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

THE STATE TRIALS.

CLONMEL, OCT. 6.—This morning Mr. FITZGERALD
addressed the Court and jury on behalf of the prisoner
at the same side with Mr. Whiteside. He said he ad-
dressed them as counsel for the prisoner of whose life it
had pleased God to make them the arbiters. If the
jury entertained a doubt of the guilt of the prisoner,
they were bound to give him the benefit of it. The
crime with which he was charged was artificial—it was
a mere creation of law, and in too many cases was a
mere fiction. Why his client had not been prosecuted
for the more obvious offence which he had committed it
was not for him to conjecture. Whether the explana-
tion of the reason for adopting the present proceeding
was reserved for the Solicitor-General, it was not for
him to say ; but upon the reason to be assigned might
depend the life, property, and honour of his client. His
client stood charged with two offences—levying war
against the Queen, and compassing her death. Upon
the present indictment, therefore, as it stood, there were
two questions for the jury to consider--first, whether his
client did levy war against the Queen ; and secondly,
whether he conspired to levy war against her.
The Learned Gentleman then went into a
long and learned argument to prove that no
evidence had been produced upon which his
client could be legally convicted. He then went on
to say that the Attorney-General charged Mr. O'Brien
with having made a speech at a meeting held in March,
1848, for the purpose of congratulating the French upon
the change which had taken place in their form of go-
vernment. It was alleged that the clubs were organized
immediately after the return of the deputation from
France. Where was the proof of that? The clubs were
in existence so long ago as August, 1847. How were
they to be worked? By organization. Their object
was to be carried as Catholic emancipation was obtained
—as the Reform Bill was won—as the corn-laws were
repealed—as every exhibition of the national will was
made by those who entertained opinions respecting poli-
tical reforms and political changes. He did not dispute
an organization of the clubs; but where was the evidence
of intent? In allusion to the meeting of the confede-
rates on the 14th of July, where is the evidence of what
happened there? That meeting alarmed the Goverment;
and why, he should ask, did not the Attorney-General
tf-11 the jury all about it? Three speeches made by Mr.
O'Brien were proved, bet the jury should recollect
they were made in excting tiimes—one at the French
revolution—another when the Treason Felony Act
passed, and a third when Dublin was proclaimed. The
Learned Gentleman then dwelt upon the speech of Mr.
O'Brien on the 19th of July, as indicating the openness of
his course, and his resolution that nothing should be
(lone in secret. Who had corroborated the informer
l)obbyn? Evidence was given of the name of the club,
the Red Hand Club, having been upon the window; but
teas this sufficient evidence of the existence of the club?
What was; there. to show a treasonable intent up to the
22d of July but three speeches delivered at a period of
great excitement? He admitted that the organisation of
clubs was to show the popular strength, and doubtless
there was a reference to an ultimate appeal. had not
popular demonatrations taken place in Ireland to show
.hat the popular will could not be resisted? This was
contrary to the spirit of the constitution, but at such a
time as the present no man could be convicted of treason
for such an act, and it would be very unjust to make Mr.
O'Brien the victim for the sins of all. The question was,
had the prisoner intended to avoid arrest, and did his acts
manifest that intention? The Learned Gentleman then
~roceeded to comment upon the various documents put in
evidence on the part of the Crown, and concluded by asking
whether there was a single one amongst them in which this
prominent notion did not appear—the fact of a warrant
being out for his arrest, and the necessity for his protection?
l'he Learned Counsel having contended that the prevail-
ing notion in all Mr. O'Brien's speeches was a desire to
vade arrest, went on to refer to the reports furnished
ny the police of those speeches, with a view to show
.hat they ought not to be relied on by the jury as trust-
worthy evidence against his client. A small body of
mounted troops arrived in front of a barricade, defended
by an overwhelming number of armed men. The ques-
tion was put, "Do you mean to arrest Mr. O'Brien?"
and upon a negative reply being given, the Dragoons
were allowed to pass on unharmed and applauded by the
,eople. The Learned Gentleman then referred to the
affray at Ballingarry, with a view to prove that although
the facts bore more strongly against his client, yet
there was nothing proved which was inconsistent with
the' object his client had contemplated—escape from
forest. There could be no doubt that the fatal events
which occurred at Ballingarry would ever be the
cebject of deep and bitter anguish to his client.
Be that as it may, how did he act? Precisely as
ae (Mr. O'Brien) acted at Mullinahone; and unless
.hey believed the words thathadhebeceonualdttrhve been n
ibautedtohimo
,n that occasion, it was plain
party to the firing. lie (Mr. O'Brien) was between both
he police and the people at that place, and unless those
cords were used by him in a moment of passion, of
teat, or excitement, it was utterly and entirely impos-
-ible for any man in his senses to give that order. But
it was wholly immaterial for his purpose whether his
client gave that order or not. Why had they (the
counsel for Mr. O'Brien) laboured so much and so
anxiously on that part of the subject? Simply because
their client had intimated to them that he valued life
much less indeed than the imputation cast upon his cha-
racter by the charge that he made use of words of
tolich he never thought, which he could not use, and
hich were in all respects foreign from his inclinations
and intentions. The Learned Gentleman then referred
) the gross and palpable inconsistencies and discre-
pancies in the evidence of Sub-constable Moran—which
twas contradicted by the testimony of Constable Mahony,
and t 9 the fact that on cross-examination of Moran by
%tr. Whiteside, when asked why he did not fire
,t Mr. O'Brien, he (Moran) replied that " he did
lot hear him use"--. That Mr. O'Brien never
ised the words there could not possibly be the
slightest doubt, No man was ever so unfit to use them,