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

r. O'Brien (interrupting him)—lt is not fair to make
those remarks in Mr. Duffy's absence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—No one feels more CL 'eply,
than Ido the position in which Mr. O'Brien stands. Re
was urged on to his ruin by others, and I repeat that ha
,listened to them.

14ifr:b;i311WJ(in a louder voice)—lt is unworthy, ire
the absence of a gentleman who is himself on trial at the
time, to make such observations as those that have fallen
from the Solicitor. General. I beg at once, and most
distinctly to repudiate all connexion with or participa-
tion in them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL continued—As those re-
works seemed to influence Mr. O'Brien, he would pro-
ceed to read the letter without any further comments.,
The _Learned Solicitor-General did so, and having read
Mr. 111;.' agh er' s letter also, came to the consideration of
the informer's evidence. Counsel for the pri-
Dbsoonberifinn,
dinj the damaging nature of that witness's tes-
timony, endea,-our
ever existed, and that his whole story
ed to show that no such club " the
had been examined on Saturchy last.
Red Hand" heti
was false. Dobbin .
If ha swore falsely,• t;:ey could have brought plenty of
witnesses to contradi:t 11:111. They had not dose so; the
Crown had proved the exjstence of the club by two the 19th of July Mr.
of
de
policemen. At the meetfirg
O'Brien in reference to the p 21):laniation of the 18th,
requested that it should not be ra,". the occasion of
a general collision. Dobbin attentletk' Tmeeting heti
early the same day for the purpose O. sleteating the
proclamation, at which Mr. Brenan otrePd a reso-
lution, fcr an immediate outbreak, which was
not supported by Mr. O'Brien, because did
not think it would be successful "at yreseot."
This taken in connexion with the subsequent advise
was powerful proof of Dobbin's testimony. Go-
vernment knew thcso facts on the 20th, and on the 21st
Lord J. Russell went down to the House ant: applied
for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, Ea:cat-tie
it was clear no time was to bo lost if the GovernOcnt
and the country were to be saved. Then came t;.'e
meeting for the election of the Executive Council, ork
the 21st of July. The Solicitor-General then read
over Dobbin's evidence of this transaction. It would
be for the jury to say whether Dobbin's statement was
not corroborated by events and facts. The crisis had
then arrived, and the steps taken by Government be-
came absolutely necessary. At that meeting five gen-
tlemen were elected as members of an Executive
Council. _ _

Mr. O'Brien—Will you be good enough to read out
the names of those gentlemen? _ _ _

The SOLICITOR• GENERAL—Certainly. They are
Meagher, Devin Reilly, M'Ghie, Dillon, and O'Gor-
man.

Mr. O'Brien, as each name was pronounced, refereed
to a small slip of paper in his hand, and at the con-
elution of the list nodded his head as if satisfied.

The Somaron-GENERAL continued—The balloting
papers were proofs of Dobbin's evidence, as they had
been traced up to Lalor, one of the persons who was
present at the meeting, by one of the witnesses.
Mr. FITZGERALD observed that they had not been
traced up to him.
The Lord Chief Justice BEAcXI3I7RNE referred to his
note, from which it appeared that the witness alladed to
deposed that he found the balloting papers in a roll on
Lakes bed, but could not identify them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proceeded—lt was at all
events in evidence that Dobbin proved some of them
clearly, and swore distinctly to one in his own writing,
and others that he had seen written. Mr. Whiteside, in
observing upon the balloting papers, had said that some
of them must have been withdrawn, for if correct, the
name of Father Kenyon would have appeared upon
some of them, and he animadverted with severity upon
his client being prosecuted whilst a Roman Catholic was
allowed to go free. He (the Solicitor-General) was
sure that his excellent and Learned Friend Mr. Whiteside
would not lend the credit of his high character to a ca-
lumny as foul as it was false, and that they (the jurt)
would give the Government, of which he (the Solicitor-
General) was but a humble member, the credit that if any
evidence were put forward against any person, whether a
layman or a minister of the church, proceedings would be
instituted,without regard to his station or religion, to bring
the delinquent to justice. It had been contended by,the
counsel for Mr. O'Brien that the object he had, in view
was his personal safety from arrest. It was for thejury
to say whether that limited purpose was the object of
the insurrection or whether it was a geneial one. It
was for them to say whether when he was at Mr. Ma-
her's house, when Mr. Dillon and Mr. Meagher arrived,
he and his friends did not think that the crisis had ar-
rived, that the time had bome for the grand insurrection,
and that the rallying cry should be the personal security
of Mr. O'Brien, because it was more excitingfrom the po-
pularity of that gentleman. If his wish to avoid arrest
were the only object of Mr. O'Brien, why when he first
heard of the intention to suspend the Habeas Corpus
Act did he not withdraw from the country until that
suspension bad expired. He might have gone from Mr.
Maher's either to Cork or Waterford, and quitted the
country. But he did not do so, and ho thought the in-
ference was that when he left Mr. Maher's he proceeded
to and slept that night at Doheny's, at Cashel. They
would remember that a portmanteau was found at that
house, and that Mr. Maher in his evidence admitted
that Mr. O'Brien had brought the portmanteau to his
house.

Mr. O'Brien wished to correct the Learned Solicitor-
General. Mr. Maher had not said it was the same port-
manteau.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thanked Mr. O'Brien for
the correction. It was for the jury to infer whether the
portmanteau was the same. The Learned Gentleman
then traced the subsequent proceedings of Mr. O'Brien,
and argued that it was most unreasonable to suppose that
the guard of twenty armed persons which Mr. O'Brien
had around him was to save him from arrest,- for that
number would have been insufficient to have resisted the
strong arm of the law. It was the mockery of a body
guard. They must also observe that at the time the
marching and drilling was proved to.havp taken place no
warrant had been issued for Mr. O'Brien's arrest. But
did they ever hear of such a thing as raising barricades
and having a large body of armed men to resist a per-
sonal arrest? But the evidence of Pemberton, the engi-
neer of the Mining Company, put the case beyond all
doubt. That witness, a most respectable person, had
spoken to a conversation which be had had with Mr.
O'Brien at Kenrick's Cross on the morning of the 28th,
in which he spoke of the people in other parts of the
country being ready to rise; that a warrant was issued
for his arrest, and that if he were taken he should be
hanged. They would also remember that two persons at
least wh%had been appointed members of the war coun-
cil of the League, if they believed Doblain's evidence,
were present throughcut the proceedings at Mullinahone
and Ballingarry. But how was the letter to the Mining
Company to be explained? It spoke of revolution, and
contemplated a control over the property and a confisca-
tion of it to the national treasury. Could those things
be answered by the mild suggestion that Mr. O'Brien's
wish to avoid arrest was the cause of all? They were
inexplicable on the principle of the conduct of any
rational being, and irreconcilable with any other conclu-
sion in the mind of intelligent and honest men than that
they were assembled for a general purpose. With in-
spect to the words said to have been uttered by Mr.
O'Brien at the widow M'Cormack's house of " Slash
away, boys, and slaughter them all," he was willing to
believe that, considering the high character, mild dis-
position, and the education of the prisoner, he had not
used them—he believed Mr. O'Brien's honour was dear
to him, and gave credit to his assertion, and that the
words had proceeded from a man of less education and
humanity; but then Mr. O'Brien was present at the
time; ho was at the head of the party who were en-
gaged in that fatal conflict. He had gone through the
facts of the case, and it would be for the jury to nay
whether the object of Mr. O'Brien was not a general
insurrection. He had endeavoured to discharge the
painful duty which had devolved upon him with firmness
and impartiality, and he now left the case in the hands
of the jury.
The Lord Chief Justice BLAME MOTE proceedekto
Adustythteo oorgffaenr ofyt this
hthigthe astsriisbutannacle
becomes
w sm: —yto is tu mn
now
whist] you have a right to ask, and which it is our duty,
to afford you in considering your verdict on this most
momentous question, and which will receive from you
that calm, dispassionate, and conscientious consideration
which its importance deserves. Your conduct since you
have been impannelled in that box affords to us ample
security on which we may rely. I will not impress nor
attempt to impress upon you, because I feel it would be
unnecessary, the importance of the case, or its claims
on your patient and anxious attention. I will pass im-
mediately to the discharge of my duty by expressing a
confident hope that your attention will be fixed ex-
clusively on the evidence which you have heard, and
that nothing you knew or heard before you entered that
box and undertook the high trust now confided to you
will have the slightest influence on your decision land
that it will be founded, as it ought to be, solely on
your conscientious view of the evidence you have
heard. The charge against the prisoner at the bar is
that of high treason and it will be my duty, in the first
instance, to simplify the subject so as to enable you
distinctly to apprehend what the law is upon it, and
being understood, will enable you aptly to apply it to
the evidence you have heard. There are two distinct
species of treason stated in this indictment. The first
five counts are for levying war against the Queen in her
realm, the last and sixth count is for compassing the
death of the Queen. I shall at once relieve you from
any misapprehension of the last count, because, though
there is what in strictness of law must be considered
evidence to sustain that count, that evidence is more
clearly and distinctly applicable to the counts for levy-
ing war, and your attention may, therefore, be confined
altogether to the charge of levying war against the
Queen in her realm. In order to sustain that charge
you must be satisfied that there was an insurrection—
an insurrection by force, and that the object of that in-
surrection was a general object. It had been couiplained
on the part of the prisoner that there had been some
extension of the doctrine of high treason in cases which
are properly not to be considered within the meaning
of " war against the Queen." I do not enter
into any consideration of that argument. Whether the
words of the Act of Edward 111. may or may not bo
extended by a strained construction is not the question,
because, if the evidence on which the Crown relies sus-
tains any of the allegations which they adduce to sup-
port it, there was unquestionably an object of a general
kind in the case before us; for, whether the object of the
insurrection was to effect a repeal of the Act of Union,
or to effect any change in the constitution of the Go-
' vernment of the realm, or to dismember the empire by
' effecting the separation of the United Kingdom and eon-
stituting Ireland into .a distinct sovereignty—whether
any or all of these was the object or objects, the case
plainly and clearly comes within the meaning of the
statute, as I before stated to you, and therefore the levy
of war for its attainment would be plainly high treason.
I need not advert to the authorities which have been
stated in the course of the consideration of the case; but
there is one passage from a judgment of Lord
Tenterden which is very distinctly applicable to
the case Were as. Ile bays, "insurrections, or