From Dr Russell’s Reminiscences.

Evening Star, Volume 8505, Issue 8505, 2 May 1891, Page 4

From Dr Russell’s Reminiscences.

.. — ♦ It is no secret that Mr W. H. Russell, who has already written in the columns of ‘ The Times’ much of the more important and dramatic history of the last forty years, is preparing a book of reminiscences, from which the * Anti-Jacobin ’ makes these extracts : THE IRISH STATE TRIALS OF 1848. On the 20th September, 1848,1 left Dublin for Clonmel. The State trials (never ending, still beginning, these State trials) of the chiefs of tha confederates in “the Rising” which subsided in Widow Cormack’s cabbage garden were to open the next day. * The Times ’ had sent over as my senior Mr Nicholls, of the Chancery Bar, a precise, stiff, dry, but kind-hearted man, whose short visit to Ireland filled him with anger —now against the people, now against the priests, anon against the Government (he was not quhe sure which were to blame) for the misery he beheld. We had comfortable lodgings in the house of a respectable cutler named Holmes in Dublin street, and Delane, who had been on a visit to Bernal Osborne at Newtown Anner, came into-Clonmel to see us on his way to London. Ho was impressed with the gravity of the situation. “ It’s useless talking of the loyalty or disloyalty of the people ! They are all against us ! They do not like our laws, our ways, or anything that is ours ! But the Government and landowners, supported by the police and the army, can always deal with insurrection, and the jury to-morrow will be quite safe.” It was a very remarkable scene next morning. We made our way with difficulty through a dense crowd to the courthouse, which was guarded by a large body of police with fixed oayonets, Horse, foot and artillery were close at hand, in readiness to support them. We passed between a line of police to our places, reserved by the High Sheriff. The Court was crowded from floor to ceiling. On the bench, arrayed in their scarlet and ermine robes and in flowing wigs, were the four judges—the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Blackburn, Mr Justice Crampton, Mr Justice Perrin —whowere sent down under a special commission to try the prisoners. There was a great “bar” retained for the Crown on the one side, and for the prisoners on the other. The proceedings began with the skirmishing between counsel which usually precedes the joint battle, giving ample room for the display of the ingenuity and finesse which are supposed to characterise the Irish bar. . , . There were dramatic scenes and moving incidents from day to day. I may be under the influence of impressions formed at a time whsn I was what is called emotional if 1 now express the opinion that on no occasion in any court of law was there a more brilliant illustration of learning, argument, passion, and wit than that by which counsel for the prisoners, in the long course of this trial, moved the audience, if they failed to convince the jury or to divert the attention of the judges, from the {essential issues before them. From the gallery at times burst forth wailing cries or suppressed groans as the witnesses forged link after link of the chain which bound the accused to their fate. The dignity of the Court was exemplary, and it was with difficulty we could believe our eyes, or rather our ears, when one night, after dinner, to which we were invited by the judges, we heard Mr Justice Blackburn trolling an Irish melody with exquisite pathos in a rich mellow voice. I found that my colleague Nicholls was by degrees touched with something like sympathy for some of the prisoners. “Smith O’Brien,” he said, “after all conducts himself like a gentleman, and that M’Manuu is a fine honest fellow. I pity him. I dare say if one knew Meagher he would turn out to be a pleasant agreeable man, full of enthusiasm and poetry, but he is without judgment.”

The end came at last. On October 8 the jury came into Court with a verdict of “Guilt]:” against William Smith O’Brien for high treason and for levying war against the Queen, with a recommendation to the merciful consideration of the Crown. He heard the words unmoved, with his arms folded, his head thrown back, and a scornful smile upon his lips. He listened to the judge with the utmost calmness, and when called upon to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, he spoke in measured accents, declaring that he had done what was right, as he believed, and that he; had nothing to repent but his failure. On the 9th he was brought up and placed :n the dock to receive the sentence of the Court, which was : “ That you, William Smith O’Brien be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and hanged by the neck until you be dead ; that you then shall be disembowelled, and your body divided into four quarters, to be disposed of as Her Majesty should direct.” It was said at the time that his composure was due to an assurance the night before that he would not be executed ; but I do not believe that he was influenced in his defiant attitude by the knowledge that he would only be condemned to exile for life, M'Manus, who was next put on his trial, a man of action, no orator or phrasemonger, conducted himself with perfect propriety. A resolute revolutionist, he had renounced a competence, and placed his life on the hazard of the die in that miserable rising. Even the judges (I say even, because they were bound to look at the great gravity of the offence) were moved by the honesty and earnestness of the man. He was found guilty on the 12th. After him, on the 15th, came O’Donoghue, then Meagher on the 21st, each to be found guilty and be sentenced to a traitor’s doom on the 23rd of October.

The scene now changed to Dublin—the play was the same. On October 26 I attended the Court of Queen’s Bench to hear a long argument on a law point in a demurrer raised by his counsel for 0. Gavan Duffy. There I saw in the dock arraigned as a traitorous felon the man who has since been a Minister of the Crown, the Premier of Victoria, and a Knight of St. Michael and St. George, and who holds, I believe, the same opinions their expression a little dulcified perhaps—which he propounded, and the doctrines which he taught in the * Nation.’ More fortunate than his confederates, he escaped the meshes of the law and defeated the Government in two prosecutions against him for treason felony. These sittings lasted for several weeks. The judges now and then gave judgment against the Crown, and as the Crown lawyers were bound to justify their opinions, eaoh adverse judgment was a basis for a new phase of legal action. There was an incident one day which illustrated the composure and readiness of Judge Blackburn, though words could scarcely give an idea of his dignity in Court. He had just risen at the dose of a long argument, when a red-headed man got up in the body of the Court and exclaimed in a loud voice: “My lord, my lord !” Blackburn turned, and asked severely: “ Who are you, sir ?” “My lord, my name is J, O’Brien ; I am an attorney of this honorable Court.” The judge exchanged a word with the officer below him, “ Proceed, Mr O’Brien. What have you to say ?” “My lord, I am requested by several respectable citizens of Dublin to ask your lordship when this honorable Court means to give judgment in the case of Smith O’Brien and others versus the Queen in error.” Blackburn looked at the attorney, hemmed, and then with great solemnity, pausing on every word, said : “ Mr O’Brien, tell the respectable citizens of Dublin who requested you to put that question to the Court that you did put it to the Court, and that the Court gave yon no reply.” His lordship retired, and Mr O’Brien collapsed.