The National Register. — London, England, 1811-12-01 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. name ; did not swear he was at the Meeting ; swore those in formations before the Lord Chief Justice ; believes Dr. Breen was arrested, but not on his informations. Never was a con stable of St. Paul's watch. The whole of the time at the Meeting was not an hour ; it might be half an hour, but cer tainly not an hour. James .11IhDonough examined by Se jeant Mooßr. On the direct etamination of this witness, he fully corrobo rated the testimony of John Shepard. Francis Huddleston, Esq. examined by Scrjeant BALL. Said, he attended an Aggregate Meeting of the ('atholics of Ireland laot summer, on the 9th of July, in Fishamble-street ; Lord Fingal was chairman of that meeting; Resolutions were entered into relative to the appointment of a General Committee siof the Catholics; after the chair was taken, the busir.ess was comma iced by Mr. Hay, the Secretary to the Catholics, -read ing Resolutions, that had passed at a meeting that had taken place a few days before. On the part of the Traverser, it was objected, that these Reso lutions being at the time reduced to writing, ought to be pro duced by the Counsel for the prosecution, if it was their inten tion to make them evidence, unless it could be shown that it was not in their power to procure them, and that they had used due diligence, by summoning Mr. Hay, the alleged Secretary to the Roman Catholics, in whose custody these resolutions were, to attend the Court. The objection was allowed by the Court—and the witness proceeded in his testimony. At the meeting of the 9th of July, Resolutions were entered into, relative to the appointment of a General Committee of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. After the chair was taken by Lord Fingal, the business of the day commenced, by Mr. Hay, the Secretary, reading the Resoluti o ns th a t h a d b een entere d i nto at a meeting of Catholics that had taken place a few days before. Here the witness was interrupted by the Counsel for the Tra ' verser to know, whether what e v e r r e soluti o n s were on t h at d a y entered into were tiL,t in writing, amrat the time ~ hey were pro posed to the meeting read from a paper ? The witness having admitted this fact, and also his belief, that the resolutions when entered into were signed by Lord Fingal, and entered upon the hooks of the meeting— It was objected for the Traverser, by Mr. Goold, that parole evidence of those resolutions could not be given in evidence. — The objection was over-ruled by the Court. The witness then proceededyand repeated the resolutions en. tcred into at the meeting of the 9th of July. The Resolutions were carri..l unanimously.—A Gentleman in the• assembly stated, that a resolution, which he bad to propose,,llad already, with a view to coriveniency, been agreed upon by Gentlemen in another room ; this resolution was relative to the ten Represen tatives; there were also resolutions entered into for pre,enting money to individuals, and of thanks to certain Members of Par liament. by Mr. GOOLD. Is an Englishman, and a Protestant ; was a Roman Catholic; but after consideration and reading on the subject for many years, and from a full conviction on his mind of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, he quitted that profession, and became a Protestant—but never read his recantation ; yet, when in the presence of this Court, he makes, on his oath, a solemn declaration of his being a Protestant, he conceived he could not make a more solemn renunciation of the Catholic tenets. His family are very ancient, and have been all Roman Catholics for 400 years—is not a man of muck learning, but has read •a great deal un the subject of religion, the result of N. , hidli was, coming to a res(dutiott of becoming a Protestant, in doing which he was actuated by a divine sense of religion ; never en tertained loose opinions on the subject since he came to the age of reason, nor since he was fourteen or fifteen years old; he could not answer for the follies of youth; never declared any tendency to be- a Deist or an Atheist.; would net say he was a perfectly moral man, as he possessed the frailties of other men— was a Protestant at the time this extraordinary meeting of which he came to give evidence was held. He attended those meet ings in the character of a reporter for the newspapers. Has at tended a great number of meetings, and as far as his experience goes, always found that resoluti,ms, before they were adopted, were read out, either by chairman or secretary of the meeting. Believes the resolutions, of which he was giving evidence, were reduced to writing by the proposer, and might have been after wards transcribed into a thousand other papers. His belief that the resolutions were reduced to writing by the secretary to the committee, and were on paper when first proposed to the !neer_ iug, is grounded on the universal practice in such cases. C.% );l id not exactly say how many resolutions were entered into on that day ; there might be more or less according as the w*;iting was divided. The fourth rcs.llution wa,, That a Committee be ap pointed to inquire into the Penal Laws, and 'to give a report within one month. He would not prove positively, but the ghlaViction on his mind was that this resolution, so worded, passed, with the others, unanimously. He was so far convinced of such a resolution having passed the meeting, that in the re port he gave to the public papers of the transactions of that day. he feported it to have been adopted—however, on this resolu tion his mind was not so accurate as on that of the other resolu tions. When he saw the official accounts of the resolutions pub lished in the Evening Post, he found alterations had been made in the resolutions, which had been amplified; his recollection of the fourth resolution having passed, is strengthened from the circumstance of having reported it—for, if it had not passed, he could not have taken it down in his notes, which he afterwards transcribed for publication, the original of which he has since lost. The only matter which creates a doubt on his mind, as to the accuracy of his recollection of the fourth resolution is, whether the report to be made was to be within a month fr.tm passing the resolution, or of the meeting of Parliament. Has loot seen the Evening Post in which the resolutions were officially published, these four months. Was a Is:porter fur the Hiber-' nian Journal, a paper not very friendly to the cause of the Roman Catholics; but he had also reported for newspapers that were friendly to their interest. Counsellor O'Gorman moved the first four resolutions. Lord Fingal's name was to the official report of the resolutions published in the Evening Post; they were not also published in the Hibernian Journal. Witness saw his report of these proceedings frequently since they took place, and read them this day as published in the newspaper; not in his original manuscript, which he has not seen since about the tune he published them. Has, since the meeting, taken pains to refresh his memory; did not think there was any ucca.ion to refresh his memory this day: did refresh his memory this day, by reading certain papers in his possession ; he read a private letter that did not bear on these resolutions. at all, but that bears much on the question of this day. This letter was written by himself, is a production that does not bear on those resolutions, but bears collaterally on the subject of this day's investigittioo. The letter which Ify was reading related to transactions ' long previous to the meeting of the 9th of Juiy. Il e al s o r e ad the Hibernian Journal of the 11th and 12th of July, in which he reported the proceedings of the 9th; but his memory was nut refreshed by the perusal; he could not conceive how he could refresh his memory, though it might prevent a lapse in his me mory. He lost his notes about three months; lead made diligent search for them, and not being able to find•thein, concludes they must have been destroyed. ,Surely the Counsel would not re quire him to produce the private letter. In fact, it had nothing to do with the present question ; it has a different refereni e; had no wish to disguise any thing in the transaction, but, on the contrary, would wish it to be as open as the day. Mr. Goo LD.—To whom is that letter written ? Witness.—Am I bound to answer that question ? Con R r.—Yes ; there can be no objection to that. Capt. Huddleston.—The letter was written to Sir Charles Saxton, some time in the month of March last. As it was the avowed intention of the Counsel to throw discredit on the wit ness, it would be right for him to support his character, and therefore he wished to explain how he had been drawn into the business. The winless. then wished to read this letter, in order to explain his conduct ; but was prevented by the Counsel for the Tra verser. 'Elie witness wrote this letter of his own free will and mo tion, and in consequence of a suggestion made to him on tha subject. The Proprietors of The Hibernian Jou rnol asked Iglu if he had any objection to wait upon Sir C. Saxton; he Maid he bad not. He mentioned to Sir Charles, that if he was brought forward as witness, he would be exposed to kreat.ritproach and obloquy, but that if he was forced to attend Lie would give his evidence without fear wishes the businv'a never came for ward, but cannot say he is an ~nwilling •witneiis ; re. eiliCit numerous favours (ruin Governmei , .; held the situation of a Barrack-master; he applied abort three years ago to Govern ment fur a situation, which Was promised him, but which he has not obtained ; has not 140 y received any favours from Go vernment, and has no .errtain prospect of receiving ; does not expect any; has teen in inland about ten years; had the honour of being in the company of Lord Fingal, a Nobleman 01 the highest rays‘ in society. our, who, he was satisfied. would not violate ar,v law. The sth k e solutiou was moved by Mr John Bym e . I s lie Attorney-General stated, that with this witness the pro. seV.lion woui.! hi: dared. It was under.tood on Thursday that the evidence had closed On the hart of the Crown, but on the Sitting of the Court this day (Friday), at ten o'clock, the Chief Justice called on Mil:• denOtlgit, a clerk in Major Sire's ailice, to explain ce.tiain parts of his evidence, which, in his Lordship's mina, were contratY c tory and inconclusive. The witoess.wasexaminedbythe ()it' alt and appeared very much confounded. He was asked, wit si Ler among these per:oes sworn to in the informition het lad sta tioned Dr. Breen as present ? He could not actually say that Dr. Breen was in the f Lill :;