The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-18 00:00:00

[PRICE SD.

incited the poop
what he (the A.
quire a great deal
at the other si
)t aiding and abetting O'Brien in his general pur-
Jse. The Attorney-General then detailed the
ransactions which occurred on Saturday, the 29th
of July, at Farrinrory, and also read the letter
written by Mr. Meagher from Cahirmoyle to Smith
O'Brien, and already given in evidence against O'Brien.
There was another letter from Mr. Meagher,
found on the 26th or 27th of July, in the posses-
sion of a gentleman named Smith, who was arrested for
having taken part in these transactions, from which he
read the following extract:—" Well, as to the public
affairs, the .Nation is admirable this week, and I am de-
lighted to find that Kenyon's speech was so splendid.
As to the Freeman, we most do our best to crush it.
With regard to Cork, Barry (this is a secret) is rather
tame—is adverse to a conice,rate move—while Charley
Murphy and Denny Lane are decidedly for it. I am
urging them with all my might, and expect to carry
my point triumphantly. There's no doubt but we shall
have the upper hand in time—the clubs will do the
work. Don't forget France and her revolution. I got
the inclosed this morning." These letters were matt,-
rial as showing his intentions. He would admit that he
was bound to prove that Mr. O'Brien's object was a re-
volutionary one. If, however, any question could arise
on that point, there was another document which, in his
humble judgment, was deeMive upon it. It was a letter
written by Mr. O'Brien himself, and by which he (the
Attorney-General) considered Mr. Meagher was also
bound. [TheAttorney-General then read the letter of Mr.
O'Brien to the Mining Company, which has been already
published.] He would offer no comment upon that letter,
because he did not anticipate that the talent or inge-
nuity of any counsel could put a different construction
oh
we
r-
euvpeorn,
tthhee
qduoecsuttniueunftutrhathnewjhuaryt he eo
ecoonnstiednedre
wd
afso,r.whHo
Mr. Meagher had so mixed himself up in these transac-
tions as to be an actor in them? If the evidence satis-
fied them of the guilt of Mr. Meagher, he asked, on
the
whierrit of the Crown, for h
beir duty,tat theysr
-e(lict of conviction
would
hehuund
etouuireret:ujronh,
nreGgeaordrgleessnoofd igehse, ctohnesaocquveenrenstri entwhich mi
ght
ensue.
reporter,
was then examined for the purpose of proving the
speeches of Mr. Meagher referred to by the Attorney-
General in his opening statement. He was proceeding
to read the speech for which Mr. Meagher had been al-
ready prosecuted, when he was interrupted by
Mr. WHITESIDE, who contended that this speech could
not be given in evidence. He made the Objection, in
ionrdtehre tfhuatut
reit
treriiagishtinb et
hestablishedy
coon:net
rfyo,r
eavlel
ry whether,speeuh
which a man might make during his past life was to be
read against him on an accusation of this kind. The
speech was delivered six months ago; and it was not
relevant to the point at issue, as it consisted merely in
vague, declamatory abuse of the Government. He
jetted to its admission, because the Crown were bound
to show that it had reference to the levying of war
which was charged against Mr. Meagher, whereas, on
the contrary, it consisted of an eulogium on the French
nation, and other topics of a general nature. If this
speech were admitted, on like grounds an intemperate
speech made by him six years ago might be read against

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL opposed the objection,
and Mr. BUTT followed up the arguments of Mr. White-
side.

Mr. Justice MOORE—If, when the speech is read the
Court thinks it not relevant, we will, of course, say that
it cannot be received.
The examination was then resumed, and Mr. Hodges
proceeded to read the speech in detail, as well as another
speech of Mr. Meagher's, delivered on the 15th of April,
at a soiree, held at the Music Hall, and also a speech de-
livered on the evening of the 6th of June at the Music
Hall, which had reference to the conviction of Mitchel.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Do you remember a document hay-
ing been read under the title of "Trial by Jury in Ire-
land ?" and can you tell me whether the speech was not
founded upon it ?
Witness—A paper such as you mention was read, and
I think I have a copy of it with me in Clonmel.
Mr. WHITESIDE (handing a printed paper)—Can ycu
tell me whether this is an accurate copy ?
The witness having looked at the printed document,
stated that he believed it was the same which was read
at the meeting in question.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Did the paper so read at the meet-
ing state these facts—" That before Mr. Mitchel was
arrested, and before the Sheriff knew that he was to be
tried at the late commission, several persons were sum-
moned to serve at that commission whose names were
afterwards struck off the panel ?"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I want to know by whom
the document was rend ?

Mr. WHITESIDE—I don't know who read it, but it was
read at the meeting, and the observations of Mr.
Meagher were founded upon it.
Chief Justice DonEnTr—Who read the paper at the
meeting ? Witness—l think, if my memory serves me,
it was Mr. Halpin, the secretary.
Mr. WHITESIDE then read the document in question,
which gave a detail of the proceedings on the part of the
Crown with reference to the formation of the jury panel
in the case of the Queen v. John Mitchel, and Mr.
Hodges stated that he believed he had heard the
same paper read at the assembly where Mr. Meagher
delivered the speech under consideration.
Cross-examination continued—Had announced to the
secretary of the Confederation at the first meeting he
(witness) attended that he was the Government reporter,
and had frequently told the chairman and secretary to
announce his presence at the meeting. The secretary
had occasionally given him exclusively documents read
at the Confederate meetings. There were ladies present
at the soiree on the 15th April. The Queen's health
was drunk. One gentleman proposed that her Majesty
should be given as the Queen of Ireland, but she was
given as " The Queen." Read two of the speeches
given in evidence to-day in a prosecution for sedition
against Mr. Meagher; the jury could not agree in that
case. Could not report a speech from memory. Could
not say that other persons might not be able to do so, as
some people had marvellous memories. Cannot say
how many jurors were struck out on Mr. Mitchel's trial.
Heard that there had been a discussion on Mr. Kit-
chel's principles, in which Mr. Meagher took a decided
part against that gentleman.
Mr. William Shearman, a solicitor from Waterford,
proved the handwriting of Mr. Meagher to some letters
produced.

The Court then adjourned till half-past nine o'clock
;o•morrow morning.