The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-02-18 00:00:00

THE AGITATION IN IRELAND. r
I NATIONAL PROVIDENT
INSTITUTION
FOR MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE.
Founded 1835. Funds £4,280,000.
Claims Paid, £7,000,000. Profit; Declared, £3,400,000.
ENDOWMENT Assu Mae= OD yer7 favourable terms.
Economical Management. Liberal °audition& Large Bonuses.
48, GRACECHURCH STREET, E.C., LONDON.
AGENTS WAITED WHERE NOT REPRESENTED.

The hearing of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's acticn against
Mr. John Byrne, divisional magistrate at Woodford,
for alleged assault, battery, and false imprisonment,
was commenced in the Exchequer Division, Dublin,
on Saturday. Damages were laid at £5OOO. Mr.
Blunt, who appeared in prison garb, and Mr. Lough
gave evidence as to the constitution of the Home
Rule Union, under whose auspices the meeting of the
23rd October was summoned. Mr. Blunt declared
that he was responsible for the issue of the placards
calling the meeting, which had no connection with
the National League. He was cross-examined by the
Attorney-General as to the part he took in the mid.
night meeting on the 16th. He maintained that the
objects of the second meeting were purely pacific.
After his re-examination the Court adjourned. Mr.
Blunt was removed to Kilmainham.

" REVOLUTION /7
rzr In the Price of TEA. _fill

On Monday morning the hearing of Mr. Blunt's
action against Mr. Byrne to recover damages for
assault and false imprisonment in connection with
the suppression of the Woodford meeting was resumed
in Dublin, before Chief Baron Palles and a special
jury. Lady Anne Blunt was examined and corrobo-
rated her husband's evidence as to the circumstances
attending the suppression of the meeting. She
stated that when he was pushed off the platform she
put her arms round his waist. A policeman's baton
passed close to her face, but did not strike her, and
she was seized violently by the throat from behind,
and her head pulled back and nearly strangled. All
fell in a heap ()ilk the ground. When the police
had been dragging her husband about for some time
the witness called Heaven to witness that they had
killed him. A policeman twisted his arm. In cross-
examination Lady Anne said she could not recollect
having attended any other meeting in Ireland. She
did not anticipate that the meeting would be sup-
pressed. She wanted to see what would happen. It
never occurred to her that the police would be em-
barrassed by the presence of ladies. She did not
think they were. Mr. Rowlands, M.P., corroborated
the plaintiff's evidence as to the occurrence on the
platform. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General,
he said he was in Dublin from the 15th to the 25th of
October, and came over to get information on the Irish
question. Ile took a circular tour ticket in Con-
nemara, and visited Loughrea. The Mac Dermot :
You did not stop Mr. Shaw Lefevre's meeting
there on Saturday. The Attorney-General: Because
he took good care to send his emissaries to the
Castle to promise to be of good behaviour, and
to pledge himself to it. Mr. Harrington: He did
nothing of the kind. In further cross-examination
the witness said he did not hear anything Mr. O'Brien
said at the midnight meeting at Woodford, and he did
not know till afterwards that he had burned the
Lord-Lieutenant's proclamation. Witness had no
mission from the National League, and had no con-
nection with it. His speeches were mainly made up
of denunciation of moonlight outrages, and advising
constitutional methods to the Irish people. Further
cross-examined by the Attorney-General as to the
"plan of Campaign," he never adopted it, ard never
expressed an opinion regarding it. Re never
thoroughly understood it. If he knew that the
meeting of the 23rd of October was held to celebrate
the anniversary of the plan, he did not think he would
have compromised himself with it. Mr. Walker, Q.C.,
then asked that the Chief Secretary should be
called on his subpoena to produce certain documents
and the Attorney-General answered that he had the
documents in court, the informations on which the
meeting was proclaimed, but having regard to the
' public service these could not be produced. The
Chief Baron ruled that he could not compel the atten-
dance of Mr. Balfour or the production of the docu-
ments. The Attorney-General then opened the case
for the defence. He characterised the delegates of
the English Home Rule Union as the dupes, the instru-
ments, and the creatures of the National League, the
very association they now did their very best to
disavow. Mr. William O'Brien and his countrymen
were too clever for these delegates, and could put
them in their pockets, take them out when required,
and kick them aside when they had done with them.

The hearing of Mr. Blunt's action against Mr.
Byrne, divisional magistrate, to recover damages for
alleged assault and false imprisonment arising out of
the suppression of the Woodford meeting, was resumed
in Dublin on Tuesday before Chief Baron Panes and a
special jury. The Attorney-General continued his
opening statement for the defendant, and criticised
the composition of tha meesing and the circumstances
attending the attempt to hold it. He contended
that it was impossible to dissociate it from the
midnight meeting of the 16th. It was non-
sense to pretend that the gathering of the 23rd was
anything but a meeting of the National League.
Father Coen, its chairman, was the prime loader of
the league in the district. Mr. Sheehy, who was
also present, was the propagator of the Plan of
Campaign, and the presence of plaintiff and other
Englishmen was only a sham, intended to mislead the
authorities, who, however, saw the pretence. The jury
must ask themselves, had the defendant reasonable
grounds for believing that this so-called indignation
meeting was not an illegal assembly? Mr. Blunt had
stated that he had a duty to discharge; so had Mr.
Byrne. Which of these duties did the law sanction?
Evidence was then given regarding the meeting
at Tomgraney, at which Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gill, Mr.
Rowlands, and Mr. Blunt made speeches; and also as
regarded the midnight meeting. The Chief Baron, in
the course of the case, said the legality of the mid-
night meeting must stand or fall by the Plan of Cam-
paign. In determining the object of the meeting of
the 23rd, they could not have in consideration what
took place at the midnight meeting. It was compe-
tent for the jury to conclude that the object of the
meeting of the 23rd was to encourage the Plan of
Campaign. There was evidence on that point—he
would not say how much evidence was given—as
to the disturbed state of the district. The Court ad-
journed.