that he swore what was false. In America I have seen judges,
hundreds of times, sentencing men who were taken off the
table, put into the dock, and sent to prison. In this case,
this poor, ignorant man was brought into Kilmainham gaol on
the 1st of July. He knew my name, heard it called several
times, knew of the act of which I was suspected, and, on the
2nd of August he was taken away. On the 12th of October he
is brought back, and out of a party of forty or fifty he
identifies only three. If that man came on board the vessel,
he did so in his ordinary capacity as a pilot. He did his
duty, got his pay, and left. His subsequent evidence was
additions. With respect to the vessel, I submit that there was
not a shadow of evidence to prove that there was any intention
of a hostile landing, and that the evidence as to the identity
of the vessel would not stand for a moment where either law
or justice would be regarded. Now, as to the Flying Dutchman
which it is said appeared on the coast of Sligo and on the
coast of Dungarvan, in Gallagher's information nothing is said
about the dimensions of the vessel. Neither length, breadth,
or tonnage is given, but in making his second information he
revised the first.

The prisoner then proceeded to argue that there was nothing to show
that the vessel which had appeared in Sligo harbour was the same with
that which had appeared off Dungarvan, except the testimony of the
informer, Buckley, of which there was no corroboration. He also denied
the truth of Corydon's evidence, in several particulars, and then went
on to say--

As to the position in which I am now placed by British law,