HIGH TREASON (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 14 March 1854)

§ MR. WHITESIDE

said, he rose for the purpose of asking leave to introduce a Bill for the following purpose, namely— To assimilate the Law and Practice existing in cases of High Treason in Ireland to the Law and Practice existing in cases of High Treason in England. He considered that it was unnecessary for him on the present occasion to allude to the past history of this country, or to the cases of high treason as they stood recorded in that most gloomy volume containing the State Trials of England. The House, however, was well aware that during the reign of King William III., when our religious liberties were established, an Act of Parliament was introduced which gave certain advantages to persons accused of high treason in England, but which had never been extended to the King's subjects in Ireland. He only asked the same advantages for the accused in the one country as in the other, and he would show that at present a number of privileges afforded to an English prisoner were denied to an Irish one, who was not allowed nearly the same opportunities of preparing and making his defence, or the same foreknowledge of the witnesses and the testimony to be brought against him. He might at the same time remind the House, that the custom now prevalent of supplying the accused party with a copy of the jury panel first prevailed during the reign of William III. By slow degrees, however, certain provisions of the Act to which he had just alluded—that was in the reign of George III.—were extended to Ireland, and subsequent to that a copy of the indictment was furnished to the prisoner. But it was not until the reign of George IV., and on the Motion of Lord Holland, in the other House of Parliament, that the other provisions of King William's law were extended to Ireland. In the meantime a Statute was passed called the Statute of Anne; and when the Union with Scotland was carried, that Act was extended to Scotland. And he would refer to the very 795 admirable preamble of that measure, as it sustained his argument on the present occasion. It declared:— That it was highly conducive to the well-being of the State, that in all matters which concerned the Crown there should be an identification in the law affecting all parts of the country. Now, on the occasion of Mr. Smith O'Brien's trial, it was his (Mr. Whiteside's lot to have defended that gentleman, and he was, therefore, in a position to declare that if that gentleman had been tried in England on the facts as they were then presented, he must have been acquitted. On that occasion the right of the accused to a copy of the jury panel was urged, but the decision of the Judges was against the prisoner. He then asked for a list of the witnesses, but the application was very properly refused by the Whig law officer of the Crown on the ground that the Act of Parliament did not extend to Ireland. Well, what followed? A person of the name of Dobbyn, who was not an informer, but a spy, whose name and past conduct were entirely unknown, appeared on the table to describe with singular astuteness certain transactions which were to establish the crime of high treason against the prisoner. Although, therefore, this man might be said to be the supreme arbiter of life or death in the case, not the slightest information could be afforded either to the accused or his attorney as to his antecedents. They were, therefore, as Irishmen, obliged to draw upon their imagination for their facts, and to cross-examine the witness at hazard, supposing him to belong to a class of persons who in olden times used to play the part of spies. But, as if to demonstrate the necessity of extending the law of high treason as existing in England to Ireland, it so happened, that in the very midst of the Lord Chief Justice's charge, a witness arrived in court, named Norton, who stated that this person Dobbyn had once proposed to him to get up a little Titus Oates plot, and to give false information against various persons. An application was thereupon made to get this last person examined, and to confront him with Dobbyn, and permission not being objected to by the Crown lawyers, the two witnesses were confronted in the presence of the jury, and the Judge in his charge told them that if they did believe the last witness they must discredit the evidence of Dobbyn. Now that proved the necessity of the Irish law 796 being assimilated to that of England. In the case of John Frost, as he might remind the House, the life of the prisoner was saved by a technical objection; and why, then, should they have one law for the case of a Welsh linendraper and another for that of an Irish gentleman? Any such distinction was invidious, any such distinction was useless; and therefore, he trusted, an end would be put to the grievance. Mr. Townsend, a gentleman of whom he wished to speak with the highest respect, and one of Her Majesty's counsel, wrote a criticism upon the trial of Mr. Smith O'Brien, and he declared, as an English lawyer, that the law of high treason ought to be the same in both countries. He would, therefore, call upon the House to grant the people of Ireland equal laws on the subject of high treason with those possessed by this country; let them have an equal trial, and equal justice.