becoming subjects of any country, and so far become citizens of a foreign country. Now the answer is that he was not there at the time when the witnesses for the Crown said he was therethat is between eight and nine in the morning; and they bring forward a cabman, who says that he saw him between eleven and twelve; that he did not get down to Black Rock till twelve. Now, if he is not mistaken, the prisoner could not have been seen between eight and nine o'clock marching down to Fort Erie. But a man they call Cooney says that he saw him between eight and nine o'clock at Buffalo or Black Rock, and the next man, Cormick, says he saw him between eight and nine at Single Dock-just what the witnesses for the Crown say. Now some of these must be mistaken; either the cabman, Cooney, or Cormick is mistaken. If Cormick is right, then he corroborates the case for the Crown; if Cooney is right, his idea is against not only their other witnesses, but against witnesses who said they saw him marshal the men. Now you have to say which do you believe. If you believe the cabman, then the prisoner could not have been the man they saw in arms, for he could not have been there certainly; and if the other witnesses are right, and Cormick is right, then this man Cooney is mistaken. Now you have just to say which satisfies you is right. [The judge here read extracts to explain his statements.]

Now this, they say, (the learned judge continued,) is not the man they suggest, but no one can tell his name or what he did: but they say that there was some dark man that was very similar. All the particulars given were that he was a captain from Indianapolis. This man, they say, has been mistaken for this prisoner. They say, then, that we mistake the one that was in command for the one who was not in command. The first question that strikes you is, did the latter wear the sword, or is it not possible that he might have had the sword at one time and not at another? In ordinary course of military duty he would wear the sword, and then have it at some times and not at another. Then they tell he was a reporter, and that he represented himself as such as soon as he came over, and they say that they did not know him for anything else. But is it possible that he might have been in command and have been a reporter as well? Now, suppose he was a reporter; if, as a friend, he was there to report their proceedings, and help them in that respect, then he was just as guilty as they who were in arms. If he was there as a mere spectator, then it would be somewhat different, for a man can occupy no equivocal position in such a time as that. He was there either for or against them; the law will not recognize him as a neutral. Now, if he were there as reporter, or special correspondent, if you please, then I can see no difference between him and those who associated with him about the camp. All are equally guilty. I have already explained to you how that is so. Suppose that three or four men would conspire to kill another, and that one of the former is not in sight when the act is done, but is watching; then he is as guilty as the men that shed the blood of the other. Those who are not actively engaged, gentlemen, are equally guilty. Now, coming as a reporter to give warning if there was danger, or encouragement if there was success-for he was the very gentleman for holding intercourse for that purpose—he was there for them or against them. [His lordship proceeded to discuss the question in the same view, when a pause occurred on account of the prisoner's leaving the dock.]

On his return, his lordship said:

Supposing he was a reporter, as he claims to be, if you find that he was there as a reporter-and that is one of the principal points of defence-if you find that he was there in furtherance of the scheme in the way supposed, then he was there aiding them just as much as any of the others. His lordship followed, pointing out in a lucid manner some additional points for the consideration of the jury, stating that it was the intention that constituted the act, and those who remained behind, of the Fenians, he said, were as guilty as those who came; referring to the question of knowledge of a man-how it is found in the minds, and the recognition of men became certain. In regard to the nature of doubts, also, his lordship explained how all things were subject to doubt; but doubt such as this was not that understood in law, and afterwards referred the jury to the evidence, reading the prin cipal portion. Having finished the reading of most of the evidence for the prosecution, his lordship went on to speak of Ryle, who was, he said, at least an accomplice; and it had been the rule always to say that unless the testimony of an accomplice is corroborated it is not safe to rely on.it for conviction; and in the present instance it would not be so, even on another ground-that of the man's character. He appeared to be a bad character, and hence it would be safer, perhaps, to throw his evidence altogether out, and pay no attention to it. Nevertheless, it is there as evidence, and subject to your remark. His lordship then read over the evidence for the defence carefully, when he dismissed the jury to consider their verdict.

The jury retired at ten minutes past four, and the Crown officers not being willing to commence any other trial at that advanced hour, business was suspended, and his lordship, the counsel, and the public awaited the return of the jury for an hour and twenty-five minutes. The court remained crowded during the entire period, scarcely any one moving from his place, as the jury might come in at any moment. During the interval the prisoner, like the rest, chatted freely with his counsel, the sheriff, and some others who went to the dock to converse with him.

At twenty-five minutes to six the jury returned into court, and the roll having been called by the clerk, he inquired: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed on your verdict? The FOREMAN. The jury have come to the conclusion that the prisoner is guilty.

The clerk having recorded the verdict,

The SOLICITOR GENERAL rose and said: I move, my lord, for the judgment of the court en the prisoner.

His LORDSHIP. Robert B. Lynch, have you anything to say why the sentence of the court should not be pronounced on you for this felony?

Prisoner, with a firm voice, replied as follows: Well, my lord, you must be aware, you must have noticed the inconvenience and disadvantage my counsel labored under in not being able to bring forward the evidence of those who could have proved clearly that I had no connection with the Fenian raids. I state now that I had neither hand, act, nor part in the late invasion, and that I came to Canada not in the capacity in which it has been represented I came, but simply as the correspondent of a public journal; and in so doing I was not aware that I violated either the laws of Canada or those of my adopted country. I was not aware there could be any objection to a reporter following the army and chronicling the incidents and progress of the invasion. Had I known this, I would have been careful to have remained on the other side. With regard to the manner in which the Crown has conducted the prosecution in my case, I think and must confess that I have been very fairly dealt with. Both the Crown solicitor and Mr. Cameron have carried on the prosecution in the most fair and impartial manner, and I feel that it is but right in me to make the state

ment.

His LORDSHIP. The object in asking you to address the court was to give you an opportunity of urging any legal objections, if you had them. It is too late now to discuss the

facts of the case.

PRISONER. Well, my lord, you must be aware, with regard to legal objections, that I am not cognizant enough of law to make any. I only know that I am innocent of the crime charged against me, and of which I have been found guilty; and I here pledge myself before that God in whose presence I must appear some day, that I am wholly innocent of the crimes for which I was brought here, and that I never saw Stevens till I was arrested and brought into his very house on the 2d of June. On that occasion I saw him, when placed in his house, for a short time previous to being brought up to the court-house. The crier then made the usual proclamation, prior to passing sentence of death.

His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said: I am verry sorry to find a man of your age and experience stand where you do to-day. You are a man who must have seen a good deal of the world, a man not without education and intelligence. The evidence brought before the court is perfectly clear and conclusive that you were not in Canada as a reporter on the occasions charged in the indictment; but that you were armed and in some kind of command. What that was does not distinctly appear. But even though you were there only as a reporter, you ought to have known that no war had been proclaimed; that those men with whom you were seen were making an atrocious, almost unparalleled, inroad on a peaceful country, and that under the circumstances you were there to report the ravages of these men to others interested, in order that they might gloat and glory over the slain. While a single word would have influenced the case to your prejudice, I carefully abstained from saying anything against you. But now it does not lie on me to extenuate your fault, or affect not to see it in its darkest light. You professed, with others, to redress the grievances of centuries, to right the wrongs of an oppressed people, and to remove the iron heel which you say the Saxon put on the Celt centuries ago; and yet you began by inflicting on us the very injuries of which you complained. Why should your iron tread be forced on us? Why should our homes be desolated and our young men be slain by you? Will any man of sense answer this plain question? Was it less than murder for you to come here in the dead of night to ravage our country and slay our people? And all this was done under color of relieving Ireland! Could any right you may have authorize you to commit such a wrong as you then perpetrated? This is putting your case in a very plain and clear light. You stand here surrounded by the friends and relatives of the men you slew on that occasion. If you were there as a reporter even, you were not guiltless. Your object was to encourage others to come if these men had been successful; or keep them away if the reverse had happened. Looking at your conduct in that light, you cannot be surprised that the law should be enforced and that you should suffer the dread penalty of that law, as I very much fear you will, for how could we punish the reckless and unthinking young men to be brought here for trial, who followed such as you, and placed confidence in you, if you were to be allowed to escape? Could you see any justice in punishing them in such a case? You complain unjustly that those who were in command on that occasion were not allowed to come here to give testimony in your behalf. But I cannot pervert the law, and the Crown cannot override it. If the Crown had given any such pledge of safe conduct as had been spoken of, it could not be carried out. You have had all the justice you could possibly get, and have had every advantage of the forms of law. Every one also abstained from urging too hardly against you that which might have been urged. But I would fail in my duty now if I did not put your crime in its true light when about to sentence you to appear before that Judge who sees things just as they are. It is a very painful thing, the most painful which a man can be called on to do, to doom a fellow-man to death. But the requirements of society urge it on me; the law requires I should not shrink from it; if I could I would. As the law now stands, you might be sentenced to immediate execution. The law puts that discretion in

my hands; but inasmuch as that law is an ex post facto one as to you, I shall certainly not exercise any discretion I may have to shorten your existence one hour. Moreover, you have a right to bring into court the whole case, to appeal from the decision of a court adverse to you, if there was anything wrong in the evidence and the proceedings; and God forbid that I should deprive you of that opportunity to appeal. You shall be treated just as the law was when you committed the offence; so that, if the evidence does not, in the opinion of my learned brethren, sustain the conviction, time and opportunity will be given you to move against it. If I have received evidence such as I ought not, or have put a wrong construction on any part of it, it will be open for you to make a complaint to that effect; and the period of your execution will be delayed till the end of next term just as if that law had not been passed, so as to afford you an opportunity to appeal. It now only remains for me to pronounce the dread sentence of the law. Yours is an offence punishable with death. I can exercise no discretion. The sentence of the court on you, therefore, is, that you be taken to the place from whence you came, to be there detained till Thursday, the 13th day of December next, and to be taken from thence on that day to the place of execution, and there hung by the neck until you are dead; and may God have mercy on your soul.

During the latter part of his lordship's address he was deeply affected and could scarcely proceed with the sentence. The vast audience in the court were hushed as still as death itself. But, to all outward appearance, the prisoner remained unmoved. Not that his indifference appeared stoical; but he looked as if he had nerved himself to encounter the trying

scene.

The court then adjourned till this morning, when Rev. Mr. Lumsden, the clergyman, is to be tried. He will be defended by Mr. M. C. Cameron. In many of the other cases to come before the court, where the same evidence applies to a number of the prisoners, we believe the prisoners will be tried by threes, unless they elect to be tried separately.

The prisoner, Robert B. Lynch, was born in Galway, we understand, in 1818. He was at one time chief clerk in the department of the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests, Dublin Castle, and retained that post from 1837 to 1842, when he is said to have emigrated to the United States. He then engaged in business in St. Louis for a time, but left there in 1849, and travelled to many of the leading cities in the South American republics and West Indies. He subsequently joined the American army, and was quartermaster, with the rank of major, in the 24th Wisconsin volunteers. During the latter part of the war he was chief clerk, with the rank of major, in the discharge department of Louisville. Subsequently, he says, he came to Canada, under the direction of Adjutant General McDermot, of the Fenian Brotherhood, of Louisville, Kentucky, to report the Fenian campaign in Canada. This is the prisoner's account of himself; but we have heard other versions of his career, which assigned him a residence of some years in Western Canada.

No. 136.]

No. 51.

Mr. Thurston to Mr. Seward.

UNITED STATES CONSULATE, Toronto, October 27, 1866. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches, Nos 96 and 97. I have already informed you of my action under the instruction contained in No. 97, and I have further to report that last evening the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against John McMahon, a Catholic priest, who was charged yesterday on the charge of being concerned in the Fenian raid. The popular feeling is very strong against the prisoners. Every one of them who has been presented to the grand jury has been indicted, and of the number thus indicted is one Benjamin Perry, a boy scarcely sixteen years old. I enclose a report of the trial of McMahon, as published in the Globe of this morning. I have sent a party to Buffalo and Syracuse to procure testimony for certain of the prisoners whose trial will take place on Wednesday next, but I anticipate objections to the introduction of certain kind of evidence, as the court seems to hold that if the party was present with the Fenians. he was guilty, no matter the cause or motive for thus being present. McMahon is sentenced to be hung on the same day with Lynch. I am, with respect, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington.

D. THURSTON,

United States Consul.

No. 99.]

No. 52.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Thurston.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., October 27, 1866. SIR: For your information I enclose a copy of a note of this date which I have addressed to Sir Frederick W. A. Bruce, the British minister here, upon the subject of the conviction and sentence of James Lynch and John McMahon, by a colonial court of Canada, on the charge of complicity and participation in the late attack on Fort Erie.

In accordance with the purpose expressed in that communication, you are expected without delay to procure for the use of this department a copy of the record of the trial and conviction of Lynch and McMahon, and also of all further trials and convictions of a similar character which shall take place in Canada, with the least possible delay after their termination.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 99, with its enclosure. In obedience to the instructions therein contained, I made application yesterday to the Attorney General West for copies of the records, &c., required by the department. A copy of the letter to the attorney general is herewith enclosed. I have the honor to transmit a report from Mr. McKenzie, on his application to have the trial of certain of the Fenian prisoners postponed, and also a letter from his lordship, the bishop of Toronto, the Hon. J. A. McDonald, in relation to the testimony of one Ryan, an informer, whose evidence was volunteered to the authorities, and the mother of whom testified in open court that he could not be believed on oath.

Mr. Devlin, of Montreal, arrived here last night, authorized by Roberts and other Fenians to assist in the defence of the prisoners.

I have instructed counsel to object to Mr. Devlin's acting with them, employed as he admits by the Fenians of New York, as in my opinion it might compromise the government of the United States if he were to do so. Mr. Emmons, who was here yesterday, concurs with me in this opinion, as to the counsel also.

Mr. Lumsden's trial comes off on the 3d instant. I have procured the attendance of right reverend Bishop Cox, of Buffalo, Dr. Trowbridge, of that city, and Mr. Cook, of Michigan, and several others as witnesses of the defence. Mr. Lumsden is an Episcopal clergyman, taken at Fort Erie, and is an American citizen. The excitement in relation to this person is very great, and I should have great hopes of his acquittal were the popular sentiment free from prejudice. Mr. Blake, consul at Fort Erie, is here to-day, summoned as a witness. He has been of valuable assistance to me, aiding me with his efforts and advice. My labors were so great that I asked Mr. Jones, of Clifton, to come over and assist me for a few days. Mr. Jones responded at once, and I feel under many

* For enclosure see Dip. Cor. 1866, vol. 1, page 260.

obligations to him for his earnest and active efforts to aid me in my official duties at this time. There were four more indictments yesterday. With great respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant, D. THURSTON,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

United States Consul.

Mr. Mackenzie to Mr. Thurston.

TORONTO, November 1, 1866.

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I applied yesterday to the court of oyer and terminer, now sitting here to postpone the trials of the following Fenian prisoners, on the ground that matters have been published in the local newspapers calculated to create preju dice against the prisoners in the minds of the jurors who are likely to try their cases, and on the ground of the absence of material and necessary witnesses; and that the court having granted the application on the second ground the trials are postponed until the date placed opposite each case.

It is probable that several of the above cases will have to be postponed until the January sittings of the court.

I have also to inform you that the grand jury to-day returned bills against the following parties charged with complicity in the Fort Erie raid, namely: Thomas H. Maxwell, Michael Purtell, and John Rogan, and that their trials will not take place until the 15th day of November.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

D. THURSTON, United States Consul, Toronto.

K. MACKENZIE.

Bishop of Toronto to Hon. J. A. Mc Donald.

ST. MICHAEL'S PALACE, Toronto, October 29, 1866. HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: The Crown has brought forward in the trial of Lynch, the convict Fenian, a witness of the name of Thomas Ryle. I presume the government did not know the past history or bad character of this man. The sworn testimony of his own mother, to be further corroborated by his father and other respectable witnesses, goes to show that her wicked son should not be believed on his oath; that he was a liar, a drunkard, an