Case Of Mr. O'callaghan.
The Times, 1824-07-08T00:00:00

WVe publisbed on Saturday last the substance of a communication made by MIr. Allen, one of the Dlaistrates at Union-hall to the Lord M ayor, respecting the evidence given on MIr. O'Callaghan's trial. Mr. O'Calsghan, on reading the statement there made, wrote the following letter to lr. Allen, which, we understand, was left for that gentleman, oa Tuesday, at Union-haUll - " Sarrey Gaol, Horsemonger-lane. SatuTday, July 3. "l. Sir,.Some of tbe morning papers of this day have lust reached me, in which I perceive a statement, purporting to be the substance of a Communication recently made by you to the Lord Mlayor, re- specting my trial before you and the otlier Malgistrates of the Surrey sessions. ?ad your commuunication embraced the whole of what passed on that occasion, or given even a fair and impartial abstract of the proceedings, I should, so far from complaining, feel myself bound to thank you, for I know that the more the case is examined, the more clearly will- the uncalled.for severitv of my sentence be ap- parent. But, Sir, your report neither contains the whole f I do not say ef what realiy passed,- but) of even what was swarn to by the rev. prosecutor and his witnesses; nor is your abstract correcL I feel it, therefbre, due to my character, to endeavour, by pointing out the etrors of this garbled and partial account, to remove the impression wbich it w&; calculated (even if not intended) to create to my pre- judice. " The newspapers, I observe, describe you as having ' stated to the Lord Alayer whax had been given in evidence on the trial, ac- cording to the notes of Lord Eaastnor, which notes,' it is added, ' had been submitted to the Secretaryof State, and h-d determined that gentleman not to interfere for the remi'sion of the sentence.' A little further on, the account is called; Mr. Allen's abstract of the case, aJit was taken down and reported to the Jury.' WVhether thiadoable title means your abstract-of Lord-Ealwor's notese cr of the evidence, as it was stated before the jury, does mot appear,nor is it material. Such as tbe accountis, younhave adopted it, bysend- ing it before the public in thb manner you have done. " With your introductory remark I do ant quarrel. Y'ou may have many good reasons for making the curious distinctien between your rev. friend, Mlr. Saurin, and his companion, Dir. Bland (whose name you forgot, but) whom you describe as; ayoustg man of singularly good manners.' Whether the public will acquiesce in the justice of the distinction, I will not pretend to say: your friend, MIr. Saurin, at least, will think it rather mal-apropo:. Ybour first statement, or, as I am bound to call it, mis-statement, of the facts is, where you sav, 'Mrs. Thdl. wall and Dirs. Boyle severaltyswore that Mr. Saurfi and his com- panion looked impertinentlv at them.' Now, Sir, this was not the tact as sworn to; and for the truth of my szsertions, in c&rtradiction to this and other parts of your statements, I would, and do, confi. dently appeal to the recollection of any man who was in Court dur- ing the tnal (you aud your brother Justices en bench excepted)-l would appeal to the several reports of the case in the different news- papers (al of which are now before me, and everv one of which is in contradicton to yours on the main points)-I would appeal to the learned counsel whio conducted the rosecution, and, trusting to his recollection of what was swom, r would rely on its being candid and correct. What Afrs. ThelwaU stated was, that one of the young men (not boltk) looked into the carriage, and impudently upon her, more than once; and when asked how often this was repeated, she answered that she could not teU, for that the looks of the gentleman were so rude and offensive, that she was obliged to sit back in the carrage to avoid them, anddid not again direct her eyes to the win- dow; and Dlr. Boyle, not baving seen the manner in which tbe gentleman's eyes were directed, could only esk, and did only speak, ofhishaving dookedinto the carriage severattimes. I i-Therevereud prosecutor himself admitted that be looked in at least four times. As to your charitable and explanatory observa- tion that 'not one of them said that either of the young men smiled, spoke, or made any' gesture whatever towards them,' I shall only remark, that there is not a lady in Entland who ever encoun- tered thc stare of an impudent coxcomnb, vswhdoes not well under- stand that such stare maybe extremely-rude and offensive, without jbeing accompanied-by 'a smile, a word, a nod, or anygesture what- ever.' "The next statement_that on MIr. Saurin and his friend pass- ig,orbeing a3sod by, the carriage, the second or third time, I caled out to him tbat lie was a scoundrel (or words tothateffect),.is directly in the teeth of the evidence. The evidence went no further than to state, that on- Mr. Sauna's passing the carrage a second time, T said to him, ' I hope yous are satisfied now, Sir,' (a very na- Itural observation from a person who observed a stranger rudely staringatladies in the carriage); and that it was not until after he sneered and rode off, that I applied the offensive term you mention. "Your next observation I notice, rather to show the paoatnimoof your Ireport,!tban as thinking it otherwise worthy comment. You say, 4Ir. Saurin and his friend, as they stated, not wishing to hold any intercourse with a person of such extraordinary appearance and Inanner as Mr. O'Callaghan, did what allother men of sense wouldhavedoneunder similar circumstances.-rode away.' Whe- ther ' all other men of sense,' or any man of sense, would refuse to hold intercourse withan individual, because he wore a militaryfrec-k. coat-and itiustachios, or because he told one whom be conceived to have insulted ladies under his protection tiat his conduct was not that of a gentleman, is a point on which Isiall not attempt to decide. I may, however, observe, that if such dreEs and such conduct as mine constitute that extraordinary appearance and mnanner whicb is to baiiisb a man from elU intercourse with ' men of sense,' I fm not the only one who nay be so excluded. Nay, many of his Majesty's subjects dress as I do, without being thereby criminal; and many more would not suifer you, or your friend the Rev. Mr. Saurin, or any other man on earth, to offer with impunity an insult to ladies under their protection. So rnuch for my extraordinary appearance mmi muner.' l now come to that part of-your statement which, no doubt, you must hate thought would quite remove any erroneoUS impressions which the public might have conceived of the severity of my sentence, and subsequent treatment. You say, I It however unfortunately happened that, while they (Saurin and bis friend) were paying the toll, the carriage came up, and without the least delav or remon- strance, 31r. O'Callaghan leaped from behind, caught hold of the bridle of Mr. Saurn's horse, snatched a stick from his hand, and began to beat bim violently; using at the same time the most op- probrious langutage towards lim, and demanding his card!' Nowr I- would ask any impartial marn whether, if he read only this acount of the transaction, his impression would not be, that I-bad acted in the most outrageous and lirutal manner, by violently beating a man, without asking or waiting - for any explanation of his conduct? Such would, no doubt, be the opinion of any man, whose only knowledge of the transaction arose fiom your account of it. What, ho Wever were the facts proved by Mr. Saurin and his friend, and still rore fully detailed by mv witnesses ? klr. Saurin swore, that I seized the reins of his horte, asked him what he meant, deinanded his card, and then, snatchinga switch, or small cane, from his hlndt struck hini with it once. He em.- pbatically added, only once. -My witnemes swore, that I asked ar. Saurin who -or what he wag, wlho could be guilt of such con. duct-asked his card-ard, as he hesitated, ? struck him with his owin switch. I did, no doubt, use strong language (and no man lifts his hand to another, who does not cossider that such Ian. guage is applicable), but I did not-use Ithe most opprobrious lan. guage,' as you so very mpafialy assert. I wilnotoffer _word of commenton the immense dilrerence between the facts siorn to- and those sr apBar s ngblf coloured in your repo,s 'Ltoyub. Elic drawvits own in ferenc- havestated th eevidenceas it was givea, Iand I defy contradiction. I sball only add, that if this ' abstract' of yours be a part of the notes of my Lord Eastnor which were submittedto the Seeretaryof State itis bynotneans surprikingthat that Rixht Hon. Gentleman should have delinied 'to interfere for I the remission of the sentence.'. Your cbarge of my 'great violence' at Unionbtiall, on the following day, is best antswered by the act of ny having been- dmitted to bai on my own recognizance, and onc suretz in a.very trifing sum. " Youraccountoftheciaculmstance;, which ittraeted theitten. tion of Mr, Saunri and his friund in the eZ vih. w,y ' extraor. idinaryf4w*' havin 'my gmc h ir,' being on the OfltsWe, anta the pehson of Air& libelwall, 'tratv elega2ce,' bei'19 within, would, no doubt, be very t7aiat and iihynteresting, if it were et*rect. D1r. Saurin, bowever,. pool. swore that his attention was attracted by a -very difterent- cause. Hestated, thatlhaving looked aitiim, andbe no -knowing me, he looked into the carriage, Lo try whether he might mnet k!DW someof w party. Al hirsute apearance outside, partcularly when contrsted with tbe 3mooth and soft appearance of the ladies who were withn Dthecariageo, vas too gooKr a thin"gto be lost in dreing p your Ireport," and you, therefore, mtie the most of it. cerainy trkes the ease exceedingly swrong against me ! flowa m r the follyewinF part of your stement bears upon the question, or 'Was caled lor fron you, the publicwiiu determine 'There was no evidence to prove that nr. O'Callaghsn w,s in the Spanish service, and he wasmo3t cerotCnlynotirn theilrdtib servith.' To thQe gatuitoms insinuation thus conveyed, I must be excused re. plyng for the pTesent, as it fernai one of a series of calutnies byf which I have been asailed antd to which I shall, in a-very short time, lay befote the untblic a triumphant answer. "erWcith respect to ofr. Sauna's Ireat mioderatiovn' in re-orn. mending me to the mercy oF the Court, 1 shall only ob'erve, that if it had arisen from a proper sense of his own condurt, I should not have been indifferent toit but it happens rather unhottnateld for the clemencyofthat reverend gntleman, that Ms counelt never breathed a hint oflenity until e jury had recommended ase to mercy, on the gtround of hegreat tovoctipon given by the reverend gentleman. What mold tfie jurv have meant by'I provorotion i' It could not be the riding away, ayd not holdintg any intercourse With aNan of my sIagula4rppearance. Yet ir. Saulein had done 1d- tn ese-ruexcept-wm at y Rude and itmpudently staring at the le in the carriae. That was my bonest Conviction at the time. Nothine has inceoccured(no, notevenyourreportofthecase) tO alter that convictuonm "I ow Si, akemyleae,wit tispiece of advice *.-.Should you e dspoed o pblis anthe edtio ofyour 'report," let the facs b sttedas heywer prved an wihout anv colouring. 'Notingextnuae,nr aghtsetdow inmalice.' ]lad yoa adc- herdtothi rle n yur irt acout,you -wouldi never have lixtd irons "L. ~~C. O'CALLAG1jAN." "To L,. B. Alien, Esq. ozne of the Jvie of the Peace for thecourty Of SLir.eV." CASE OF MR. &9CALLAGIIAN.