The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-21 00:00:00

parties he objected most to the Whigs, who could be
induced to confer place upon Repealers by a little safe
agitation. The next occurrence was the proposition by
him to oppose the return of Mr. Sheil for Dungarvon: he
was overruled, and pronounced to be an impracticable
person. Next followed the celebrated peace resolutions;
be refused to agree to the resolution that in no event
was resistance justifiable, an absurdity proved by the
very existence of the Queen upon her throne ; he was
accordingly expelled, and he afterwards wrote letters
- and essays enforcing his opinions. In one of these ho
warned the people against the destruction of the aristo-
cracy, describing them as the patrons of the arts, and
those who were beneath them. In January, 1848, the
Irish Confederation was formed, but Mr. Meagher moved
a resolution condemnatory of places and place-hunters.
The Counsel here read the opinions of Mr.
Meagher. He thenceforward regularly attended
the Confederation, and avowed his sentiments which
were in favour of the rights of property and
the preservation of the different orders of the State,
nattintainiag, however, his opinions, that the ancient and
good constitution of his country ought to be restored.
Counsel here read a paper drawn up on the formation of
the Grattan Club, which was established to originate a
public opinion in Ireland—if this were done they said
the English province would die, and a nation arise.
Combine the opinion of the country, he further said,
and it should prevail, and in furtherance of that senti-
ment his subsequent actions were directed. Upon the
subject of the place-hunters be expressed his opinion to
be, that the Ministry held out places as kinds of baits
for apostacy; and he referred to Larnartine's idea in
reference to Denton, who terrified and thwarted the
Government that they might purchase him, and opened
his mouth in order that it might be stuffed with gold.
Ho attended Belfast when an attempt was made to com-
bine the people in that project of a national union. He
there denied any desire of ascendancy. The next trans-,
action in which he figured was at the Galway election.
At that time Mr. O'Flaherty was opposed to the Attor-
ney-General, and he (Mr. Meagher) did take an
active part against him. He next became a candidate
for Waterford, and addressed the constituents in terms
full of sentiments of civil and religious liberty, and
reprobation of bigotry. Upon that occasion he was net
chosen a Member of Parliament. If the indictment
against his client were for a conspiracy, a person could
understand why such speeches as those which the coun-
sel relied upon should be admitted in evidence, but the
charge against him was the actual levying of war.
Counsel then cited the speech of Mr. Meagher upon the
lesth of March, a few days after the election at Galway.
It was a monstrous proceeding to take a speech-which
was only seditious when spoken, but had now grown into
treason, to establish the highest crime, though when
spoken it could not sustain a smaller one. An address
preceded the speech, which he would read. He never
denied that any speech or declaration made at the time
his client was doing an act that evinced his guilty intent
could be received in evidence; but he did object to taking
old stale speeches, mixing them up with other speeches,
then piling up what was called " cumulative treason," and
bringing all to bear upon the prisoner. The Attorney-
General did not read the address to which he referred, his
object being to show that some time or other something
was to be done, and contrary to authority, they were by
inference to involve the prisoner in guilt. There never
was a speech, sermon, or text, that might not be muti-
lated and perverted or converted into blasphemy, where
theterwas none intended ; and he would also protest
against speeches being received as evidence of treason.
With deference to gentlemen who talked about revolu-
tions and the " meteor flag," and attempted to fasten
treason upon his client by detached sentences, there
were revolutions that were justifiable, where injustice in
tribunals, at the judgment seat in the court, and the
right of expressing opinion was denied to the people,
led to revolutions which could not be accomplished
other wise. The best men he had ever known in his
early career had talked the same thing about the meteor
flag, Laraartine' and such subjects ; and he would
not give a rush for the young man who did not, at
some time or other, hope to restore the departed
glories of Greece and Rome. And was it not mon-
strous that a young man, inspired by classic enthusiasm,
and inflamed by a high imagination, was to be arraigned
and put on trial for his life for the utterance of such
sentiments as these? If the jury did find him guilty,
they should write themselves slaves with the same pen
with which they signed the verdict. A jury would not
convict him for the seditious speech which, had they
convicted him, would have been followed only by im-
prisonment, and now the speech was to be used against
him on a trial for his life. But the Attorney-General
said that the prisoner had an idea in his mind, a vi-
sionary intent, which he afterwards intended to carry
into effect. He had books of reports, of the trials after
the old revolution in England, is which such speeches,
songs, and sentiments were introduced against the pri-
saners, all which were rejected by the jury. He would
not read the speech in which the deadly virus of the entire
of the speeches was concentrated, namely, that in which
the prisoner used the expression, " that if the delegates
were refused the demand of an interview with the
Queen, they should pack up their Court dresses, and the
next time they appeared at the Court of St. James's, it
would be as the accredited agents of the Irish Republic,"
&c. What did they think of the liberality of the At-
torney-General, who having failed in a prosecution for
sedition for that very speech, now indicted the prisoner
for treason ? He might have tried him a second time,
but because one jury disagreed, he did not again bring
the case before another jury, but now he brought the
charge of treason before a Tipperary jury. They were
called firm and resolute men, but they should take care
that they did not earn for themselves the character of
having acquired that character at the expense of jus-
tice and humanity. Assert the law, convict it the
person charged were guilty—he never would blame a
Jury fur finding a verdict upon their oaths, but a hlie,
a case was pending was he not at liberty to appeal to
their honours and their consciences, and ask them to
reject a speech which had been brought before a jury
as enlightened as they were when a disagreement was
the result ? He was sorry that his client had not been
prossen:ed a second time. The Attorney-General ought
to have done so. It was his duty to vindicate the law,
and the prosecution ought to have been followed up.
Hal it been so, his client would not be on his trial for
his life. The real crime of the speech, if any, was no-
thing more than an attempt to induce the Government
to great a parliamentary constitution and reconstruct
Irish nationality. Counsel then referred to the speech
delivered by the prisoner upon the 15th of April, 1548,
tied this speech the Attorney-General informed them
related to the prospective idea of carrying out a treason-
able intent. He said that they might conjecture that at
some distant period the speaker relied upon procuring
assistance from France. The gentleman who reported
for the Government stated that the speech was delivered
at a soirée, and did they ever hear of a treasonable
intention carried out with the admission of a Govern-
ment reporter to take notes of all that was said?
Mr. Meagher alluded to France and Italy in that
speech which ho delivered, and those allusions
literally meant nothing, for ;he had never known a
speaker who did not allude to these countries as it
suited his purpose; but to charge a person with levying
war by these speeches, was a perversion of law and justice.
They remembered that a flag was presented on the oc-
casion of the dinner. Bat whether it was orange, green,
or tricolour was a matter of little moment, and did not
prove high treason. But what was the flag? It was a
flag of the volunteers of 1782. They knew who these
volunteers were —they were Protestants, who resolved
to have liberty and free trade, and they had it. That
period
was the brightest in their history. Having al-
ready trespassed upon the attention of the jury in refe-
rence to the first speech, they would be good enough to
carry in their minds his observations in connexion with
the second speech. In reference to the passage in which
the rescue of Mr. Mitchel was spoken of, Mr. White

side said, that even if the rescue had taken place, it
would not have been treason. Counsel then referred to
the Act of Parliament which came into force upon the
22d of April, 1848. The speech was delivered in the
month following, so that the Act was in full force then.
The moment that speech was delivered the Attorney-
General might have prosecuted Mr. Meagher. He had
a certainty of inflicting upon him a reasonable
punishment—not that of death—but he lay by and
never sought to enfore the law. He had enforced
it against five, but did not enforce it against
the prisoner. He drew the attention of the jury to the
nature of the Act of Parliament, which required a writ-
ten information within six days after the words were
spoken, a warrant within ten days, and two witnesses,
and he contended that nothing could have been a greater
violation of the policy and spirit and intent of the Act
than to hoard up speeches for months, and then construct
treason out of it. The Act of Parliament was passed to
punish a person who compassed war. He had the speech
before him, and why had he not prosecuted under it?
Because he knew well it was not evidence of a com-
passing of war. Counsel then detailed the circumstances
which led to the conviction of Mr. Mitchel. He felt the
mode of that trial to be a grievance. He did not object
to the jury who were trying himself, but he was indig-
nant upon public principles that a trial should have been
so conducted. He might have been wrong in his lopi-
nions,but they should not punish him for his conscientious
opinions. He would next refer to the speech delivered
by Mr. Meagher on the occasion of his opposing the
plan of Mr. Mitchel, and repudiating the notion of an
insurrection as impracticable and sure to be frus-
trated. In that speech he combatted the idea that con.
stitutional agitation was a delusion. That speech most
distinctly denied that there should be an insurrection.
lie voted 'against the propositions, and Mr. Mitchel
was, in fact, expelled. They had heard proved by Mr.
Hodges the document called a report of what led to the
conviction of Mr. Mitchel. This Mr. Meagher felt to
be a grievance, or an insult, which was worse, and he
objected to the constitution of the jury who tried his
friend. He protested against the speeches of Mr.
Meagher being brought into a case where the crime
charged was a matter of fact—an absolute levying of
war. The attempt to rescue Mitchel, a proposition to
do it, showed a single and individual intent, and not one
of a general oharacter. The prisoner literally opposed
the project of a rescue, and yet they were told that he
had been guilty of treason. He did not explain any-
thing, but left it to him to explain; and his explanation
was, that his client had laid before the clu.bs—as the
document had stated—the reasons for not attempting a
rescue. John Mitchel was convicted and sentenced to
transportation. There had been no outbreak, no in-
surrection, no violence yet his client was to be re-
garded as a traitor for his speech. 0 tempera, 0 mores!
the same paper that condemned the partial rescue
of an individual was stringent and potent evidence of a
general intent of levying war! Swallow that if they
could—act upon a doubt if they could, and if they did he
knew not what innocent man in that kingdom might not
be stricken down as a victim by that new law of high
treason which was not the law in England, for law there
Iva based upon justice and reason. Ho supposed that
Mr. Meagher had alluded in his speech to the Canadian
revolt. They had heard of the Canadian rebels, who
took up arms against the Government of Canada. The
C 43444" 44 "4" iw triumPb, and tie geutlomala kg