The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-24 00:00:00

give to some person who wanted to show them to another
perion.—(Laughter.)
Well ;how many dratnatis pet sonce were there in this farce?
—First, you were the principal performer; your brother-in-
law the second; and then two other "persons unknown"—
these are the words of the indictment?—l do not know if I am
at liberty to mention the persons or not.
Well, I have no objection to your doing so; it is Mr. Tomb-
that objects. Well, how many days were the notes going
through this process of transmission, in this family way
through you and your brother-in-law, after you had written
them out ?—I cannot say.
Well, what became of them afterwards?—They were re-
turned to me.

Finally ?--No ; I gave them to a person, and never saw them
since, until I saw them in Dublin.

Did you first make a draft from your notes ?—Yes.
And this is a fair copy ?—Yes.
And where is the draft ?—I destroyed it.
And the original notes also ?—Yes.
When?—On the same day.
How long ago ?—I don't remember. It might be two
months ago, but it was not three.
I think you stated as regards your report, that you did not
take every sentence ?—I did not take every sentence.
Whole sentences were omitted ?—No doubt.

I think you said in your report that a professor stated that
the Irish were the finest people in the world ?—I did not say
a word about the professor, but I am perfectly aware d what
you are alluding to—you mean the professor in Spain and
France.

What system of short-hand do you write—Mr. Taylor's ?
—No ; is it necessary I should tell you what system ?
Just -read the passage about the professor.
Witness then read the passage.
Mr. Hatchell—Now on your oath will you say from your
notes or from memory that there was one word about a
Spanish professor ?—I will swear that I took it down.
You could not write Scotch for Spanish ?—I am quite sure I
could not. lam quite prepared to swear that I took the word
down as " Spanish."
But you do not mean to say that you are infallible ?
LaugLter.)—No, certainly not.
-Do you swear that you might not have mistaken the word
professor for philosopher. Do the words when written in your
system resemble each other ?—No.

Oh, no, not according to your system of making mistakes?
—( Laughter.) Do you write short-hand at all ?-1 do.
Write the words professor and philosopher in shorthand.
Judge Crampton—Write so that the jury can understand.—
(Laughter. )
The witness having written the words in short-hand,
Mr. Hatchell—Oh ! that is professor—aye, I see, and that
is philosopher—well, certainly, they don't look much alike. A
very short for professor ; at all events, the longest move
is philosopher.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. O'Connell (looking at the scrap of paper)—Professor
is the long one.
Mr. Hatchell—Can you swear that you saw a placard about
Eurcpe being in a blaze ?-1 did see some placard of that kind
in the street. I saw it a considerable time before the meeting
was held.

Do you know that that placard was taken down ?—I do not.
• Did you hear Mr. Steele direct that it should be taken
down ?—I did not hear of his doing so. He might have
written an order to the effect.
You mentioned that Mr. Roberto!' suggested some plan at
the meeting ?—Yes, it had reference to the landlord and tenant
question.
Will you just read what Mr. Robertson said; but, first of
all, allow me to ask whether Mr. Robertson is one of the body
called Quakers believe he is. . .

The witness was then requested to read from his notes a
speech delivered by Mr. Robertson, on moving the adoption
of a resolution. The following is an extract from the same:—
" It is true that you can expect nothing from a British Parlia-
ment, and it is equally true, that if you presevered in your
present principles, you will soon have a Parliament of your
own. We are anxious to do no harm to any one, but to do
good to ourselves. Instead of an Arms Bill, they ought to
give us fixity of tenure."
mr, Hatchell applied for a copy of the notes of the speech
read by witness. Ihe Court consented.
The examination was then resumed.
Hatchell—lt was moved that a petition should be pre-
sented to Parliament, was it not 2—lt was.

Look at your book ; see who was the mover; and anything
able read, you will be so good as to read slowly that we may be
you to take a note.
I suppose you have no objection to a copy of your testimony
being made public?—l have no objection, as far a 3 lam con-
cerned.

Hatchell—That in your hand is your property.—l don't
know whose property it is.
- Have you not been paid for it ?—No, I have not.
Don't you know that that which is the produce of a man's
labour is his own until he is paid for the parting with it ?—Yes,
I know that.

_
It is your property then ?—I think so.
Now, Sir, will you tell me what the Rev. Mr. Nolan said ?
He moved " the adoption of a petition to he presented to
Parliament praying for a repeal of that fatal measure—the
union." _ _ _

Was that motion seconded ?—Yes, by Dr. Gray ; but in re-
ference to names, perhaps, I ought to observe that very few of
thefts were announced. It was only after inquiry as to who
were the.speakers that I could give the names.
The petition was presented to Parliament ?—Yes.
Have you a note of the petition?—l have not.
- --What are you searching in your pocket for ?—For my pocket-
handkerchief.—( Great laughter).
Was the petition read?— Yes.
Why did you not take a note of it?—Because I thought a
copy of it would be given to me.
Did you apply for a copy ?—I did not.
Did you ever read it ? I did not.
Now, on your oath, had you not the curiosity to read it in
the newspaper?—l saw it in the newspaper.
Yes, so accurate an observer was not to be takenby surprise.
Did you see the report of the proceedings in more newspapers
than one ?—I read it in two newspapers.
You have no copy of the petition?—l have not.
What is the next transaction of which you have any note ?
A resolution, but what about I don't know.

Oh, some resolution of which you know nothing ?—Pre-
cisely so.
Who moved the resolution of which you know nothing ?
The Rev. Mr. Tierney.
• Who seconded it ?—Mr. Clarke. There was another resolu-
tion moved by Mr. O'Loughlen, and seconded by Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Hatchell—Have you any note of it?—l have not. Read-
ing the petition to Parliament was the next thing done, then
followed Mr. O'Connell's speech.
You were taking notes at the table ?—I was.
How was it you destroyed those notes— did you throw them
into the fire 7—l threw some of them into the fire, and my
children cut some of them up.
Was the draft thrown into the fire ?—Yes.
There were some other reporters besides you present at the
meeting ?—I remember seeing only one.
Was he for a newspaper 2—He said he was.
The witness was then desired to withdraw.

John Simpson Stewart was next examined—He said, I am
a sub inspector of the constabulary. I was stationed at Tul-
lamore in July last. Was there on the 16th of that month.
Was about town on the morning of the meeting. Saw mottoes
and banners in toy progress through the town before the meet-
ing was held. A large number of persons came to town to at-
tend the meeting. There were many thousands of persons in
the streets. Observed a banner with a motto in High-street,
Tullamore. I took a note of it.
Mr. Tomb—Does that book in your hand contain your own
handwriting?—lt does.
What was the motto that you saw in the High-street?
Mr. Henn—l object to that question. It does riot yet ap-
pear where the banner was placed. It appears that it was
seen in the town before the meeting took place, but surely
there should be some further information respecting it. The
banner might have been fixed in the night while scarcely any-
body was in the town. It does not appear that it was carried
round by any person. The mere fact of a paper being posted
is no evidence, and I
The Lord Chief Justice—You will observe that all that took
place cannot be given in evidence all at one time. What the
witness has already sworn to amounts to this. He was in the
town of Tullamore on the day of the meeting discharging his
duty as an officer of police. He saw that a number of persons
had come into the town, and then that the persons amounted
to several thousands, and that he in the exercise of his duty
went round the town for the purpose of making his observa-
tions. He says that he saw multitudes collected in different
parts with banners and mottoes.
Mr. Henn—No, my Lord. Now, that is the very foundation
of my objection—the banners or mottoes were not brought in by
any of those persons.
The Lord Chief Justice—You interrupt me ton soon. I
said over and above those persons collected, who did not belong
to the town. There were thousands of persons in different
parts of the town, and it was the duty 01 the officer to see what
was taking place. Now, he observed, when he went about in
his tour as inspector, sundry banners and mottoes. I know he
did not say they were brought in by the non-residents, but that
while the preparations were going on
Mr. Henn—With great respect, I beg to observe that he has
not said what part of the town he—
The Lord Chief Justice—Because you have not allowed him.
Mr. Henn submitted that the fact of a placard being posted in
High-street or any other part of the town, was no evidence
tending to affect any person present.
The Lord Chief Justice—You cannot prove every! hing all at
once.

Several thousand persons were assembled in the High-street,
at Tullamore, when 'I went there. They were coming in
great numbers into the town ; and many of them passed by
High-street. High-street leads into the town from the Burgh-
road. There was an arch across the whole of that street.
There was a motto upon that arch.
The Attorney-General—What was it ?
Mr. Henn objected to that question. The erection of the
arch in question did not appear to be the act of any of the
parties at the meeting, and did not affect that which the Court
had then to try.
Mr. Justice Crampton—The same objection would apply to
the platform.
The Attorney-General said that the objection had already
been decided on in the case of the King against Hunt.
.Mr. Fitzgibbon said that the case of the King against Hunt
had no manner of analogy to the present. In that case the
parties accused were found guilty upon the fourth count,
which charged them with the holding of an unlawful as-
sembly. But the charge against the present traversers was
that of having entered into a conspiracy ; and the act of un-
known parties at Tullamore could be no evidence to sustain that
charge. The Crown might as well adduce in evidence the
placards in Dublin about the sale of teas and other goods. In
the case of the King against Hunt, the nature of the placards
showed the character of the assembly, but that evidence was
not brought forward to prove a conspiracy, nor was the Court
so absurd in that case, as to admit it as proof of a conspiracy.
The present case involved a charge of conspiracy only; and
there was not a single allegation in the indictment to the effect
that the meeting was unlawful. He submitted, therefore, that
the mottoes on the placards were .not evidence which the Court
could receive.
The Attorney- General said that in the case of the King
against Hunt, the defendants were convicted upon the count
charging them with having held an unlawful meeting. The
present case varied from that in no respect except this,
that the present was an indictment for a conspiracy to do that
which had been done by the defendants in the case of the
King against Hunt. And was he to be told that he could
not, upon the authority of that case, show what had occurred
at a meeting held by the traversers—these traversers being
charged in the indictment with a conspiracy, and with having,
for the purpose of the conspiracy, assembled large numbers of
people? He was only proceeding to show the character of
the assembly from the nature of the banners and flags dis-
played there. It was the first time he had ever heard that
Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Best, and Mr. Justice Bailey
had decided what was absurd.
Mr. Fitzgibbon observed that he did not say thq had de-
cided what was absurd; he said they had refused to do what
was absurd.
Mr. Whiteside supported the objection taken to the reception
of the proffered evidence. That was, he contended, a totally
different case from the case of the King against Hunt, for in
that latter case the specific charge against the defendants was
that they had held an unlawful assembly. The Crown had no
more right to bring forward the evidence they offered than they
would have to charge a person going to Donnybrook with
having passed under a banner at Ciontarf.
The Lord Chief Justice said that unless the Court were to
overrule decided eases, and the principles of common sense,
the mottoes on those flags and banners might be given in evi-