MR. IRELAND'S DEFENCE OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS.

West Coast Times, Issue 838, 30 May 1868, Page 3

MR. IRELAND'S DEFENCE OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS.

[FHO3I THE WEST COAST TIMES, MAT 22.] The visit of Mr Ireland to Hokitika as Counsel for the defence of the prisoners just convicted of riot and sedition, is a circumstance which will in itself attract a very considerable attention to these trials throughout the whole of the Australian Colonies. Mr Ireland is a man of no ordinary mark. He has for many years past held a foremost position at the Bar, and been one of the leading political men, iv Victoria. In that colony he has attained the highest professional honors compatible with the pursuit of an active political life. It is many years ago since Mr Ireland entered the Parliament of Victoria, and held office under the crown. He has taken a prominent part in the discussion of the great political questions which, for the last three years, have agitated the great colony to which he belongs. He is one of the foremost leaders of the Constitutional party which has opposed with persistency, against all odds, the attempt made to subvert the very foundations upon which the political system of Victoria is based. Courted by every ministry which, in the rapid succession of changes in that great colony, has succeeded each other, Mr Ireland has never deserted his colors as a politician, nor compromised the principles with which he has identified himself.

If we thus refer to his antecedents as a public man, it is for the purpose only of showing how marked a feature is given to the recent political trials by his association with them. He has not come amongst us as a politician; he has been simply retained as an advocate. But the whole circumstances surrounding the case attach to his visit a special interest.

Mr Ireland very gracefully put it to the jury, that he had been retained for the defence of these prisoners because he was remote from local politics. All w,ho were present in Court kuew that he had been selected for the task assigned him on account of his eminent abilities as a lawyer, and his established reputation as a successful advocate. In both characters he has distinguished himself during his brief appearance in our Courts.

Mr Ireland, has not succeeded in securing the acquittal of his clients. There are tasks which it is impossible to effect. There are limits beyond which the strength of Hercules tvill not avail. No more impracticable case was ever entrusted to the hands of a counsel, than the one which Mr Ireland's position obliged him to undertake. We are certain that if his eloquence had resulted in the acquittal of his clients, he would have left New Zealand with a far lower estimate than he now entertains, of the spirit in which law is administered in this colony.

But if Mr Ireland has not secured the absolute acquittal of his clients, he has done more. As far as the prisoners are concerned, it may be said almost literally, that they have escaped from punishment. A nominal penalty only has- been inflicted on them. The majesty of the law has been asserted, and justice has felt itself satisfied. We believe the prisoners themselves, without exception, admit the justice of Jthe verdict of the jury, and recognise the leniency of the sentence passed by the Judge. To this satisfactory conclusion of a set of political trials, from which somewhat different results were anticipated, we are greatly indebted to Mr Ireland. The calmness of his defence was admirable. A man noted for the possession of the highest powers of wit, sarcasm and invective, he held himself in judicious restraint. If we say that he scarcely did justice to his own powers, we must add that he was evidently under the controlling influence of a deep sense of responsibility. On many occasions we have known Mr Ireland to rise to a higher pitch of eloquence, and to indulge more freely in what may may be called the license of the Bar. We have heard him both as the subtle' lawyer, as the impassioned advocate, as the indignant declaimer. There was something especially impressive in the almost judicial moderation in which he conducted the case of his clients, and addressedjtho jury, on Tuesday. There was no attempt to browbeat witnesses,

to entrap them into a labyrinth of contradictions. Mr Ireland's address to £he jury was a straightforward manly appeal to them to acquit his clients on the broad ground that the indictment was not sustained by the facts proved in evidence. The effect of his masterly and eloqueut speech was to a certain extent neutralised by the summing up of his Honor, who never did himself greater credit than on this occasion. Mr Ireland had a case in hand in which the whole bar of the United Kingdom could not have procured a verdict other than the one arrived at, with an upright judge and an honest jury. But, failing to secure the acquittal of his clients, his eloquent appeal procured the next best thing for them, viz., a nominal punishment. A less temperate address to the jury might have resulted in a heavier penalty. An advocate of less experience and. tact might have taken advantage of the opportunity of enlarging grandiloquently upon the wrongs of Ireland, and have sacrificed his clients for the sake of a little popularity and applause. Mr Ireland was above this ; and we do not think that there was a single sentiment uttered by him throughout the whole course of his most eloquent address, from which a single man in the jury-box, or indeed the judge himself, dissented. He disputed some of the facts alleged by the prosecution ; criticised the significance of others. But the whole case was so clear that he had nothing left him but to protest iv the name of his clients that, although their acts might be legally wrong, they meant no harm. And Mr Ireland succeeded in conveying that impression to the mind both of the jury and the judge. The former could do no other than bring in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. The latter could do no less than pass the nominal sentence of a small fine.

• As we have said, the manner in which these trials have been conducted can leave no sting. The inquiry has been most impartial : most temperate. Xone we are sure will be more ready to admit this, than those who have been convicted. For this we are greatly indebted to the admirable temper and the wise discretion with which Mr Ireland conducted his case. His clients are indebted to him for a merely nominal sentence. But to a far greater degree the community are indebted to him. The advocate of men arraigned on a charge amounting almost to treason, he has assumed the tone of a pacificator, and whilst doing most ample justice to his clients has defended them in a style best calculated to appease all angry feeling, and to re-establish harmony amongst all sections of the community. Instead of indulging in violent tirades against the Government, or making impassioned appeals on political grounds, he pleaded the cause of his clients as that of men who were misguided, but not guilty of a serious intent to do wrong ; he repudiated the seditious sentiments attributed to them ; disavowed all sympathy with the intemperate language they were proved to have used, and made an appeal which had its effect. The jury could not shut their eyes to facts, and the verdict was guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. The Judge had to accept the verdict ; but his sentence was one so lenient, and indeed nominal, that the prisoners must have felt how effective had been the eloquence of their advocate.