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 ear, 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 opportunity 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

evidence undoubtedly worthy of your consideration as regards the testimony of Buckley, because it brings these two persons in close proximity to the place where a large number of men unquestionably landed, according to the testimony of the police.

Now, gentlemen, do you come to the conclusion that the vessel that was sighted at Sligo bay was the same vessel from which the men were landed at or near Dungarvan? There is no evidence except the testimony of Buckley that arms were on board this vessel; there is no other evidence except that of Gallagher in reference to Fenianism on board the vessel. I do not now speak of the evidence given by Buckley. If you believe the evidence, at Sligo bay she was, in Sligo bay she remained, in the Bay of Sligo she was piloted, in the Bay of Sligo she discharged the pilot after some communication with the person called the agent; a transaction which may have been innocent, irrespective of the testimony of Bradley; but with this large number of persons on board-far beyond what was necessary for navigating the vessel-with this large number of persons on board she leaves Sligo, she goes to the southeast coast from the northwest, and there 30 persons are landed, leaving others on board. Here you have to consider what these 30 persons stated of themselves, and how far you consider these statements inconsistent with the circumstances I have mentioned. I am now dealing with the fact of this vessel being at Sligo, and afterwards at Waterford, and I am suggesting to you whether in the movements of the vessel, and in what occurred on the coast of Waterford, there is that which would lead you to believe the statements these men made. They stated that a vessel in which they were fishing took fire, and that they were taken up by the vessel which they had left. Is that a matter which you would consider so improbable as not to warrant implicit credit?

The PRISONER. That statement only referred to the two individuals arrested in Youghal, Nagle and Warren.

[Page of report No. 110.]

The CHIEF BARON. Then you have to account for so large a number of persons being at Sligo, afterwards at Streeda, and afterwards at Dungarvan, in a vessel charged with a cargo of fruit, the circumstance of the vessel discharging so large a number of men, the whole story of Buckley, and the other circumstances which I have suggested, and which appear to me to be fitting for your consideration, with the view to the corroboration of Buckley's story.

Before adverting further to the evidence of Buckley, let me deal with the testimony of Gallagher; because if you believe the testimony of Gallagher, it very strongly tends to confirm one important part of the testimony of Buckley, namely, that in which he refers to the transactions that occurred in the cabin; and tends to corroborate it further by the reference to Fenianism that was made to Gallagher when he went down to the cabin and was in communication with Warren. If you believe the testimony of Gallagher he is no accomplice. There is nothing in the evidence of Buckley, or in the evidence of Gallagher, to prove Gallagher an accomplice. But there is evidence on which it is for you to consider whether he was in fact an accomplice. There were unquestionably suppressions by Gallagher in his former testimony, which go very considerably to shake the confidence that would otherwise be attached to his evidence, provided you think it material; and if Gallagher did voluntarily, and in order to shelter the parties who are charged, or who were on board that vessel, forbear to give information when he was first examined, and, still more, if he voluntarily withheld that information, that would be some evidence from which it might be inferred that he participated in their designs. But upon his story there is no confession of his being an accomplice. And it is only with respect to that part of the evidence that I think any question would arise. It is of some importance, with a view to his credit, to consider what his occupation is; and it is established, I think, that he is, and has been for a considerable time, following the occupation of a fisherman and pilot; therefore it is natural that he should be on the lookout for employment, and that he should be taken on board as a person to be employed; that he went on board is proved not alone by his evidence, but by other evidence. You have to deal, no doubt, with the credibility of that witness; but before you discredit him you should be very careful of the ground upon which you come to such a conclusion.

I will now bring to your attention the portions of Gallagher's evidence upon which the impeachment rests. Gallagher was first examined on the 27th of May; and he said that on Friday, the 24th, he observed a brig in the bay, and boarded her about 12 o'clock to ascertain whether she required a pilot, and having been told that a pilot was required, he was engaged. He said he was told that the captain had left and had gone on shore to get provisions, and that he was expected back at 6 o'clock in the evening. He then says that the man in charge told him that the vessel was a Spanish vessel from Spain bound to Glasgow, but that he did not tell him the cargo. That was on the 27th of

[Page of report No. 111.]

May, the day but one after the transaction occurred. Well, upon an information which he swore in the month of June following, the 15th of June, he undoubtedly does say that he asked the person in charge where he was from. He said he was from Spain, and bound to Glasgow with fruit. That is a positive statement, made upon the 27th of

June, and it is in direct contradiction to what he had said on the 27th of May, namely, that the person told him he was from Spain and bound to Glasgow, and did not tell him the cargo. Well, the telling of the cargo, especially if it was stated it was fruit, was certainly not a very material circumstance; but at the same time the prisoner has a right to have your attention called to the contradiction. He said he received no money from them for his services, as the man in charge said they had no money until the captain came back. It turns out that he received 5s. or 68. when he said that his family was poor; but he meant, probably, not that he got nothing at all, but that he was not paid his stipulated pilotage for his services. I therefore suggest that that alone is not a reasonable ground for discrediting him. But then comes this portion of the information of the 27th of May, which I think is material: "A short distance from where I landed, about two miles, I met two coast guards, who made inquiry about the vessel." The coastguard men were examined, and told you what he stated, and they told you he did not make any statement whatever in reference to the transactions the details of which he deposed to here; so that in his conversation with the coast-guard men, and in answer to their interrogatories, he withheld that portion of the information which is now material. He then says: "I told them all I knew." Now, if he had merely withheld the information from these coast-guard men, it would be hardly possible to discredit his evidence on that ground alone. But upon the 27th of May he pledges his oath to this: "I told them all I knew. They said they had been watching her, and they proceeded on towards the shore." That is a positive statement, and it certainly is not true. He did not tell them all he knew.

Then comes this further statement, which must have been a subject of interrogation by the magistrate. He had been apprised that the coast guard had been watching, and he must have recollected what passed in the cabin; and he states, upon his oath, upon that occasion, "I know nothing further concerning the said vessel." Does that mean that he knows nothing more of what occurred upon the vessel, or that he does not know anything more concerning the vessel or her destination? Does that mean that he intended to withhold the information from the magistrates? Unfortunately, upon his evidence the latter is what he says, for he tells you the reason why he said he told all he knew. He said the reason he said he did not know anything further concerning this vessel was that he had given this engagement on oath that he would not disclose it; and that, in consequence of the oath he had thus taken, and which he desired not to violate, he took an oath which was a false one-saying that he had told all he knew about the ship. When he was examined this morning, he said that some of the state

[Page of report No. 112.]

ments contained in his information were taken down wrong. But I do not think he applies that to either of the two statements I have referred to. In one information he says it was 7 o'clock in the morning he saw the vessel, and in another he says it was 7 o'clock in the evening. He says in the information sworn on the 15th of June, "I did not ask her name, nor did I hear it. I did not ask the captain's name, who was said to be on shore." In his information subsequently made, in October, he said, “I asked the name of the captain, but the man in charge would not tell me, and I could not get the name of the captain." So it would appear he inquired into both of these things, although in his information in June he stated what I say. Gentlemen, the important part that I have suggested to you is, of course, momentous with a view to the prisoner's interest in this inquiry. That statement in May, upon Gallagher's oath, is inconsistent with the statement he subsequently made; but there is this, further, which it is always important to consider with a view to evidence of this kind, that, although he might have been mistaken on the 27th of May, and had been examined again on the 15th of June, and was for some time in custody, yet it was not until the 12th of October, which was about the time that Buckley's information was ultimately sworn, that he, for the first time, gave a detail of that transaction which occurred in the cabin. Nothing of that was said upon the first or second information. In the last (the third) information he gave a larger account of what occurred, for he says that about 2 o'clock he was taken down to the cabin by the man in charge, and saw two persons, the prisoner and Nagle. He could not say whether there was any one else in the cabin. Nagle then asked him would he like to be a Fenian. In the statement to you he said what he was asked was would he be a Fenian. "I told him not, and he asked me were there any Fenians in the county," &c. "The man in charge of the vessel then told him to swear me not to give any description of the vessel when I would get on shore. I would not, and the man in charge took a pistol and told me to take the book. I then took the book and swore not to give any information about anything I would see in the vessel."

In his evidence yesterday he said, "anything I would see done about the vessel." That appears, thus on the third information, for the first time; and where the witness for the Crown has the full opportunity of telling the entire of his story in the first instance, and does not tell the entire, and then adds to it afterwards upon the very point upon which his evidence is all important for the Crown, it is undoubtedly a matter open to grave suspicion, and it will be for the jury to so judge of his evidence by the ordinary rules of life, common sense, and common honesty; whether or not they treat

the omission to make this declaration in the first instance as sufficient to induce them not to give credit to it when made upon the second occasion. But, notwithstanding all that, there is always to be considered by the jury the manner in which the witness gives his evidence, the circumstances under which he becomes connected with the [Page of report No. 113.]

transaction to which he deposes, and the circumstances under which the evidence is originally given. When this man was sworn, as described, he must have known perfectly well that the persons who swore him had something to do with the Fenian conspiracy, to which they asked him did he belong. He does not say himself he was afraid of making the disclosures when he was examined, but he does say he was affected by the oath he had taken. He was originally employed, as I have already suggested to you, in his ordinary avocations. He went with a number of persons, and was employed as a part of his ordinary occupation; and the nature of that occupation is proved by the members of the coast guard examined before you. He himself swears positively that he is not and never was a Fenian, or connected with the rebellious proceedings of last year. You have had an opportunity of seeing how he gave his evidence; and although you are called upon to scan it narrowly, with a view to those circumstances alleged to affect its credit, to which I have just called your attention, yet you have ultimately, upon your oath, to say, do you or do you not believe him? Do you believe him an accomplice, because he did not tell all in his first information? Having regard to the fact of his occupation and the way in which he was employed, do you think there is reason to attach impeachment on him against his positive oath that he had nothing to do with Fenianism? If you do not believe he had anything to do with it, there is nothing whatever to indicate that he is a witness whose credit is not to be regarded like any other witness, not requiring corroboration if you believe him, and lending corroboration, if you believe him, to the story of Buckley.

With respect to Buckley himself, you will see how the case stands as to his statement. In Buckley's original evidence he omitted several persons whose names he supplies in his evidence upon the table. He appears to have been originally sworn upon the 12th of September, and re-sworn upon the 12th of October. At the time his first information was sworn, I may say that no considerable number of these parties was arrested. He omits some persons holding the rank of colonel whose names he supplies in the evidence given before you. He omitted the names of Phelan, Doran, and O'Doherty, who were colonels; he omitted the name of James Lawless as one of the parties. He says that he forgot them, and that he was in some excitement at the time he swore his first information. It is difficult to conceive how he could have been excited upon the 15th of June; he must have been arrested some time before that; and he says himself that it was some days after he was arrested that he was in communication with the Crown solicitor for the purpose of giving the information he was able to afford. He had, therefore, time for consideration. Nevertheless, while I bring that to your notice on behalf of the prisoner, it is proper to suggest to you that in that information of the 16th of June he totally omits the name of James Lawless, and who that Lawless was. Why, he was the man who landed with himself, Buckley, who, I believe, was [Page of report No. 114.]

arrested with him, and, consequently, must have been perfectly known to the Crown as a participator with the man who was giving the information, from which information he appears also to have withheld the statement about Phelan, Doran, and O'Doherty. If he forgot Lawless, who was really his known associate, that is certainly a matter very favorable, tending to sustain the truth of his own statement that he omitted the others because he forgot them too.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. He says in his information, "I do not just now recollect the names of any others."

The CHIEF BARON. Yes, and in his evidence given upon the table I think he omits the names of one or two persons whom he mentioned in his informations; for in his information he stated there were four colonels, and seven captains, and four lieutenants, and eleven persons who were not lieutenants. In his evidence upon the table he makes seven colonels instead of four, and five captains in place of seven, and three lieutenants instead of four, and six persons who held no rank instead of eleven. When, therefore, he was examined before you, he omits the names of several whom he names in his informations; and you will say whether the account he gives you (and apply it to your own good sense) whether such forgetfulness is or is not natural. You have to deal with men of all kinds, some of them deficient, some of tenacious memory, and it is for you to say whether this witness satisfactorily explains to you why he omitted at one time names which he supplied at another.

The next matter of impeachment is of somewhat more importance. Gallagher, for the first time in his last information, swore on the 10th of October, and Buckley, for the first time in his evidence before you, gave evidence as to what passed in the cabin. Buckley, in his information, does not say a word of what passed in the cabin. He now says he heard what passed in the cabin. He knew that what passed there was the administering of an oath. He says he only heard so much of what passed as indicated