The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-12 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS.

DUBLIN COMMISSION COURT—Auc. 10.
The Court sat shortly after ten o'clock. The At-
torney-General, Solicitor-General, Mr. Sergeant O'Brien,
Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., Mr. Baldwin, Q.C., Mr. Smyly,
and Mr, Perrin were in attendance on the part of the
Crown ; Mr. Holmes, Mr. Butt, Q.C., Sir Colman
O'Loghlen, and Mr. O'Hagan appeared for the prisoners.
The son of Mr. J. Mitchel, a fine boy about seven
years old, was in Court during the proceedings. The
space around the dock was kept perfectly clear, and no
persons, save the police and authorities, were allowed to
approach it. The proceedings on the present occasion
presented a strong contrast to those which took place on
the trial of Mr. Mitchel. At his trial, his friends
crowded the court to cheer him with their sympathy.
On the present occasion, not one of the political friends
of the prisoners were present to sustain them ; or, if
such persons were in court, they carefully abstained
from giving expression to their feelings.
Messrs. Martin, Williams, and O'Doherty wore
brought into court about half-past ten o'clock.
Clerk of the Crown—Put Kevin Izod O'Doherty to
the bar.
Sir CoLsteli O'LoGHLEN—Before this case comes on
I have to apply to your Lordship to decide the question
regarding Mr. Duffy's arraignment, and that Mr. Duffy
be brought into court.
The application was acceded to, and Mr. Duffy was
placed at the bar.
Sir COLMAN O'LoGIILEN then moved that Mr. Duffy
should be at liberty to plead. The question was, whe-
ther they were entitled, as a matter of right, to have
the plea recorded, and he submitted they were so en-
titled. He contended the arraignment of Mr. Duffy
was completed, and if it were not completed on the
former day, that it had been since completed. In sup-
port of his proposition ho cited the second volume of
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, p. 219.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted that Mr. Duffy
was not entitled to record his plea—for, in point of fact,
he had not been arraigned.
The CHIEF BARON —No authority is cited to show
that in the circumstances that have occurred in the pre-
sent instance, the arraignment was complete. There
are two qucomplete,estions here—first, whether the arraign-
ment was and next, whether there is any
reason, ex dubito, why the arrraignment should be now
completed.
Baron PENNEFATITER—The authority cited by Sir
Colman O'Loghlen is quite decisive ugains
tits being an
arraignment. According to that authority the iunlesndict-
ment should be read out distinctly to the prisoner, s
he waives his right to have that done, and consents that

an abs tract only should be read, and that has not been
done iii this case.
Sir (D. O'LOGHLEN—We said we waived the reading
of the indictment if we got a copy. We have got the
copy, :en d should now be at liberty to plead.
Barker, PENNEFATHER—NOt until the Crown call
upon you to plead.
Mr. BUTT, Q.C.—I consider, in consequence of the
mode of proceeding the Crown has adopted in this case,
that the y seek to obtain some advantage, and I consider
it woudel much better become the dignity of the At-
torney- General to waive any advantage he might thus
obtain.. However, Ido not appeal to the Attorney-
Gener ell, but I apply to the Court. I trust your Lord-
ships vell not allow the Attorney-General to come in
here aad control the proceedings of the court, except
in the 'way he is entitled to do so, by entering a nolle
proseqmi. As long as I have the honour to hold a brief,
I will Dever again conseet, to-suit the convenience of the
Court or the Attorney-General, to the slightestdeparture
from t he regular course of proceeding; and I now ask of
the C, )fart confidently, but boldly, to keep faith with ene
and the prisoner, and put us in the same condition we
would the in if we had not consented to the suggestion
for postponement.
Bar eel PENNEFATHER—We cannot decide that when
once a :prisoner is put to the bar the arraignment should
be coutpleted, except on express authority.
Mr. BUTT—But this proceeding went much further
than that. We put it, however, as a question for the
discret ion of the Court rather than as a matter of strict
right.
Solo =OR-GENERAL—The Learned Gentleman has
put for ward a variety of grounds in support of his ap-
plicatioin, and, amongst others, that the present pro
reeding: on the part of the Crown is unprecedented, but
I Kiln sit it is the ordinary practice that a prisoner
should he called to the bar, and when the Clerk of the
Crown has commenced the arraignment, the counsel for
the Cr, mu may ask the Court to let the matter stand
over fo r a time. The Learned Gentleman was equally
unjustifiable in saying that the counsel for the Crown
(whose, only object is to bring the criminal to justice)
intend to practise any stratagem or device. I say those
insineu teions are not to be tolerated, and will not be en-
dured. I hope the Court will not impose such unprece-
dented conditions on the Attorney-General as to call
upon him to disclose the circumstances which he deems
it riece s, ary to consider before an individual who is to be
tried s!aall be called upon to plead. We must proceed
adviseday in this case, and not be forced to take a preci-
pitate Istep, if we deem such step precipitate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—As far as I am person-
ally concerned, I am only discharging a public duty, and
I wish to do that conscientiously. If the trial goes on
this present Commission, I may be satisfied to have Mr.
Duffy tried on this indictment; but when it is suggested
that applications are to be made to postpone those
trials, I may not, perhaps, discharge my duty as I
ought, if I allow myself to be embarrassed by the bills
found for felony, when I have the grounds to send up
bills fe it high treason. Perhaps I have not done my
duty es I ought, in sending up bills for felony, when I
might have sent up bills for high treason. But if the
case is not determined at the present commission, the
Court, I trust, will not, by any act out of their way,
oblige ine to take any course that would fetter my dis-
cretion in sending up bills for treason.
Mr- BUTT—I call upon the Court to interpose between
the prisoner and the unconstitutional threat of the
Attorney-General. Let them allow the prisoner to
plead, and the Attorney-General to take his course.
CarEF BARON—We do not see anything in the case
to induce us to proceed with the arraignment of the
prisoner. The proceedings of the commission are still
pending ; the commission is not about to close, and
another case was fixed for this mornine 'e We shall not
proceed with the arraignment of Mr. Duffy, but shall
proceed, as we were about to do, with the trial of
O'Doherty.
THE QUEEN V. KEVIN IZOD O'DOHERTY, PROPRIETOR
OF THE " TRIBUNE."
PROSECUTION FOR FELONY.
Kevin Izod O'Doherty was then placed at the bar, to
take his trial on the charges on which he was arraigned
on the preceding day, namely, for imagining, devising,
and intending to depose the Queen from her royal
style, title, and honour of the Imperial Crown of the
United Kingdom, which imagination, intention, &c.,
were indicated by articles pulished in the Tribune
newspaper.
Proclamation was then made for a jury, and the panel
was read over. During that proceeding the prisoner's
agents were actively employed in noting down the names
of objectionable persons.
There are about 150 names on the panel, but 48 per-
sons only, in the first instance, answered to their names.
By the direction of the Court the names were again
called on fines of 201. The threatened imposition of a
fine caused nine additional persons to announce their
presence in court.
It was deemed necessary, however, to call over the
names again on fines of 501., and this additional fine had
he effect of causing two other gentlemen to answer to

their names, making in all 59 persons who obeyed the
summons to attend as jurors, out of a list composed of
about 150 persons.
The second juror who was [called upon to be sworn,
namely, Mr. Nolan, was ordered by the Crown to stand
by, on the ground that he was bail for the printer of the
Nation.
The objection was allowed, and Mr. Nolan was ordered

to stand liy.
John Phayre was objected to by the prisoner's counsel,
on the ground that he is a burgess of the city of Dublin.
The challenge was to the effect that Mr. Phayre as such
burgess was interested in the conviction of the prisoner,
because the goods and chattels of all felons convicted
within the city of Dublin, became the property of the
Lord Mayor, and corporation, and burgesses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL demurred to the challenge
on the part of the Crown, on the ground that it was not
shown by the challenge in what manner the goods or
chattels of felons convicted within the city of Dublin
became vested in the Lord Mayor, &c., or how Mr.
Phayre was personally interested in the matter.
After hearing counsel on both sides, the Court ruled
in favour of the Crown.
Mr. Phayre was then peremptorily challenged by the
prisoner,
When the Clerk of the Crown called the name of Mr.
Reid, merchant tailor.
Mr. BUTT—I wish to ask if this man is not a Castle
tradesman?
SOLICITOR-GENERAL—That is not a proper question
to make.
The COURT intimated that the question might be put.
Mr. BUTT (to Mr. Reid)—Are you a tradesman at the
Castle, or one of the Lord-Lieutenant's tradesmen?
Mr. Reid—l am not aware that I am.—(Laughter.)
The prisoner's challenges having been exhausted, the
following jury were sworn :—Samuel Begot Oldham,
Richard Ulysses Burgh, Edward Birmingham, Richard
Collier, George Yeates, William Reid, George Nesbitt,
John Kershaw, Blaney Mitchel, Charles Mathers, John
Johnson, and Thomas Stewart.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, at three o'clock, rose to
state the case for the Crown. The prisoner, Mr. Kevin
O'Doherty, be said, stands charged before you, gentle.
men of the jury, with the commission of an offence of a
very serious character. He is charged with the com-
mission of a felony, and the consequences of his convic-
tion may necessarily be to him very serious indeed; but
though the law makes the charge a felony, it does not
attach any certain punishment to it—it is discretionary
with the Court to state the punishment to be inflicted.
It is not a capital felony, but a felony that may be
punished either with imprisonment or transportation,
which may be extended to the full period of the life of
the individual. I mention that fact for this purpose,
that being aware of the very serious nature of the
charge, you will, I am quite sure, give your calm,
deliberate, and full attention, to the nature of the
charge that is brought forward against the prisoner,
and to the evidence which will be adduced on
the part of the Crown in support of that
charge. Sometimes it is the duty of jurors to judge of
evidence of a contradictory character; in the pre-
sent case you will have no questions of that description
to decide. About the evidence in this case there will be
no doubt, the facts being conceded, and your province
will thereby be to decide whether the evidence being all
admitted, the acts of this man are evidence of the inten-
tion which the Crown has assigned to him in the present
indictment. The charge against him, relieved from legal
form, is founded upon an Act of Parliament which in a
very few lines indeed defines the crime which is the sub-
ject matter of this investigation. The charge is that
since the passing of this Act this gentleman (Mr. O'Do-
herty) did compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to
deprive or depose our Lady the Queen of the style,
honour, or royal name of the Imperial Crown of the
United Kingdom. There is another charge against him,
that he did also compass, imagine, invent, devise,
and in-
tend to levy war against her Majesty within the United
Kingdom, in order by force and constraint to compel
d
her to change her measures and counsels. And we
o
say that the intention of the prisoner is expressed,
uttered, uttered, and declared by the publication
printed documents. Gentlemen, at the tinivae osf the pub-
lication of those documents Mr. O'Doherty
Dublin. That
pro-
prietor of a newspaper in the city of
newspaper was, I believe, first publisheds
o because
ia an
steh
pe
amr
to no
ft ht
the
June, in the present year. I say
is the
ns uubmj ebcetr
,mfiartstte ry
oolfn
nit thee,
which
n tw
apsr ose
published
u tion
circumstance
altogether b
u
for your consi
the Ist of July.deraTtihoant, wanildl
Ibebeali
effiveattehraiatl
•
five or six numbers of the papers ever saw the light.dictment is founded on publications in two
The present in
the other on Saturday, the Bth .of July.
numbers of this paper. One was published on Saturday,
the Ist of July,
It will be for you, Gentlemen, to bear in mind the period
at which this paper came into existence, and the object
with which it was undertaken. I charge the object of
the publisher of this paper to be this, to excite rebellion
in the country, which unhappily they have been able to
do. It will be material for you to bear in mind some of
the matter that appears in those publications thcm-
selves. This article of the Ist of July refers
to, and of course was published after the
conviction of another newspaper proprietor, Mr. Mit-
chel, for the very same offence as that with which
Mr. O'Doherty stands charged before you at the bar.
Very little more than two months since the time I have
the honour of addressing you, it was my duty to address
another jury against a young man charged precisely