Central Criminal Court.-At the August Sessions, 1848, George Shell, James Maxwell Bryson, Robert Crowe, and John James Bezer were successively tried before PLATT, B., for uttering seditious speeches and being present at an unlawful assembly. The evidence, which was similar to that reported in the last volume in Reg. v. Fussell (a) and Reg. v. Jones, (b) is reported in the Central Criminal Court Sessions Papers.(c) The defendants were convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for two years, to pay fines of 101. or 20., and to enter into recognisances themselves in 100/., with two sureties in 501., to keep the peace for five years, and to be imprisoned until the fines were paid and the sureties given.

At the September Sessions John Shaw was tried before ERLE and WILLIAMS, JJ., on a similar charge. (d) He was convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for two years, to pay a fine of 50%., and to enter into recognisances himself in 1007., with two sureties in 50l., to keep the peace for five years, and to be further imprisoned until the fines were paid and the securities entered into.

Clonmel Special Commission.-After the trial and conviction of Smith O'Brien, reported above, p. 1, Terence Bellew M'Manus, Patrick O'Donohue, and Thomas Francis Meagher, were successively tried and convicted. Their trials are shortly reported in Ann. Reg. 1848, 445, from which, supplemented from the full reports in the Freeman's Journal, the following

account is taken :

October 9th.

Terence Bellew M'Manus was indicted for high treason. The indictment was the same as

that on which Mr. O'Brien had been tried and convicted.

The Attorney-General (Monahan) said that the charge was one of high treason by levying war, and that it would be proved that an armed insurrection or rising did take place in this country last July, and that with respect to Mr. M'Manus himself, the object of it must have been general. Mr. McManus was an Irishman, but resided in Liverpool; unfortunately for him

(a) 6 St. Tr. N.S. 723. (b) Ib. 783.

(c) Vol. 28, pp. 666, 673, 534, 573. (d) Ib. 705.

self, he was in the habit of associating much with persons who had assumed the denomination of Chartists, and the first evidence against him was a speech delivered in Liverpool on the 6th of June last, the subject of which was that repeal should be carried by all means-that if it were not carried by fair means, there would be a bloody struggle to obtain it, and that those who joined him in that bloody struggle which he anticipated, would, as a reward for so joining him, obtain grants of land in Ireland. That would evidently imply that the conquering or successful party would have the means of making grants of land. Mr. M'Manus arrived in Dublin from Liverpool on the morning of the 25th of July. Immediately after reaching Dublin, he again left that city, and the next place he was seen at was either Mullinahone or on the march to Ballingarry, taking part in the proceedings which had already been proved in the case of Mr. O'Brien. It might be alleged that M'Manus had done those acts in order to protect Mr. O'Brien from arrest, but, however cogent such an argument might be in Mr. O'Brien's case, it could scarcely be supposed that M'Manus came over from Liverpool and appeared in arms for that sole object, and that he did not wish to protect Mr. O'Brien from arrest in order that he might become the leader of a revolutionary party.

The speech of the prisoner at Liverpool, his arrival at Dublin by the Iron Duke steamer, his leaving behind him a tin case containing a military uniform, were then proved by witnesses. The prisoner's course thence was unknown until he joined Mr. O'Brien, when the evidence was nearly the same as was given on that trial. In order to connect the prisoner with these,

William Egan, steward of the relief works at Ballingarry, repeated the evidence he gave in Mr. O'Brien's case. Identified Mr. McManus as having been with Mr. O'Brien on Wednesday evening at Ballingarry. Saw M‘Manus on horseback riding about the streets; there was a

crowd there at the time.

Thomas Burke, summons-server of Ballin. garry, examined.-Saw a crowd of 400 or 500 people in the village on Thursday, the 27th of July. Some of them were armed. Identified the prisoner as being among them; he had a belt round his waist which held pistols. Saw him at Farrinrory afterwards, breaking open an outhouse in the attack on the widow Cormack's.

Heard him say "that the house should be burnt."

George Sparrow proved the assemblage of armed men, and acts of drilling at Mullinahone, and identified Mr. M'Manus as having been at Ballingarry with Mr. O'Brien.

Sub-inspector Trant repeated his evidence at O'Brien's trial, above, p. 168.

On his cross examination he stated that as he was marching with his party from Callan to Ballingary they called upon him to whistle or sing some martial air to cheer them on their way, and he began to whistle accordingly. When they reached the house, "thinking that singing was as good for fighting as for marching, I called upon Constable Young to strike up 'the British Grenadiers'; he did so, and it was immediately taken up and chorussed throughout the house."

You published a despatch giving an account of this battle?-I did, according to what is usual in such cases.

Is it true that you began that despatch with a poetic quotation? It is perfectly true, and I am not ashamed of it, at all.

Perhaps you could favour us now with repeating that quotation now.-Yes, I can.

"Who takes the foremost foeman's life, His party conquers in the strife." Constable Carroll, of the mounted police who had gone with a despatch from Kilkenny to Mr. Trant, on the morning of the battle, and who was taken prisoner on his return by O'Brien's party, identified M'Manus as the person who came up to him and said, "You are my prisoner." M Manus was armed with a gun. He was immediately surrounded, and thinking he was going to be shot, he expressed a wish to see Mr. O'Brien or M'Manus again. McManus then came up and took him out of the crowd into a field.

Cross-examined.

He heard Mr. O'Brien say he could take the house in an hour. He was sent with Father Fitzgerald to Mr. Trant to know if he would give up the arms before the people attacked the house. Father Fitzgerald went up to the house.

Inspector Trant recalled.-I remember the policeman coming a second time with Father Fitzgerald. The latter gentleman came to the window, and said his mission was to make peace between both parties. He said the other party would be satisfied if we surrendered our arms, and would in that case let us depart in safety; he added that he himself would accompany us, and guarantee our safety. I replied that we would never surrender our arms but with our lives. He then remarked that they would burn the house over us I replied that I had five hostages, meaning the children. He then said, you have no provisions; and I said we could fight and fast for forty hours, and that, if we fell, there would still be sufficient men to revenge our fall, and not leave a house standing in the county. I also remarked that we were doing no harm, and if he could protect the men with him, he could protect us. Father

85234.

Fitzgerald returned again in a few minutes and asked me for a pallet for a dying man. I at first refused, saying I wanted every thing to fortify the house, but I afterwards gave one. He then asked permission to take some poor dead and dying creatures away.

Head-constable Crowley stated that on the 30th of August last he was stationed at Cork. On that day he arrested the prisoner on board an American vessel convenient to the harbour's

mouth.

Butt for the prisoner: They would have two questions to try. First, how far the prisoner was connected with the acts alleged; and, secondly, how far the acts themselves constituted a levying of war. The first act charged against him was the erection of barricades. That, in itself, was not a levying of The indictment required that the jury should consider it and all similar acts as attempts to subvert the constitution of the realm. The levying of war must be actually carried into effect to constitute the crime set

war.

forth. If a man compassed the death of the Queen, he was guilty if he committed one act towards it, though the object were never accomplished; but the levying of war must be actually carried out. If a number of persons assembled together and incited the people to insurrection, the guilt charged in the indictment was not complete, and the leaders would only be liable to an indictment under another Act which had lately received the sanction of the Legislature. No design, intention, preparation, or conspiracy will prove the offence- there must be an actual series of acts done with the intention and object charged against the prisoner. The defence was, that every act charged and proved against him was perfectly reconcilable with the sole object of protecting Mr. O'Brien from arrest. If that were the case, they were bound to return a verdict of acquittal. With respect to the general evidence, every particle of evi. dence respecting the speeches of Mr. O'Brien, or even of M Manus, in Liverpool, were only calculated to mislead the jury, unless in so far as the words used cast light on the intention of the accused. It was not for the jury to decide whether he did or did not make the speech in evidence in Liverpool, but they were to consider whether he did or did not levy war against the Queen at Mullinahone. The next point of evidence referred to the uniform. The whole isle was frighted from its propriety at the time by the "discovery of the uniform of a rebel general," and people were terrified with the notion that some great French Marshal had come over to lead the insurgents. But it turned out, after all, that the terrible uniform was merely the state dress of the '82 Club, which was formed some years ago by some gentlemen anxious to promote the cause of repeal. Finding himself dodged by a policeman, and knowing that he had connected himself with the party against which the vengeance of the Government was directed, Mr. M'Manus resolved to leave Dublin, as it would not have been at all pleasant for a man in business to have been kept in gaol till March 1849. He left Dublin and went to Kilkenny, where he visited some of his customers, intendM M

was held to compliment the deputation on their return; and at that meeting Mr. Meagher presented to the Confederation a flag which he said he had brought from France, and which, from his speech, he seemed to anticipate would be the flag under which the struggle would take place. At that time speeches or meetings of such a character were by the law of Ireland only misdemeanors, but in England they were high treason. An Act was accordingly passed, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12., making it felony in both countries to compass, imagine, or intend to levy war against the Queen, and to express such intention by open and advised speaking, or the publication of any written or printed document. That Act was passed on the 22nd of April, and in May Mr. Mitchel was prosecuted under it for certain articles published in his newspaper. In the meantime the charge against Mr. Meagher had been brought to trial, but the jury did not agree to a verdict. At that period a number of clubs had been established in Dublin, and he thought he should be able to prove, by the evidence of Mr. Meagher himself, that immediately before the trial of Mitchel, consultations were held as to whether, in the event of Mitchel's conviction and intended transportation, efforts should not be made to rescue him, and whether an attempt should not be made at the same time to effect a revolution which they had arranged and planned, though the precise mode of effecting it had not been previously determined on. He would allege that Mr. Meagher went about night after night through the clubs for the purpose of ascertaining their opinions, and whether they were prepared at that moment to break out in open insurrection; for it was downright nonsense to suppose that the object was merely to break out in arms to rescue Mr. Mitchel, who was at that time confined in Newgate, in the city of Dublin, where there were then 8,000 or 9,000 troops. He would allege, also, that they determined ultimately to postpone the insurrection until after the harvest, as there would not be a sufficient quantity of provisions before, and the Government might starve them into submission. The learned counsel then referred to the speech of Mr. Meagher on the 6th of June, after the transportation of Mr. Mitchel. Early in July, Mr. Duffy and others were arrested, and it then became a matter of serious consideration with Meagher, and those connected in this transaction, as to what should be done in relation to those parties. Accordingly, on the 14th or 15th of July, proceedings were taken by the Confederation for a discussion as to whether the time had then arrived for the revolution to be attempted. One reason stated in May for the postponement was, that the clubs were not sufficiently organized, and in the early part of July, several members of the clubs had gone through the country to review them, and ascertain their state of organization, the object being, as far as they could judge from the statements of the different parties, that there should be a simultaneous rising in the country. It would appear that, on the 15th of that month, Mr. Meagher held a large meeting at Slievenamon. At the meeting of the Con

federation, therefore, on that day Mr. Meagher was not present. On the 19th of July, however, arrangements were made for another meeting on the 21st of July, and at that meeting Mr. Meagher was present; and a witness who was present would prove that it was held for the purpose of electing a council of five persons as a council of war, to conduct an armed revolution in the country. No reporters were present at that meeting, and he would produce a person named Dobbyn, who was the representative of the Red Hand Club, and who took part in the proceedings of the meeting, to prove what occurred. He had reported the proceedings of the Club to the Government from day to day, and from his information the parties had been prevented from carrying out their project. Attempts would be made to impeach the veracity of that witness, but he (the AttorneyGeneral) was fully prepared to support his general conduct and credit, if any such attempts were made. The balloting papers that were used at that meeting of the 21st of July were afterwards found in the possession of Mr. Lalor, who was present at the meeting, and probably was a candidate for the office of one of the council; and Dobbyn, who had never seen those papers from the day they were used, would prove that those were the actual balloting papers, and that the council elected was composed of Mr. Meagher, Mr. O'Gorman, Mr. Dillon, Mr. D. Reilly, and Mr. M'Ghee. Immediately after that election, a resolution was proposed, that the revolution should not be postponed beyond the 8th of August. Mr. Meagher refused to give a positive pledge to that effect, but said he would use every effort in his power for encouraging the people by whom the revolution was to be effected. He could produce no witness to corroborate Dobbyn; but if the meeting to which he would depose were innocent, it would be competent for the counsel of the prisoner to produce any man, or number of men, present at it, to contradict Dobbyn. Coming to the actual outbreak, he was not able to show that Mr. Meagher was at Mullinahone, but it would be proved that he

was

at Ballingarry, on Friday, with Mr. O'Brien, addressing the people. It was not necessary to the prisoner's guilt to show that he was aware of what was about to take place the following day. If he was aware of the nature of the proceedings generally, it was sufficient. He was not able to produce any evidence; but he might call upon them to infer from the facts proved that he was aware of the previous transaction, of the general nature of the transactions in which Mr. O'Brien was engaged, and that it was in furtherance of that object that he joined that gentleman on the Friday. The learned counsel, after detailing the proceedings on Saturday, the 29th, then read the letter written by Mr. Meagher from Cahirmoyle to Mr. O'Brien, and another to a Mr. Smith, in whose possession it was found at the time of his (Mr. Smith's) arrest. The following are extracts from it :—