The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-22 00:00:00

of the award, free of expense, to each of the parties, if applied
for. " Signed by order,
"JOHN GRAY,
" Chairrnan of the Arbitration Committee,
" Loyal National Repeal Association.
" A copy of these Rules should be posted in some conspi•
cuous place in the room where the arbitrators sit."
Sergeant WARREN—Look at your notes, and see have you
a memorandum of the appointment of any arbitrators on the `37th
of September for the districts of Kingstown, Dundrum, or
Blackrock?—l remember that Dr. Gray made a speech on thi.t
occasion in reference to the appointment of arbitrators.
Sergeant WARREN—Have you a note of that speech?—Yes,
I have.
sergeant WARREN—Bead it.—The witness read from his
manuscripts a note of a speech delivered by Dr. Gray, on the
occasion in question. The substance of the speech was, that
he (Dr. Gray) as chairman of the Arbitration Committee, was
commissioned to inform the Association that the Committee
had under their consideration the form of a testimonial in
favour of such persons as they thought fit to recommend to the
office of arbitrators, and he then proceeded to read the docu
ment alluded to, a copy of which the witness produced.
Did any appointment of arbitrators take place that day ?
I have a memorandum on my notes to the effect that several
gentlemen were proposed as arbitrators and agreed to. I know
that Mr. Nugent, of Kingstown, was appointed, and returned
thanks, and Doctor Gray moved that the Chairman should be
recommended as an arbitrator for Duedrum, whereupon the
chairman returned thanks. I was present at the Mullaghmast
meeting. I took a note of the proceedings of that meeting,
which I hold in my hand.
Sergeant WARREN said there were certain extracts from
that speech, as reported by the witness, which he wished to
have read out. He wished to know whether the Counsel for
the traversers had any objections to having certain extracts
read from the speech, or did they mean to insist, as they had a
right to do, that the entire speech should be read over again ?
It would be in the recollection of the Court that the speech
had already been read in its entirety by Mr. Hughes.
Mr. FITZGIBBON—If your two witnesses agree, Sergeant
Warren, in their reports of this speech, I really cannot see the
use of having it read, or any part of it, over again. But if, on
the other hand, you want now to give a different account of the
speech from that which has already been deposed to, I cannot
see how yoneairdo so, for surely you can have no right to pit
one of yottf witnesses against the other. So which horn of the
dilemma will you select?—( Laughter. ).
Sergeant WARREN—I don't want any horn of a dilemma.
I merely wish to have certain extracts read from the witness's
report of Mr. O'Connell's speech, and I ask you whether you
require to have the whole speech read, as you are entitled ?
Mr. Ferzeraeost—We don't require anything. Take your
own course.
Mr. HENN—If .the two extracts correspond in omnibus,
there is no necessity for reading the second, but if there be any
discrepancy. I think it very essential for us that the whole of
the witness's notes should be read.
Sergeant WARREN—I believe that the two reports do corre-
spond, for I trust to the reporters ; but lam unable to say
positively, for I have not examined the reports.
Mr. HENN—We have no opportunity whatever of knowing
whether the reports correspond.
Judge CRAMPTON—You have only to state that you wish the
whole speech read, Mr. Henn.
Mr. Sergeant WARREN—State from your notes what Mr.
O'Connell said at Mullaghmast ?—There was considerable
confusion at that meeting, which inconvenienced me, and pre-
vented my taking some of the first of Mr. O'Connell's observa-
tions. I had not an opportunity of taking his first words,
but he was speaking of Tara ; I put down the word Tara
first, 'and then I ge on. The witness here read Mr.
O'Connell's speech, which agreed as nearly as possible with
Mr. Hughes's version of -it, and very slightly differed from the
report as originally published in the Freeman. Whenever he
missed taking down a woi d, he said, " I lost the next word ."
He read on until he came to the passage—" Peel has 500
colours inhis flag, and not one of them permanent—to-day it is
Orange, to-morrow green—and next day it is neither one nor
the ether.' One of the Scotch hi,torians, Allison, says that if
Wellington got well out of the battle of Waterloo, it was by
the British troops, and by their unconquerable. I have
lost the remaining words of that sentence. He then came to a
quotation from a song, which he introduced—
" At famed Waterloo
- Old Wellington would look blue,
Only Paddy was there too."
And I have lost the rest.—( Great laughter.) He said further
about the Duke of Wellington, They had no place for him in
the Cabinet, nor no 44 for him to perform, except that of a
sort of inspector-of Anti-Repeal Wardens. I selected this
Rath for obvious reasons to hold this meeting, for it was the
spot on which English treachery, and Irish treachery too com-
mitted a massacre unequalled in the annals of history, except by
the murder of the Mamelukes."
When the witness was done reading the speech,
Sergeant WARREN asked him if he was at the dinner in
Mullaghmast ?—I was.
I suppose you took a note of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the
dinner :0-1 did.
Can you recollect how many of the traversers were present
at Mullaghmast ?—There were present, Mr. O'Connell, Mr.
Ray, Mr. Steele, and Dr. Gray.
Now, at the dinner who did you see ?—I saw Mr. O'Con-
nell, "Mr. John O'Connell, Dr. Gray, Mr. Steele, Mr. Ray,
and Mr. Barrett.
Did you take a note of Mr. O'Connell's speech upon the
latter occasion ?—Yes.
Read it.--1 will. I have also notes of Mr. Barrett's speech
on the same occasion, but my notes of his speech are very in-
complete.
Mr. M‘Dostou cm—Your Lordships, perhaps, did not hear
what the witness said to Sergeant Warren. He stated that he
has a very incomplete
_ note of Mr. Barrett's speech. Now, we
had from Mr. Hughes yesterday a very perfect note of that
speech ; and I take the liberty, on the part of Mr. Barrett, to
apply to the Court not to receive the incomplete note. Ido
not think it fair.
Sergeant WARREN (to witness)—Have you a complete note
of any part of Mr. Barrett's speech? if you have not I won't
ask you a. word about it. Witness (having looked over his
notes)—No, Sir.
Sergeant WARREN—I should be very sorry to ask you to
give any statement of it. You said you had a complete note
of O'Connell's speech at the dinner ; will you read it 7—The
witness went on to read the speech made by Mr. O'Connell,
which took place at the Mullaghmast dinner. He (Mr. O'Con-
nell) -asked on that occasion was there any Repealer brought
betore a bench charged with any crime? Was there any of
them brought before a magistrate for a breach of the peace ?
No, not one. They (the Irish t eople) had made a moral de-
monstration which no country on the face of the earth was ca-
pable of producing save Ireland. They (the Irish) had met
in immense numbers without the slightest violation of the laws
of God or man, and yet that country and such a people were
enslaved. Mr. O'Connell then spoke something about the
eoldrwater cure, but I did not catch Laughter.) Mr.
O'Connell continued, and said the only way to obtain the
Repeal of the Union was by the peaceful working of the
Irish people themselves.- They would not commit a breach
of the peace. _ They would not commit a violation of the law.
He weat.csti to read that portion of the speech relative to the
Duke oi Wellington, in which it was stated that if a man hap-
pened to be born in a stable it did not make him a horse.
Witness continued reading Mr. O'Connell's speech for some
time longer, and the direct examination being concluded, Mr.
Henn, Q. C., commenced the cross-examination.
Mr. HENN— you state what time you came to Ire-
land first?—The first time I came was in July, 1843. I was
never here before.
Mr. HENN—Were you much frightened at the idea of
coming over?—Yes, I was frightened a little.
Mr. n EN st—lsupposeyou found the alarm false'?—Why, yes.
Mr. HENN—I suppose you were paid fairly for coming over ?
Yes, I get 3501.
Mr. HENN—Altogether do you mean? I got 501. for the
Donnybrook, arid 3501 for attending all other meetings, and up
to the next session of Parliament.
Mr. HENN—You have found it a profitable speculation,
then ?—Yes, I have.
Mr. HENN—Have you ever made as much money in as short
a time before ?—No, I have not ; I have sometimes done very
well, sometimes not.
Mr. HENN—Have you ever taken the benefit of the Insolvent
Act ?—I have once.
Mr. HENN—Only once ! when was that? I was arrested on
the 25th of June, and my petition was heard on the 25th of
think ; it was some time before I cams over.
Mr. HENN—You have stated that the employment you have
undertaken was suggested to you by some person on behalf of
the. Government—who was that person ?
Sergeant WARREN—I object to his answering that question.
Mr. Mum—l have a right to test the accuracy of the witness
in this way.
Sergeant WARREN—This principle was decided in Hardy's case,
and Lord Erskine distinctly laid it down that a witness em-
ployed by Government is not obliged to disclose the name of his
employer, and Lord Chief Justice Eyre also said that though in
general a witness may be asked such a question, yet the secrets
of the Government ought not to be laid open unless in an ex-
treme case. In Philips on Evidence, the doctrine was also
stated. Mr.. Philips says that though under ordinary circum-
stances the credit of a witness may be tested in this way, yet
witnesses will not be permitted always to disclose the
names of their employers, and it was not proper to inquire
what officer under the Government had induced a witness
to come forward. He quoted this from the Ist volume of
Philips on Evidence. In another case Mr. Gibbs had asked a
witness under cross-examination—How came you to go ? By
whom were you sent-? The witness replied—lf it be a fair
question 1 will • answer. Chief Justice Eyre said—lf you
choose to answer the question you may ; but I will not insist
upon it. The then Attorney. General said, Ido not think the
examination should be permitted to go on where the delicacy of
the witness is interfered' with. Mr. .Gibbs-1 don't see
where the delicacy is. . Lerd Chief Justice Eyre—l do not
think it proper to press this . witness, to Maivier. The nature
of the connexion between the parties ought ' not to be dis-
closed here ; and Mr. Gibbs then added—l will not press the
question. In Monaghan's case there was also an objection. Mr.
Erskine's qtiestion went to test the credit of the witness ; but
Lord Chief Justice Eyre held it,was a most important rule for
the public that.the names of persOris Were not to be disclosed,
unless they Were material- to the case, Ile referred to pages
807. and 823;,Aben Mr.; Erskine-Wished to eiamine a wit-
ness as to .Mformationobtained from a Orticular quarter, and
asked if the. information came, from a man or woman, the
Chief Justice would not allow the disclosure to be made. The
rule was clearly laid down in Philips's Law of Evidence.
Mr. HENN, Q.C.—There is a manifest distinction between
the: principle here, and that relied on by the Crown—between
questmns arising-out of. ,cross-examination and from the direct.
This is,_a questlogyarislag ken the direct examination, and I
wali4ather *unitised An** it;asked in a leading form, " Was
it not -suggested. tAlletit OXl.,tite. part of ,the Government?" and
the.wituese answered hdthe affirmative. lam now testing his
credit, and how can I test the accuracy of his answer unless al-
lowed to ask the question?
Chief Justice PENNEFATHER—The Court are of opinion
the distinction taken by you Mr. Henn, makes no difference ;
the protection must be upheld.
Mr. HaNN then proceeded with the cross-examination—You
had a communication with a person high in office ?—Yes.
Shortly before you came from England, were you in connexion
with any newspaper?—Yes, the Morning Chronicle.
How long in connexion with that paper?—About a

year.
Does it support the present Government ?—No.
Were you in connexion with any other paper ?—Not at that

time.
Were you at any other time ?—Yes ; the Times.
When did your connexion with the Times cease?—ln 1836.
When with the Morning Chronicle ?—After the last session
of Parliament.
Since then have you been engaged by any other paper?--
Yes ; by the 'Standard.
Then, when you came here in July were you not connected
with the Morning Chronicle ? Yes ; I wish to state - the
reasons why I came.
Mr. HiNV—Yeu have already given 350 substantial ones for
coming.—( Laughter. )
Witness—lf I had not come as a newspaper reporter, I would
not come for anything.
Would you not come forward for 100,000/. ?-0h ! I might
—( Laughter) for 75,000/.
'Why, would it be so hard to tempt you?--I was led to ap-
prehend some damage.
Welt,
ielt, now that you have come over, would you entertain the
same
Wraltensiou?—Now that I have seen how things are
carried on, I would not have the same inehension.
Having hem deputed by some
ge haroninicioef6:cey,onanedamwheitleo
in the employment et the IWorntrt
Ireland?—Yes.
Well, to whom did you apply on you anima/ you "me