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

;'' , OCTOBER 6, 1848.
4 „ IN

THE STATE TRIALS.
CLONAIEL, WEDNESDAY, OCT. 4.—To-day Mr.
• Whiteside opened the defence in a most brilliant speech,
but had not concluded when the Court adjourned. The
great reputation of the Learned Counsel, confirmed, if
' not gain( d, by his celebrated display on the trial of Mr.
O'Connell, attracted an audience far more numerous
and di,tinguizhed than has yet attended any part of the
proceedings. The SlicriV-gallery was almost filled
with ladies.
The prisoner looked more anxious than yesterday.
Previously, however, to Mr. Whiteside's address, the
following little episode occurred :
Mr. WHITESIDE wished, before he addressed the
jury, to state, with ;respect to the balloting papers for
the Council of Five, spoken to by the witness Dobbin,
that, at the time of the examination, only twenty-
one papers were banded to him (Mr. Whiteside), as
produced by the Crown, and of those twenty-one the wit-
ness identified but one with the name of Mr. O'Brien
upon it, that name, moreover, being struck out. But the
Crown had now handed to him 29 papers, seven or eight
of which had Mr. O'Brien's nano upon them, stating
them to be the same as were produced on the examina-
tion of the witness. He therefore required that the ori-
ginal list should be given to him, in the same state it was
in at the time of the witness's examination.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the 29 papers tha
had been handed to Mr. Whiteside had all been pro.
duced when the witness was examined, but he could not
of course say whether his Learned Friend had inspectei
them all.

Ur. WnrrEslDE was confirmed in his statement that
only 21 were produced by the knowledge of his Learned
Friends near him, who looked at the papers at the
time.

The ATTORNEVGENETML said, -if there were any
doubt upon the point, Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor,
in whose custody the papers had been left, could be
examined.

Mr. WHITESIDE said that, upon his honour as a bar-
rister, and with the knowledge of his two Learned
Friends (Mr. Fitzgerald and Sir C. O'Loghlen), only
21 papers were banded to him ; he counted them at the
time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not say how it was
Mr. Whiteside had not inspected the whole of the 29
papers, but he would assert that all the 29 were produced
to the witness, for he (the Solicitor-General) made a note
of it at the time with a view to make some observations
upon them when he replied.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Does the Solicitor-General say they
were handed to me?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I do not say that.
Mr. WHITESIDE—I aver they were not.
The JUDGES referred to their notes, and found that
the witness said that twenty-nine or thirty were bal-
loted for.
Lord Chief Justice DOHERTY asked Mr. Whiteside
how it was he had not asked a question in reference to
that when he found only twenty-one papers were pro-
duced.
Mr. WHITESIDE—It was for the Crown to show there
were no other documents. He was ready to let it go
to the jury that twenty-one were produced, and that one
had Mr. O'Brien', name upon it, and that that was
struck off.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again proposed that Mr.
ICemmis should be examined, to which
The COURT assented.
Mr. Kemmis, jun., was sworn, and deposed that he
assisted his father in the execution of his duties of
Crown Solicitor. Held in his hand twenty-nine ballot-
ing papers, numbered consecutively. They had been
numbered before the commencement of the present trials.
They included all the balloting papers:which he had ever
had.in his possession or custody, and in that custody they
had been always carefully preserved. Had been present
when the papers were numbered by his father. They
had been produced on the examination of the witness
Dobbin. Had a perfect recollection of having handed
the papers in two parcels to Sir Colman O'Loghlen, just
as Dobbin left the table. Handed the whole twenty-nine
to Sir C. O'Loghlen. Had checked the list before he
gave it in. There were only four or five of them marked
by the officer of the court as they were identified by the
witness Dobbin, and these had been kept separate, and
were separate when handed to Sir C. O'Loghlen. Had
not counted them when they were returned to him, but
put them into the papers in which they had since re-
mained. They were numbered 29.
On cross-examination—The papers were not open
when handed to Sir C. O'Loghlen. Had been present
during the examination of Dobbin. Heard him say
that O'Brien's name was on one balloting paper only,
and that it had been struck off. Thought it was his
father who bad banded the papers to Mr. Whiteside.
Gave them all at the same time to Sir C. O'Loghlen,
and received them back in the same way. Would swear
positively that he gave the whole twenty-nine to Sir C.
O'Loghlen.

Mr. WurrEsinE—lt might as well be said that I had
500 as 29. I say I ought to be believed when I assert
this fact about those papers. The Crown should allow
them to stand in the way in which I received them.
The Loan CLUES JUSTICE.—But what can the Court
do, Mr. Whiteside ? There is nothing hero for us to
act upon.
Mr. Kemmis, sen., sworn and, examined—Was Crown
Solicitor. Was present when the balloting papers were
produced to the witness under examination. None of
them wore retained or set apart before they were handed
in. They were 29 in number.
Cross-examined—Thought the papers had been
handed in by his son at first. Did not recollect by whom
the papers had been handed during the cross-exami-
nation of Dobbin. Was sure all the papers had been
handed in.
Mr. Dunne sworn—Assisted Mr. Kemmis in the dis-
charge of his duties. The whole of the balloting papers,
29 in number, had been given to the witness Dobbin on
examination. There was no portion of them selected,
nor any portion kept back. Ile thought Mr. Whiteside
took the papers from him.
Mr.
WiiiTEsinE—That I positively deny.
Witness in continuation—Did not mean to assert cer-
tainly that Mr. Whiteside took them from him.
The Lord Chief Justice BLACYBURNE—I do not see
the
u.
se of this inquiry. Ido not perceive to what it can

Mr. WHITESIDE-4 say it was Mr. Hodges, the Go-
vernment reporter, who handed the papers to me. I
will not allow my reputation to rest upon what I say. I
appeal to the jury.
Several of the jury—Mr. Whiteside is right. It was
Mr. Hodges who handed them to him.
The Lord Chief Justice BLACKBURNR—Have the
goodness, gentleman of the jury, to abstain from any
remarks in this matter.
Mr. O'Hara was then called by Mr. WHITESIDE, sworn
and exam
in h ined—Had been present during the proceed-
ings, whic he had taken a direct interest. The
whole of the papers examined by Mr. Whiteside had
been hand,-(1 one by one to witness, and he swore posi-
tively that the name of Mr. O'Brien had not once been
mentioned in them. There were about 14 or 15 papers,
but ho had not counted theta. Witness handed them to
Dobbin as he received them from Mr. Whiteside.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I exa-
mined the papers with a view of finding how many votes
were given for Kenyon. I did not see O'Brien's name

at a
Look at those three balloting papers, and see i
Kenyon's name is not in all three, along with that a
O'Brien?—lt is.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Do you say, Mr. Sulicitor, that I
handed those papers in?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—No, I do not; but they
are among the twenty-nine balloting papers handed in
by the Crown.
Examination of witness continued—He would swear
that those papers had not passed through his ha:.ds.
By Lord Chief Justice Del-lERTY—Observed the
name of Kenyon on seven or eight papers. Did not see
the name of O'Brien on any of those which passed
through his hands. On three of the papers produced
the name of Kenyon appeared along with that of
O'Brien.
Lord Chief Justice DOHERTY—This is now matter of
demonstration, not of probability. The last answer esta-
blishes the fact. The case must go on.
Mr. WHITESIDE—May I ask what is the state of this
evidence as it stands before the Court ?
Lord Chief Justice BLACKBURNE—`yo are of opinion
the papers were all produced. The case must proceed.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Then I must ask time to consider
what course I shall take. Am Ito be told that lam to
go to the jury
as if eight papers with Mr. O'Brien's
name upon them had been fully proved, because if that
be said, I certainly shall not address the jury ?
Lord Chief Justice DOHERTY—The'Court is of opinion
that for the purposes of this trial Mr. Whiteside is to
deal with this case as if only one paper with the name
of Mr. O'Brien upon it had been produced.
The law officers of the Crown were understood to as-
sent to this arrangement, and the argument (or dispute)
concluded.
Mr. WHITESIDE then addressed the jury, It now be-
came his duty, said the Learned Counsel, to address
them on the part of Mr. Smith O'Brien, the prisoner.
Never yet had he addressed a jury more conscious of the
solemn responsibility that devolved upon him. He most
unfeignedly asserted that it would have been more grate-
ful to his feelings had Mr. O'Brien solicited counsel more
worthy by talents and knowledge to address such a tri-
bunal as ho saw before him. But it was ono of the duties
of the honourable profession to which he belonged never
to refuse undertaking any trust, however solemn and
however awful, which in the course of his professional
practice might fairly be imposed upon him.
The
very effort to comprehend all the bearings of the evi-
dence di
dence was calculated to disturb the memory and
tract the reason. He had, therefore, most respectfully to
ask of the jury to give him the benefit of their assis-
tance, to correct him when he was wrong, and to bear
with him whenever ho might not be addressing himself
exactly to the matter in hand. They had meant at ono
time to appeal to their Lordships to postpone the trial.
Ultimately, however, they thought it a more manly
course to proceed; his client's desire being that he
should know at once and for all his fate. But they had
intended to have asked for the postponement because
they believed that the prisoner had been prejudged. Ile
(Ur. Whiteside) bad himself read a charge composed

for the Lord Chief Justice—he had read a confident an-
ticipation of the prisoner's guilt, and a subsequent appeal
to the jury to convict. If he thought that that would
have the slightest influence on the Court, or on the
mite' of any gentleman in that box, ho would have
withdrawn, and left Mr. O'Brien—who held his
life under the law—to- be sacrificed as a vic-
tim on the shrine of political expediency. But he
knew too well that the ermine worn by Mansfield, Holt.
jand Hale would not be sullied by the distinguished
udges he saw before him. One had had a brilliant re-
putation in the Senate,—, 11 at the bar; and he was as
satisfied as of his own existence, that all of them would
equally rejoice if he (Mr. \Vhiteside) could convince
them of the innocence of his client. Ile had to apologize
for having delayed them for a short time during the
progress of the trial. He had made no objection from a
factious motive. Mr. O'Brien wished not now in his
awful position to contradict the opinions of his life. He
therefore had submitted a question to the Court which
had been decided—he had no doubt rightly—and most
unfeignedly did he rejoice, from the emphatic charge of
the Lord Chief Justice and the verdict of the juries,
to find that the jury panel was framed in a manner
not only legal but laudable. He was content with
the tribunal. His client was perfectly satisfied with
the jury; and he (Mr. Whiteside) avowed openly and
publicly, that whatever might be the result, neither;
the maligned gentleman at the bar nor the Counsel
who addressed them, would ever breathe a word of ob-
jection to their decision. It never entered into his mind
to cast an imputation on the 'respectable gentleman the
sheriff of the county. He (Mr. Pennefather) bore a
name he (Mr. Whiteside) respected; for he had been
long accustomed to be taught by the wisdom and learn-
ing of that distinguished Judge, and whose memory
Shen he was removed from this world—he trusted at a
far distant day—would be honoured and revered. But
when ho said he had no complaint to make of the jury,
he had a complaint to make of the law. The Judges
had overruled his objection, but they were compelled to
do so; they did not make, but were coerced by the law.
had Mr. O'Brien been so fortunate as to have been an
Englishman, and to have been tried by the English law,
he would have had, ten days before his trial, the name
of every juror upon the panel, the name of every witness
that was to be examined against him, with their titles,
their professions, and their residences; but in this coun-
try it had been decided that that law did not prevail;
and a more melancholy example of that unfortunate
result never presented itself than in this case they had
witnessed. There appeared on the table, to swear away
directly the life of his client, a man whom no human
being in that court could give him the slightest sugges
tion as to who he was, whence he came, his past life or
conduct. Had this trial taken place in England, where
he knew that already this practice had created much
surprise, he,would,have been enabled to see the evidence,
if it existed, against the character and veracity of that
witness, but by the law of this country an informer, or
a man called by that name, might appear upon the table,
never seen by the accused or by any human being who
could advise or assist him, and would give evidence he
would take care no one could contradict, and destroy in.
nocence instead of establishing guilt. The Attorney-
General had opened this case with what he deemed for
his purpose a sufficient exposition of the law. It was
not sufficiently complete for the case of his (Mr. White-
, side's) client, and it therefore became his duty to ex-
I plain what ho believed to be the law, and the principles
within which the case would fall. He would afterwards
observe upon the statements of the law officers of the
Crown upon the evidence they had brought forward
to sustain the charge brought against Mr. O'Brien—.
founded upon the past acts of his life upon
the things ho had done, said, and written—
all was brought in evidence against him. They were
proceeding to try the prisoner upon an ancient statute
passed so long since as the reign of Edward 111. The
people of England, crushed by the intolerable oppression
of the former law of high treason, determined it should
be expressed as it ought to be, in language of distinct-
ness and precision, and the Parliament that passed it has
been described as the Benedict um Parliamentum That
law was clear and simple; there was no difficulty in it;
but it was always to be regretted that decisions were
made upon it contradictory to the letter, if not to the
spirit of that law, and defying the ingenuity of man to
comprehend. There was a brief exposition of this Act
in the few following lines :—" That as divers opinions
had been before that time in what cases treasons should
be said, and what not, it was enacted, that if any one
contrived the death of the King, the Queen, or their
eldest son—meaning their natural death—he should be
guilty of high treason ; and further, that if any man
levied war against them, or aiding their enemies, he
should also be guilty of the same crime." Before the
reign of Philip and Mary that simple law, made by wise
and sagacious men for the protection of themselves and
their fellow-subjects, was frittered away, mystified, and
perplexed. Men were put to death for mere words, and,
as it was described by a profound lawyer, the courts of
law in England were caverns of murder. An Act,
therefore, was passed to restore the law, and Lord Coke,
observing upon it, said the statute of Mary enacted that
no Act whatsoever, by words, ciphers, deeds, or other-
, wise, should be high treason, unless it was declared to
be so by the statute of Edward, and added that so many
treasons had been made before that Act, that not only
ignorant, but learned and expert men, were caught and
trapped by them. The Act of Mary remedied that state
of things'. It was distinct ; leaving nothing to the dis-
cretion of the judges ; and the two rules recited in the
preamble were true. They were then, first, that the
authority of the Sovereign was held by the love and
favour of the subject, more than by the dread and force
of laws made with rigour and extreme punishment; and,
secondly, that laws justly made for the preservation of
the commonweal without extreme penalty and punish-
ment, wore often better obeyed than extreme
laws made with extreme punishment. Lord Coke
expounded that statute in a few lines : he said
that it was express against all implications, and that no
temporary judgment or opinion of the judges could make
anything treason which was not so expressed in the
statute. Lord Hale explained the exception in that act,
for there was an exception in it, and it was this—if a
man covertly and secretly rode about with a body of
armed men against another to rob or slay him, or to de-
tain him until he was ransomed, that was not treason.
In this indictment there was a charge of having cram-
passed the death of the Queen. The intention of com-
passing the death was an operation of the mind, and
overt acts were the means by which that intention must
be discovered. But a conspiracy for compassing the
death of the Sovereign, though the conspiring be not a
matter for directly accomplishing that end, yet if there
were anything that in all probability would induce it,
that was laid down to be an overt act to prove the
compassing of the death—as if, for example, a man
conspired to imprison or detain the king—and it was,
accordingly, so adjudged in the case of the Earl of
Essex in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. But, said a
high authority, words were not of themselves overt
acts within the statute ; one reason was that they
were easily mistaken, misapplied, misrepresented,
or misunderstood by others ; and another was, that a
man in a moment of passion might also say many things
he never meant to do. It was requisite, therefore, in
cases of so nice a nature, that the intention should be
evidenced by the doing of some acts in prosecution
thereof. All that was wise and consistent with the law
of a free country. That state of the law had not con-
tinued long before the unhappy doctrine of constructive
treason arose, and in process of time another levying of
war was made out for that contemplated by the statute.
The Earl of Northumberland marched towards the battle
in which an army under his son Hotspur was engaged
against the forces of the King, but when he heard of his
son's defeat he marched back again; and the judges held
that, as the object of' his march was doubtful, whether
he was going to join the forces of the. King or Hotspur,
it was not high treason. Lord Halo said that was a
gentle judgment, but so it was decided. But there was
now a levying of war called " a constructive levying
of war," and that was the kind attempted to be made
out in this case. If a rabble met together, and in-
tended to pull down one meeting-house, that was
not treason, but if they intended to pull down many
then it was said that it encroached on the King's
prerogative ; and, the purpose being general, that
was considered to be treason. A case had occurred
of that nature. But as to the levying of war, there
must be three things proved; first, that it was against
the King in his realm, and for a general purpose. The
Learned Counsel then referred to and stated the particu-
lars of the celebrated case of " The Weavers." In that
case a number of persons, having created an insurrec-
tion for the destruction of weaving looms, were indicted
for high treason. The question was submitted to the
judges, of whom Hale was one, and five of them were
of opinion that although the writ extended over five
counties of England, and the King's guards had been
resisted, and loss of life had occurred, yet as the object
of the insurrectionists was personal and private, and not
general, it was not a levying of war within the statute,
and that they were not therefore guilty of high treason.
So essential was it to establish the crime of high treason
that the intention should be evidenced by overt acts, but
when the regicides, on the restoration of Charles H.,
were tried for high treason, they were tried for a con-
spiracy to kill the King, and the overt act charged—a
strong one certainly—was cutting off his head. Mr.
Justice Foster, in commenting on the import of words,
said, that " loose words, not relative to overt acts or
designs, are not overt acts of treason;" and in various
other parts of his work he substantially repeated that
opinion. The Learned Judge then proceeded to
draw the distinction between a direct levying of
war and a constructive levying of war, and said
that an insurrection for breaking into a prison and
rescuing persons therefrom was not a levying of
war to support the charge of compassing the King's
death. In this indictment the prisoner was charged with
compassing the Queen's death, and the overt act was a
levying of war. If that levying of war was not direct
but constructive, as stated by Judge Foster, then it was
not evidence of the compassing of the Queen's death ;
and as in the 6th count no other act was stated than
those laid in the other five counts, if the overt acts there
charged did not aim directly at the death of the Queen,
they amounted only to constructive treason and the con-
spiracy of compassing the Queen's death by the levying
of war, did not support the charge as laid in the 6th
count. But Mr. Justice Foster further observed that the
levying of war fur a purpose coming within any of the
species of treasons declared by the statute of Edward
ILL would not, all within the Act 9( Parliament unless

the rising was effectual ; but when there was a rising of
that nature, all parties connected with the conspiracy
were guilty. The jury had heard the Attorney-General
say that all the members of the Confederation, of which
they had heard so much, were guilty of treason ; but if
that were the case—if, from the conduct of two or
three members, all were guilty of treason, the country
would be deluged with blood. Lord Coke had dis-
tinctly sail that bare words might make a hereec,
but not a traitor without overt nets. In laterymts
there had been two or three practical instances of what
was said to b i a levying of war so pertini nt, to the
present case that he would report them. The first was
the case of Lord George Gordon. That nobleman by
force endeavoured to procure the repeal of a certain Act
of Parliament. He headed a body of 50,000 men, and
for five days the most violent conduct ever witnessed in
London took place. Some of the public establishments
were broken into. Houses were burnt—property was
destroyed. The King was in London, but the purpose
was particular, not general, and in that case the great
lawyer who conducted the prosecution never ventured to
say it was evidence of compassing the King's death.
No count for that was put in the indictment. In the
memorable trial of Watson, a great question turned
upon a paper found in his pocket. The speeches spoken
by him were put in evidence. In the document found
in his pocket London was divided into certain sections,
apparently for the purpose of attack ; but the jury
acquitted the prisoner. The next case was that of
Frost. The Attorney. General had called upon him to
explain this thing and that, but the law must ex-
plain it. The Crown must establish the guilt of the.
prisoner before he was called upon to say one word in his
defence. In Froit's case an expression of the prisoners
explaining certain things did fail from the counsel for
the prosecution; but Sir Fitzroy Kelly—he wished he
had that Learned Gentleman's masterly ability--refuted
it at once. A distinct proof was given of a general plan
far a march upon Newport and a general rising over the
whole kingdom. Frost, with the boldness which cha-
racterised the people of England when they rise in insur-
rection, placed himself at the head of a body of men with
which ho attacked the soldiers drawn out in defence of
the place. He was tried for his offence, and when the
Attorney-General called on his counsel to explain the
purpose of his acts, it was decided by the Learned Judge
who presided that he was not bound to do so, and his
defence was conducted on the grounds that he had
marched into Newport for the purpose of rescuing Vin-
cent from gaol. If his counsel had succeeded in per-
suading the jury that this had been the case, he would l
have been entitled to a verdict ; for, according to the
Learned Judge, though the offence committed by
Frost had been one of great weight, it would
not have amounted to high treason, because there
was something personal in the object fur which it had been committed. He now came to the indict-
ment against the prisoner at the bar. He was accused
of having committed various treasonable acts, about
between the 17th and 30th of July; of having appeared
in arms at Ballingarry, Mullinahone, and Killenaule;
of having obstructed the march of the military at the
latter place (though it is not stated that they were
marching on their lawful business); of levying war at
Farrinrory ; of levying war generally, and of conspir-
ing to kill the Queen. As to the last offence, Mr.
O'Brien had about as much intention to commit it as he
had to kill the Great Mogul. The Attorney-General
told the jury that the space in which the treasonable
acts were committed was little more than a week; but
in the evidence he laid before them he called on them to
look to speeches in January, 1847, as explanatory of the
acts done by Mr. O'Brien in July, 1848. He contended
respectfully against that objection, that Mr. O'Brien
ought not to bo called on to explain the history of his
life, to satisfy the jury of the intent with which ho had
acted at Ballingarry. In the present instance Coke's
boast, that the great distinction between trials for high
treason and for other offences was, that a person ac-
cused of the former knew exactly what was laid to his
charge was falsified. The Attorney-General opened his
case by calling up Mr. Hodges, the Government repor-
ter, to prove certain speeches. Now if there were any-
thing more odious than another in the whole scope of the
law, it was an attempt to make out the crime of high
treason by cumulative evidence. The Attorney-General
should have gone at once to prove the acts at Farrinrory
and Ballingarry, and not lave put forward those old
speeches as evidence of the intent with which those acts
were done. The doctrine of the Attorney-General
amounted to this—that by adding a speech which was
not sedition, to another which was not treason, to a third
that was neither one or the other, you could constitute
the crime of high treason in the persou who made them.
Mr. Hodges rendered faithfully and truly, beyond all
doubt, every word he heard Mr. O'Brien utter—he did
nut believe that gentleman would wilfully falsify one
letter. Two of the speeches reported by Mr. Hodges
had been already proved against Mr. O'Brien in a trial
for sedition. He hoped the verdict of the jury would
reprehend the Attorney-General for such a course.
Having failed to get a verdict for sedition, he pro-
ceeded against Mr. O'Brien for high treason. In-
stead of doing so, ho should again have joined issue
with Mr. O'Brien, and have endeavoured to con-
vince another jury that these speeches were seditious.
(
It was not legal, nor was it fair, to attempt to show that
a speech containing all kinds of topics, and which took
one hour and a half to read, could prove the acts of Mr.
O'Brien at Killenaule. But could it be argued that every
word spoken by the members of the association, unless
spoken in furtherance of the common design of the body,
was evidence of the intent of the acts done by any of the body susequently ? But in Hardy's case, when! mush
stronger language was used, it had been laid down
by the Court that they members ;of the association
were only bound by the rules setting forth the object of
their body. He regretted that the Attorney-General
had thought proper to allude to Mr. O'Brien's con-
nexion with the Confederation, as it became necessary
for him to state the history of his client's association
with them, in order to show how unfounded were the
charges against him. The tact of the Attorney-
General was shown in bringing forward those speeches
in the first part of his speech, for if ho had gone to
the acts at Ballingarry and Mullinahone, without
forcing a treasonable intent out of the speeches, no
one would ever for one moment have believed that
Mr. O'Brien intended to levy war against the Queen.
Many years ago Mr. O'Brien entered the Imperial Par.
liament. He belonged to the rare class of Irish senators
whose boast it was never to have been bought or sold.
His course was independent--it might be called eccen-
tric. He displeased parties because ho would not stoop
to any. He was regarded as an impracticable man.
When he joined the association a speech of his was
printed and circulated as a manifesto of his opinions,
and those opinions were honourable to his sense and
good feeling.—(The Learned Gentleman here read the
speech, which was a lengthy document setting forth the
grievances of Ireland, and the writer's propositions for
their remedy; and commented on it as ho proceeded.)
Mr. O'Brien truly enough said that the suggestion of
Mr. Nicol, a stranger, had more weight with the Eng-
lish Parliament on the subject of the poor-law than
that of all the Irish country gentlemen. Unlike many
political Protestants, he was no reviler of his
clergy and his church, but in this manifesto boldly
declared that Protestants should not be excluded from
their fair share in the benefits of national education.
Before 1843, Mr. O'Connell and his client bad had
some misunderstanding, but with a peculiarity which
marked his nature, when Mr. O'Connell was in difficul-
ties, and was under the ban of Government, Mr. O'Brien
came forward to his support, and became a member of
the Repeal Association on the ground that he had tried
the British Parliament, and failed in obtaining justiee,
The Learned Gentleman read the letter which Mr.
O'Brien addressed to the association on that occasion.
The objects stated in that letter were just and reason-
able. Mr. O'Brien set out to promote them with all his
energy. A discussion arose in the association about
moral and physical force; that discussion was not with-
out its purpose. Mr. O'Brien wanted to put an end to
humbug; he wished to see an end to the farce of men
who were in connexion with the Government of the day
getting up an agitation which they resolved should not
go too far, and which they made the means of obtaining
Government place and emolument. He said, therefore,
to the association, " You must give up looking for place
and pension. ",,Ohl was the reply, out Richard
nm-
practicable man. " you must turn out Sheil,
Master, of the Mint, from the borough of garv?n.' "It can't be done—this ould be
Dun-
physical force. You are very unreasonable," was the
answer. Mr. O'Brien said he was in earnest when he
contended for a national legislature. The association
refused to listen to him; they got up a distinction about
moral and physical force accordingly. Mr. O'Brien said
he did not want physical force, but certainly admitted
that, under certain circumstances, it might be justifiable
to resort to it. And surely that opinion was right and
just. On the truth which it enunciated depended the
right of the judges to their seat on the bench, and of the
Queen to her throne. The association thought other-
wise, and Mr. O'Brien, and those who thcught with him,
resolved to found another body to carry out their views.
Counsel next read the address which was issued on the
formation of the Confederation, pledging the members
to procure domestic legislation, and repudiating the doc-
trine of physical force, but insisting on agitation for
their objects, in accordance with the constitution. About
the same period a meeting of gentlemen—the first in
the land—was held under the name of the Irish Council
to form some combined plan of action for the good of
Ireland. Mr. O'Brien was invited to attend, and
made a speech in which he uttered the sen-
timents of a true patriot. Here the Learned Gentleman
quoted passages from the speech, and argued as he pro-
ceeded that they were worthy of being looked on with fa-
vour rather than disapproval. In April, 1847, an attempt
was made by a nobleman, who possessed as large a heart
as ever swelled in a human breast, Lord G. Bentinck, to
procure a great benefit to Ireland for the promotion of
railways; Mr. O'Brien started to London to support that
proposition. It failed, and on his return he told his
countrymen what was but too true, that when the inte-
rests of England were at stake Irish patriotism and
truth were forgotten. He resolved to agitate for repeal;
to Whig alliance—to the great constitutional compact
ho was inexorable. Accordingly, in May, he made a
speech, in which he laid down the soundest doctrines
with respect to the rights of property. On the 13th of
Nov. a report of the Confederation confirmed those doc-
trines, and avowed them. Soon afterwards Mr. O'Brien
visited Belfast, and found that the people there entertained
different opinions? fiQrn those which their ancestors had