The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-09 00:00:00

IRISH STATE TRIALS

TWENTIETH DAY.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—DUBLIN, TUESDAY.
TILE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The following is a fuller account of the Tuesday's pro-
ceedings, than appeared in yesterday's Morning Sun:—
eLOSE OE THE TRAVERSERS' CASE.

The Court sat at the usual hour.
Mr. MOORE, Q.C., rose and said—My Lords, the coun-
sel for the traversers, availing themselves of the indul-
gence granted by your Lordships yesterday evening,
have endeavoured, to the utmost of their power, to go
over the evidence in this case ; and they have come to
the conclusion that, with few exceptions, the evidence
upon which they mean to rest the defence has already
appeared before the Court. They felt themselves under
tueeessity to bring_ a very considerable number of
witnesses to town. Those witnesses are still in town,
and would prove several material facts : but, as the
leading facts upon which they rely have already ap-
peared, they do not think that they would be justified in
occupying the time of the Court with the examination of
those witnesses ; and in all human probability the time
which will be taken up with the witnesses they intend
to produce will be very trifling.
Frederick Wm. Conway was then sworn and ex-
amined by Mr. HATCHELL, Q.C.—I reside on Raith-
mines-road, and lived in the city of Dublin in the year
1810. At that time I was editor of the Freeman's
Journal, and attended some public meetings. I recol-
lect having attended in that year a meeting for the dis-
cussion- of the repeal of the union at the Royal Ex-
change. I knew Mr. O'Connell personally at that time.
and saw him at the meeting. Sir Apnea Riddell, at that
time High Sheriff, was in the chair. The object of the
meeting was to petition Parliament for repeal.—[A file
of the Freeman's Journal, with the paper containing the
report of the meeting, was produced and identified by
witness.]—l was Secretary to the meeting. Among the
leading persons at the meeting were Mr. bhaw, since Sir
Robert Shaw, the second chairman, and Colonel Talbot,
now Lord Talbot de Malahide. I forget the others. The
report of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the meeting appeared
twice in the Freeman's Journal. The first report was
correct as to the topics, but the second was better writ-
ten. At this time there was not so good a corps of re-
porters in Dublin as ti-ere is now.—(The witness here
read the report of Mr. O'Connell's speech, which has
already been published in our report of Mr. Sheil's
speech.)
Were you connected with the Dublin Evening Post?
—Yes.
Will you take the file of the Dublin Freeman's Journal
of the year 1800 have it.
Look at the Report of the Union Catholic meeting
which was held in Dublin on the 14th of January, 1800.
—Yes ; I see it here.
Sir COLMAN O'LouanuN then read a report of a meet-
ing held on that day, at which Mr. O'Connell made the
speech against the union referred to by Mr. Shell in his
address to the jury.
Mr. HATCHELL—III only trouble you, Mr. Conway,
to look at one paper more. Look at the Freeman's
Journal of the sth of October, 1810—do you find your
name attached to a petition inserted in it ?—I find my
name to an address.
Do you find the answers to that address given by Sir
Robert Shaw and Mr. Henry Grattan 2—l do.
Sir COLMAN O'LououLlN then read the address against
the union presented in that year to Sir Robert Shaw and
Mr. Henry Grattan, the then representatives for the
city of Dublin, with the answers of those gentlemen, also
referred to by Mr. Shell in his address to the jury. The
Learned Counsel also read the requisition calling the
meeting, dated the 17th of September, 18 1 0.
Examination resumed—Do you remember the exist-
ence of the Catholic Association previous to the year
1829?-1 do.
Were you a member of that association ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this question.
He did not see what reference it had to the question then
at issue.
Mr. HATCHELL said, that what he proposed to show
by the evidence was simply this—the Dublin Evening
Post and other newspapers were circulated by the
Catholic Association in the same manner as the Repeal
Association acted in the present instance, and he wished
to give evidence of that fact.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—You cannot object to that, Mr.
Attorney.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the reading of
those documents already submitted to the Court and jury
took up a great deal of time, but he did not wish to offer
any captious objection. He could not, however, see
what the acts of the Roman Catholic Association had to
do with the case, and he therefore objected to the ques-
tion put by Mr. Hatchell.
CHIEF JUSTICE—If the objection were made upon the
first introduction of the evidence already given, it might
have been held good ; but having passed it by in silence,
he thought the question then asked by Mr. Hatchell
could not be objected to, as it was of a piece with the rest.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that the Crown had
no wish to exclude the repeal speeches made by Mr.
O'Connell in the years 1800 and 1810, because they had
a distinct reference to the repeal question ; but it was a
different thing when a meeting of the Roman Catholic
Association was referred to. They did not, he would
repeat, wish to make any objections of a captious
nature ; but if an inquiry were gone into as to what
took place at the Roman Catholic Association, they
certainly would do so, because it was following a per-
fectly different course from any yet adopted. It ap-
peared to them that it was occupying the public time
most unnecessarily.
Mr. HATCHELL said he would not press it. He merely
pursued that course, because his Learned Friend Mr. Sheil
said in his statement to the jury that evidence to that
effect would be given.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that they never
offered any objection to what Mr. O'Connell or any in-
dividual said with reference to the repeal question, but
itt was quite different when other topics were introduced.
Judge BURTON—Is it alleged that what is proposed
to be given in evidence now bears on the question of the
union ?

Mr. HATCHELL—NO, my Lord.
Judge CRAMPTON—It is quite outside the issues.
Mr. HATCHELL—Mr. Sheil, in his statement, my
Lords, said that Mr. Conway and Mr. Staunton would
be examined to show that newspapers were circulated
by the Catholic Association, and that is the reason I of-
fered the evidence which was objected to.
To Mr. Sergeant WARREN—Was editor of the Free-
man's Journal in 1810. Ceased to be connected with
that paper in 1812. Is now the proprietor of the Dublin
Evening Post.
Mr. James Perry, examined by Mr. WHITESIDE,
Q.C.—I am a member of the Society of Friends, com-
monly called Quakers. I have the rules of that body
with me.
On the witness being desired to read that part of the
rules referring to arbitration,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to their being re-
ceived in evidence.
Messrs. Whiteside and M'Donough replied to the ob-
jection, and were followed by Mr. Sergeant Warren on
behalf of the Crown.
The objection was overruled, the Lord Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Perrin being
against it ; Mr. Justice Crampton giving his opinion in
is favour.

The examination of Mr. Perry was then proceeded
with. He stated that he was a member of the Society
of Friends, and procuced the rules of that body in re-
ference to proceedings by arbitration. He read ex-
tracts from minutes of meetings held at London in the
years 1696 and 1697, wherein it was recommended,
that in cases of differences between any of the mem-
bers they should be settled between themselves, or by
reference to arbitrators, and not by law. In case they
afterwards refused to comply with the terms or the
award, the party recusant should be admonished by
the meeting to which he might belong ; and if there
were further refusal, then the meeting would testify
against him and he should be expelled the Society.
The rules he had read were subsequently adopted by
the brethren in Ireland, and all members were strictly
exhorted to adhere to the principles of truth in all their
transactions. As far as the witness knew the regula-
ions were uniformly acted on ; but he had no recollec-
tion of any instance in which it was necessary to ad-
monish a member. He was not himself one of the
Ouzel Galley Club, but was aware of its existence.
It was for the purpose of having differences among
commercial men adjusted by arbitration. He recollected
one occasion when Mr. Brewster appeared before arbi-
trators in a matter submitted to their award.
Mr. Cosgrove, Secretary to the Ouzel Galley Society,
was next examined. Ho stated that the rules of the
body were, that the members should sit as arbitrators
in the settlement of any matter in dispute to them re-
ferred, provided all the arbitrators chosen were members
of the galley. Parties are not to make any personal
application to members of the Galley, either respecting
their appointment as arbitrators, or of the subject in
dispute. After the arbitrators are chosen, the registrar
is made acquainted with their names, and he communi-
cates with those persons. It is necessary for the parties
to sign a deed of submission, which could afterwards be
made a rule of court. A sum of four guineas each was
lodged by the parties to pay the expenses of the refer-
ence, and any surplus was paid to a charitable society.
The Society generally consisted of about forty members ;
at present the number may be a little less. Disputes
among mercantile men ate of the kind generally sub-
mitted for their award. The arbitrators have power
to appoint an umpire, if necessary. At present Messrs.
Crosthwait, Guinness, Chambers, Wilson, Colville,
Hone, Maxwell, and several others, are members.
Cross-examined by Mr. BENNETT, Q.C.—The Society
is formed for the purpose of having differences ami-
cably adjusted ; those who wish to have their disputes
so settled, go to the members and ask for an arbitra-
tion ; the disputes so settled are principally those of
commercial men ; but it is open to any stranger ; the
arbitrators go through a regular form ; part of the deed
of submission authorises that the award shall be made a
rule of court. When a matter is referred to the arbi-