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

11,0
1111

LONDON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1848.

There are many reasons why the strong and unani-
mous recommendation of the jury who so nobly and
conscientiously discharged the duty they owed to
their country, in the recent trial at Clonniel, should
receive the attentive consideration it so fully merits,
and why the prayer thereof should forthwith be con-
sidered by those entrusted with the administration of
justice in Ireland—the responsible advisers
of her Most Gracious 'MAJESTY. We have 'al-
ready set forth public grounds why mercy should
be extended to the unfortunate gentleman who,
whatever may have been his errors, ever maintained
an irreproachable character, and in all the relations
of private life merited the admiration and respect of
all his acquaintances, and of those in any manner
connected with him by the ties of friendship or con-
sanguinity. These grounds may be shortly set forth
as follows :

First, it is neither just nor expedient, wise or
politic, to inflict capital punishment for a merely poli-
tical offence, more especially when that offence has been
unattended with any aggravating circumstances of
plunder or bloodshed. 2dly, That the difference of
the law in England and Ireland, by which parties
accused of high treason in the latter country are de-
prived of advantages to which they would be entitled
in England, and which are here considered to be es-
sential to their defence, should prevent the extreme
penalty from being carried into execution ;
and that, if so, it might be asserted
with truth that the same protection and
justice is not afforded to the Irish people that
may be claimed by every English citizen. The
sufferer would be regarded as the victim of partial
and unequal laws, and a new and powerful argument
would be given to all classes of Repealers, viz., that
the fundamental provisions of the Act of Union had
been violated and set aside, and that in a point in-
volving the life or death, the liberty and property of
an Irish gentleman, many years the representative of
an important constituency in the Imperial Parliament.
There are, however, additional grounds why mercy
should be extended, founded upon every circumstance
of the entire career of Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, before as
well as subsequently to the period when, through a
combination of untoward circumstances, he was hur-
ried into acts of open hostility to the constituted
authorities of the country. Previously to the
actual outbreak Mr. O'BRIEN at all times
repudiated the extremities to which his more
dangerous associates were inclined to proceed.
While MITCHEL professed Republicanism, and de-
sired a total separation between the countries, SMITH
O'BRIEN only asked for what he believed to be a re-
storation of the Irish nationality, the repeal of the
Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ire-
land. Every sentiment he uttered bore the character
of affectionate loyalty to his SOVEREIGN, and even his
worst( extez;aT never imputed to him the slightest hypo-
crigy, or 'ff', id4cealtn.ent of his inmost thoughts.
It was clearly :-aid proved that he repu-
diated the viotence ofsMrrcNEL, and the revolutionary,
opinions to which he gave utterance, and that he re-
fused to remain a member of the Irish Confederation
unless AlrrcuEL sent in his resignation, which was
accordingly done. lie was an ardent and enthusi-
astic Repealer, but although we differ toto cxlo from
his opinions on that subject, and as strenuously sup-
port the Act of Union as he was couscienti•

ously opposed thereto, it cannot for a mo-
ment,_ be .asserted that any agitation for that
purpose, so long as it was restricted within constitu-
tional limits, amounted to a crime. Unfortunately,
he transgressed the bounds within which he should
have remained; but his end and object was not
malum in se. The only point that could justly be
objected to was the mode by which he endeavoured to
attain his desire. Mr. 013axati never uttered
truculent and sanguinary speeches, such as
some of those ascribed to others of the
confederates. He never instructed his hearers in the
most approved art of bloodshed, in the best
mode of killing, burning, or destroying the opposing
forces. On the contrary, at every period he depre-
cated the atrocities suggested by others, and even dur-
ing the last acts that brought him within the meshes
of the law, he refrained from injuring, in any man-
ner, the constabulary that were within his power, or
the property which a word from him would have con-
signed to the flames.

It is by no means impossible that he never con-
templated actual violence, but that his intent
was to intimidate the Government into a compro•
mise. It is manifest that when he left Dublin on
the 22d of July, to visit Mr. MAHER, a gentleman
of unimpeachable loyalty, in pursuance of a long-
sent invitation, he had not the slightest intention cf
an immediate insurrection. His engagements were
made for the following day to visit Wexford
harbour, and to meet a party at dinner.
When DILLON and MEAGHER arrived the next
morning with the intelligence of the suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act, and of a warrant being
issued for his arrest, his statement to his host was to
the effect, " that he did not come to disturb the peace
of the house, but would go to Kilkenny to consult
some friends. As Mr. WHITESIDE so clearly proved
in his magnificent oration, all through his ruling
object appeared to be to avoid arrest; but, along
with that there was also the general object of
effecting a change in the constitution of
the country, which brought him within the scope
of the law—in fact, he intended to make a demon-
stration of strength that might lead the Government
to succumb to his views and wishes. Of the three
overt acts at Mullinahone, Killenaule, and Ballin-
garry, the two first were wholly unattended with
violence. He asked the six policemen, completely
powerless, and without available means of defence,
to surrender their arms ; they most properly
refused, and he did not suffer their arms
to be taken by force, as could easily have
been done,:-„but drew off his men ; so that the
police were enabled to pack up their goods and with-
draw without disturbance or opposition. At Kil-
lenaule a barricade was erected, but that was imme-
diately cast down and a clear road made for the
military when the party were assured that there was
no intention to attempt the capture of SMITH
O'BRIEN. Every article of provision or other-
wise that was taken, every accommodation
received, was scrupulously paid for, even to the
last farthing; no force was used towards any person
who, however defenceless, refused to comply with
the requests of Mr.O'BRIEN, and, although there was
an attack made upon the police at Boulagh-common,
there is reason to suppose that it was wholly without
the assent of Mr. O'BRIEN, who interposed as P.
mediator between the hostile ranks, at the imminent
risk of his life, his undefended bosom being
within a few inches of the police bayonets,
a slight movement of which would have
rendered this protracted trial wholly unneces-
sary. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, in his able
and lucid charge, wholly acquitted Mr. O'BRIEN of
having stimulated the party to attack the police, or
of having uttered the words laid to his charge. Hers.
then, we see that, although he unhappily participated
in the outbreak so as to subject himself to the penal-
ties of the law, he moderated the passions of his
associates, and that we are in a great degree indebted
to him for the preservation of life and pro.
perty in the disturbed districts. These, then,
we submit, aff3rd ample and sufficient reasons why
the Government should comply with the recommen-
dations:of the jury, and extend mercy to one who,
although in error, has in every instance acted in .%
manner becoming a high-minded and honourable
gentleman.

Military and naval improvements have latteric
begun to occupy a considerable portion of public at-
tention. The necessity of introducing a better sys.
tern of education into the barrack, and of organizin:?
somewhat more efficiently the arrangements of the
dockyard, has at length been recognised. As yet,
however, there has not been any perceptible move
ment towards the improvement and re-organization
a service of quite as much, if not of a still greater im-
portance—we mean, of course, the service of oar
Artillery. While the current number of the Quar-
terly Review contains an intelligent article upon tilt.
subject of " Military Education," we observe with
pleasure in the number of Dolman's Magazine fot:
October an admirable paper upon the inefficiency 0(
" Our Artillery." The extraordinary evils whicL
must inevitably result from a persistance in our pre
sent conduct towards this branch of the public servic's
impels us to enforce the arguments of the last men
tioned writer, by analysing and epitomising his
statements, and by accompanying that analysis and
epitome with our own commentaries.
Before the exigencies of our position, in as far a.
the inefficiency of the artillery service is concerned,
can be recognised and appreciated, it will be neces.
•ary to give our readers, in as brief a manner a:
possible, some notion of the rudiments of this scientih%
portion of the Unnatural Philosophy of offensive au.'
defensive warfare. A glance over the historic:.
of the European races will reveal the woo.
derful progress which has been made in
the science of artillery since the monk SCIIWARTI*,
first contrived a projectile discharged by the detona-
tion of gunpowder. And the substitution of this ter-
rible instrument of destruction for the old and
clumsy appointments of the bowyers and galeators—to
wit the trebuchets, the robinets, the onagers, and
the aspringals—will be found to have led to tlw•
establishment of the Ordnance office in Great Brithit,
as early as the Protectorate of RICHARD the cele
brated Duke of Gloucester and afterwards King ot.
England. To detail the progressive advance-
ment of the institution from the appoint.
men t of Rau! BIGOD as Master. Genera:
in 1483, to that of DUDLEY in 1587, to that of Essui
in 1596, to that of SCHOMBERG in 1689, to that of
MARLBOROUGH in 1714, to that of LIGONIER in 175;,
and so downwards to our own times, through KEMrT,
ANGLESEY, VIVIAN, MURRAY, and WELLINGTON,
would be apart altogether from our immediate object
and would be liable rather to confuse the bearing o 5
our remarks than to afford any important illustration
to our arguments. It would, in like manner, ts
superfluous in this place to enter upon any
technical definition of the differences existing be-
tween howitzers and carronades, between mortars and
rockets, between congreve rockets and shell rockets.
between shot rockets and carcass rockets. Such in-
formation may be gleaned from elementary works
like the Artillerist's Manual, or in fact from the
dry details of the most superficial encyclopaedia
More to our purpose is it to define the distribution;
of the artillery service into two great divisions
namely, the Field Artillery and the Garrison e:
Siege Artillery—divisions which are felicitously de-
! scribed by the writer in Dolman as "the poles of thz
magnet, the one representative of defensive, the othc,.
of offensive war ; the first of resistance, the last
of attack." From the pamphlet of Sir ROBERT GAR-
DINER there are some most instructing and copious
extracts illustrative of the precise number of guns
and gunners in our different insular garrisons. Our
present purpose, however, will be sufficiently satisfied
by conveying the condensed result of many diffused
calculations. For instance, the general summary o:
garrison artillery enables us to arrive at these con-
clusions—that there are in

England
Scotland
Channel Islands

Ireland

Stations abroad .

1,454
•• • • -... 3,358

Total mounted garrison guns ... 4,812

For the service of this gross aggregate of cannon oar
artillery returns yield only the comparatively insig..
ni6ont number of 9,000 gunners—being scarcely

THE 3.1. TN,