The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-27 00:00:00

charge of the Lord Chief Justice filled the Central
Criminal Court long before the hour at which the proceed-
ings commenced, and numbers had to be refused admittance.
Assoonas the learned judges arrived, the Attorney-General
resumed his address to the jury, interrupted by the rising
of the court on Saturday. lie first referred to the alibi
attempted to be set up in the case of Barrett, pointed out
how easy it was to set tip such.a defence, and how diffi-
cult it was to refute the evidence adduced to maintain
it. In the present instance he believed it would
be demonstrated beyond a don't, when the letter from
Barrett when in prison at Millbaolc came to be scanned by
the jury, triat the idea of the cc/0i emanated from Barrel t
himself, and was intended to furnish the clue for the de-
fence now set up. Calling attention to the precise terms
in which the letter was couched, the learned counsel
pointed out that there was no intimation in the docu-
west that Mullins had introdneed the prisoner to
Nl`Nulty. The story "now told was that N`Nulty,
a journeyman shoemaker, had Barrett brought to his
home by a friend named Mullins for the purpose of
getting a small job done to his boots, which job Mullins,
himself a shoemaker in the habit of doing repairs, was
unable to perform. Was it not remarkable that Barrett,
a man working on the quay, should have spent so much
time on three distinct days in locating after the repair of
his shots ? Was it not further remarkable that the quarrel
said to have taken place between Barrett and M'Nulty
should not have come to the knowledge, or have
been heard of, by the two `men who came in and did the
boots ? The only circumstance which these two witnesses
remembered was the reading from the paper of the
account of the explosion, and both of them were compelled
to admit that they knew of the outrage in the early part
of the day. Attention was then called to the evidence of
the witness Peak, one of the men who professed to have
assisted in mending the shoes, and it was contended that
in the whole of- the time he was in the witness.box
he Carefully' avbided speaking specifically to any.
one incident , that occurred during the, slay. • Not,
a word did he say of the altercation that had taken
place between Barrett and M`Nulty, and it was a:Suspi-
cious circunistancethat he could not mention with any de-
gree of distinctness any other place than M'Nulty's house
where he had been during the day after he had been paid
for his work at Neesom's shop. Having dealt with the
evidence of the witness Welsh, which was of a character'
similar to that of Peak, the Attorney-General next came
to the statement of the police-superintendent M'Caul, who
having received a copy of Barrett's letter from London,
paid a visit to M'Nulty, and questioned him upon it. On
that occasion it would be in the recollection of the jury
that M'Nulty denied having taken any part in such pro-
ceedings as the letter suggested. Supposing it were so,
that the explanation given by M`Nulty that he was led into
a mistake by the superintendent asking if a person had
called to have a pair of boots " buttoned," instead of
"bottomed," there still remained the fact that ho told
M'Caul that he had known of the explosion from a paper
left at his house by O'Neill, and yet it was stated as a
Special circumstance in Barrett's letter that the first infor-
mation of the outrage was conveyed to M'Nulty and those
in his house by the passage read from the paper by the
stranger. On the second portion of the alibi, that which
Mr. M'Corrie, the editor of the Irish Catholic Banner, was
called to support, the attention of the jury was directed
to the character of the articles which appeared in
the journal in question. Those articles the learned
Attorney - General stigmatised as most pernicious
and seditious, and expressed it as his opinion that
anyone who degraded the office of journalist by exciting
the passions of those who committed crimes was morally
as guilty as they were. The character of the witness
;Token of as a respectable journalist would be judged of
by the jury when they had had an opportunity of inspecting
his writings. The most remarkable fact in connection
with the alibi was that nut a single person was called to
prove where Barrett had lodged at the time he was said
to have been in Glasgow, and it was scarcely less curious
that lie should say in his letter to M`Manus, ." I trust you
do not think I am guilty," when, if the theory of the de-
fence were true, M'Manus must have known he could not
have been guilty, because at the time the
crime was committed he was in his company in
Glasgow. Supposing it were true that Barrett had been
present at the meeting of the 13th December, would
not he have called the attention of M'Afanus to it in the
letter, and asked him to search- out Mr. M'Corrie and
others who had taken part in• the proceedings ? If the
witnesses for the prosecution had spoken the truth, those
for the. alibi had given false evidence, knowing it to. Le
falscs' It would be for, the jury to decide betweerethetwo.
In conclusion, the learned Attorney--GeneCal observed
that while in accordance with the suggestion of
the Lord Chief justice he had consented to withdraw the
ease as against Justice and O'Keefe, there not being suffi-
cient evidence upon.which to ask for a conviction, he could
never have been guilty of the weakness which he wa-s
asked to shew by the counsel for Barrett, by refusing, in
consequence of the evidence produced for the defence, to
ask for a verdict against him. He left it to the jury to
say whether the case for the Crown had not been suffi-
ciently established against the whole of the prisoners.
Dining the whole of the learned Attorney-General's
address the prisoner English sat with his head resting on
his hands below the level of the railing of the dock. When
the Lord Chief Justice commenced his charge to the
jury, he and all the other prisoners listened with almost
undivided attention.
His lordship commenced his charge at a few minutes to
twelve o'clock. He began by explaining the state of
the law of England in relation to complicity in a
case of murder, and reminded the jury that if
those who blew up the prison wall did so well-knowing
that they might thereby occasion loss of life, they were
guilty of the deaths which resulted by the act. Passing to
:be evidence, there could be no doubt that the man Mul-
lany, upon whose testimony the ease of conspiracy sought
to be established by the Crown mainly rested, had been an
accomplice, and such testimony, especially in reference to
those 10 sought to incriminate, must be corroborate 1. But
it need not be confirmed in every minute particular by dis-
interested persons; it wou'.o be sufficient if its general fea-
tures were established by those who could not be impeached.
Time Lord Chief Justice then passed in review the various
items of Mullany's evidence, dwel!ing at leogth upon the
letter brought by Mrs. Barry t Murphy at M utiany's
house. No one could doubt the letter was Burke's, and
it was by the aid of copperas that its contents were made
apparent. That letter, Mullany said, was shorn to
Barrett, and subsequently to the other
.prisoners.
At the meeting which followed, which must have
been hell earlier than Mullany said, another
meeting was arranged. for and held in a room in
Castle-yard. It must be left to the jury to decide if they
could believe Mullany's testimony that the prisoners were
present on that occasion. It was a somewhat curious fact
that when Mullany was told that a quantity of gunpowder
was to be bought, he asked what it was for, when, :Luc
to his statement, he had been told what was to be
done. When examined, he explained the matter by saying
that •he did tit t know so much was to be obta'nad, and,
further, that while talking it was noticed that a strange
man was present who was not in their counsel. Of the
meeting said to have Leen held at William Desmond's,
his lordship remarked that here it was asserted that the
details of the explosion were arranged.- But how was
Mullany confirmed? There was the evidence,in reference
to the letter from , Burke, that an attempt was made to
convey to Burke'portions of copperas in one of his stock-
ings, and also that wheas,airested there was found upon
him a bulb .containing a substance by which a letter
could' be written, -which; till the copperas was applied,
would be invissible. In reference to the powder, there
was the corroborative testimony of the shopman who sold
it and the carman who delivered it. Again, there was the
conduct of Burke-in the exercising ground of the prison on
the afternoon prior :o the day of the explosion, to skew
that a well-arranged plot to bbw down the wall hail been
devised, and there were the two balls, one thrown
over the wall each day, to prove that Burke knew
what had been arranged. The facts of the 12th
and 13th still more strongly confirmed the witness.
.This, of course, left untouched the question whether he
was correct in the evidence he gave to associate the pri-
soners with the crime. Of the attempt at explosion made
on the 12th Mullany could say nothing, for he would not
risk his life in the neighbourhood, but there was abundant
evidence on the point, the whole of which his lordship
referred to in detail. Coining back to Mullany,
if he could be believed, the very night of the
attempted explosion lie saw Barrett, and heard
from him the determination to light the squib
the next day. Referring to the next witness, Vaughan,
the Lord Chief Justice remarked that though he could
not say he was an accomplice, he was certainly no better.
He was a man who came forward only fur the sake of the
reward, had been degraded from the rank of corporal in
the army, had then deserted, and, judging from all that
had beenstated, had been addicted to habits of intempe
ranee. The evidence of such a man, especially as it was
evidence referring not to facts but to conversa,
tions, must be received with the utmost caution.
The conversation stated to have been held with Timothy
Desmond, his lordship could not but regard as being
involved in great uncertainty. The events of the 13th.
the day of the explosion, were next made the subject of
comment; and the evidence of Alien, a woman who wait
,blown down by the explosiou, the boy Moseley, the boy
Wheidtri
V9Atizip4 itt our Leto Edition.