of a witness on a question-
able point is of more consequence than the produc-
tion of twenty witnesses, I would remind you of the
kind of man who said Mr. O'Brien used these words.
I refer to Moran; and you will recollect he said, if ne-
cessary, he would shoot the very women. I appeal, gen-

demon, to the best pauions 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. He would shoot every woman in
the crowd—cruelly, remorselessly, relentlessly, with
pleasure—(Applause)—and I ask you not to believe that
man. I now come to the evidence of Sergeant M‘Do-
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 coarse, 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
yon 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 case; 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 wri▪ tten 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. WEITENDE—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 pei ple,
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'Brien's object was to frighten the company into bene-
fiting the men in their employment, that will be 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 engage
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
Enniscorthy 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, whi▪
ch, I admit, has nothing to do
with his trial or his punishment for any other offence—
which has nothing to do with his crimes against the
public peace, or the public authorities—it would not pre-
vent his prosecution for these Crimes to-morrow, though
I admit it would not take away his life. Mr. Dobbin
appears in the character of a spy; that is clear. To use
his own phrase—" I went there to plot—they were
plotting, and I went
is never
to counter-plot." We have a
rule of law which neTer departed from, that when a
witness comes forward in this capacity, there must be
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.
Ho says that he was a member of the Red Hand Club,
and that, in his capacity of member or president of that
club, he attended three meetings of the Irish council—on
the lith, on the 19th, and on the 21st of July. Now,
abstracted from the balloting papers, which I
shall speak of afterwards, what part of his evidence
is confirmed? I wish I had him
now upon the table.
Now, I know that he was an engineer—that he ceased
to be an engineer; and what he stated upon
the table is true—he descended into the capacity of
an attorneys 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-
lutions were adopted and published—couched in audaci-
ous language, I admit. I don't deny that. It was an
audacious agitation—to be sure it was; it was conducted
on the most approved principles on which this country
has so long been so misgoverned. But nobody saw Dob-
bin there. How was it that none of the constabulary
k who were outside were called to prove that they saw him
go up 1' There was not a meeting called in the city of
Dublin which the police—and very rightly—did not
watch in order to preserve the public peace. Yet not a
man of them was called to say that they saw him
enter
the:meeting. 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, General, who is, perhaps, more 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 evi▪ dence
of the respectable reporter here (Mr. Hodges), who
did not falsify a single word, and who has sworn to Mr.
ll
O'Brien's speeches, in which he repeatedly. denounced. a
secret meetings. It would have been vital ewvid.e.nce if a
him walk
policeman could have been brought who
up stairs. Do you think they din not
. knows
the value
th of
it ? Why gentleman, since this trial commenced,
thatey
have sent to Dublin for two policemen who deposed
they had seen the title of the " Red Hand Club" th
window of a house ; and yet they allowed these n
police-
men to go down from that table without
. asking them i
Did you observe
they had ever seen Dobbin enter it.
that ? I did ; and it is most significant
witness.Thereis not
i I
then a particle of evidence to corsdra
What was to prevent him from "Yin%nd Mr.
thisl
behind saw we
jury at these meetings, and they stood
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 blr. 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 consi▪ der-
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 vote.d. for. Now
that was as distinct, as clear, it was as posqlve as any
statement that ever came from the lips of a witness in a
court of justice. Notwithstanding that there appear to
have been eight 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