The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-06 00:00:00

N0.17,482.]

PU

NS

[PRICE SD.

'lt`ii`lcd... ,:> Ll]
Jed in 1782. But so far frog ads. .4-4.::.a, .i:
.o assured the public that any illega litho, 16yr •-•:...-i
only -Le productive of mischief; and co eie '
_Ai -
from their conduct ho sometimes entertainee. , -,,,,,4149.- -- (-----.-
dout:ts of their fitness. for freedom. The is lots
_,,___,-
$,l
Gentleman read the rules of the Cold', cleratioe ei`fircli-,; ‘‘
tfic
in effect pledged the members to use every AUtilikeid ' '
moral influence for the restoration of legislative indepen-
dence. By these rules alone should the members of that
Confederation be judged. When the British Parlia-
ment refused to institute an inquiry demanded by the
great mass of the Irieh Members into the working of
the poor-law, Mr. O'Brien argued, and justly so, that
this refusal showed the people that they had no chance
of redress horn that Parliainent. The Learned Counsel
next read a very leng speech, in the course of which the
prisoner was represented to have said, '•' that there vt as
no chance of an immediate appeal to arms being success-
ful." From the word immediate, it might be argoed
that the prisoner looked to an appeal to inns in fUture.
But it could not be adduced in evidence of the intent of
an act clone in 1857, that in 1e47 the accueed stated the
immediate execution of that act would not be successful.
About twelve years ego the present Premier, Lord John
Russell, began a career of agitation in favour ef Pe lia-
mentary reform, and wrote a letter to the Politi;!al
Union at Birmingham, in a ;deli he htered that "Re-
form should never be put down by the whisper of a
faction." Now, one of the projects of that union was
the formation of a national guard. The Noble Lord
himself, in his " Constitutional History of England," rc-
cognizr d and approved of the doctrine of resistance, and
he, the very prosecutor in this case, or who had at least
directed the prosecution, wrote to the Union a letter
which he would read at length.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the perusal of
this letter. He knew nothing of it. He did not see
how a letter alleged and not proved to have been
written by Lord John Russell some twelve or fourteen
years ago could have any possible bearing on the matter
in question. He had not interfered with speeches of
Mr. O'Brien; but he could not allow this tslleged letter
of which he knee nothing whatever to be read as a
matter of evidence.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the Attorney-General was griev-
cusly mistaken if he thought he could stop his mouth
when defending a man on trial for his life.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I don't want to stop your
mouth.
Mr. WHITESIDE referred the matter to the Court; and
The Lord Chief Justice BLACEDURNE, after consulta-
tion, said—We are of opinion that you can refer to this
letter, if you are not, as we understand you, introducing
it as evidence, but as an historical event. But the more
concisely you do so the better.
Mr. WHITESIDE proceeded—To show the' feelings
which then prevailed in England, he would refer to what
was then said in a journal of great talent, distinguished
for its remarkable ability, for its astonishing acquaint-
ance with all political affairs, and for its intimate know-
ledge of the principles of the British constitution, which
was understood to express the opinion of the British
nation and of the world. 110 had only to regret that
this journal had thought fit to write so severely of his
client and of his case within the last few days. The
Learned Gentleman then read an extract from a leading
article of the Times, at the time of the Reform Bill, in
which it stated that the project of the " Union " to es-
tablish a National Guard had equally terrified the
House of Peers and the mob. lie referred also to the
speeches of a Colonel Jones, who professed to teach the
people how they could resist the household troops and
the artillery, and forcibly read the following letter from
Lord J. Russell to Mr. Attwood :
" Sir,—l beg to acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude
the kindness and honour now done me by 150,000 of my
fellow-countrymen. Our prospects are obscured for a
moment—l trust only for a moment—for it is impossible
that the whisper of a faction can prevail against the
voice of a nation."
What was the whisper of a faction to which the First
Minister of the Crown alluded? It was the deliberate
opinion of the House of Peers—of the assembly which
boasted of the names of Wellington, Nelson, and Marl-
borough, and which would exist for ages in the attach-
-1 ment of a discerning people. He had not brought for-
ward this letter for the purpose of scoffing at the First
Minister of the Crown, but to show the opinions held
by eminent persons on the subject of social changes—
persons who had never been accused of treason. If the
political unions had marched these 150,000 men on
London, that no doubt would have constituted high
treason. The Learned Gentleman, referring to the vo-
luminous speech of Mr. O'Brien, read it by detached
portions, and applied himself to show that neither indi-
vidually nor collectively were they treasonable, or
evidences of a traitorous intent. If a national guard .
were not treasonable in England it could not be trea-
sonable in Ireland ; but Englishmen—for whom he
had a high respect—were apt to regard it as a vulgar
error to suppose that Irishmen had the same rights as
themselves, and would only agree with you after yea
had admitted they were right. The Attorney-Gene-
ral had charged Mr. O'Brien with getting up seditious
newspapers, but he had failed to prove it. His client had
never written in a newspaper, nor was he proprietor of
one. He had also referred to the French Revolution ;
but a person might think that revolution justifiable, and
not be a traitor. So far was Mr. O'Brien from being an
advocate of violence, that he declared he would not re-
sort to physical force till the whole country was in
favour of it. And could any one doubt but that then it
would be justifiable ? or, that it all the people of Ireland
—north and south—declared their intention to repeal
the union, they would not at once obtain it ? Mr.
O'Brien had Lot gone to France to solicit armed aid.
In his speech—the speech made evidence by the Crown
—he denied that ho fad done so. The parade of men
with flags and arms was not exactly high treason, for, if
it were, then all the Orangemen of Ulster were guilty of
it. He was obliged to the Attorney-General for prov-
ing these speeches, for it evinced his belief that
he could not have construed the acts of his client into
treason without the supposed aid of those speeches,
while he (Mr. Whiteside) would demonstrate that they •
contained no treasonable intent. I'Vhen the Confedera-
tion was dissolved a new body called the Irish League
was summoned into existence, all the members of which,
united iii the common object of looking for the repeal
of the union. The clubs were entirely distinct
from the League ; and on the 15th of July, in conse-
quence of doubts which existed as to their precise inten-
tions, the clubs held a meeting, at which resolutions
embodying their principles of action were agreed to, and
published in the papers the following day, with the
names of all the presidents of the clubs then existing.
These resolutions acknowleked the purpose of the
clubs to be to overthrow British legislation in Ireland—
that was no treason; to sustain the legitimate influence
of religion—that was no treason; and to secure the in-
dependence of the country—that was no treason either.
In that list of clubs there was no mention of the Red
Hand Club. But Mr. O'Brien was not there, and did
not belong to any club at all. The Attorney-General
seemed to think that Mr. O'Brien's travels through Ire-
land were treasonable also; but they were only a part
of the design avowed in the purposes of the League, and
in prosecution of those purposes. Simultaneous meet-
ings were no proof of treason. Mr. O'Connell followed
that plan in his career of agitation. Mr. Wyse eulogised
it as the happiest invention to obtain freedom for the
Roman Catholics. It was, then, no ground to convict a
Protestant of treason. Would the jury take away the
life of Mr. O'Brien because he had spoken more mode-
rately, discreetly, temperately, and mildly than those
who had placed the Attorney-General in the position he
held?—(Applause in the Court, which was immediately
reproved and suppressed by an admonition from the Lord
Chief Justice.) If they could send a man to the scaf-
fold on the evidence brought against his client, their
names would go down to posterity stamped with eternal
infamy. On the trial of Mr. O'Connell, Lord J. Russell
said it was deprived of all moral weight by reason of
eleven gentlemen having been struck off the jury be-
cause they held the same opinions on repeal as the tra-
verser; and what Mr. O'Brien meant in part of this
speech was, to complain of Lord J. Russell's doing
that in power which he had condemned when out of it,
In the same speech ho disavowed anything like an in-
tention of a sanguinary resolution to accomplish the end
heid he had in view. One of the Roman Catholic bishops
sa was prepared to give in his adherence to that
association, and would do all in his power to get his
clergy to join it too; and yet they were now told that
that was a treasonable association, and they must all be
traitors! If such were the case, the Roman Catholic
clergy might soon be thinned.' Mr. O'Brien, in
that speech, said he loved peace--.a strange proof
of revolutionary intentions; but he said he would
not flatter himself as to the course he might
consider necessary for vindicating the honour and liber•
ties of his country; and that was made the ground of im-
peaching him for high treason I The jury, he was satis-
fied, would rather cut off their right hands than find a ver-
dict of guilty upon such a speech as that. But not only
so—that speech covered the whole case of the Crown
with doubt and distrust ; for if a man could, on the 15th
of July, express such constitutional opinions as Mr.
O'Brien did on that day, could they believe that he ever
intended to break out into open rebellion against the
Queen ? He would not advert to the evidence of the
informer Dobbin at present, but would take the evidence
of Mr. Hodges, of General M'Donald, Captain Emans,
the stipendiary magistrate, Inspector Cox, Mulrooney,
Bagnall, the extra clerk, the gaoler, Norton, and one or
two others. That evidence went to the arrest of Mr.
O'Brien, to the proof that when he contemplated the sub-
version of the British empire he had 101. 10s. in his
purse, and it went further to the proof of the portman-
teau. Did it not show Mr. O'Brien's consciousness of
his innocence that he informed that stipendiary magis-
trate where his portmanteau was to be found ? And
here he would observe that the magistrate pledged his
honour that the portmanteau should be returned to
Mr. O'Brien ; but this righteous case began with as
perfect a breach of faith as could be committed in any
case of the kind. Mr. Gore Jones took not the slight-
est notice of his promise, and that would be ground
for promotion in the service which he dignified. Mr.
O'Brien wrote to the Under-Secretary, and asked that
his private documents might be restored to him. They
were promised, but had never been delivered up. In
that portmanteau were private family deeds' and private
accounts of Mr. O'Brien. Could they believe that a
man would set out on a course of high treason i with
such papers in his trunk? But how were the papers
found in the portmanteau brought against Mr.
O'Brien? Was the custody of it traced ? What was
there to prevent papers being surreptitiously introduced
into it? He and every other man in Ireland held his
liberty at the hands of Lord Clarendon at that moment.
What would they think of a person going to his lodg-
ings in his absence, placing papers in his trunk, and then
for him to be called upon to answer for those papers—
the person in whose custody the trunk had been not
being produced? That, however, was the principle now
established. It was not for him to complain of that
decision, but it was a serious consideration for cases
that might arise hereafter. A portmanteau might
be found flung into a ditch with papers in it—had
they were to be producod as evidence against the
owner. If that were so, the highest persons in the