difficulty could he then have in showing how he came to Ireland, and for what purpose-if it was not a wicked one? There is ample corroboration of the informer on all the cardinal points of the case, convincing corroboration on all the collateral circumstances the brig cruising up and down Dungarvan bay, the arrest of Warren and Nagle on the bridge at Youghal, their getting into the cart with their clothes wet, two miles from the very point where the men had landed on the coast. The prisoner does not attempt to give you a suggestion or explanation of how he landed on the coast that day. Is this ship imaginary; was she not cruising about under the eyes of the coast guards at Donegal? Were these 30 men who got on board the lugger imaginary? The coast-guard man, Jones, told you that he saw about 30 men get out of a lugger, and [Page of report No. 101.]

within a very few hours afterwards the prisoner is arrested, and he is recognized in prison as being the person who, with another, applied to a farmer, residing within two miles of the place of the landing, to be conveyed to Youghal. Gentlemen, it would be only wearying you if I were to press the case further. Even if Gallagher's evidence was out of the case, there is ample corroboration of the evidence of Buckley to fasten guilt on the prisoner.

The CHIEF BARON. What is that?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The fact of his arrest is corroboration of Buckley; the fact of his being arrested within a few hours after this landing of the 30 men, within a short distance of where it took place. That in itself brings complicity so home to the prisoner that if it were unexplained a jury must, according to all legal principles, convict the prisoner. Then, gentlemen, I may remind you that the prisoner does what many criminals do; he resorts to the device of a false name; his name is Warren, and yet when arrested he says his name is John Donovan, and that he comes from Cork. If the circumstances under which he comes to this country were innocent, they are entirely unsuggested and unexplained by the prisoner. I again ask you to believe Gallagher. If his statement were false, it would not bear the sifting of cross-examination. In this case I think every person will agree with me that the prisoner has conducted his defense as judiciously, as carefully, and as cautiously as if he had had the services of the very ablest counsel at the bar of England, Ireland, or America; and has he succeeded in satisfying your minds that Gallagher is a perjured man? There is no substantial difference in what that witness told on the 15th June and on the 10th and 12th October; and of course, if Gallagher is believed, there is an end of the case. I must apologize to you for having occupied your time so long, but I felt it necessary, constrained by a sense of duty, to make these observations. I sit down, confidently resting the case in your hands. After a brief adjournment thees court again sat.

PRISONER. There are two or three points in the solicitor general's address to the jury that I would like to comment upon.

The CHIEF BARON. Would you wait for a moment, until Crown counsel comes in? On the Crown counsel returning to court,

The SOLICTOR GENERAL said: My lord, we have looked over the indictment and we think there is evidence in support of all the overt acts, but we have struck out several, and left in only those upon which we rely.

The CHIEF BARON. You should reduce the number as far as you can; it is important to do so in order to simplify the case for the jury.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL: In that case they might be reduced to four-1st, 6th, 16th, and 20th. These are the four cardinal ones.

The CHIEF BARON. Which is the one in reference to the illegal oath?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. That is the last one. The administering of an unlawful oath to one Michael Gallagher.

[Page of report No. 102.]

The CHIEF BARON. Which is that which applies to the venue?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The 16th is the venue point.

The CHIEF BARON. The 17th seems to involve one and the same matter.

The PRISONER. In reference to some statements of Mr. Harrison, unintentional mistakes, no doubt, I wish to correct him. He says that I was arrested at 12 o'clock, whereas Constable Morris says I was arrested at 3 o'clock, at Youghal.

The CHIEF BARON. I think what he meant was to show that you were found on the cart at that hour.

The PRISONER. He further refers to my not putting evidence forward to contradict that of Gallagher; but I did not do so, not recognizing the jurisdiction of the court. I submit most respecfully that there is no evidence produced to establish or prove that the Vessel in Sligo bay and the vessel at Dungarvan is one and the same vessel, nor is there any evidence to prove what was the character of the vessel, or what the cargo was, except Buckley and Gallagher, who say the cargo was fruit.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. He should have had the man in charge of the vessel here to prove what the cargo was. If I had to speak again, I could say a great deal more than what I did.

The chief baron then charged the jury. He said: Gentlemen of the jury, without preface, which I think unnecessary, I shall proceed to state to you the questions you have to try-to point out the way in which the evidence bears on those questions; and in doing that it may be necessary, especially as the prisoner is undefended, to present to you, somewhat in detail, the nature and particulars of the evidence, and to comment somewhat upon it, especially the testimony of the two principal witnesses-on which, if the prisoner had counsel, he would have commented. Gentlemen, the prosecution is founded upon an act of Parliament passed in the year 1848, and I will read for you the provision of that act upon which the prosecution rests: "If any person within the United Kingdom or without," &c. The charge against the prisoner at the bar is founded on this portion of the section: "If any person shall compass, imagine, intend, devise, or declare, or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious lady the Queen from her royal style and name of the imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, and shall express, utter, or declare such compassing, imagining, or intention by any overt act or deed,” the offense shall be treated as treason-felony, &c. The charge against the prisoner is, that he did compass, imagine, and so forth, to depose the Queen from the royal style and name of the imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, and that he declared and showed that compassing by the various overt acts or deeds, or some of them, which are stated in this indictment. The act of Parliament requires not only that the party shall compass or devise what is charged, but that he shall manifest the compassing and devising by an overt act. It is necessary for the Crown to specify the overt acts upon which they rely; and that it is for the jury to determine whether these overt acts, or any of them, have been committed, and whether they show the intention [Page of report No. 103.]

charged in the indictment. You have heard the word compassing used; it is an old term of the law; it means, in plain terms, intention or design. That at which the statute is leveled is the intention or design to depose the Queen from her authority, the intention being manifested by the overt act or deed. The proof of the overt act is absolutely indispensable, for without it the prisoner could not be convicted. You know that the secret intentions of mankind can only be ascertained by their words and acts; and while the statute protects the sovereign on the throne, protects her for the benefit of the whole community which she governs, and in which she is to maintain order by enforcing obedience to the laws, both the law of treason and this statute require that for the protection of the subject the crime shall not be treated as proved until it has been shown to be manifested by an act or deed of the party. Several overt acts-which mean nothing less than open acts of the party-are stated in this indictment.

I shall read for you some of these overt acts, without incumbering you with all; and if any one of them is established by evidence, your own common sense will suggest to you that the intention charged was manifested, that the compassing charged was intended, by the prisoner at the bar. It is said, in the first overt act, "That he did compass, conspire, consult, and agree with James Stephens, O'Mahony, Roberts, and others, to raise, make, and levy insurrection and rebellion against the Queen." The second charges him with combining with Stephens, O'Mahony, Roberts, and others, "To subvert and destroy the constitution of these realms, as by law established," &c. If the prisoner conspired to levy war, insurrection, and rebellion against the Queen—if he conspired to destroy the constitution of these realms, which is that of a monarchy -that must of necessity be the result of a design to depose her from her authority. Another of these overt acts charges, "That he in America embarked on board a certain vessel, and placed a large quantity of guns and pistols on board that vessel, and came to the coast of Ireland with these guns and pistols, with intent to effect a landing," the object of effecting that landing being "to join with other evil-disposed persons to fight against the troops and overthrow the power of the Queen in Ireland." The indictment includes the names of Warren, Nagle, Costello, Fitzsimons, and others; but the Crown is entitled to put any one of these prisoners on trial, and they have proceeded against the prisoner at the bar. The indictment sets forth a number of particulars, a number of transactions which took place previous to the prisoners coming to this country, Another of these overt acts states that in America these persons did embark on board a certain ship, and place arms therein-a thousand guns and a thousand pistols-the number is quite immaterial-and did sail into Sligo bay, with the intent and object of landing, in order to fight against and overthrow the power and authority of her Majesty in Ireland. Another of these overt acts states the same thing in a different way —that these persons came into that part of her Majesty's dominions called Ireland, with

[Page of report No. 104.]

the intent and object of raising insurrection and rebellion in Ireland, and levying war against her Majesty; and that the prisoners, with others, took these arms and proceeded on board ship for the purpose of effecting the purposes of the Fenian organization, namely, for the purpose of establishing a republic in Ireland. Any one of these acts will be evidence sustaining the overt acts charged in the indictment, clearly establishing the design of an insurrection, the object of which would be to depose the Queen from her authority. Another of these overt acts says, "That they became members of

an unlawful association called the Fenian Brotherhood, having for its object," &c. Anybody who entered into such a confederacy, you will have no doubt-the object of the confederacy being to overthrow the authority of the Queen-intended and devised the purpose which it is the object of the confederacy to effect. Another of these overt acts alleges, (what I shall hereafter have to explain to you) that the prisoner at the bar did, on the 5th and 6th of March, 1867, (the day is immaterial, but there can be no doubt of the day,) at Tallaght, in the county of Dublin, and divers other places in the county of Dublin, and with arms and guns and pistols, fight against the constables and troops of her Majesty the Queen, and levy war against our said lady the Queen. There can be no doubt that to fight against the troops of the Queen, or the constables in arms under her authority, is evidence of a design to depose her Majesty from her royal style and dignity.

I believe it is unnecessary for me to say anything of the other overt acts. You perceive that in result they amount to this: In the first place, that the prisoner entered into a conspiracy or agreement with certain persons, no matter how few or how many, to levy an insurrection against the Queen. If you come to the conclusion that he was a member of the Fenian conspiracy, and that the object of the Fenian conspiracy was to establish a republic, you can entertain no doubt that he designed to overthrow the authority of the Queen in Ireland. If he came with that vessel for the purpose of landing arms, I presume you can have no doubt that his object was that which is imputed to him in the overt act which relates to that transaction. With regard to the levying of war in the county of Dublin, the policeman has told you about those transactions. He has told you what occurred there, in the assaults on three constabulary barracks. These are evidence of the levying of war; and it is for you to consider how far the prisoner at the bar, with the instructions I shall give you on points of law, is affected by them. In this prosecution it is necessary for the Crown to establish some one overt act within the county of Dublin. An overt act having been established in the county of Dublin, it is open to the Crown to establish what would constitute overt acts showing a conspiracy in any other place; and though Sligo is not in the county of Dublin, and Waterford is not in the county of Dublin, yet, if the party came to Sligo, and brought arms for the purpose of effecting their treasonable purposes there, conspiring there to accomplish those purposes, it will establish a case against the prisoner, [Page of report No. 105.]

provided he is also fixed with the overt act done in the county of Dublin.

Gentlemen, there is not a single particle of evidence to show that the prisoner at the bar was within the county of the city of Dublin, or that he had any actual personal participation in what occurred at Milltown, Stepaside, or Glencullen. But if you come to the conclusion that these were the acts of his co-conspirators in the Fenian confederacy, and if you come to the conclusion that the acts of levying war did take place within the county of Dublin, and were done by members of that confederacy, of which he was a member, in furtherance of its objects, then, by a recent decision of the highest court of criminal jurisprudence in this country, I have to tell you, in point of law, that the prisoner would be answerable for that act if he was then a member of the confederacy, and that the acts done by others who were co-conspirators were his acts, and made him responsible in law for them, as if he was there bodily present doing the act himself.

Now, gentlemen, as regards the evidence: I think I may sufficiently rely on your recollection of it as to the general result, and as to the main and substantial questions you have to determine. Did the expedition take place; did the prisoner at the bar form part of the expedition; was he one of those who accompanied it; and was he a member of the Fenian confederacy; and did members of the confederacy, being co-conspirators in it with him, levy war in the county of Dublin, in March, 1866? The case with respect to the Jackmel expedition rests, fortified by the testimony of Gallagher, with some other evidence in support of his, upon the evidence of Buckley, and the general facts tested as to the vessel arriving off the coast of Waterford and landing a number of persons on the first of June. In the first place, the Crown must rely on the transactions in the county of Dublin, and it is essential that the prisoner should be connected with them. They must rely on these two propositions: First, that the prisoner, at the time when the acts of levying war took place, was a member of the Fenian confederacy; and secondly, that members of that confederacy, while he was a member of it, in pursuance of its object and in furtherance of its design, did the acts of levying war with respect to which evidence has been given. First, with respect to the Jackmel expedition, the evidence, in a very great degree, rests on the testimony of Buckley-that testimony being part fortified by the testimony of Gallagher, if you believe it. Buckley comes forward as an accomplice; and the law declares that, in strictness, a verdict founded on the testimony of an accomplice would be a legal verdict. But it has been the uniform practice for a long time past, and a general practice for a long time anterior, for judges to advise juries, and juries have been in the habit of acting upon that advice, not to convict on the testimony of an accomplice or of any number of accomplices, unless that testimony be corroborated in some material part of the tes

timony itself; and that it is essential that it should be so corroborated in some part of the story which connects the prisoner with the crime. When an accomplice has [Page of report No. 106.]

received corroboration, the jury are not still bound to believe him; but if his story be corroborated, they are at liberty to act upon his testimony, and juries are to apply their own sense in determining whether the corroboration he receives is such as to satisfy their minds that he is telling a true story. Buckley's whole evidence is of that character; the whole of his evidence is that of an accomplice. He is not-and it seldom happens that an accomplice is-he is not corroborated in the whole of his evidence; if that were so, the other evidence would prove the facts without him; but it is only necessary to make his evidence such that a jury would be warranted in acting upon itthat in a material part, going to fix the prisoner with the crime, it has been corroborated, so that you may be satisfied of the truth of the whole. The whole of it may not be corroborated, but it must be corroborated so far as to induce the jury to give credit to the witness.

The testimony of Corydon stands even still more strongly in the same predicament; for he was not only an accomplice, but an informer and spy, giving evidence from time to time of these criminal proceedings; so that he comes forward with the stain of not only betraying his accomplices, but with the further stain of remaining with them and receiving their pay, and, at the same time, the pay of the government for giving evidence against them. That is an odious character. Some will think that there ought to be an objection to the employment of such characters; but you will, I am sure, agree in this observation: that when deeds of darkness are to be brought to light, when the safety of the state is imperiled, when conspiracy is hatched, and the object of that conspiracy is to overthrow the constitution as it exists and involve the whole community in confusion and calamity, in the destruction of the monarchy, in the dissolution of society into its original elements-when there is imminent danger of such terrible results to all we hold dear in life, it becomes a matter of necessity that resort shall be had to persons for detection and information from whose real character all honorable men would recoil. Unless the testimony of accomplices, and in some peculiar cases the evidence of informers, be taken, it may be impossible to discover deeds of danger and atrocity, which it is the duty of all governments, if they can, to discover, and of which it is their duty, if possible, to bring the perpetrators to justice. In these cases, if it be necessary to employ such instruments, it is a great calamity; but in many instances the employment of them may be only the means of preventing far greater calamities. I make these observations in reference to Corydon. No jury would act on testimony such as his unless corroborated in some material part of his story.

Having made these observations as to the nature of the evidence of the witnesses, and the law to be applied to it, I shall proceed now to that evidence. Supposing you believe Buckley, and his testimony is corroborated if you believe him in so far as relates to the charge that the prisoner became a member of the confederacy, the object of which was to depose the Queen, or establish a republic, (which necessarily must [Page of report No. 107.]

involve the deposition of the Queen,) and so far as relates to those acts which disclose the objects of the Jackmel expedition, there can be no question that on Buckley's testimony a case is established against the prisoner. He carries back the prisoner to the year 1865. That, you perceive, very considerably overreaches the transaction of March, 1867, which comprises what was done in the county of the city of Dublin.

PRISONER. My lord, you say Buckley. That is a mistake. He swears he never saw me until he saw me on board the vessel.

The CHIEF BARON. You are quite right; it is Corydon I should have named. Buckley gives evidence of the Jackmel expedition. He describes himself as having been a member of this confederacy so long ago as 1865, when he left the American army. Corydon it is that states all the transactions affecting the prisoner individually prior to that; but Buckley states that he was himself a member of this confederacy from the year 1865; that the confederacy existed in 1865; and that overreaches the transactions of March, 1867. It was proposed to Buckley to join in a Fenian expedition, the mischievous objects of which were not disclosed to him, to which he agreed. He gives you evidence of a number of persons having assembled in a street in New York; that he was one of them; that he went on board a steamer; that they proceeded to where it was expected a vessel would be found; that ultimately they reached the vessel, and went on board, and after going in a direction to avoid pursuit, they ultimately proceeded to the coast of Ireland; and he then describes Warren as being in that expedition. He describes to you Warren as being on board, and holding a certain rank-the rank of colonel-and participating in all the designs that were disclosed in the progress of the voyage. He was present when the vessel was re-christened by the name of "Erin's Hope," when the commissions were taken out and distributed, and when the object of the expedition was disclosed, namely, to land arms in Ireland of course in furtherance of the object for which the expedition was formed. All that, if you believe

the testimony of Buckley, proves that Warren was a member of the Fenian conspiracy, and that he engaged in that expedition in conjunction with the others. The testimony of Buckley is supported by the testimony of Gallagher to this extent, that the vessel which Buckley describes was found by Gallagher, just as described by Buckley, in Sligo bay, and that he was engaged as a pilot. He says not only that Warren was on board, but that Warren and Nagle, another of the persons included in this indictment, endeavored to induce him to take the Fenian oath; and that ultimately they forced him to take an oath not to divulge what he saw on board the vessel. If that transaction took place in the presence of Warren and Nagle, that is undoubtedly evidence which you are quite at liberty to consider a corroboration of Buckley in a material part of his evidence, because it brings home to Warren a connection with the crime charged, the fact of his being on board the vessel, and forcing Gallagher to conceal the purpose of the

voyage.

Now as to the testimony of Buckley and Gallagher. Each is impeached by matters

[Page of report No. 108.]

irrespective of the character of Buckley as an accomplice, and founded on statements which they suppressed on former occasions when examined before the magistrates. These it will be my duty to bring before you by and by; but at present I am dealing with the extent of the corroboration received by Buckley in that transaction deposed to by Gallagher. In some of the other circumstances detailed by Buckley he is also fortified by the testimony of Gallagher. These, however, are not portions of the alleged crime, although they are connected with what occurred on that expedition. It appears that two persons were wounded-it does not matter how they were wounded. Buckley says they were wounded by an accidental discharge of a weapon he was cleaning; Gallagher says he was told they were wounded in a contest between the two men. The fact of their being wounded is proved by the testimony of Gallagher, and the evidence of the persons who found the wounded men on the shore, and who afterwards arrested both them and Nugent. Nugent is proved to have gone in company with these men and Gallagher; that is proved by Buckley, by Gallagher, and by those persons by whom they were subsequently arrested on shore. But, gentlemen, irrespective of details, there is one leading feature in this case which I am bound to present to you, as affording inherent corroboration of the story told by Buckley. Before I refer to it, I wish to bring your attention to another piece of evidence which connects the prisoner at the bar with the sailing of the vessel, and that is, the transaction of the landing of a large number of men on the coast of Waterford, and the subsequent arrest of the prisoner at the bar. This portion of the case does not require that I should go into any detail of the evidence. It appears that a vessel, corresponding in character with the vessel proved by Gallagher and the coast guard to have been at Streeda, and corresponding with the Vessel that was seen in Sligo bay, was near the coast of Waterford on the 1st of June; it appears that the persons in that vessel hailed a fisherman while engaged in his ordinary occupations. They first asked whether he would take two men on shore, offering him £2, not disclosing the design that any more were to be landed.

You are to consider the circumstances of that proposition being made, and the suppression of the intention that so many men were to be landed, in this light, that if they had communicated the fact to the fisherman he might have refused to take them. However, he says about 30 went on the vessel-on this fishing vessel-and were landed; and it appears, on the testimony of the boatman and a number of the coast guard, that these persons went up the hill in twos and threes towards the church of Ring. Was the prisoner at the bar one of the persons who so landed? Buckley swears he was. Buckley himself swears that he landed, and Buckley was subsequently arrested. It is proved that at the time when the boatman says 30 men landed, having plunged into the water and walking up to their middle, it is proved that about that time two men applied to a farmer name Roche to be conveyed to Youghal. He took these two men on his car; they were wet up to the middle; and he took them on to Youghal, where they were arrested

[Page of report No. 109.]

on the bridge. These two men were Warren and Nagle; and if you believe the evidence of Norris, each of them gave a false name. If there was an infirmity in the identification of the features by Roche in the jail, you are not to withhold credence from him, but rather to attribute it to the way in which these persons were presented to him. As to his veracity there can be no mistake. But of this there can be no doubt, that two persons who had been on board this vessel came to him; that he took them on his car, and afterwards, when accosted by the police, they gave false names, and that the prisoner at the bar was one of those men. But Roche goes further, and says that when the parties were brought to him he would not have at first recognized them-the opportanity was so brief; but he says he was induced to recognize them by the prisoner shaking hands with him. The prisoner said, on this trial, that he did that as a joke; but Roche, on reflection, swears that the prisoner at the bar is one of the persons whom he brought on the car to Youghal; and, gentlemen, if you come to the conclusion that the prisoner at the bar was brought to Youghal, and in company with Nagle, that is