Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Third Session of the Fortieth Congress
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you the newspaper report of the trial of Richard OS. Burke, which has been just held in this town. Captain Burke, who seems to me to have conducted himself with extraordinary propriety throughout the period of his imprisonment, distinctly concedes the fairness of the trial, and the justice of the verdict according to the evidence. The only question he raises is that of citizenship, but even that relates rather to the form of trial, as, on the merits, even his being admitted to be an alien would not be held to shield him from the consequences of acts dangerous to the peace of the realm.
I believe there are now very few citizens of the United States remaining under confinement on the mere allegation of offenses committed. Offers have been made to release even these, but conditions have been attached, to which they very naturally refuse to subscribe. This is, I believe, the case with Colonel Nagle. I learn from Lord Stanley that it is the wish of the Irish authorities to liberate him unconditionally, but there are difficulties in the way which time may yet overcome. If not, it is clear that he must be brought to trial in a very few days. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
The trial of Burke, Casey, and Shaw.
The prisoners Richard Burke, alias Edward C. Winslow, alias George Berry, alias Wallace, 35, no occupation; Joseph Theobald Casey, 23, clerk; and Henry Mullady, alias Shaw, 26; who were put upon their trial on the previous day for treason-felony, in having traitorously conspired with divers other persons to deprive her Majesty of the royal style and title of the imperial crown of Great Britain and Ireland, and to establish a republic in Ireland, were placed at the bar yesterday morning again, at 10 o’clock.
The attorney general, the solicitor general, Mr. Giffard, Q. C, Mr. Poland, and Mr. Archibald, were the counsel for the crown. Mr. Ernest Jones and Mr. Macdonald appeared for the prisoner Burke, Mr. F. H. Lewis for Casey, and Mr. Pater for Mullady. Mr. De Tracy Gould, a member of the American bar, was also retained professionally to watch the proceedings on behalf of Burke.
At the rising of the court on the previous evening a portion of the evidence for the prosecution was given, and the case on behalf of the crown was again proceeded with.
Amelia Tye, being examined by Mr. Giffard, Q. C, deposed: I lived at Mr. Kynock’s house at Birmingham, and saw the prisoner Burke there. He first called there in December, 1865, and Mr. Kynock being absent from home I showed him some percussion caps which he wished to see. He approved of them, and said he would call on the following morning. He came next day and purchased a large quantity. In the afternoon he went out with Mr. Kynock, and in the evening he purchased 250,000 caps and 40 revolvers, which I put into a case. Burke ordered them to be sent to Mr. Mullady, 64 George street. They were delivered by Mr. Kynock’s man, who brought back the book signed. I think the prisoner Shaw once brought a letter to Mr. Kynock, but I would not swear to his identity. I saw Burke at Mr. Kynock’s several times. He was known by the name of Winslow.
In cross-examination by Mr. Pater, the witness said she did not know what had become of the letter which Mullady brought to Mr. Kynock.
George Kynock was then examined by the solicitor general. He said: I reside at Birmingham, and am a cap and ammunition manufacturer. I also sell fire-arms. I know Mr. Winslow (Burke) and Mullady, both of whom I have seen at my place of business. The first purchase Burke made from me was that of 2,000,000 percussion caps and 250,000 revolver caps. The amount of the purchase was £385, which he paid in cash. I made out an invoice, and gave it to him. I gave him a delivery order on the manager of the London and North Western Railway Company at Birmingham for the percussion caps, which were then lying at Curzon street station. Burke afterwards bought revolvers, and I went with him to Mr. Hill’s, in St. Mary’s road, where we inspected some pistols. I purchased pistols from Mr. Hill and other makers, and sold them to Burke. I made out seven or eight invoices of goods altogether, and to the best of my recollection the amount was £1,970. The payments were principally made in Bank of England notes. I gave credit for the invoice of the rifles. The amount of it was £698. I saw him every day, and was on very friendly terms with him. I went to his house in George street. There was a large plate on the door, on which the words “E. C. Winslow, merchant and commission agent,” were engraved. I believe I saw Casey there. He appeared to be only a workman. I have seen Mullady at my office. I have occasionally received letters from Burke, and have seen him write. (Letters written by Burke to the witness were then read. In one of them he expressed a wish to be furnished with a list of prices of rifles, &c.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Jones: Burke and I had frequent conversations about his antecedents. I don’t remember his saying that he had taken up his residence for some time in Chili.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis: I was examined at the police court on the 30th of December, and I then thought that Casey was the man who had passed under the name of Mullady. I also professed to have seen Mullady several times. I always had a doubt as to Casey’s identity. I have now no doubt about Casey.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pater: Had I not seen Shaw I should have been under the impression that Casey was the man who waited for Burke’s letter. When I saw Shaw at the police court, I recognized him, and found I had been mistaken with respect to Casey.
Wm. James Hill, a pistol maker, residing in St. Mary’s road, Birmingham, corroborated that part of the evidence of the last witness relating to the purchase of pistols.
In cross-examination by Mr. Jones, he said he understood that the pistols were to be sent to Chili.
James Whitehead deposed to having seen the prisoner Casey at Burke’s offices in George-street-parade.
Mr. Day, a house agent, residing in Birmingham, stated that Burke rented premises in George-street-parade, on the representation that he belonged to a mercantile firm in New York. He paid the first quarter’s rent in advance. The third quarter the prisoner [Page 194] suddenly left without giving notice. On regaining possession of the house witness found a carboy, from which there was the smell of petroleum. He also found a door which bore bullet and chalk marks, and appeared to have been used as a target.
In cross-examination by Mr. Jones, witness admitted having stated to the magistrate that he did not know whether the carboy was in the premises when Burke took possession of them.
Mr. Mansell, a member of the Birmingham detective force, produced a plate which he had taken off the door of Burke’s offices and which bore the following: “Edwd. C. Winslow, Commission Agent and General Merchant.” He further stated that in the cellar of the house he found several jars containing a liquid, the nature of which he did not know.
In reply to Mr. Ernest Jones, he said he believed the liquor was used in polishing the stocks of rifles.
The foreman of the “order shed” at Curzon street station, Birmingham, proved the delivery at that station of goods consigned by Mr. Kynock, of Birmingham, to “Edward C. Winslow, at Park-lane station, Liverpool, to await order.”
The booker at Park-lane station, Liverpool, proved the delivery of twenty cases on December 29, 1865. The freight was made out from the order (produced.) The signature in the delivery book was “W. Laurence.”
Mr. Kynock identified the order as being in Burke’s handwriting.
William Emery, the checker at Curzon-street station, Birmingham, produced consignment notes which accompanied cases sent to the station. One of the notes did not bear the address of the sender, and he asked it from the man who brought the note. He identified Casey as being that man.
Mr. Kynock stated that the notes were in Burke’s handwriting, and bore the signature, “E. C. Winslow.” The witness, in continuation, deposed that the cases were forwarded to Park-lane station, Liverpool.
In answer to Mr. Lewis, he said that Casey was in his sight for about twenty minutes or half an hour on the day on which he brought the note. He had never seen him before. He did not think he should be much surprised to hear that, on the 29th of December, 1865, Casey was in the employ of the Messrs. Pickford. There were such strange things taking place now, that one might believe anything. (Laughter.)
The booker at Park-lane station was recalled, and proved the delivery of nine cases on the 30th of December, 1865.
Mr. Kynock stated that the note of consignment was in Burke’s handwriting.
A clerk at the Curzon-street station, Birmingham, deposed to having received the consignment note (produced) with 12 cases in January, 1866. The cases were forwarded to Waterloo station, Liverpool. (This note was also proved to be in Burke’s handwriting.)
A clerk in the Waterloo station, Liverpool, proved the delivery of the cases, adding that the signature in the delivery-book was “R. Laurence.”
The consignment and delivery of other cases were proved by railway employés connected with the Birmingham and Liverpool railway stations.
Henry Fisher, who was employed as railway clerk at Birmingham in the early part of 1866, produced four consignment orders, which were delivered to him by the prisoner Shaw, who stood by while the packages to which they related were being weighed.
The court here adjourned for a short time.
Upon its reassembling,
Two females residing in Liverpool were examined, one of whom proved that the prisoner Burke lodged at her house under the name of Edward C. Winslow, and the other, that Burke visited two of her lodgers named Preston and Rice, in company with a Mr. Beecher.
Scafe, a member of the Liverpool police, deposed to finding in a house in Salisbury street, Liverpool, where Burke lodged, three tubs containing water and a large number of bottles. The bottles were taken to the police office, and witness subsequently took one of them to a doctor. On opening the bottle, a few drops of the fluid it contained fell on witness’s clothes, and set them on fire.
William Hone, inspector of detective police at Liverpool, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.
Edward Davis, analyst and chemist, deposed that he examined some bottles which had been given him by the last witness, and found that they contained solution of phosphorus. That substance when dissolved by bisulphate of carbon produced what was known as “Greek fire.”
Morrissy, a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Cork, deposed to having seized two deal cases which had been brought to that city by the steamer Halcyon. They were addressed to “J. Daly & Co., Grand Parade, Cork.”
Thomas Hamilton, resident magistrate at Cork, stated that he had examined the cases referred to by the last witness, and found that they contained Enfield rifles, bayonets, and bullet molds. The rifle produced was one of those which he had taken from the cases.
[Page 195]The rifle was here shown to Mr. Kynock, who identified it as having been sold by him.
John Daly, a member of the firm of Daly & Co., Grand Parade, Cork, being examined, stated that he had not ordered two cases of rifles.
In reply to Baron Bramwell, the witness said he had never acted as agent for any person.
Thomas Kavanagh, a clerk in the employ of the agents of the Cork Steamship Company, at Liverpool, deposed to the shipment of the cases in question.
John Townsend, a member of the firm of Townsend & Cook, drapers, Byron street, Liverpool, was produced to show that they did not send cases of rifles to Daly & Co., Cork.
A servant at the house in Tavistock street, Tottenham court road, in which Burke and Massey lodged under the names of Wallace and Cleburne, was then sworn, and identified Burke.
Evidence having been given as to the finding of military haversacks in the Commercial hotel, Nelson street, Liverpool, in which Burke met several leading members of the Fenian movement who stopped there,
James Hollyman, rifle instructor of the South Cork militia, and John Daly, a color-sergeant in the same regiment, were produced, and identified Burke as having been attached to it in 1856.
Elizabeth Itheall deposed that her father kept the King’s Head public house at Chester. She remembered a person who went by the name of Johnson lodging at her father’s house in February, 1866. Their house was near Chester castle. She said that she afterwards saw this man Johnson on his trial at Dublin under the name of McCafferty.
William Bray, detective officer at Bray, proved that on the 11th of February a great number of strangers arrived at Chester by the trains from Manchester and Liverpool. Some of these persons stopped on the platform and others walked about the town in bodies. He said he should think that there were about 2,000 strangers in the city on this day. On the following morning he found several pistols and some powder and ball in a field near the railway. He could find no owners for these articles. There were 30,000 stand of arms in the castle at this time, and very few soldiers to protect them. Although the place was called the “castle,” it was not possessed of any strength, and was used for courts of justice, and a portion of it was used as a prison.
John Clerk, another constable belonging to the Chester police, also spoke to a number of strangers coming to Chester on the day in question, and among them he recognized the prisoner Burke. The volunteers had been called out early in the morning, and the men who had come by the trains left on the same evening. On Friday, the 15th of February, he drew off the water from a stream at Chester, and found 160 ball cartridges.
Francis Sheridan: I am a sergeant in the Dublin constabulary, and on the night of the 5th March, 1867, I was on duty at the village of Milltown, about two and a half miles from Dublin. I was patrolling the village with three other constables, and at the railway arch at the end of Milltown we met a body of from 700 to 800 men. They were all armed, some with rifles and bayonets, and others with pikes and revolvers. They surrounded and disarmed us. We had revolvers and swords, and were in uniform. There was a person named Lennon, who seemed to have the command of them. They put a number of men round us, and we walked in the center. They proceeded, marching in regular order, towards Stepaside, and on reaching the barracks there they summoned the constables to surrender in the name of the Irish republic. The constables refused to surrender, and the insurgents then fired on them by direction of Lennon. They also got a sledge-hammer from the smith’s forge, and broke open the door. They likewise broke the windows, and threw in stones, and set the barrack on fire, and threatened to burn the constables out. One of the insurgents said they were at a loss because they had not some Greek fire at the time. There were four or five policemen in the barrack, and they returned the insurgents’ fire. When the doors were broken open they surrendered, and their arms were taken from them and distributed among several of the insurgents. Their accoutrements and uniforms were also taken. The insurgents next proceeded to Glencallan, and Lennon having ordered his riflemen to the front of the barrack there, he summoned the constables to surrender in the name of the Irish republic. The constables refused to surrender, and the insurgents then fired into the barracks, and the fire was returned from the inside. One man was shot beside me. After about a couple of hours’ firing the insurgents placed us in front, and got behind us—(laughter)—but the firing did not cease. A letter was then sent to the sergeant of the police, offering us in exchange for their arms, and threatening that if this offer was not accepted, we should be kept in front of the fire. The arms were thereupon given up, and we were released, and the insurgents then marched away.
John Macilwain, another of the Irish constabulary, deposed that he remembered the rising of the 5th March, and a few days before this he saw the prisoner, who was afterwards tried as General Halpin, on a car in Dublin. He was in the barrack at the time it was attacked, and he corroborated the evidence given by the last witness as to what took place.
[Page 196]Jeremiah Coghlan, a constable stationed in Drogheda, proved that there was a general rising on the night in question in that neighborhood. It was very dark, but he considered the number of persons who assembled was between 700 and 1,000. Shots were fired, but not more than one or two.
Baron Bramwell. How many police were there in the neighborhood?
Witness. About 38.
Baron Bramwell. And this mob of 700 or 1,000 people fired two shots at you and then ran away? (A laugh.)
The witness said they did so.
Fitzpatrick, another constable, deposed that he apprehended the prisoner Shaw about 15 miles from Drogheda on the 7th of March, 1867, and he found in his possession a six-chamber revolver, loaded and capped. Another man named Dohany was with him, and he also had a revolver in his possession. They were committed for having arms in their possession in a proclaimed district, and Shaw had been in custody ever since.
Evidence was then given that one of the railway stations in the neighborhood was attacked, that a revolver was placed to the breast of a porter who was in charge, and that the telegraph instrument was destroyed. One of the men was called captain, and after they had finished he gave them the order to march on.
Mr. Richard Adams, head constable at Kilmarloek, in the county of Kerry, deposed that on the morning of the 6th of March there was an alarm given at the barrack, and they were informed that they were to be attacked by an armed body. They prepared themselves for the attack, and he looked out and saw an armed body of men in front of the barracks. They first attempted to set fire to the door of the barrack, and then they fired, and the police returned the fire immediately. There were only 15 constables in the barrack, and he believed the number of the mob was about 500. After a short time they all ran away, and threw away their arms as they were doing so. Some of the mob tried to get on the roof and pull off the slates, and they had a tar barrel with them to place in the building. The moment the insurgents returned, witness ordered the doors to be opened, and he and the other constables sallied out and beat off the mob, and proceeded to take several prisoners. They were armed with guns, pistols, pikes, and daggers, and they had a large quantity of ammunition with them, and also a quantity of blasting powder.
John Brown, another constable, who was stationed at Ballyknockan barrack, in the county of Cork, deposed that on the morning of the 6th of March about 150 men marched up to the barrack in military array, and called upon him to surrender in the name of the Irish republic. Witness refused, and the mob fired, and he returned the fire. He asked them to let his daughter leave, and they refused at first, but afterwards permitted her to do so. At this time the barrack had been set on fire. Witness and three other men got out by the window, and they were immediately seized and disarmed, and the insurgents told them that this was the day for the general rising, that they had not attacked Cork yet, but meant to do so in the course of the week. The persons who were in command of this body of insurgents were General Mackey and Captain Burke, and they had both since been convicted and sentenced to penal servitude.
Thomas Reilly, a Dublin police constable, spoke to the apprehension of Captain M’Cafferty, after the affair at Chester, and to his subsequent conviction.
Patrick Mullany, the witness who had been examined as an approver in the case of the Clerkenwell explosion, was then called. He stated that he had been in the habit of attending Fenian meetings, and he had also seen the prisoner Burke at those meetings. He was also in the habit of calling at witness’s house in July, 1867. He knew him first by the name of Winslow, and then by the name of Brown. He wanted a pair of trowsers and a waistcoat done, but witness told him that he could not do them, as that was the time of the tailors’ strike. He saw him last two or three months before his apprehension.
John Joseph Corydon, recalled, said he had spoken of seeing Mullady at Mrs. Blackmore’s in Liverpool. He was at one time intimately acquainted with two men named Preston and Rice. They were members of the Fenian Brotherhood, and during the summer of 1866 he had seen them at several Fenian meetings. There had been a talk, of rising in Ireland several times since 1865, and the final arrangement was that it should take place immediately if the Chester affair had been successful.
After a few questions had been put in cross-examination by Mr. Ernest Jones, the solicitor general said that this closed the case for the prosecution, and
The court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.
The trial of Burke, Casey, and Shaw.
The proceedings in connection with the trial of Burke, Casey, and Shaw were resumed yesterday morning at the central criminal court. When Justice Keating and Baron Bramwell had taken their seats on the bench, the [Page 197] latter, addressing the solicitor general, said, as the result of a consultation with his learned brother, he wished to ask whether the law officers of the Crown thought there was sufficient evidence against the prisoner Casey to press for a conviction?
The solicitor general replied that it had been proved that Casey, when at Birmingham, was found in close connection with Burke, then employed in procuring arms, and had also lived with him in London under circumstances from which it must be assumed that he was fully acquainted with Burke’s designs and the way in which they were carried out.
After some conversation, in the course of which both the learned judges expressed a strong opinion as to the insufficiency of the evidence affecting Casey,
The solicitor general intimated his determination to withdraw the case against Casey, and the jury, under the direction of the bench, found a verdict of not guilty, the foreman remarking that the course adopted by the law officers of the Crown was one that he and his colleagues fully approved.
Mr. F. H. Lewis, who was counsel for Casey, said he had witnesses in attendance who were prepared to prove that his client was engaged at Messrs. Pickford’s at the very time that he was stated to have been associated with Burke.
Baron Bramwell remarked that though it might be hard upon Mr. Lewis’s client to be prevented from showing that he was innocent, all that could be now done was to act upon the verdict of the jury.
Casey was then discharged from custody.
Mr. Ernest Jones then addressed the jury in an eloquent speech on behalf of the prisoner Burke. After impressing on the jury the great importance of the case, he referred to the invisible letter of which Mullany spoke at the other trial, and argued that it was impossible for Burke to have secreted the necessary chemical ingredients about his person. He contended that Burke’s resistance to apprehension was the resistance of an innocent man, and one which every innocent man would offer if he were refused to see the warrant which had been issued for his arrest. Apart from the testimony of the four informers, Mullany, Corydon, Massey, and Devaney, the only evidence was that Burke, under the name of Winslow, had bought arms of Mr. Kynock, and he (Mr. Jones) contended that it was not the part of the prisoner to show what he had done with the arms, but it was for the Crown to show that he bought them for the purposes which the prosecution alleged. Supposing he had been connected with some fillibustering or revolutionary expedition in South America, it would have been impossible for him to have brought over witnesses to prove the fact, as he was not a man who was rich himself, nor had he Mends in a high station of life. If Burke had bought arms for one of the South American states, it would have been a breach of the neutrality law, and that would be an inducement for any man to change his name. Then one of the principal points in Burke’s favor was that, notwithstanding the large quantity of arms which he purchased from Mr. Kynock, not one rifle nor revolver sent by him from Birmingham was found with the Irish insurgents. The Crown had laid particular stress upon the fact that Burke had been seen in company with Fenians in Liverpool, but they must not allow that part of the case to influence them unfavorably against the prisoner, for even if he had been aware of their designs, and knew everything about their movements, no criminality would attach to him. He cared not how suspicious were the circumstances which affected his client. The Crown were bound to convert them into absolute and undeniable proof before a verdict of guilty could be returned. The learned counsel then referred in satirical terms to the informers, and told the jury that the evidence of those individuals should be discarded altogether, as there had been no corroboration as to material fact, and the prisoner’s position was therefore in no way injured by it. The man Lawrence, who was proved to have received the arms sent from Birmingham to Liverpool, had not been connected with the Fenian movement, and the only assumption to entertain concerning him was that he was the innocent servant of Burke, and not the agent of a conspiracy. Remarking upon the impartiality and the fairness which had been exhibited in the cases of the prisoners who were discharged from custody on Tuesday, and in that of Casey, who was acquitted this morning, he asked them to imitate the sense of justice thus shown by English judges and an English jury, and to show the Irish people that nothing but the spirit of fairness actuated Englishmen in dealing with offenses more or less connected with Ireland.
Mr. Pater then addressed the jury on behalf of Shaw. He dwelt upon the circumstance that the informers, Massey and Devaney, did not refer to his client. Corydon had sworn that he was present at the meetings of American officers in Liverpool, but there was not the slightest scintilla of corroborative evidence to warrant the jury in paying any attention to that allegation. With regard to the evidence which had been adduced to prove the identity of Shaw as having assisted Burke in Birmingham, he argued that Mr. Kynock’s identification of Casey as being Shaw at the police court negatived the force of his testimony on the point at the present trial. Mr. Kynock stated that he knew Mullady by his red hair; but if that were the case, how was it that he had pointed at Casey, whose hair was black, as Mullady? The second witness who had been produced to identify Mullady was a man whose evidence was altogether [Page 198] unreliable, and whose antecedents rendered his story entirely unworthy of credence. Touching the Fenian rising near Dublin, counsel reminded the jury that his client had not been proved to have been there, nor yet at the attack upon the police barrack, referred to the previous day. Shaw was arrested in Ireland, having a loaded revolver at the time, but he had suffered 15 months’ imprisonment for that offense, and the jury should hot allow it to influence them in deciding upon the charges which were now brought against him. In conclusion, he again reminded them that the only evidence of a serious nature which had been given against his client was that of Corydon. He adjured them not to place reliance upon it, and hoped they would allow Shaw to return to his home, family, and occupation.
The court then adjourned for a short time.
Upon its reassembling, the solicitor general replied on behalf of the Crown. He told the jury to dismiss from their minds the suggestion of the counsel for the defence that a verdict of acquittal would be a message of peace for Ireland, and to consider the case upon its merits and form their conclusion upon the evidence which had been adduced. After referring to the contemplated attack on Chester Castle and the rising in Ireland as proof of the formidable character of the Fenian conspiracy, the solicitor general proceeded to deal with the testimony which had been given in support of the charge against the prisoners. He said it would be idle and futile to call accomplices if Mr. Jones’s suggestion that the evidence of the informers should be entirely disregarded were carried out. The jury might consider such evidence with care and jealousy, and examine the motives which had induced either or all of the informers to come forward; but they should see whether it was not so far corroborated as to justify them in believing in its truth or improbability. It was not for him to justify the conduct of Corydon. They all knew he was a had, wicked man, for whom they had the greatest contempt, but then they should remember that he was the instrument by which the objects of the conspiracy had been thwarted, and that he had assisted in crushing a scheme which would have spread death and bloodshed far and wide. Therefore, instead of being led away by the fact that Corydon was an informer, and a contemptible informer, they should compare his evidence with that of the other informers and with that of independent witnesses, and see whether it did not contain elements of truth. The character of Devaney, another informer, was little above Corydon’s. Then they came to Massey, the third informer, and in referring to him he (the solicitor general) submitted his position and antecedents entitled him to some consideration at the hands of the jury. Up to the time of his arrest he was determined to fight for the Fenian cause in Ireland, and the circumstances under which he gave information to the government were such as to justify a belief in his credibility, and to indicate him as a man actuated by motives other than those which had induced his companions to give their services to the Crown. Adverting to Burke’s acts in Birmingham, the solicitor general said they had the undeniable fact that under a false name he purchased arms and ammunition to the amount of £2,000, and sent them to Liverpool from time to time. Massey stated that Burke told him he had purchased arms for the Fenians, and corroboration of Massey’s statement was to be found in a fact which he mentioned as having been communicated to him by Burke, and which was afterwards deposed to by Mr. Kynock, namely, that on one occasion Burke obtained credit to the extent of £900. Another circumstance which militated against the prisoner was that arms were sent from Liverpool to Cork under a false consignment, and that they were recognized by Mr. Kynock as being the same as those which he had sold to Burke. It had been suggested for the defence that Burke was the agent of a firm connected with Chili, but why had not evidence on the point been produced, or why had no account been given of the part played by the man Lawrence who received the arms in Liverpool? In concluding his remarks with regard to Burke he was obliged to say that he thought the case against him was unanswerable. Referring to Shaw’s alleged participation in the Fenian movement, he called the attention of the jury to the statement made by Corydon, that Shaw attended meetings in Liverpool, and that he went to Mrs. Blackmore’s house by the name of Mullady. Amelia Tye had told them she believed Shaw was the man who came to Mr. Kynock’s with a letter from Burke, but she was not in a position to swear to him positively. If the evidence rested there it would be unsatisfactory, but then they found that Mr. Kynock came forward and positively identified Shaw as one of the men he had seen assisting Burke in Birmingham, and this evidence of identification had been corroborated by Fisher, the railway clerk, whose character counsel for the defense had needlessly assailed. Corydon deposed that at a meeting in the zoological gardens in Liverpool, Shaw was appointed to go to Ireland as one of the fighting men. Corydon’s evidence required corroboration, and no more satisfactory corroboration could be given than the fact that Shaw and another man were arrested in Ireland, having loaded revolvers in their possession, and that they were subsequently imprisoned for carrying arms in a proclaimed district.
At 10 minutes to 4 Baron Bramwell commenced his summing up.
His lordship said that before he proceeded to call their attention to the evidence he would refer to the three complaints that had been made by the prisoners’ counsel: first, [Page 199] that the murder case had been taken before the present; that the prisoners had been committed to Warwick; and that Thompson, the officer, had arrested the prisoner, Burke, without a warrant; and he could not help expressing his opinion that neither of those complaints was at all justified by the facts. The learned judge then proceeded to explain that the offense with which the prisoners were charged was in point of fact treason; but, in accordance with a recent statute, the Crown were empowered to indict them for a lesser offense, which was called treason-felony. All that was necessary to be proved to support such a charge was that the accused parties had the design in their minds to dethrone the Queen in Ireland, and that they had done overt acts, such as the purchasing of arms with the object of carrying out that project. He was afraid there could not be the slightest doubt in the present case that a treasonable conspiracy, such as was suggested, really existed, and if the jury should be of that opinion, they would then have to consider whether the prisoners were proved to have been engaged in that conspiracy. It was argued on behalf of the prisoners that the informers who had been examined were unworthy of belief, and this was undoubtedly true to a certain extent, but it must be apparent that the two instances of the intended attack upon Chester Castle, and the rising that undoubtedly took place in the month of March, were most important corroborations of the evidence of the approvers. While upon this part of the case, he could not help expressing his admiration at the noble conduct of the Irish policemen and the gallant manner in which one of the police barracks was defended, and indeed the defense might almost be called a little Lucknow. The learned judge then proceeded to call the attention of the jury generally to the evidence that had been adduced for the prosecution, pointing out where it appeared to him the approvers were corroborated by independent testimony. He then proceeded to state that if the fire-arms had been really purchased by the prisoner, Burke, for some honest and legitimate purpose, nothing could have been easier than for the prisoner to have proved the fact. Having referred at considerable length to the evidence that affected the prisoner, he next proceeded to comment upon the evidence relating to the other prisoner, Mullady, and said that if he was not the person who was with Burke in Birmingham in 1866, and who assisted him in disposing of the arms that had been purchased, he might have produced witnesses to show where he really was at that time, and the absence of such evidence was an ingredient for them to consider when they came to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. He next referred to the fact that Mullady was actually taken into custody while in company with a body of armed insurgents, who were endeavoring to make their escape after being repulsed by the police, and that at the time he had a six-chamber revolver, capped and loaded, in his possession. The learned judge concluded a most careful and impartial summing up by leaving the case in the hands of the jury.
The jury retired at 10 minutes past 5, and returned into court after a deliberation of 20 minutes with a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
Mr. Avery, the clerk of the court, then put the usual question to the prisoners whether they had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon them according to law.
Burke, (in a drawling and affected tone.) I have a few brief remarks to make, if I am permitted to make them.
Baron Bramwell. You are entitled by law to state anything you think proper why judgment should not be passed upon you.
Burke. Then, as a preliminary to the observations I have to make, I wish to say that since the period of my arrest, and since I have been confined in various prisons, at Bow street, the House of Detention, Newgate, Warwick jail, the King Street station-house, and other places, I have received from all the officials, from the governor down to the lowest warder, the most unvarying kindness, and I desire to record my gratitude to those gentlemen for such an extension of kindness towards me. I am not surprised by the verdict which the jury have arrived at, my lord, nor do I desire to impeach it. Under all the circumstances, and considering the evidence that was brought forward, I could see that 12 reasonable men could arrive at no other conclusion. But there are other points which, with your lordship’s permission, I may touch upon without impeaching the verdict. I will not allude to the attorney general’s conduct towards me during the past week, because he is not present, and I will, therefore, exercise more forbearance towards him than he used towards me; but I will briefly allude to some statements of the solicitor general in reference to my case. The learned gentleman, with his usual ability, has stated that it was not the desire of the prosecution to try my case under any shadow of prejudice; but if so, I would ask why did he not permit my case to be taken before that of the prisoners charged with causing the Clerkenwell explosion, although my attorney laid an affidavit before him, distinctly stating that my case would be bitterly prejudiced if the Clerkenwell case was brought on before mine. No prejudice! It has been most heinously prejudiced.
Baron Bramwell, (interruping.) You have no right to make the observations you are now making. What you are entitled to is to take an objection on any point of law.
Burke. I am bound to defend my own character.
Baron Bramwell. You have no right to do that now.
[Page 200]Burke. Will the law sanction it to be assailed without——
Baron Bramwell. You cannot do it now.
Burke. Will you tell me when I may do so?
Baron Bramwell. It is not my duty to tell you.
Burke. I will take your opinion on the matter.
Baron Bramwell (proceeding to pass sentence) said: I have informed myself what would be the proper punishment to pass upon you both, and I have done so without taking into consideration at all the other case.
Burke. Pardon me, my lord, I understand you to consider that I have finished. I had concluded my remarks on that point, but I have something else to say.
Baron Bramwell repeated that he could only urge objections in law to judgment being pronounced upon him. He must accept the verdict of the jury as final.
Burke then said that at the commencement he was introduced as an alien, and his counsel proposed to put his passport in as evidence to prove that fact. He had produced that passport, and it had been accepted by the representatives of four or five European governments, but it had been objected to in this country, and the prosecution went on to prove that I was a native of Ireland. Did the gentlemen who came to prove that point establish their position? Two militiamen stated that his relatives lived at Macroom, but he could say that he knew nothing whatever of the locality, and he apprehended the statement they had made was a falsehood. They asserted what they knew was wrong.
Baron Bramwell. You are now doing what I told you not to do. I cannot allow you to contine the observations you are now making.
Burke. Well, then, my lord, I will not touch on this matter. Accepting the position that the prosecution have placed me in, that of a subject of her Majesty—supposing I am really such, and supposing that I owe allegiance to her Majesty—that I entirely deny; I contradict that statement directly—but supposing that it is so in reality, I would still justify the position which the prosecution have placed me in, if your lordship will permit me. My position is a narrow one, and I have no knowledge of the law. It is not necessary for me to justify my conduct, to arraign all the many acts of outrage and wrongs——
Baron Bramwell, (interrupting.) I cannot permit you to do that. All I can permit you to do is to move an arrest of judgment by showing that the proceedings against you are invalid in point of law.
Burke. Then I repeat my protest as a soldier of the United States.
Baron Bramwell. I will not allow you to make a protest. Have you done?
Burke. No; I have not. I have no desire to act towards your lordship disrespectfully. I have towards your lordship and the jury every feeling of respect, but I must say that during the progress of this trial your lordship has been acting more as a prosecutor than a judge.
Baron Bramwell, (in a peremptory tone.) Silence! I cannot allow you to go on. I have borne with you long enough. I have made up my mind that no man who has been convicted by the lawful tribunals of the country should be afterwards permitted to assail those tribunals, and have apparently all the honors of the contest with him. I think many men have been tempted into commission of crime by the expectation that they would have an opportunity of making an exciting speech when called up for judgment, and I think it would be a salutary alteration of the law if men were made to feel that they would have to suffer the punishment of the law without being allowed to do so, and I have determined that that shall be the case with you. I say I have inquired what sentence should be passed upon you, and I find that in Ireland, where they have had more experience in these cases than we have in England, the sentence that would probably have been passed upon you for this offense would have been 15 years’ penal servitude, and that sentence, with the concurrence of my learned brother, I now pass upon you. With regard to you, Mullady, who I consider, to some extent, the dupe of the other prisoner, the sentence upon you will be one of seven years’ penal servitude.
Mullady, (in an impudent tone.) But have not I a right to speak? I have not been called upon before you passed sentence.
Baron Bramwell. Very well, then I retract my sentence.
Mullady. I knew before I came to England what sort of justice an Irishman had to expect.
Baron Bramwell. I will not allow you to go on in that way. The sentence upon you is that you be kept in penal servitude for seven years.
Mullady. I can do that, and 20 years more, for Old Ireland.
The prisoners were then removed amid a scene of great excitement.
Mr. Giffard, Q. C., then made an application on behalf of the prosecution that the trial of the prisoner Patrick Mullany for treason-felony should be postponed to the next session.
The prisoner was brought up and informed of the application, when he stated that he was very ill, and he should like to have the matter disposed of one way or the other as soon as possible. He was told that the next session would be on Monday, and he then consented to the application, and the court adjourned till Monday next.