manner affect anything enacted by the statute of Edward III. declaratory of what offences should be adjudged treason.

So that the two statutes relate to distinct crimes; the act being the crime in the one instance, the intention in the other; therefore, in our judgment, it is perfectly plain that neither of these objections can be maintained. With respect to the points that were argued in the course of the trial, we have, over and over again, maturely considered them. We are perfectly satisfied with the opinion we have expressed. It is not our intention to reserve them for the opinion of the Judges."

On being asked by the Clerk of the Crown whether he could state

any reason why sentence of death should not be passed upon him,

Mr. O'Brien stood erect in front of the dock, and said in a loud and firm voice-" My Lords, it is not my intention to enter into any vindication of my conduct, however much I might have desired to avail myself of this opportunity of doing so. I am perfectly satisfied with the consciousness that I have performed my duty to my country, that I have done only that which it was in my opinion the duty of every Irishman to have done. And I am now prepared to abide the consequences of my having performed my duty to my native land. Proceed with your sentence."

The Lord Chief Justice Blackburne." William Smith O'Brien, after a long, patient, and laborious trial, a jury of your countrymen have found you guilty of high treason their verdict was accompanied by a recommendation to the mercy of the Crown-that recommendation, as is our duty, we shall send forward to the LordLieutenant, to whom, as you must

know, exclusively belongs the power to comply with it. It now remains for us to perform the last solemn act of duty which devolves upon us, and to pronounce that sentence by which the law marks the enormity of your guilt, and aims at the prevention of similar crimes by the example and infliction of a terrible punishment. Oh! that you would reflect upon that crime, and dwell upon it with sincere repentance and remorse. Oh! that you would regard it as it is regarded by every rational being

that you would feel and know that it is really and substantially as repugnant to the interests of humanity, to the precepts and spirit of the Divine religion we profess, as it is to the positive law, your violation of which is now attended by the forfeiture of your life. The few words you have addressed to the Court forbid me (I say it with the greatest distress) to proceed any further with this subject. It now only remains to the Court to pronounce the sentence of death. That sentence is, that you, William Smith O'Brien, shall be taken hence to the place whence you came, and be thence drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and be there hanged by the neck until you be dead, and that afterwards your head shall be severed from your body, and your body severed into four quarters, to be disposed of as Her Majesty may think fit. May the Lord have mercy on your soul!

October 9th.

TRIAL OF M'MANUS.

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.

As the indictments found against this and the other prisoners were for the same crime, and manifested by the same overt acts, these trials, though protracted to great length, and conducted with unabated energy and vigour by the learned counsel, present few features of interest. Indeed after the conviction of the principal conspirator, all interest even in Ireland seemed to have died away, and the Courts presented an appearance of even greater desertion than upon ordinary occasions.

The same technical objections that had been taken in Mr. O'Brien's case were taken, pro formá, in this and each of the following cases.

The jury having been sworn, the clerk read the indictment, which contained six counts, with the same overt acts and the same intents as those laid in the indictment against Mr. O'Brien.

The Attorney-General said that the charge against the prisoner was substantially this-that he had actually, and in fact, levied war against the Queen; and the question for their consideration was whether the prisoner had taken part in the transactions which had occurred in this country in the month of July last, and whether those transactions amounted to a levying of war? After having briefly explained the law of the case, the learned gentleman proceeded to say he believed he should be able to establish, to the satisfaction of the jury, 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 himself,

he was in the habit of associating much with persons who had assumed the denomination of Chartists, and the first evidence which he (the Attorney-General) intended to produce against him was a speech delivered by him in Liverpool on the 6th of June last, the subject of which was that repeal should be carried by all meansthat 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. The speech to which he had referred as having been made by Mr. M.Manus at Liverpool, was considered of a very seditious and improper tendency, and for that and other reasons he was a person whose movements were watched by the constabulary. 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 revolution

ary party. No one was a closer attendant on Mr. O'Brien than the prisoner. He pressed a horse into his service in order to reconnoitre the military, and had been active in erecting barricades and in the attack on the police. M'Manus was the man who arrested Carroll, the policeman, at a time when some idea was entertained of renewing the attack on the widow Cormack's. The only question for the jury was if there was a mistake in the case, and if M Manus was the person engaged in those transactions, and to satisfy them of that he would at once call evidence be

fore them.

The speech of the prisoner at Liverpool, his arrival at Dublin by the Iron Duke steamer, the leaving the tin case containing a military uniform behind him, 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. M'Manus 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 Ballingarry, 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.

William M'Carthy lived on the road from Killenaule to Mullinahone. Recollected Friday the day before the fight at widow Cormack's. Somebody took his horse from him on Friday at Killenaule. The witness hesitated and refused to swear that the prisoner was that person; he had identified the man in London, but he had since been shown a person so exactly like him that he would not swear which it was. Constable Walpole was then placed on the table; the likeness certainly was very extraordinary.

John Pemberton, the superintendent of the works of the Mining Company, was examined and gave similar evidence to that which he had given on Mr. O'Brien's trial. He identified M'Manus as one of the persons who were with Mr. O'Brien when he met him at Kenwick's Cross, and said that on that occasion M'Manus had a pistol in his hand.

Owen Cullen, the manager of the works, proved having received from Mr. O'Brien the letter to the Mining Company, which afterwards became the main evidence against himself.

Sub-Inspector Trant was the next witness on the table, and for a second time recounted his gal lant exploits at the battle of Ballingarry.

On his cross-examination a further and amusing fact was elicited. As he was marching with his party from Callan to Ballingarry they

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. M Manus then came up and took him out of the crowd into a field.

On his cross-examination by Mr. Butt, he said his impression, when taken into the field, was that he was going to be shot, but he afterwards believed that the prisoner had done it to protect him.

A young gentleman, named Lloyd, stated that he resided at Fethard Glebe. On the afternoon of the 29th of July last, about four o'clock, he was on horseback, riding in the direction of the Commons, when he saw a number of people, about 1500 persons, assembled near that place. Mr. M'Manus was amongst them. He was proceeding on his way when he heard a shot, and on turning round he saw the prisoner. That was about an English mile from the widow Cormack's house. The prisoner

came up and presented a gun at him, and asked him whether there were any soldiers on the road, and he said he did not know. The prisoner then asked him whether there were any at Urlingford, and he answered no. Witness thought the prisoner meant to detain him, and he therefore asked for Mr. O'Brien, saying he was sure that gentleman would not detain him. The prisoner gave him no answer to that question, but he said he might go where he pleased.

Cross-examined. The prisoner shook hands with him when he left, and told him to keep out of danger. The prisoner treated him with perfect civility.

Sub-inspector Cox went over the same details which he had given on the former trial.

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.

Mr. Butt addressed the jury for the prisoner, urging upon them the duty of dismissing all prejudice, and not to conclude the prisoner guilty merely because much had been said of the warlike proceedings which were supposed to have taken place; unless the overt acts adduced as proof were clearly proved, and unless the jury thought they were in themselves such acts as amounted to proof of the intent charged, they would find the prisoner not guilty. 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. If, on either of those points, they were not satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner, they must acquit him.

The

God forbid he should ask them to do so unless his client was entitled to such a verdict. The first act charged against him was the erection of barricades. That, in itself, was not a levying of war. 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 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 on. 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 he submitted for his client to their judgment 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. Before he went to the particular case in detail, it was right he should allude to something that had been said with respect to the general evidence. Every particle of evidence 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 VOL. XC.

But

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. 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 he had connected himself with the party against which the vengeance of Government was directed, he 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, intending to conceal himself from imprisonment. Having heard that Mr. O'Brien was in the neighbourhood, he went to see him, and became mixed up in the unfortunate events which afterwards followed. He did not join him till Thursday, and the acts committed by Mr. O'Brien before that day could not at all affect him. In Lord George Gordon's trial, Lord Mansfield left two issues to the jury; first, whether the design of the multitude was to force a repeal of an Act of Parliament; secondly, how far Lord George Gordon was implicated in that 2 G