board, who remained with you some two or three days. At this time you were giving information for the purpose of sustaining a charge against those people; didn't you think it was material in order to sustain that charge, especially against Warren, against whom particularly you were examined-didn't you think it material to show that Warren was present at the time that oath was administered by force to Gallagher ?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. His information was not made in the first instance against Warren.

The CHIEF BARON. It is headed, "The Queen vs. Warren and Nagle," and the caption states "The information of Daniel Buckley, who, being duly sworn, &c., &c., in the presence and hearing of the prisoner, John Warren." I am reading from the printed copy of the information furnished to me.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. This information was originally made on the 12th September; it was resworn on the 10th October, in the presence of the prisoner.

The CHIEF BARON. The one I am reading from is dated the 12th of September. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The prisoners were not present on the 12th of September. Mr. Justice KEOGH, [referring to the original information of the 12th of September.] I find that there is no caption to the original information, such as appears in the copy furnished to us.

The CHIEF BARON. Then the copy furnished to us is inaccurate in that respect. (To witness.) In your information of the 12th of September, you stated the names of various officers in the expedition. Now, what I ask you is this: When those persons were named by you as persons whom you charged with being in that vessel engaged in illegal acts, how did it happen that you should not have recollected a matter so material, when you were swearing against them at all-how it was that you forgot a matter so material as the transaction that occurred between them and Gallagher?-My lord, the information given in the first place by me in October———

The CHIEF BARON. No; in September?-Yes, my lord; that information was incomplete; there were many things I did not recollect, and that I could only recollect afterwards when they were brought to my mind.

And this was one of the matters you did not recollect?—Yes.

What I ask you is-can you account or explain how it should have escaped your memory-When I was only a few days there, I desired the solicitor to come and take my evidence; previous to that I had not allowed my mind to rest on the matter so much as to recollect that.

You then sent for the solicitor to give information?—Yes.

To give information against the persons that were on board?—Yes.

[Page of report No. 93.]

How did it happen, when you were thinking of what information you could give to the Crown against those persons, you should have forgotten a thing so material?-The same thing happened yesterday; I forgot names yesterday whom I had mentioned in my informations previously.

I am not now speaking of names, I am speaking of a transaction. Were you reminded of that in any way?-No, sir, I was not.

Did you learn the substance of Gallagher's information at all?—No, sir.

At any time?—No, sir.

Did you ever see his information ?—No, sir.

Did you ever learn what he stated?—No, sir.

You heard of his having given information ?-I did not, till some two weeks ago.

Did you hear two weeks ago what he told?—No; I was told nothing further than that he had made an information.

Did you ever read his information?—No, sir.

Was it ever read to you?-No, sir.

In your information you state nothing of the council which you mentioned yesterday as having been held before their arrival at Sligo, and at which it was determined to attack the town of Sligo?-That I neither recollected, my lord.

You did not recollect that ?—No, sir.

Tell me now what it was was determined, or rather what was considered, with reference to going to the Western islands?-To re-provision the ship there. The captain stated we had 120 gallons of water on board, and that that quantity was sufficient to carry us to the Western islands.

Were they to go to the Western islands on their way to the United States, or were they to go to the Western islands and then come back to Ireland ?-They were to go to the United States.

What were they to do there?-To lay before the Irish the experience gained in connection with the expedition.

I think you said that Warren agreed to that at first ?—No, sir.

I understood you to say he at first dissented, but afterwards agreed?—Yes.

And afterwards he concurred in rescinding the resolution?—Yes.

How did that come about-how did it happen that that was adopted by Warren, who at first dissented—how did it happen that he was induced to forego that determina.

tion-I represented to him the frivolous nature of the entire expedition, and the foolishness of landing in Ireland under the circumstances.

Yes, I know; and you say those representations induced him to acquiesce in the prudence of going back to America ?—Yes.

Why did he afterwards change, and decide upon landing?-I don't know, sir.

Did they take any time to discuss the matter before landing was resolved on ?—There was no discussion at all; there were only three dissenting voices.

[Page of report No. 94.]

That is, dissenting to the proposed landing?—Yes.

Who made the suggestion?-Kavanagh.

I think you said he made it suddenly-that he turned round suddenly and asked the men would they follow him if he landed?-Yes, it was done very suddenly.

Were all the men assembled at the time?—The majority were, except two or three of the crew.

Where did this take place-in what part of the ship?-On the quarter-deck.

Was the suggestion discussed before they determined on adopting it?-There was not a word of discussion.

Did they adopt it at once?—Yes, sir.

The CHIEF BARON. Now, prisoner, is there anything you can suggest to me to ask him?

The PRISONER. There is one thing you have omitted, my lord. He stated in his information "I think I am a native of Ireland." In his evidence yesterday he swore "I am a native of Ireland, of the province of Munster."

The CHIEF BARON. That is so. (To the witness.) Were you in doubt whether you were a native of Ireland when you swore your information?-I really was, sir.

PRISONER. I wish to refer to another point; I believe your lordship was about to refer to it, but it escaped your memory afterwards; the witness swears in his information: "Ia Sligo bay we took a pilot on board, and he remained with us two or three days." Gallagher swears he was there only a few hours.

The CHIEF BARON. You are perfectly correct. I did not observe it, I confess. (To witness.) How do you account for that?-I thought at first that he remained on board two or three days, but I was not sure, and I was not willing to allow my affidavit to remain as in the first case, fixing it at three days; I was not willing to substantiate it, and, after considering and looking over the matter, I prefer saying what I can substantiate.

What is that?-That he was one day on board.

You say now he was one day on board?—Yes.

Why did you say three days in your information?—I allowed a doubt; I said two or three days.

The CHIEF BARON (to prisoner.) Is there anything else you can suggest to ask the

witness?

PRISONER. Yes, my lord; I have now to suggest the most important point of the whole. Yesterday he swore he was 25 years of age. I hold in my hand a certificate of naturalization, by which he was admitted a citizen of the United States on the 10th of October, 1855, so that, if his swearing be correct, he was then 13 years of age. The CHIEF BARON. What age is he stated to be in the certificate?

PRISONER. He must be 21 years of age at least, my lord, when admitted a citizen. The CHIEF BARON. If he were 21 years of age in 1865, that would make him now about the age he stated yesterday.

[Page of report No. 95.]

PRISONER. He was 21 years of age in 1855, my lord; the date of the certificate is 1855. The CHIEF BARON, (referring to certificate.) Yes; you are right. I thought it was 1865.

PRISONER. He must have been 21 when he got that certificate, so that he must be at least 33 years of age now. It must have been perjury for him yesterday to swear he

was 25.

The CHIEF BARON (to witness.) How do you explain that?

WITNESS. I beg your honor's pardon; I said I did not know my exact age, but that I thought I was at least 25.

PRISONER. His evidence was direct, my lord—"I am 25 years of age."

The CHIEF BARON. Is there anything else you wish to ask him?

PRISONER. There is nothing else, my lord.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. There are some documents which I propose to give in evidence.

The CHIEF BARON. I have some doubt as to their admissibility in evidence against the prisoner.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Under these circumstances I will not give them in evidence.

The case for the Crown then closed.

The CHIEF BARON, addressing the prisoner, said: You are now at liberty to state whatever is proper for your defense, and to offer any evidence in support of it that you are prepared with.

PRISONER. My lord, I simply intended to have produced Nagle to prove that I never, as Corydon stated I did when he first became acquainted with me, recruited in the State of New York, or had any tent in the Park of that city. He also swore that I was State center for Massachusetts in 1865. Now he conveniently forgets it. I do not press the point; it is a matter of veracity. I want to show up the man.

The CHIEF BARON. These are matters which I think are of very little consequence to you.

The PRISONER. I withdraw my request, as I believe no respectable jury in Ireland would believe a word he says.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I have no objection; the prisoner can produce any witness he likes.

The CHIEF BARON. It is quite immaterial to him. Do you desire to make any statement?

The PRISONER. I had intended, at the commencement of the trial, realizing the position I am placed in by the absence of counsel, to have analyzed the evidence of Gallagher as being the only person whose evidence could be depended upon. You have done that, my lord, far more ably than I could presume to do. It is only necessary for me to say to the gentlemen of the jury that, while ignoring the jurisdiction of the court to arraign or try me as a subject of her Britannic Majesty, I feel confidence in you, my lord, and in the bench, that you will see justice done to the law, of which you are the honorable representative.

[Page of report No. 96.]

The CHIEF BARON. Well, if there be any part of the evidence that you rely on or wish to remark on, I shall be very glad to learn what it is.

PRISONER. In the first place, there is no corroborative evidence. Gallagher's evidence is a tissue of perjury from the commencement to the end, and he is the only man on whom you can depend. The so-called informer has broken down here to-day. I think the attorney general is bound, in honor, to withdraw two statements which he made in his opening address to the jury. He said he would produce evidence to show that I had landed at Helvick Head. He has not presumed to do that, and there has been no identification for that purpose. He also said he would produce a witness named Nolan. That he has not done. There is no corroborative evidence to show that I had any connection with the organization in Ireland or America. I expect you will, in your analysis of the evidence, submit that forcibly and strongly to the jury; while at the same time, with profound respect, I do not recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

The CHIEF BARON. With respect to your statement that there is no evidence of your identity as having landed at Helvick Head, there is evidence in the testimony of Roche, the farmer, and of the constable, wholly irrespective of any identification of features; for you are proved to be the person who came to him at Ring with your clothes wet, and were taken by him to Youghal. That is some evidence as to who you were; and that you, the prisoner at the bar, are the person who came from the vessel. With respect to Nolan, the attorney general said he would produce him, and did produce him; but Nolan was entitled to withhold his evidence on the ground mentioned. And I mean to tell the jury that they are not to regard the fact of Nolan declining to give evidence as at all a circumstance against you.

PRISONER. Roche stated that his house was two miles from Helvick Head, and there is no information to connect me with the strand and the vessel.

The CHIEF BARON. There is the evidence of the coast guard.

PRISONER. He does not identify me.

The CHIEF BARON. He saw a number of persons go from the vessel up the road by the cliff, in the direction of the church of Ring, and that, irrespective of the testimony of Roche as to features, is some evidence to go to the jury that you were one of the persons who landed.

PRISONER. He makes no reference to my landing. He says that one of the parties that came to his house hired his car. The strand is two miles from his house. There is no evidence of identity.

The CHIEF BARON. That will be for the jury.

The solicitor general then replied on the part of the Crown. He said: Gentlemen of the jury, with your permission, at the close of this case, I will make a few remarks without addressing myself to the entire evidence, but chiefly in reference to the observations the prisoner has made in connection with the questions put to the witnesses at his

[Page of report No. 97.]

request by my lord chief baron. The attorney general in opening this case expressed the regret which he felt that the prisoner had declined to avail himself of the assistance of the learned counsel who had been retained for his defense, lest that defense might be thereby prejudiced; his counsel withdrew in consequence of the express instructions they received, having no option left to them, when the prisoner so requested. The

attorney general felt that perhaps the prisoner's case would suffer from having that assistance withdrawn. The duty of counsel is to weigh well the evidence, to protect and shield his client, and if practicable to explain away what may appear prejudicial to him. We all know of what advantage it is to a prisoner to have the services of able and experienced counsel to conduct his defense, and therefore the attorney general felt regret that the learned gentlemen retained for the prisoner should have been obliged to withdraw; but now, gentlemen, that the case has closed, I say advisedly, the prisoner has not received much injury from the course he has thought proper to adopt; nay, think he stands almost in a better position than that which he otherwise would have occupied, because while he has placed himself in the position of a quasi undefended prisoner, he has with great ability taken advantage of all the weak points in the case; and his comments upon any discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which have been elicited by the able judge who has presided at this trial, could not be surpassed by counsel. And what does it all come to? With regard to Gallagher's evidence, the prisoner knows that if that witness is believed by you he is a convicted man. And can there be a doubt raised as to the truth of that testimony? There may be some slight discrepancies in the informations which he has made; there may be, perhaps, a few additions, in the last information, to the evidence given by Gallagher in the first information made by him in May; but I ask you, as reasonable men, has the prisoner been able, upon the broad cardinal features of the case, to break down the evidence of either Gallagher or Buckley?

Gentlemen, I may tell you that you can convict upon the evidence of Buckley alone; but judges are in the habit of telling juries not to convict upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. But you have material corroboration of that evidence. First, in regard to the vessel itself; the fact of that vessel being in Sligo bay on the 23d and 24th of May is deposed to by Gallagher, and Gallagher is corroborated by his assistant and by the coast-guard men. Buckley further swears, and Gallagher corroborates him, that three men, two of whom were wounded, were landed from the vessel at Stredagh, on the 25th May, and two of those men are produced and identified in court as having been the men found on Stredagh shore upon that 25th of May. Then we have it proved by three or four witnesses, whose evidence cannot be impeached, that a large body of men landed near Dungarvan from this brigantine on the 1st of June, and Buckley's account of that landing is corroborated in every particular by two

[Page of report No. 98.]

of Whelan's crew, who assisted in taking them to shore. The prisoner has suggested that he was not identified as being one of the 30 men who went ashore near Helvick Head on that 1st of June; but has it not been clearly proved by Roche that upon that morning the prisoner, accompanied by Nagle, came to his house and hired a horse and cart to convey himself and his companion Nagle to Youghal, a distance of some 11 miles and Constable Norris is produced, who tells you how upon that day he arrested Warren and Nagle, driving upon Roche's cart, near to the town of Youghal, and that he noticed that their clothes were wet and covered with sand. How materially does this evidence corroborate Buckley's account of the landing at Helvick beach; and if this testimony be believed, we have the prisoner Warren brought almost to the very landing-place, and traced from Roche's house, only two miles distant, to the town of Youghal, where he is arrested on the afternoon of the day of landing; and thus, almost without referring to Gallagher's evidence at all, the testimony of Buckley in its essential features is amply corroborated, and Warren's complicity in this expedition is fully established.

No man in this court can forget the graphic description given of this expedition by Buckley-an expedition steeped in crime, and yet almost romantic, but for its criminal character. The band, I was going to say of marauders, but of lawless men, collecting in Canal street, in New York, and proceeding on board a steam-tug, which brought them to a brigantine in the river, where the party gets on board; their sailing on the 12th of April; the firing of the salute; their unfurling of the "sun-burst; " their voyage across the Atlantic; and their reaching the Irish coast on the 24th of May, when Gallagher the pilot is taken on board. If Gallagher's evidence is true, if it be not pure invention and fabrication, that he was taken down into the cabin of the ship, and that Nagle, in the presence of Warren, administered to him an illegal oath, John Warren is convicted of the offense with which he stands charged. It is said that Gallagher does not say in his informations, as he stated here yesterday, that he took that oath under terror that his life would be taken away if he refused, under threat of death, and perhaps the apprehension of being instantly shot; (and I need not remind you that we have but too recent experience of the use of the revolver in the hands of these desperadoes in this country.) Gallagher is not bound by the oath which he was forced to take on board the vessel under the threat of death; yet any facts that he withheld in his first information were no doubt withheld in the belief that he was bound by that illegal ath. That is a very reasonable explanation for the silence of Gallagher upon the occason of his making his first information. Accordingly, when making that information on the 27th of May, two days after he came on shore, when brought before Mr. Labatt,

none of the prisoners having been arrested at the time, in that information he does not disclose the secrets which he had sworn solemnly not to divulge when he came on [Page of report No. 99.]

shore. Gallagher admits that. Nor does he say anything of it on the 15th June; but when he comes to make his final information, on the 12th of October, in the presence of the prisoners, he then discloses all about the oath.

IRISONER. Will you allow me to suggest a few words-a discrepancy also. Buckley swears all the "colonels" were in the cabin, and Gallagher conveniently swears that there were only Nagle and myself.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I do not recollect Buckley swearing that all the "colonels" were there, but he swears that Warren and Nagle were in the cabin, as he heard their voices.

PRISONER. He swore all the "colonels" were there.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The prisoner will press me to say more than I had intended by these interruptions. He has had all the informations in his custody, and he is suggesting these small discrepancies. He proposed to call Nagle to contradict what Corydon swore as to his having seen him recruiting in New York; but he never offered to produce Nagle to contradict Buckley or Gallagher, who swore that Nagle was in the cabin, and there administered this illegal oath in the presence of the prisoner.

The CHIEF BARON. Buckley merely says that all the "colonels" went down to the cabin together.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. My distinct recollection is, that Buckley merely stated that he heard the voices of these two men, Warren and Nagle, in the cabin, but he did not swear that he saw a single person there.

The CHIEF BARON. He said the colonels were in the cabin at the time Gallagher was there.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. This is quite possible. Gallagher says he saw the two prisoners, Warren and Nagle, in the cabin, and if Gallagher is speaking truth, Buckley is corroborated in a most cardinal and important fact. He is sworn not to disclose the secrets of this nefarious expedition; and although he keeps that oath for a time, yet afterwards, when brought in the presence of the prisoners, he discloses all. And you will find that his last information, sworn in Warren's presence on the 12th of October, contains all the evidence he has given upon the present trial.

Gallagher further tells you how he got into the boat, thinking to return to the shore with the person who came on board on the evening of the 24th May, and that he was dragged out and told to remain where he was. He tells you that he was informed that two men had been wounded that day on board, Nolan and another person named Connor; and that as these men were useless as members of the crew, it was proposed to land them during the night, when he could land along with them. He lands accordingly along with the wounded men, and a man named Nugent, who was one of the expedition. A coast guard describes his meeting Gallagher on the morning of the 25th May near the [Page of report No. 100.]

place, and says he was running at the time. Gallagher had some distance to go, and it is only natural he should be making all haste. Now one of the discrepancies relied upon between his first information and his evidence here is, that he omits in the information to mention anything about the cargo of fruit; but he stated here yesterday, when I examined him, that he was told on board that the vessel was going with a cargo of fruit to Glasgow, and in the information he made on the 17th June, before Mr. Coulson, he states this very thing. The man has given you an explanation as to how he omitted it on the first occasion, as he was deterred by the illegal oath that had been administered to him, and by the terror he was in at the time. He was naturally afraid that if he disclosed what had taken place, an account might be taken of him, perhaps in a way that he would not desire, when he reached his home in Donegal. That is a satisfactory explanation why you do not find this stated in the first information. Except you believe Gallagher a deliberately perjured witness, coming up here to tell a tissue of fiction which has no foundation in fact, you must convict the prisoner. Did you see the man's demeanor, his appearance, and his manner of giving his evidence? Did you hear the indignant denial of the man when he was asked had he ever committed a theft while on board ship, or any other place? Why has the prisoner not produced evidence to contradict Gallagher? He has had an experienced attorney, and ample funds at his command; he has had the means and opportunity to break down the evidence of Gallagher if he could. He has failed to do so; and I now ask you to believe Gallagher. And if Gallagher is believed, then Buckley is corroborated.

Has the prisoner given any explanation of how he happened to be in the cart on the bridge, at Youghal, on that day of the landing at Dungarvan, on the 1st of June? He is a man not devoid of intelligence, or of education, and he was at liberty to account for his presence, under such strange circumstances, in this country. What brought him to Ireland on the 1st of June? He was arrested on the very day the other men from on board that ship were taken. He is a man who has been connected with the press, and must have had hundreds of correspondents at the other side of the Atlantic. What