The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-23 00:00:00

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS.

SIXTH DAY.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)
SATURDAY, J. 20.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.

(Continued from our Morning Edition of yesterday.)
Will you swear, from your own living memory, that you saw
Mr. O'Connell coming into the Association on the sth of July?
—I either saw him coming into the room, or he was there be-
fore me when I went into it. And that is your answer from
the county of Clare ?—Yes ; and I am not ashamed of it.—
( Laughter.) I believe that the Atlantic breeze hardens people's
faces very much ; does it ?—Tt may ; but it has not hardened
mine, at all events. Will you swear that the Atlantic breeze,
or anything else, has not hardened your face ?—I don't know
that it has hardened me in particular; but I think I will prove
before I leave this table, if I am allowed to explain (as in jus-
tice I ought to be) that it has not. Now, turn to your note of
the 4th of September, and mind, don't lose sight of the ques-
tion between us—namely, that you are to prove to us, before
you leave the table, that you are not a hardened man. Will
you find for me the passage of Mr. O'Connell's speech which
you detailed to us to-day, and in which it is stated, in your
report, that he said, " No tumult should take place in his day ?"
Also read the passage in the report of his speech which has the
word " advisable" in it.

The witness then referred to his note of the speech, but it
appeared that it was spoken, not on the 4th of September, but
en the 29th of August.
After reading his report of the speech of Mr. O'Connell on
the occasion, the cross-examination was resumed.
Were you that day present when Mr. O'Connell was speak-
ing that speech, of which that purports to be a report ?—I
was. Ycu heard him begin it, and end it?—l did ; I was
writing at the time. And that is the report you were
writing ?—lt is. I wrote it out while I was there. Did you
write out the identical thing that you read here to-day, while
Mr. O'Connell was speaking ?—I did. On those very iden-
tical pieces of paper ?—Yes. As the words fell from Mr.
O'Connell's lips ?—I do not say I have the very words he
said, but 1 took the substance of the speech. Then you did
not take it from any other report or from any newspaper?—
Positively not. I wrote it while Mr. O'Connell was speaking.
On your oath, you swear that Mr. O'Connell that day used the
words " It would not be an unnatural or unadvisable result"
which you have just read ?—To the best of my recollection he
did. On your oath, will you:swear he used the word " unadvis-
able ?"—On my solemn oath I believe he did. Will you swear
it positively ?—I would riot put it down if I did not think he
used it. I want you to state positively, did he use it ?—To
the best of my belief he did. You will not give any i
answer except qualified in that way ? —On that occasion
I will not. Who was sitting next you on that day ?—I can-
not remember. Was any person sitting near you —Some of
the reporters. Can you mention the name of any one re-
porter who was sitting near you ?—The reporters of the
Freeman's Journal and the Saunders's where there. Name
any particular reporter.--To the best of my belief that gentle-
man there, Mr. Edwards, was present. Are you certain ?
To the best of my belief he was. Can you far certain name any
gentleman ?—I think I could swear. Mr. Edwards was there.
Oh, I think you could swear it too. Then you cannot name
a single reporter who was present!-1 cannot; the usual corps
of reporters were there, but I cannot swear to any one reporter
in particular. Let me put a simpler question to you. Can
you name any single person who saw you in the Association
rooms on that day?—Any one that was there might have seen
me. Mr. O'Connell or Mr. Ray might have seen me. I had
not the honour to speak to Mr. O'Connell that day, and I can-
not say that I expect to have that honour hereafter. I cannot
name any others who might have seen me. Anal you know
Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Ray are traversers and cannot give
evidence. Can you name any single man who opened his
lips there that day to you ?—At this distance of time I can-
not. It is only the 29th of August last. Did you speak to
any one ?—I cannot say. Can you name any one man, woman,
or child who spoke to sou that day ?—I cannot, ex-
cept those two gentlemen. What two gentlemen?—Mr O'Con-
nell and Mr. Ray. slut you have not positively sworn that
even they spoke to yen. Who was in the chair ?—I cannot re-
member. Was Mr. John O'Connell there 2—l ca nnot say with-
out referring to my notes. The witness, after looking through
his notes, said that he perceived Mr. John O'Connell was
there. I took notes of those three gentlemen, because one
always mentions the leaders. One cannot play Hamlet, you
know, with the part of Hamlet left out. Did Mr. John O'Con-
nell say anything ?—He did. I have here, that " Mr. John
O'Connell thought it would be better if the matter was first
submitted to the committee." I certainly did not take this
from the newspapers. I cannot swear how long Mr. O'Con-
nell was speaking. He was probably speaking for nearly an
hour. Ido not think there was any ether speech except that
of Mr. O'Connell made on that day. There was no lung speech
made except Mr. O'Connell's, but there might be a few short
observations. And yet yen read your report of that long
speech, which was the speech of the day, in three or four
minutes ?—Do you swear those words were used, " he would
not say that such wouldbean unnatural or unadvisable result ?"
—I think those were his words precisely. Do you swear they
were his words ?—On my oath, to the best of my belief, they
were. How near Mr. O'Connell were you at the time?—As
near as I am now to the corner where the Attorney-General is
sitting. I did not pay a shilling to get in, as the porter ad-
mitted me. Then the porter knew yeu to be the reporter : did
you look at any gentleman's slips there ?—I cannot say. There
were shorthand reporters there that day. The majority of the
reporters wrote shorthand notes. A shorthand reporter could
decidedly take a more faithful report of what Mr. O'Connell
said than I could.
Cross-examined by Mr. WIIITF.SIDE, Queen's Counsel, on
the part of Mr. Duffy.—l think you mentioned the name of
Mr. Duffy?—You are quite right. Now draw on your me-
mory for facts, and not on your imagination. Did you see
Mr. Duffy at the meeting of the 6th of July ?—I cannot say
without referring to my notes. Or on the 26th of July ?—I
must refer to my notes. And these notes you told Mr. Fitz-
gibbon you sometimes copied from another reporter, and
sometimes from the morning papers of the next day.
You have a taste for eloquence ?—Not the slightest. Do you
not deal in " thunderbolts and tarnation fine things ?" You
are, I see, a literary person, and contribute to the magazines.—
( Laughter.) I have a curiosity to see the paper in which
those words appeared;?—l will make you a present of it.
Thank you. Does that kind of writing suit the London
market?—lt goes down with them. They are very gullible,
I believe ?-1 cannot get the extract for you without having
the slate. I cannot remember what Mr. Duffy said without
my notes. I did not take down everything he said. Don't
you know he spoke about Napoleon Bonaparte and your
friend the Duke of Wellington ? Did Mr. Kemmis ask you
the way in which you took down your report?—No ; I did
not think he would have called upon me at all. Mr. Kemmis
wrote to me requesting me to come to his office. I did so,
and he handed me a letter from the proprietors of the
Morning Herald, stating they had kept my letters to them.
I did not ask you the contents of their letter. Have you
all those valuable efforts of yours that you sent to the Morning
Herald now in Court?—Oh, no, not all of them. Look to
your notes wills reference to the songs in the Nation, and see,
in the meeting of the 4th of September, what allusion was
made by Mr. Ray to those songs ?—Mr. Ray said—Stop Sir.
Did you not say that he made some observations in the nature
of a speech ?—I did not ; I said it was a mere casual observa-
tion. To the best of my recollection he made those observa-
tions, and to the best of my recollection I was present, but I
can't say positively. I will not swear that it was not copied in
my report from another paper. Will you swear that he did not
say, that he had got a letter stating that some ballad•singers
had been taken up for singing seditious songs, and that Mr.
O'Connell approved of the conduct of the persons who took them
up ?—My notes were but running commentaries on the pro-
ceedings taken quickly to be in time for the post, and I do not
undertake to swear to their verbal accuracy. I will not swear
that Mr. O'Connell did not stand up and move a vote of
thanks to the person who arrested the ballad-singer. You
gave evidence of Mr. O'Connell's having read an address
on the 27th of August about the Irish representatives.
Now, did he not comment upon that address on that occasion?
—He did. Did he not fully comment on it, and was it not
a detail of grievances under which the Irish people suf-
fered ?—lt was such a detail, and he commented upon it.
Did it not set out all Irish grievances, whether civil or politi-
cal ?—Yes. Did you ever consider what would remedy them ?
—Never.--(Laughter.) Did not Mr. O'Connell say that the
people were not disaffected ?—He did. Did he not say that
the people were affectionate to the Queen and loyal to her per-
son ?-1 frequently heard him say so. Did you not hear him
speak of the French Constitution, and:allude to Louis Philippe ?
—I did, more than once. Did he not speak of it as net being
a fair arid true Constitution, because the House of Lords was
what he called a " mockery ?"—He did. Don't you remember
Mr. O'Connell saying that he would correct an error, in repu-
diating all newspapers as being organs of the Association ?-1
think I heard him say so several times. Are you not sure ?
lam sure, and I have heard him mention the Nation. Do
you recollect the day upon which the plait for the renewed ac-
tion of the Irish Parliament was read ?-1 do. You wrote
about those matters according to the literary palate of your
readers ?—I did ; I made them up to make them spicy, by adding
a little fun.—( Laughter.) Has the Morning Herald changed
hands of late ?—lt has. Was it since that occurred that you
got directions to call on Mr. Kemmis, the Crown solicitor,
from your proprietors ?—No, but it was very shortly before.
Did not Mr. O'Connell say that lie would not, er the Associa-
tion would not, be responsible for anything any paper said ?—I
often heard him say so. I suppose you were quite surprised at
seeing those manuscript papers of yours handed to you ?—lndeed
I was.

Mr. WurrEstnE having told the witness that he might go
down from the table,
Mr. Jackson said he wished to make one or two observations
in vindication of his character.

Mr. Eurzctanot: objected, because the witness, if he wished
to explain, should have done so during his examination.
Mr. Jackson—l merely want to make one observation, my
Lords, to vindicate my character before the public.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—You shall not, Sir.
The Cuter JusricE—Let me hear what you have to say,
witness.

Mr. Jackson—Those manuscript documents, my Lords, were
given b) the proprietors of the Morning herald to Mr. Kern-
mis, the Crown solicitor, and, so help me God, I never saw
them, or knew he had them, until he Produced me the letter of
those gentlemen, sating they had furnished him with them
and requiring me to initial them. I considered it was due to
my character before the world to make this plain explanation of
the truth.

Cross-examined by Mr. Moons, upon behalf of the Rev.
Mr. Tierney—l have my rotes of the Association meeting of
the 3d of October. I took those notes upon that day. I took
them at the meeting. I did not know the Rev. Mr. Tierney.
I did not even known his person. I mentioned his name as
being present on that day. I did so, not from my knowledge
of his person, because from some of the reporters' positions at
those meeting i they could not see the speak-m-.. I never saw
him before or since, to my knowledge. I thought on your
direct examination that you swore he was present at that meet-
ing ?—I heard a gentleman make a long speech whom 1 un-
derstood was Mr. Tierney. Did you not swear that the Rev.
Mr. 'Tierney made a speech ?—I can't say that I did. If you
swore it would it be true ?—I believe so. Will you swear
that be was at that meeting 'i—To the beet of my belief be was.

At all events, you would not take upon yourself positively trs
swear that he was there ?—I would nbt.; but he made a lung ON.
speech, and that makes me remember it: ' •
Mr. Mooar —A Mr. Tierney marl speech ?—Yes.
The witness was then allowed to retire'.
Mr. Mooax (having communicated, with the Crown coun-
sel) said, that as he had applied to theist, and they refused his
application, he was obliged to make it to the Court, namely,
that his client and the other traversers should be furnished with
one copy of the notes of the witnesses examined upon the
previous day and Thursday, in order to conduct their defence.
Those extracts were very long, and they (the traversers) would
not have copies of them but by their being furnished ; so he
hoped the Court would grant his application, which he oonsi-
dered very reasonable.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said that he did not knew that the
Court bad power to make such an order.
ME. WHITESIDE—We will pay for them.
Mr. Moone—l am sure even if the Court had not the power
of making the order, that if there was any difficulty felt by the
officers of the Crown, it would be removed if their Lordships
saw no objection to allow them to be furnished.
Judge CRAMPTON—If you had no means of having copies,
it would be very reasonable perhaps, but you have your short-
hand writers.
The CHIEr JUSTICE—What documents do you ask for?
Mr. MoonE—Copies of the documents read by the witnesses
yesterday and the day before. We will pay for copies, and wo
could not have them transcribed from shorthand notes since the
previous day.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—They have read those documents in their
case. The witnesses read every single word of them. They
are here as documents. They are in the possession of the
Crown as documents.
The ATTORNEY-GENEILAL—SUCh a course never has been
adopted until the present time, and I entirely object to It,
and I do so the more, because I cannot fail to recollect the
course that was adopted towards one of our witnesses. They
have every meeting as to which they require documents re-
ported by their own shorthand-writers for their newspapers.
They had the simplest and plainest course to adopt for ascer-
taining the documents which they now call for. Ido not
wish to state here some matters, but certainly under all the
circumstances which have taken place with respect to one of
our witnesses in some newspapers, it will prevent me from de-
parting from the usual course, and I shall net give copies of
the documents.
Mr. Moonn, Queen's Counsel—l am bound to say that after
what has been just said by the Attorney-General I must not
call on the Court to make any order on the subject. •
Mr. FITZGIBBON—I now submit to the Court that the whole
of the evidence given by Mr. Jackson ought to be struck out.
Ile was produced here as a witness to tell the jury what be had
heard and seen done at meetings, and read notes which he said
at first were taken in a particular way at particular meetings.
I submit that from his own showing it is as clear as possible
that the whole of his evidence ought to be struck out.
The CHIEF JUSTICI—Don't you think this is not the occa-
sion for making this application ?
Mr. FITZGIBBON.—I rather think I am just in time. It is
when a witness goes off the table that such an application ought
to be made.
The Cuter JUSTICE—He has been cross-examined by three
gentlemen. I don't think the Court can accede to the proposi-
tion that you make. It may be very well deserving of consi-
deration at another period, but not now.
John I3rowne examined by Mr. HOLMES—lreside in Nassau-
street, and carry on the printing and atationery business. I
have been !ong carrying on the business. It is at No. 36. I
know Mr. Ray. I have known him for several years. I have
heard of an Association in the city of Dublin called the Loyal
National Repeal Association of Ireland. Mr. Ray holds the
situation of Secretary to that Society. I was employed to do
some printing work for that Society. The Association gene-
rally, through Mr. Ray, employed me. I have been four or
five years doing work for the Society. I have been paid for the
work I have done, except a running account now. I was paid
by Mr. Ray, and sometimes by a clerk in his office. Have you
received much money from time to time for the business you
did ?—I have. Could you mention how much ? Be under the sum.
Mr. WHITESIDE objected to the question. He did not see
how this could be evidence against the traversers.
Mr. HoLsins—l will ask my own questions.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Of course you will, and I will object
where I see fit.

Mr. HOLMES (to witness)—l now ask you to state, what
amount you received from time to time?—l could not say.
Oh, be under : have you kept any account-book ?—I bare.
The account was sometimes about 201., and—

Mr. WIIITESIDI—I object to any evidence of the contents of
this gentleman's books, because they ought to have them here.
Mr. HOLMES 00 witness)—Have you not been served with
a duce tecum?-1 have.
Mr. HoLmss—Well, now we will gratify Mr. Whiteside by
getting it read from your books. Do you know:what amount you
received from Mr. Ray from time to time for printing?
Mr. Justice PERRlN—Within what period?
Mr. IloL3lEs—Within the last two year..
Mr. Wurrxsinz—l am obliged to your Lordship for putting
me in mind of that. I submit this is not evidence; the first
thing in this indictment is stated to be on the let of March.
Sir. Justice Caaurros—l don't see, for my own part, the
relevancy of the inquiry.
Mr. HOLMES (handing a document to the witness)--Did
you print that document?—l did, and for the Repeal Associa-
tion. 1 printed it in the year 1843. •
The Deputy Clerk of the Crown read the document, which
was the plan for the renewal of the Irish Parliament. He also
read documents headed—" Instructions for the appointment of
Repeal-wardens and collectors," and " Form for the appoint-
ment of Repeal-wardens," and others, which he admitted
having printed for the Association.
The witness was then examined as to the printing of " the
Address of the Repeal Association to the inhabitants of coun-
tries subject to the British Crown," " Rules to be observed by
arbitrators in districts," " Arbitration notices," and others, all
of which he admitted he printed. He said—l printed 4,000 or
5,000 copies of the paper called 0' Callagan's Letter ; 1,000
or 2,000 of the notices for the sitting of the Arbitration Courts;
200 of the rules to be observed by arbitrators ; 2,000 or
3,000 of the address of the Association to the British public ;
and about 2,000 or 3,000 of the summonses for those Courts.

I printed all these for the Association, and I vvas paid for doings°.
I printed some of them from manuscript, and others from ex-
tracts from newspapers. I was served with a subpoena to
produce the manuscript. I searched for it, but I found very
little. I found the paper which I produce, headed " Lein-
ster for Repeal."
Mr. HOLMES.—Did you print any from that ?—I think I

Mr. WHITESIDE—Thinking will not de; are you certain
that you did ?—I cannot swear positively.
Mr. WHITESIDI—That answer will not do.
Mr. HOLMES.—Have you any doubt that you did ? Where
did you get the manuscript got it or the printer's office-
file. I think it probable that something was printed from it in
my office, but I am not sure.
Mr. HoLates—You hare your account-books here ; look
at them, and see if you have any entries of having printed
from it 7
Mr. WIIITESIDZ—The entries in his book:may be very cor-
rect, but they cannot be evidence here.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—He can look at his book in order to
refresh his memory.
Mr. HOUSES—WeII, witness, have you any entry of that do-
cument?
Mr. FITZGIBBON--I object to the question ; any entry he
may have cannot be evidence.
Mr. Hotales—The fact is, these young men think I am
not able to stand out, but I am.—(Laughter.) Witness, I Ie•
peat ray question, have you any entry there relating to that
document ?—I have two entries relative to the Mullaghmaet
meeting, but I cannot say whether they have reference to this
document or not.
Mr. Witiresinx—You must not read them.
Mr. HOLMES—WiII you swear you did not print that docu-
ment entitled " Leinster for Repeal?"-1 have a printed bill
here with the same heading, of which I printed about 2,000
for the Association, and I was paid for it. The newspapers, I
believe, called the Mullaghmast meeting a " monster meeting."
I printed documents in reference to other monster meetings
which took place about Dublin. I have none of those docu-
ments here. I think I printed some in reference to the Donny-
brook meeting. The documents I have with me I brought in
consequence of a subpoena I received desiring me to do en.
And all the documents that are here did you print for the As-
sociation ?—I think I did. And you were paid for them?—
Yes. It was rather a good thing altogether, eh ?
Mr. WHITESIDE—I object to that.
Mr. HoLaiEs—Why, it was merely an observation.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Yes, it was an observation, with a great
deal of point in it.
Mr. IloLstes—lf I attempted to stop you in half the obser-
vations you make which have nothing to say to the case, I
should have something to do.—( A laugh.)
Mr. WHITESIDE—That might be true, upon the cross •ex-
arnination, but you forget your position ; you are examining
upon the direct.
Mr. HOLMES (to witness)—Look at that (revision of the
jury list), and say, did you print them or not, for the Associ-
ation?—Yes. Were you paid for it or not ?—I don't know
whether I was paid for it or not.
Cross-examined by Mr. WHITESIDE—Did you print these
eleven documents ?—Yes. Did you print these three documents
(headed " To the people of Ireland," &c.) P—Yes.
Mr. Hotaiits here rose to ask the witness a question.
Mr. WitITESIDE—I object to your asking the question unless
t arose from anything which fell from me on the direct.
Mr. HOLMES—I omitted to ask the witness a question.
Mr. WHITESIDE —I object, then, to your asking it now.
_ .

Mr. Hoi.atas—lt is the only legal objection yotihave made.
The Learned Counsel then called upon the Clerk of the
Crown to have the documents handed to the witness read
seriatim.
Mr. Wireresrne submitted that none of the documents could
be made use of against the traversers.
Mr. Hor.rixs said every one of the traversers was a member
of the Association. The documents were printed for the Asso-
ciation. The traversers attended meetings of that Association,
some of whom made speeches there, and the documents were
clearly evidence against them all.
Mr. WHITESIDE—They are no evidence against Mr. Duffy.
Mr. llotmEs—The documents are printed by the desire of
the Secretary, one of the :traversers being the Secretary, and
were paid for by the Association.
Mr. WitlTEsint —As to Mr. Duffy, the only distinct evi-
dence against him is that given by the gentlemen who saw hire
one day at Calvert's Theatre.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I beg your pardon.
Justice CeaatrroN—This is not the time to make then
objections.
The Cuter Juvricr —lt was proved that Mr. Duffy at-
tended meetings of the Association, and handed in subscrip-
tions.
Mr. WHITESIDE—The evidence given to-day is net worth a
tuAt.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—This is a question for the jury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—WI is not the time for a com-
mentary on the evidence. We will, when the time comes, show
the clearest evidence against Mr. Duffy.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court are of opinion that the
documents are properly read against all.
Mr. Wiirrestne said he did not contend that it was not evi-
dence against a traverser for a witness to say that he got a eer-
; tain document from him ; but there was no such evidence in
that instance, therefore he made the objection.
Judge BURTON—AII the traversers are members of the As.
Kiciation, and the publication is by the Association.
.fudge PERRIN said that the charge on the indictment was,
that. a number of persons assembled for a particular purpose
and a particular object, and the preparation and printing of cer-
tain documents was surely evidence of the object of the Asso-
elation. The documents should be read against one of the Ira-
, versers, and the question was whether the evidence was against
his (1111.. Whiteside's) client)?
Mr. Ferec !meow said, that the only evidence about the do-
cuments was, that Browne printed them for the Association, and
was paid for them ; but when he printed them had not appeared,
with one solitary exception—a thing in the shape of a book, said
to have been printed some time in 1843, while all the overt acts
relied upon by the Crown as showing a conspiracy sense sines
March. There was not a single act charged in the indictment
against a defendant, except acts occurring in March last. Could
it be said, that acts done by the Association four years age
ought to he now read in evidence of a conspiracy said to be
proved by acts done since March, 1843?
v. :1111 ide
sa(;111.1zi
with
JruefserriecLatsok asked, what the Learnedtio,i.r sla
teCs,
of October, 1843 ? uons3edl
document
enFti
of the Crown then proceeded to read a
The Deputy Clerk
f h' h was " Instroc
e 0 Vi le tins for the
that the date was no proof that the
number of documents, on
Twttpßrai°nNtedsathiden.
appointment of Repeal IVardene.