The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, PR. DAY ES ENI JANUARY 26, 1844.

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS.
NINTH DAY-BY EXPRESS.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)
DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY, JAN. 24.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Crampton, and
Mr. Justice Perrin, took their seats upon the Bench at
ten o'clock precisely.
The traversers ar.d jurors answered to their names.
The Clerk of the Crown—Direct the Crier to call
Samuel Maun,ell, of 42, Leeson-street.
The Crier called Mr. Maunsell three times consecu-
tively, but there was no reply.
Mr. Henn, Q.C., rose and said that he appeared on
behalf of Mr. Maunsell, with whom he had an interview
that morning, and who assured him that he had not been
apprised until a late hour on the night preceding that the
Court had intimated any desire that he should be in at-
tendance. He promised, however, that he should be in
attendance punctually at the sitting of the Court, and
he (counsel) did n ,t know to what circumstance his ab-
sence was to be attributed. Mr. Maunsell requested him
to address their Lordships on his behalf, and to state that it
was not his intention to attempt any justification for the
letter which he had yesterday written, but to assure the
Court that it was written at a thoughtless moment, and
under feelings of great excitement. He had also ex-
pressed a wish that he might be permitted to make an
affidavit explanatory of the circumstances under which
the letter had been penned, and was anxious to know
whether, after the making of such an affidavit, the Court
would be satisfied with the expression of his regret for
what had occurred ; but he (the counsel) had told
him that it would be much better fer him to attend the
Court in person, and thus ascertain their Lordships' feel-
ings on the subject. He concurred in the propriety of
this suggestion, and after again expressing his regret for
what had occurred, had distinctly promised to attend at
ten o'clock.
Judge Crampton—lt is very possible Mr. Maunsell
may be here by and by. It is only ten o'clock.
The Chief Justice—l trust he may be in attendance,
and I am very happy to find that he has had the good
sense to place himself under Mr. Henn's directions. I
trust that he now sees the impropriety of his conduct, and
understands the predicament in which he has placed him-
self by writing a very improper letter to the High
Sheriff in the execution of his duty, thereby offering an
affront to a public officer, and committing at the same
time a very gross contempt of Court.
Mr. Henn—l do not intend to make any excuse fer Mr.
Maunsell's conduct, my Lords ; and all can say in ex-
tenuation, is what I have already stated, that he wrote
the letter under great excitement. Your Lordships are
aware that the letter had no connexion whatever with
the present trials.
Chief Justice—Oh, none whatever.
James Healy, a police-constable, examined by the At-
torney-General—Was at the meeting which took place
at Mullaghmast on the Ist October last. Came from
Cork there. Can calculate on the numbers that were
at the meeting, and thinks there were about 250,000 per-
sons there.
Chief Justice—How many?—About 250,000 ; was in
several parts of the field, and along the road. There were
several bands came before Mr. O'Connell arrived, in a
boisterous manner. and were screeching, driving all
before them. The bands which preceded Mr. O'Con-
nell were in the greatest order and regularity. The
bands came from Carlow and Kilkenny side, and from
every direction. The principal portion of the
people came through the long avenue. Can posi-
tively say there were about 30 bands there. Some
of them were dressed in military uniform. Some
of them had caps like Hussars, at least they resem-
bled them very much ; saw documents handed about
there amongst the people ; saw this (a document)
handed about. It was purchased by a constable. Pur-
chased one himself for a penny, though the price was
only a halfpenny.—( Laughter.)
Mr. O'Connell—That was very generous of you.
Witness—Saw thousands of such documents distributed
about the field, but the people were more attentive to
Mr. O'Connell's speech than they were to the papers at
the time. Tole up the paper which he bought. Saw
this one purchased by i ohn Dennehy, a sub-inspector
of police. Thinks the papers he saw distributed
were the same as this one ; he read it twice ; they were
distributed about from early on the morning till night-
fall. Saw Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Steele there. They
arrived about three o'clock. Saw a great many persons
with labels on their hats. They were cards, with the
worth " O'Connell's police." They had pieces of tim-
ber, five or six feet long in their hands. Those pieces
were not thick ; they were like wands, and quite small.
Saw flags and banners there. One of the banners had
the words "No Saxon Threats" (the manner in which
the witness uttered the word Saxon elicited a shout of
laughter as he pronounced it Soch-son); another had the
words "No Irish Slave—No Compromise but Repeal;" it
was a large flag ; I think it was the Castlecomer fide that
had it ; I was informed that the Castlecomer colliers
were there ; heard persons say so at least.
Mr. Macdonough—Don't mind what you heard any
one say.
The witness, in continuation to the Attorney-General,
said—There was another flag on which was written, "The
men of the border counties greet O'Connell with a Cead
Mille &Alia ; saw several flags with the word Repeal on
them; one had—"We tread the land that bore us ; ' does
not remember anything else on that flag; saw another with
" The Queen, O'Connell, and Repeal" on it. There was
another flag on which was "Ireland dragged at the tail of
another nation."—(Laughter.)
Attorney-General—What, witness ?—"lreland dragged
at the tail of another nation."—(Loud laughter.)
A Juror—Say that again, Sir ?—(Laughter.) Witness
—"lreland dragged at the tail of another nation."
Attorney-General (looking very sharply at the wit-
ness)—Are you sure that was it ?—Yes, Sir, " Ireland
dragged at the tail of another nation." Observed one
flag attached to a private carriage, with the
words " Repeal, and no separation." There was
another motto—" Mullaghmast and its martyrs—a
voice from the grave"--(Laughter)—there was another
representing a dog with a harp, and something I cannot
well describe before him, like a tree without branches,
and lions or dogs looking up, and underneath it was
written—
" No Saxon butchery shall give blood gout for a repast ;
The dog is roused and treachery expelled from Mul-
laghmast."
There were some other mottoes in the
pavilion, but did
not think it necessary to take them, as they were of no
consequence. The words God save the Queen ;" or " the
Queen God bless her," were there also. Mr. O'Con-
nell arrived about three o'clock. The platform was
occupied for about two hours. The people did
not all go away after the meeting broke up. Some of
them stayed there until near morning. Heard no obser-
vati4ns among the people except shouting for Repeal and
Old Ireland, or w .rds to that effect.
Cross-examined by Mr. M`Donough—You heard no
expressions among the people, except those you stated?
—No.
You mixed among the crowd very much that day in
the discharge of your duty ?—Very much.
And very minutely and attentively observed what was
going on?—Very much so.
You listened attentively to what was said?-1 did.
You mingled with the groups of people, and attended
to what they were saying ?—Anything I could see or
hear I noticed it.
And all you did see or hear them say or do was to
shout for Repeal and Old Ireland ?—That's all.
Although you were there from eight o'clock in the
morning until next morning ?—Yes, I was there the
evening before, and all that day, and up to eleven o'clock
at night.
And you were sent specially to Cork for that pur-
pose. 1 presume it was because you were a stranger
that you were selected ?—That may have been the rea-
son, but I can't say.
Now, as we have what you heard, I want what you
saw. Was not this a very peaceable assembly ?—la-
deed, it was very much so, as far as I saw.
No riot or breach of the peace?—All was very quiet
in that respect. There was nothing wrong that I could
either see or ascertain.
When you told the Attorney-General that parties re-
mained there at night, did you mean to convey that they
remained for the banquet?—Persons remained in tents
and places enjoying themselves.
In peace and quiet ?—Yes, in peace and quiet, as far
as I could see.
You stated that you saw bands coming from the direc-
tion of Carlow and Kilkenny. Do you know if they
were temperance bands think they were.
have seen several of Father Mathew's processions ?—I
Now, as you are from the south of Ireland, you must
did, a great many of them.
There were temperance bands at the processions ?
There were.
How many bands have you seen at one of them ?
More than there were at 11.1ullaghmast ; a good many
more.
How many ?—I counted forty-five bands at one time
at the great temperance procession, in Cork, on Easter
Monday.
And about how many persons do you suppose were
there?--I suppose about 300,000.
Were the temperance bands who were with that meet-
ing of 300,000 persons in uniform ?—Yes, some of them.
Had they flags or banners?—A very few, and they
were small ones.
I presume they bore inscriptions ?—They did, but they
were all connected with the temperance movement.
Those processions are, I believe, common in the south
of Ireland?—Very common.
Have you been long in the constabulary?—Nearly
twelve years.
Have the people improved in their habits in
conse-
quence of the temperance movement?—l should say
they have.
Very much so?—(After a pause.) In point of drunk-
enness, there's a great improvement among the people.
--(Loud laughter.)
'Were you at the great procession at Nenagh ?—I was
not.
When the bands were coming to the ground from the
direction of Carlow and Kilkenny how did they come?
—They appeared to be very wild and tossed all before
theWmel;e—i
u (sine of the people that they tossed before
them.
But wasn't that all from high fun ?—lt was.
ovv,a.
Mr. O'Connell (to Mr. Hatchell)--Ask him did they
injure anybody.
Did they injure anybody ?—Not that I could see,
except to knock down a couple of gingerbread stalls.
Were there any persons there disposing of these
things ?—Several.
Were there many people selling gingerbread ?

, Yes, and grog, and coffee, and other eatables of that present to distinguish the cards distributed at the Asso-
( sort?—(Laughter.) elation from those distributed at the meeting. Suppose the
i)ed ony of the_pe? le who sold these papers documents were not printed by the order or with the know-
flat you- bought one of P.--L-No, ledge —of the -Association, then it -was competent for the
They were sold, and not circulated gratuitously among traversers to rebut the evidence, and produce the printer who
e people ?—Yes. , did print them, and let him say for whom they were executed.
You did not perceive any one giving them away for He contended that the evidence could not be refused, as it was
given as part of the res gestce of the case, and that the docu-
nothing ?—I did not. ments were circulated by the Association. The documents
I suppose in these large assemblies in the south of I were circulated by the Association at the meeting, because the
Ireland, you have frequently seen persons hawking two hundred and fifty thousand persons who composed it could
about ballads, and selling them ?—Yes. not hear all that was said by the speakers. He, therefore,
Don't they usually take advantage of these large under all the circumstances, submitted that the document must
meetings, and hover about the precincts of them, to sell be used in evidence, and let the jury set what value they might
these ballads 2-1 should think so. on it afterwards.
They hover about the outskirts of a meetings, and en- The Chief Justice was of opinion that the document should
deavour to retail these things for profit ? Every be admitted on evidence, but he did not say what effect it would
have as evidence. At the same time, he thought it ought to
place where they think they can make sale of them, be laid before the jury, and let it form a part of the case
And I believe at assizes, while the judges are sitting or, which they were ultimately to give their judgment. Mr
in the criminal courts, these ballad-singers are generally Moore ndAlr han objected to the admissibility of the
to be found in the vicinity of the courts ?—I have seen document on different grounds; but he would not say they did
them there. agree on both grounds of objection. However, it was to Mr.
With respect to the persons that had on their hats the words Monahan's argument he would at present direct his observations
" O'Connell's Police,' I ask you as a fair and honest man, and consideration. Mr. Monahan said it could not be proved
upon your oath, did not those people contribute to the pre- that the document was circulated with the consent of the par-
servation of the peace and order ?—Saw them exert themselves. ties, or with the views of those who called the meeting, and,
That is no answer—Did they clear the platform ?—They therefore, it could not be admitted as evidence. Let him see
may have intended to keep the platform clear, and to keep how the case ease stands ; he supposed that nobody would deny
jury order about it; heard a man named Walsh give instructions to that evidence was already before the Court and of
the
the people to keep order and quietness about the platform and existence of the Repeal Association, which consisted of a
pavilion. great body of persons, who had assembled from time to
Were they peeled wands they had in their hands ?—The time, and held large meetings ; nobody would deny that. It
sticks they had were smooth, anti very slight. could not be denied that the leaders of that Association were
They were not pieces of timber ?—They were pieces ol in the habit of knowing where such meetings were held,
timber. and that they were called by the authority of the Asso-
Oh I they were of course made of timber, but they were ciation, of which the several traversers were proved to be
not what you called on your direct examination pieces of timber. members. In furtherance of the objects of the Association,
The Attorney-General—That was not what he said, and for the purposes of those meetings, the practice was,
Mr. M'Donough—l beg your pardon, I insist lam right; he for some time before the meetings, to publish the
called them pieces of timber, and then went on ; but it is of fact. It was deemed advisable, before the meeting at
no consequence. Mullaghmast, to have a great monster meeting, or provin.
Were you here on the entry of George the Fourth into cial meeting, or, as it was called, the Leinster Declaration
Dublin ?—I was not. for Repeal, and this was done, and the meeting was called by
You were at the Mullaghmast dinner?--I was, but not all placard to assemble on the Ist of October, at Mullaghmast,
the time. and that place was accordingly appointed as the scene of that
One of the mottoes, you say, was, "No Soxon—eLaughe great monster meeting, and it should be recollected the plan
ter) butchery shall give blood-gout for a repast ?—(Loud was so appointed before the Ist of October, the derf on which
laughter.)—Yes. the meeting was held. It was in evidence that instructions
There was something better for repast on that occasion, I were given to Mr. Brown, the printer of the Association, by
believe ?—Some appeared not to be satisfied ; the dinner the secretary of the Association, to print and publish a nums
appeared to be rather short. ber of advertisements calling that meeting, and that such in-
You say another motto was—" Ireland dragged at the tail structions were complied with, and the advertisement was cir-
of another nation."—That was the purport. culated. That placard called a meeting of the province of
Mr. M'Donough—A good heavy load she would have, would Leinster to assemble at Mullaghmast on the Ist of October,
she not? and Mullaghmast was the place named by the parties call-
Mr. O'Connell—And a strong tail.—(Laughter.) ing the meeting. The people called on to attend that
Witness—There was a private carriage in the procession. meeting got a very significant hint of what they were called
Did you take down all the mottoes did not. together for, as it was stated at the foot of the advertise-
Why did you not take them down ?—Because I thought it merit, " Remember Mullaghmast." That was to bring the
was no consequence. matter to their recollection. They had it in evidence
Perfectly harmless ?—Quite so. that Mr. O'Connell attended at the meeting, and ex-
Not material ?—Just so. plained very fully why the scene of the meeting was chosen
Therefore you did net take them ?—Just so. at Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell made two speeches—one
The witness then left the table, in the morning, and one in the evening, at the banquet.
The Attorney-General called on the Clerk of the Crown to Mr. Barrett, another of the traversers, was there, and also
read the ballad that was circulated at Mullaghmast. made a speech, and both the traversers stated that Mullagh-
Mr. Moore said the evidence of the last witness, as he un- mast was chosen for the meeting for a particular purpose,
derstood it, was this, that there were papers distributed or sold and that it was done firmly and deliberately, and chosen
in the course of the meeting ; that he himself purchased one before hand. It should not be forgotten again that
which he had lest ; but he got the docement in question from the people were called on to remember Mullaghmast.
another policeman, with a mark upon it. Under those circum- What was Mr. O'Connell's object in fixing on Mullagh-
stances he did not consider that document admissible. mast as the place for the meeting, but to bring to the re-
The Solicitor-General said the witness saw the other police- membrance, and perhaps to the feelings of those assem-
man pat a mark upon it. bled, the scenes alleged to have taken place there in former
The Chief Justice said Mr. Moore was not acquainted with times ? Whether that was likely to produce excitement or
the entire of the witness's evidence. not he did not say ; but one of the i easons given by Mr.
Mr. Moore said he had been out of Court during a part of it. O'Connell himself for assembling there was to bring to the
Mr. M'Denough said they had an additional objection. recollection of the meeting the treachery and cruelty of the
They contended upon the evidence that that document was Saxon race, and the want of safety there was ha dealing with
net receivable. Very great latitude had been allowed in them. The people then were invited to come to Mullaghmast
cases of conspiracy where it was fa'r to be inferred that the as a provincial meeting, and consequently a very great one, and
distribution of the document was in furtherance of the common the invitation or summons to them was given expressly by the
object, and by some of the conspirators; but he (Mr. M'Donough) Association through their officer and secretary, Mr. Ray, and
had never heard, and he apprehended there was no authority the cards were printed by Mr. Brown, the printer to the Asso-
to show, that where it was preyed, as in this case, that in this ciation. Now, where Mr. O'Connell and the Association took
vast and peaceable assemblage, persons either hovered about the upon themselves to collect the people together, in such crowds,
skirts of the meeting, or mingled with the crowd for the purpose to the amount of 250, 000, it was worthy of consideration to
of selling badatls ; persons who were preyed to be in the habit of say whether it was not an illegal act. He would not say
watching large meetings toget an opportunity of selling their bal- whether it was or was not, but he said that those who
lads or songs,—it would belunjust in the last degree to inculpate ventured to collect the meeting, must abide the consequences
those who took no part in their sale, and never sanctioned of their own act as to what was done connected with the meet-
their being sold or distributed. There was not the remotest ing. There were 250,000 persons assembled together at Mul-
connexion between any of the traversers, or the parties who laghmast. The first thing done was the handing about a paper
convened that meeting, or who held that meeting, and the purporting to be a full and true account of the dreadful slaughter
ballad sellers, and the witness upon his examination admitted or murder at Mullaghmast on the bodies of four hundred
that the people paid more attention to the speeches of Mr. Roman Catholics. Whether this was given away as a donation,
O'Connell and the other gentlemen than to the ballads. Those or whether it was sold, did not appear to him to be of much
ballads were distributed by sale amongst the people, not as the consequence. Their being circulated and distributed over the
act of the persons connected with that meeting, and he would field was a necessary consequence of the assembling of the
submit that, under the circumstances, the document in ques- people at the place to hear and receive a history of what had 'Da-
tion was not admissible. curred before Mr. O'Connell addressed them on the subject.
The Attorney-General said there was no proof that ballads He could not pass ever the fact that Mr. O'Connell, in the
of that description were in the habit of being sold at large two speeches which he made, and Mr. Barrett, in the one
assemblies. which he made, drew a picture of what had occurred at Mul-
Mr. M'Donough contended that the witness on cross-exami- laghmast similar to the one presented for sale to the people.
nation alluded to a temperance meeting consisting of 300,000 They all concurred in their representations of what took place
persons, and admitted that ballad singers were there distribut- three hundred years before, by those who were of Saxon con-
ing their ballads. nexion—the treachery and cruelty they practised, and that
The Attorney-General said there was no evidence of ballads they could never be trusted again. So far, therefore, from
such as the one in question being sold at that temperance being unconnected with the professed object of the meeting,
meeting. it seemed to him to be intimately connected with it; and it
Mr. M'Donough admitted that that portion of the evi- would be impossible to call the attention of the jury from the
deuce did not include this particular document. It was fact that 250,000 persons were assembled together by adver-
not for him to say what evidence would be adduced by the tisement ; and it would be for them to say whether the history
traversers, in reference to that ballad ; but they had the of the slaughter or murder said to have taken place was not
evidence of Mr. Brown, the printer, the authorised agent of connected with that meeting. He had not, therefore, the
the Association, to show that he never printed anything of the slightest doubt that the objection to the evidence ought not
kind, and that such a document was never put into his hands. to be allowed, and that the document was admissible in evidence.
Besides, they haul in evidence that these ballads were sold ; and, Mr. Justice Crampton said he was of the same opinion, that
was it not in accordance with their knowledge of probabilities the evidence was admissible, his reasons for which he should
that, if those ballads were sanctioned by the traversers, they state very briefly. It was admitted on both sides that the
would have been distributed gratuitously? How monstrous document was one of importaace, but whatever the nature or
would it be if, at the vast temperance assemblies sworn to by character of the paper was, it appeared to him it could not be
the witness, some person in that crowd sold ballads, and that rejected a 3 evidence. With regard to the objection urged
Father Mathew was to be put on his trial for those ballads, and against it, it must be clear the meeting at Mullaghmast was one
tales of ancient history were to be given in evidence against of the overt acts in the indictment, and the acts and declarations
him? If such a doctrine were admitted it would be in the of all persons who formed that assembly became, therefore, of
pee er of any designing person to convert a perfectly legal as- importance to consider; prima facie all persons there be-
sembly into an illegal one. longed to the meeting, therefore every person might disconnect
The Attorney-General quoted the King o. Hard, to show himself from it by evidence. The act and declarations of one be-
that the ballad was admissible in evidence. What was the came the acts and declaration of all, if they were considered to
ev idencc at present before the Court ? They had it proved act in concert, and therefore it was that what was said by one
by Mr. Hughes that Mr. O'Connell at that very meeting at in one part of the field, though it might be a quarter of a
Nlallaghreast said that "he had chosen it (meaning the Rath mile off, became evidence against the other who might be on
of Mullaghmast) for an obvious reason—they were upon the the platform. Here was an assembly for the purpose of dis-
precise spot on which English treachery, and false Irish tree- cussing a particular thing, and a paper was distributed by
chery, too, consummated a massacre unequalled in the crimes thousands amongst the assembly, and what upon the face of it
of the world." He said, that was a fit place, in the open air, did it purport to be ? It drew particular attention to the place
to assert their determination not to be destroyed by treachery ; of meeting. Now let him suppose, as put by the Counsel for
and that while he lived they Lever should. That the meeting the Crown, that some person in a different part of the field
was not held there by accident but by design, and that where read out this paper aloud, would any one contend that it could
his voice was then raised the yell of dispair was once heard not be received in evidence. No doubt it would be so re-
from the victims who had fallen beneath the swords of the ceived. He was of opinion from the beginning that that ob-
Saxons, who delightfully ground their victims to death. That jection was perfectly untenable.
three hundred unarmed men were slaughtered in the mer- Mr. Justice Perrin said that it appeared in evidence that
riment of the banquet, leaving their wives and children to from morning till night (these were the words of the witness)
drop useless tears over them. This (continued the Attor- several persons were engaged in circulating—in crying about
nev- General) is the contents of the old Irish history, through the meeting, those documents—that was publicly
which was printed and circulated at Mullaghmast. Mr. stating the substance of them, and no person interfered to pre-
O'Connell could not be heard by 300,000 men ; but it was vent, or repress, or stop them. He did not say to what effect
proved that the contents were spoken at the dinner in the the evidence would be; all he said was, that under those cir-
pavilion. He (the Attorney- General) for that reason proposed cumstances it was impossible to exclude that evidence. He
reading it. It had been circulated amongst the hundreds did not mean to say that it would go to affect the Association,
of thousands who could not hear Mr. O'Connell, but could or to connect it with them directly, but that was a matter for
read it. The " Voice from the Grave " was also used at the the jury to decide upon ultimately, considering the evidence
Pavilion, sand it was clearly admissible in evidence. A for and against the prosecution.
distinction had been taken that it was inadmissible be- The document was then handed in and read. It purported
cause it had been sold ; but surely it was not because a to give " a full, true, and accurate account" of the terrible
penny or a half-penny might have been got for it that it was massacre of four hundred Irish Catholics at the Rath-more of
to be rejected. There never was a case where the admission ofsuch Mullaghmast. The first paragraph contained a statement of
evidence was of more importance. It was circulated at a meeting the cruelty committed on the occasion referred to, and pro-
assembled for the purpose of creating discontent and disaffection seeded to give an extract from Taaffe's History of Ireland,
amongst her Majesty's subjects. The slaughter committed 100 wherein the massacre was described as occurring during the
years ago, was, for this purpose, revived in the minds of the reign of Queen Mary. Some comments followed, wherein
people by this " Voice from the Grave," combining all these Mary was designated as Bloody Mary. The document con-
circumstances together, the documents were clearly fit to he eluded by giving a summary of different authorities as to the
given in evidence. He put it in evidence to show the mode date of the massacre ; and the author, having satisfied himself
adopted of circulating such sentiments among the people, and that it occurred during Mary's reign, proceeded to show that
relied as an authority upon the case of the King v. Hunt. He whether Catholicism or Prote'tantism were triumphant in
concluded by saying, that it was for the Jury to consider how England, Ireland was always treated by English rulers with
far Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers were connected equal barbarity and treachery.
with its distribution. Mr. Whiteside applied to have a copy of this document fur-
Mr. Monahan (for Mr. John O'Connell) said, that the dot- nished him. They wished to have the name of the printer.
trine advanced by the Attorney-General was unsupported by The paper was banded to the Learned Gentleman.
authority. If he recollected the opening statement of the At- The Attorney-General then put in a copy of her Majesty's
torney-General, he said that he had the printer of these dem- speech as evidence, requiring as much of it as related to Ire-
ments, and named as such a person called Hanvey, who lived in land to be read.
Fishamble-street. He had not, as he did in the case of other Mr. Moore objected to its being produced.
documents, produced the printer to prove that they were got The Attorney-General was very much surprised at. the ob-
out by the directions of any particular person, or the objects for jection. There had been in the course of these trials several
which they were printed. There was no evidence that they speeches of Mr. O'Connell proved, in which he commented on
were published by any one charged with the conspiracy. The the speech of her Majesty at the prorogation of Parliament,
Attorney-General had not, as in the case of Brown, produced taking sentence by sentence, and he apprehended a document
any person to prove that they emanated from Mr. O'Connell so commented on might be taken in evidence. It was alleged
or the Repeal Association. On the contrary, it was likely that it was not the speech of her Majesty, but the speech of
that the document was published by this man ( Hanvey) for her Ministers—that it contained language only fit for a fish-
profit; that it was his own act, and not that of any one woman—that it was a Billingsgate speech—and caller observe-
charged with the conspiracy. He did not object to the placards tions of an extraordinary character were made respecting it.
being given in evidence, because they were openly and publicly He therefore asked, quite as a matter of course, that the por-
exhibited at the meetings ; but there was no proof to show tion of the speech so commented on by Mr. O'Connell should
that these papers were exposed in the presence of Mr. O'Connell be put in, it being clearly a matter of evidence.
or his friends, or that they had any knowledge of their con- The London Gazette of August 25th, and the Dublin Ga-
tents. He did not say that it was necessary to prove that the zette of August 29th, were then put in, and the portion of her
circulation was the act of Mr. O'Connell or any of the tra- Majesty's speech referring to Ireland, and expressing her de-
versers, but it should be proved that it was done with the know- termination to maintain the Legislative Union between the
ledge of, or at least adopted by, some one of them. No doubt but countries, were then read.
formerly evidence in cases of thissortwas permitted to an extreme James Irwin, station-house clerk of the Liverpool constabu-
length ; yet they had not, on the other hand, cited any case lary, sworn—He said he was at Liverpool on the 13th of Oc-
similar to the one before the Court. If the circulation was an teber. He saw placards of a particular description posted in
object with the Association, they would not have charged for various parts of Liverpool. He took down one of that placards
it; a few pence was of no value to them. It had not been which he produced. It was a copy of the address to all the
proved that the publication was with the knowledge or sanction subjects of the British Crown, containing a statement of the
of the Association, or in furtherance of its objects. The At- grievances of Ireland, and which Mr. O'Connell had wished to
torney-General, when commenting upon it in the presence of have in circulation in all the towns of the empire. The name
the jury, ought to have stated that it was a slaughter committed of Mr. Brown was attached to it as printer.
by Catholics. Mr. Charles Vernon called—Held the situation of Registrar
Mr. O'Connell—l said a slaughter of Catholics by Catholics. of Newspapers in tre Stamp-office ;it was in his office that
Solicitor-General—The question for the Court was, should the declarations made by the proprietors and publishers of
these documents be admitted or rejected. If admitted it newspapers were lodged. The newspapers themselves are also
was open to the traversers to give any explanation lodged there as published. He had here the declaration of Mr.
about them which they could. He thought they ought to Barrett, as proprietor of the Pilot.—(Declaration produced.)
be admitted upon two distinct grounds. First, they were He had seen Mr. Barrett write, and that was his band. Had
part of the res gestx, the character of the meeting, the also the declaration of Charles Gavin Duffy, as proprietor of
transactions there, the circulation of such matter as was con- the Nation. He was not acquainted with Mr. Duffy. The
tanned in the documents, he would assume bore directly upon declaration was lodged at his office in the regular way of busi-
the charge in the indictment. That charge was one of en- ness.—(Declaration produced.) Had the declaration of George
tering into a conspiracy to excite animosity amongst her Ma- Atkinson and Dr. John Gray as proprietors of the Freeman's
jesty's subjects ; and the proper means to be used for the sup- Journal; E. Duffy was the printer. He was not acquainted with
parting of that charge was to prove the large numbers at these Dr. Gray's writing, but he had seen Mr. Duffy write; it was
meetings, the notices which convened them, the harangues the practice for papers to be sent to his office signed
which were made : and they (the Crown) were then proving by the publisher, as required by Act of Parlia-
what occurred at one of these meetings. Mullaghmast meet- ment. The documents which are now handed to me, are
hag, it should be observed, had been called by advertisement, accurate and authentic copies of the original declarations duly
and it was proved that Mr. Brown, the printer of the signed before Mr. Cooper, the Comptroller and Accountant-
Association, printed that placard or advertisement, calling General of the Stamp Department. They bear the signatures
the meeting. He did not care whether the placard calling respectively of Richard Barrett, John Gray, George Atkin-
that meeting was circulated gratuitously or sold for son, Edward Duffy, and Charles Gavin Luffy The latter
money, as it did not make any material difference for gentleman is registered as the sole proprietor, printer, and pub-
his purpose ; the advertisement calling that meeting was fisher of the Nation newspaper.
"'art and parcel of the meeting itself. He differed Mr. Smyly—Have you with you at present any copies of the
widely with Mr. Monahan, for it was not necessary Nation, Freeman's Journal, and the Pilot newspapers which
for the Crown to show any authority from the Association were left in your office?—Yes, I have—here they are.—( Wit-
calling that meeting, as the advertisement was sufficient for the ncss produced a file of newspapers. )
Crowd in that case, and it did not lie in the mouth of the Asso- Have you got the Nation of the 10th of June ?—Yes ; i
ciation to say they are not responsible for the consequences has the signature of Charles Gavin Duffy.
when the meeting did not take place. Had henot prima facie Mr. Smyly—Turn to the leading article of that paper.
EN idence there that several documents were circulated at the Mr. Whiteside objected to the copy of the newspaper being
meeting, stating the professed objects of that meeting? put into the witness's hands at the present stage of the pro-
Such documents might be circulated by O'Connell's Police, ceedings. He (counsel) had not had the opportunity of exa-
or by the Repeal Wardens, for all he knew, before the mining the certified copies of documents which had been
meeting ; and was it to be said that the thousands of handed in. They had not as yet been read, nor had the hand-
th,ose documents which were circulated at the meeting, writing been proved ; and, under these circumstances, it was
were calculated, without the knowledge of the traversers, manifestly premature to ask any questions relative to the news-
ac; le he to be told that there was not a case of prima facie paper.
evidence to go to the jury, and let them take it as they rr ight ? The Attorney-General—You may have the original docu-
-a-• Monahan asked, :why not prove that the document was ments to examine, if you wish, Mr. Whiteside.
,orinted by wish or authority of the Association ;but he did not
The documents were handed to Mr. Whiteside, who having
vasit to prove that, as it was given as part of the res pester of examined them, said that he considered the evidence on this
tl to case ; suppose the Association had circulated their printed branch of the case wholly defective. The declaeert.
ios
Cooper,Pu
r-
ca ids—
ported to have been signed in the presence of a
Mr. Whiteside—l beg your pardon, there is nothing private the Accountant-General, but not a tittle of evidence had been
al), tut the Association, all is done publicly, adduced as required by the Act to show
that Mr. Cooper
Solicitior-General said he would use that expression at was a person having full and competent authority, in

point of law, to take such declaration. The Learned Cowl-
sel referred to the case of the King v. White, in suppert of his
position, that it was necessary to prove the competency of the
-officer. _
Attorney-General—lf I mistake not, the witness was ask,hi
whether Mr. Cooper was not the proper officer to take these
affidavits, and he answered distinctly in the affirmative.
Mr. Whiteside—Oh, you are labouring under a sad misap-
prehension. No such question was asked him at all.
Witness—Alr. Cooper is the proper officer to take in decla-
rations.

Mr. Whiteside—Now, how do you know that, Sir ?—I never
saw his commission ; but I have no doubt of the fact, for I have
been acting under him for several years.
Mr. Whiteside—•ln what capacity ?—As registrar of news-
papers. I presume that Mr. Cooper has a commission, but I
never saw it.

Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, it is absolutely incumbent on
them to adduce proper evidence to prove the authority of Mr.
Cooper to take the declarations.
Attorney-General—l do not take the same legal view *f
this point as my Learned Friend ; but Mr. Cooper is in Court,
and, for Mr. Whiteside's gratification, we will have him exa-
mined.
Jonathan Sisson Ceoper sworn and examined by Mr. Smyly
—I am comptroller and accountant-general in the Stamp de-
partment. I have held my office for twenty years. It is one
of the duties of my office to take newspaper declarations. The
declaration now banded me was made by Charles Gavin Duffy,
and was sworn before me on the 18th of Nov., 1842. Saw it
signed b, Mr. Duffy. The declaration now handed to me is that
of the Freeman's Journal, and was signed by Dr. Gray, Dr.
Atkinson, and Edward Duffy, on the Bth of Feb., 1841. Mr.
Barrett's declaration was signed in my presence on the Bth of
Dec., 1837.
Cross •examined by Mr. Whiteside—l have a commission,
but it is not here ; can't say that I know Mr. Duffy.
Ah why did you not tell me that before ? How then can,
you swear to his handwriting?--I know that the party rho./
signature is affixed to that declaration signed it before me ; he
was present when he signed it.—(Laughter.)
lam obliged to you, for that information, Sir. You don't
know Mr. Duffy ?—No,
Thank you, Sir, that will do.—(Laughter.) Do you read
the Repeal debates in the Evening Mall?—Sometimes, per-
haps, I do, but very seldom.
Do you read the Nation, or the Freeman's Journal ?.—No,
the only paper I read is Saunders's, in the morning.
Ha! you patronise frigid Saunders, do you ?—( Laughter. )
—Sometimes I do.
The Repeal debates appeared in that paper as in every other
paper, and yet you ste they have selected some journals for a
conspiracy.
Mr. Whiteside submitted that there was no particular evi-
dence of the publication, and in criminal cases the rules of evi-
dence should be strictly observed. The signature should be
proved by some one who knew Mr. Duffy.
The Attorney•General—The newspaper was published in
Dublin under the terms of the Act of Parliament, and there
is a heavy penalty imposed on any person publishing a news•
paper, without lodging the proper certificate, that certified
his bail, produced from the Stamp-office, the place
where it ought to be. Under these circumstances, the
question for the consideration of the Court was—whether
the certificate signed by this gentleman in the presence of
the proper officer, and who represented himself as Charles
Gavin Duffy, and by whom the paper was since regularly
published, was not primafacie evidence • and some of the wit-
nesses for the Crown proved that Mr. Puffy, as editor and pro-
prietor of that paper, attended at the meetings. The Attorney-
General then read the Bth section of the Newspaper Act, 6th
and 7th William the Fourth, and submitted that, under its
terms, the evidence offered was admissible.

Judge Perrin—Can't you prove the handwriting and get rid
of the argument.
Chief Justice—The rule of law is the same in civil and cri-
minal cases.

Judge Perrin—Sure Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Duffy signed
the declaration.
Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, the first newspaper published by
the proprietor of the Nation is dated the Bth of October, and
the document Mr. Cooper proved is dated the 18th of
ber, so that it cannot be the right document.
Mr. Brewster cited the case of Mayne v. Fletcher, ita
9th Barnewall and Cresswell, page 382, and contended that, in-
asmuch as the title of the newspaper corresponded with that set
forth in the declaration produced out of the custody of the
proper officer, it was evidence of its publication by the party
charged. The paper was entitled " The Nation, published
every Saturday, at No. 12, Trinity-street, where all commu-
nications were to be addressed," and the matters set out in the
declaration corresponded with that, and he now submitted, en
the authority of the case quoted, that the Crown were not
bound to go farther.
Mr. Whiteside—That is a different view to that taken by the
Attorney-General and Mr. Smyly.
To the witness—Hand me the first copy of the Nation
newspaper.
Mr. Brewster—No question can arise except as to the paper
we offer in evidence.
Judge Crampton—Does not this plainly appear, that ono
Charles Gavin Duffy is the proprietor, editor, and printer of
this newspaper called the Nation, and the only difficulty that
suggests itself is the identification of the particular individual,
as there may be two or three Charles Gavin Duffys. We have
evidence on our notes that the traverser here is the editor of the
Nation.

Mr. Whiteside—Your Lordship will excuse me for saying
that there is no legal evidence yet to that effect.
Judge Crampton—That is not exactly what I have, but that
the traverser is editor of a newspaper, and was recognised as
such at meetings of the Association.
Mr. Whiteside—With the greatest respect I think your
Lordship is confounding two distinct things.
Mr. Brewster cited another case in which Mr. Justice Bay-
ley delivered a judgment in England, on which they also relied
in support of their argument.
Judge Crampton—llere is the evidence I alluded to. In
the evidence of a witness named John Jackson, he says that
Mr. Duffy of the Nation attended at a meeting and handed in
so and so.

Mr. Whiteside—l thought your Lordship had struck out
his evidence from your notes altogether. That's the man from
Kilrush, who reported after a manner, or took them from the
notes of whoever happened to be next him.
Chief Justice—What do you say to Mr. Brewster's case? .
Mr. Whiteside—Why, that puts it better for the Creeeo
than it was put originally ; but I think they must give some
evidence to identify the person on trial with the person who
signed the declaration. The slightest evidence in a legal form
to identify those parties will make out their case, but without
it I rely on my objection.
Mr. Tomb called their Lordships' attention to the Bth
section of the Newspaper Act, 6th and 7th William the Fourth,
which enacted that every such copy so produced and certified,
is to have the same effect, for the purposes of evidence, against
every such person named as aforesaid, to all intents and pur-
poses whatever, as if the original declaration had been produced
in evidence, and then proved to have been duly signed by the
persons appearing by such copy to have signed it.
Mr. Bennett—He is described in the indictment as Mr.
Duffy, of Rathmines, and the description in the declaration is
the same.
Mr. Whiteside—l admit all that ; but suppose the declara-
tion was produced, yon Lust give some evidence of identity.
The cases in England are express upon that point.
Mr. Brewster said, that in the case of the King against
Hutton, in the State Trials, page 307, the Court ruled that they
were only required to produce the declaration.
Mr. Whiteside could not see what that case decided.
Mr. Justice Crampton—Suppose there were two persons of
the same name on trial on the same charge, and evidence
exactly like the present was brought forward, which of tile two
is the person that is conclusively bound by the Act of Parlia-
ment—which of the two is the evidence against?
Solicitor-General—Against either.
Mr. Justice Crampton—lf it be evidence against either, 701
might have the two men convicted on the two indictments,
upon the same paper, of which it was alleged only one was the
proprietor. In my opinion very slight evidence, in addition
to the statutable evidence. is required. For my own part, I
have no difficulty in point of fact, for I find on my notes, in the
first instance, Mr. Duffy described by a witness, who was very
fully and very ably cross-examined, as being the editor of the
Nation. I think that Mr. Whiteside is right on the ground
he takes—that something in addition to the statutable evidence
is required.
Attorney-General—The Court is not to infer that a person
has been carrying on the Nation as Charles Gavin Duffy, the
person being actually another person.
Mr. Justice Perrin—The question is, whether this is that
Charles Gavin Duffy. It is not denied that some Charles
Gavin Duffy is publishing the Nation, but the question is
whether the traverser here is he.
Mr. Justice Crampton—l think yen will find that Jackson,
in his evidence, said "Mr. Duffy of the Nation."
Mr. Whiteside—We understood that to be proof that Mr.
Duffy was a member of the Association, and nothing more.
Mr. Justice Crampton thought that was a scintilla of evi-
dence that he was editor of the Nation.
Mr. O'Hagan said he would suppose that there were two
Mr. Duffys at the bar, and, then, should it not be proved
which of them was the proprietor? Mr. Jackson, the reporter,
had not stated that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor of the %%atien,
but that a Mr. Duffy had handed in money. He would not
say that the traverser was not identified, but he was net iden-
tified as having signed the certificate. If two Duffys were at
the bar, clearly one should be identified ; and that applied
equally in this case, where the witness had net identifiesi Duffy
as the proprietor.
The Chief Justice said he was not satisfied that the Crown
had given sufficient evidence of identity in the case. At that
stage the evidence was imperfect.
Mr. Bennett said he thought the Act of Parliament was
sufficiently plain to render discussion unnecessary.
The Chief Justice said the point did not come within the
meaning of the Aet. In the case before the Court proof was
required that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor. The Act required
that he anti his publisher sign a declaration. They had signed
it, and, if nothing more was required by the Act, that dechus.
tion would be evidence aainst any person signing it as pro.
prietor or publisher. That was a document by which the
party was bound. But, to prevent any difficulty, the
Bth section contained another provision—enabling evi-
dence to be given against the proprietor or pub-
lisher in a summary way ; and that evidence was the certi-
ficate signed by the proper officer of the Stamp-office. and if
he had been there to give evidence in place of Mr. Cooper, all
might be right. The Act provided, that upon producing a copy
of that document, certified under the hand of one of the Com-
missioners, and upon proof of its being signed in his hands
writing, it should be received in evidence against any person
named in the certificate. Oh (continued the Chief Justice),
on reading the Act 1 am now of opinion that the statutable
proof offered is sufficient.
The Attorney-General said he could give other proof of pro.
prietorahip, hut he would not, except the Court decided the
point against him.
Mr. Justice Perrin said that the declaration of the Attorney.
General was rather inconsistent with the course he had pre-
viously pursued. He had given proof of the kandwriting of
Mr. Barrett, and he had done so of Mr. Duffy's handwriting,
too, by Mr. Cooper, until Mr. Cooper failed upon cress-exa-
mination.
The Solicitor-General said, if the Court required proof of
the handwriting of Mr. Duffy, the Act of Parliament would
be declared nugatory. The Act guarded against the difficulty
of proving handwriting by compelling the propri'etor to go
before the officer ; and as his person may net be known, and
his writing not capable of proof, the policy of the Act only
requires—.
Mr. Whiteside—The title of the Act of Parliament is wrong.
Mr. Justice Crampton—Mr. Whiteside, surely you are not
going to amend the title?
Mr. Whiteside—Oh, yes. The Act ought to be entitled
thus :—" Whereas the Crown aught to be able to prosecute
any person in the community, and whereas the Crown cannot
always do so if proof of identity be required ; Ise it enacted
that no such proof shall be required."
Mr. Justice Crampton said he had some difficulty in corning
to to the same conclusion as the Lord Chief Justice; but.
co.::
stained from pressing his own opinion,
ofbteceausres h
cler
beinge d thinerr%eirw.
Mr. Duffy was present,
ha had attended a meeting at which'tnoney, and he described
and at which he handeeknitynn.
was abundant
If that was not evidence
bins as the proprietor of
ii
r. prima
ja Jackson,
,facies
the the
reporters p pri e t:rrnsvhodi p
Nation all through. Counselfor the tin.
proprietor of the
r had not cross-examined him upon that point.
o inf proprietorship rai
as
tpoZnptlatet did
h r
ethe not knew
four what e
e t nwga so
aHneddcaeseursibeshimhithme.
corners Perrin said he was not satisfied with the proof of-
fered. The spirit of the Act was certainly to remove the dd.
culties of proof—formerly it was necessary to prove publication

Ty the purchase of the paper or otherwise. But the Act of Par-
liament said that a certified copy of the declaration should be
produced against the persons who had signed it.
The Attorney-General said there was another clause in the
Act, and— _ _

Mr. Tomb handed it up to the bench, observing that the
material portion was underlined.
Mr. Justice Perrin read the Act again as far as the words,
" and shall have signed the same." He was not disposed to
make a precedent, especially in a ease where there was abun-
dant evidence, in order to govern future cases.
Chief Justice—The Court has admitted the evidence.
Mr. Whiteside--Save the point.
The Court then adjourned for some time.
The Ceurt and jury having returned,
Mr. Vernon, of the Stamp-office, was recalled and eza.
mined by Mr. Smyly.
Have you got a Nation newspaper of the 10th of June?—l
Dave; it was the paper lodged at the Stamp-office, phrsuant to
the Act of Parliament. It imports to be printed by C. G.
Duly, proprietor and editor, Tnnity-street, Dublin.
Witness was then directed to turn to the leading article of
the paper, page 552, and to read it. It was written irk conse-
quence of a correspondent having condemned the placing the
:lames of Clontarf and other Irish battles on the Repeal card,
as he believed it would have been better to have substituted
such words as " Temperance," &c. The article dissented
from this principle, and at some length the writer agreed that
war sometimes elicited great virtues, particularly in a just war.
The article concluded with a quotation frem Dr. Arnold's
" Lecture on Ilistory."
Mr. Whiteside asked the witness to turn also to the report
of the proceedings of the Association in the same paper, and
to read them.

Witness did so. The speech of Mr. O'Connell was in sup-
port of a resolution for inserting on the minutes the letter of
Mr. Smith O'Brien containing the resignation of his commis-
sion of the peace for the county of Limerick. He spoke in
high terms of Mr. O'Brien, who, he stated, was the most inde-
pendent Member of Parliament, while his arguments in favour
of Repeal were unanswerable. The speech also contained a
strong expression by Mr. O'Connell of his wish that in all re-
gulations between landlord and tenant the rights of preperty,&c.,
should be respected. As the witness lowered his voice during the
reading, Mr. Whiteside desired him to read the speech as well
as he had read the leading article. Mr. Steele's speech on
this occasion was omitted for want of space, and the resolu-
lution as to Mr. O'Brien's letter was carried. Mr. O'Connell
then addressed the meeting, condemning the conduct of the
Chartists in England, and advising the Repeaters of Ireland to
expel them from their Associations, and have nothing whatso-
ever to do with them. The speech then proceeded to allude to
the unequal state of the Parliamentary franchise in both coun-
tries, and expressed an apprehension that in a few years there
would be no such thing as a Liberal constituency in Ireland.
It then alluded, in denunciatory terms, to the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill, and called upon the people to unite peacefully and
constitutionally to obtain redress for their grievances.
The Chief Justice—l don't know how you propose making
that evidence ?

Mr. Vernon continued to read the conclusion of Mr. O'Con-
nell's speech, and then stopped short, as he expected to be
asked to read no further, but Air. Whiteside told him to read
the address to the people of Ireland.
The Chief Justice (appearing tired ) Was not this read
already ?
Mr. Whiteside—No, my Lord, it was not, and this is the
document which explains all the objects of the Association.
The witness then read the address at length, and having
come to that portion of the Report which stated that Mr.
O'Connell moved the adoption of the Report,
Mr. Henn respectfully submitted that if the Crown gave in
evidence any document, and read only part of it, they had a
right to have it. all used as evidence for the Crown. This was
laid down in Philips upon Evidence, sth Carrington and Payne,
page 238 ; and in 7th Carrington and Payne, page 3N6, the
very point was decided. These authorities, he contended,
established that the whale of the document was clearly made
evidence—it was made evidence for the party who produced it.
Judge Perrin asked Mr. Henn if he recollected the case of
the King v. Perry. He knew it was decided in that case that
the advertisement in a remote part of the paper could not be
read in evidence.
Mr. Henn—l do not know if the case had reference to the
other party or not.
Judge Perrin—lt is reported at all events.
Mr. Henn—When the party on the other side calls for a
document, and looks at a portion of it, we are entitled to have
it all in evidence.

Chief Justice—Yes, but the Crown does not call for it here.

Mr. Henn—That is an a fortiori case. The party call for
it here, and, when they look at it, we are entitled to have any
portion of it read.
Chief Justice—That may be very good law in a particular
case, but it is no general rule. Hand me up the book.
Mr. Henn handed up the book from which he had quoted,
and the Chief Justice read it for some time.

The Attorney-General referred the Court to the last edition
of Carrington and Payne, p. 341, and said it was laid down
that such a proposition as the other side contended for could
not be maintained.

Mr. Fitzgibbon did net contend that he had a right to call
for the advertisements to be read. The examination of a
witness ought to be confined to the issue, and if departed from
it should only be to try the credit of a witness. They had no
right to stop short when they pleased. It was for the Crown
to interpose when anything was offered to be read which was
not pertinent to the issue.
Mr. Monahan said that the case cited by the Attorney-
General from Adolphus and Ellis had nothing to do with the
present one.

- Judge Crampton—The question is, whether one article ex-
plains or modifies the other, or whether it can be made appli-
cable to the offence charged.
The Lord Chief Justice said the case had been so much dis-
cussed that he would be brief in assigning his reasons for the
decision he meant to give. An article published in the Nation
newspaper, entitled " The Morality of War," was given in evi-
dence by the Crown. The article in itself was perfertly coin_
plete and distinct, and the whole of it wa,s *std by the Crown.
On another occasion, after an intern', of some days, at a
meeting of the Association, a .91T:eh was made by one of
the t*a'rseri .;eported in another part of that same
Nation newspaper, apparently having no connection with, or
requiring no qualification of, the opinions published in the
Nation on the subject of " The Morality of War." Now, let
it be supposed that speech, instead of having been made by
Mr. O'Connell, was spoken by Mr. Duffy himself, at that
meeting of the Association, could it be said that he
would have been entitled to have the whole of it

read, though he was unable to show its connection with the
publication of an article entitled " The Morality of War ?"
There appeared, as his Lordship conceived, no ease bearing in
support of the preposition now advanced br the traversers, and
if he had been called upon to decide, he should have great
doubts as to whether the traversers, mahout the consent of the
Crown, would have a right to have a distinct independent
publication read at all. However, the Crown made no ob-
jection to the speech being read, as well as the publication,
" The Morality of War." It was, not necessary at all for the
Court to decide whether, if the objection had been made, the
Court would or would not have yielded. It has been said the
question was, by ehom the speech was read. The Court were
of opinion that it had been read by the traversers.
Mr. Justice Crampton concurred with the Lord Chief
Justice.

The witness was then directed to refer to the Nation of the
12th of August, 1843, and having identified and proved the
publication therein of an article headed " The March of Na-
tionality," Mr. Bourne read it at length. (This document was
published at length in the opening statement of the Attorney-
General. )
Mr. Whiteside having desired the officer to read another
paragraph from page 691,
Chief Justice—Let it stand over till morning.
As the Court was about to rise, Mr. Henn, Q.C., informed
the Court that Mr. Samuel Maunsell was in attendance.
The Chief Justice said it was the opinion of the Court that
71r. Maunsell should personally apologise to the High Sheriff,
Mr. Latouclie.
Mr. Latodche said that he had no personal feeling in the
matter. Mr. dlaunsell, whom he did not know, applied to him
for tickets, which it was not in his power to give.
Mr. Maun,ell then apologised to the Court and its officer
in the terms suggested by the Chief Justice.
_ _

Chief Justice"LLet no be said about it,
The Court then rose.

LAW INTELLIGENCE

EXCIIEQUER7-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Priu3, before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Com-
mon Jury.)
Two undefended cases (Robinson v. Manners and Cockerill
v. Ilurd) were disposed of. In both cases verdicts for the
plaintiffs were given. In the first place for 2491., and in the
second for 34/.135. 3d.

GOGGS V. HARRISON.

Mr. Sergeant Manning and Mr. Dodson conducted the case
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson appeared for the defendant.
This was an action to recover the balance of an account for
goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff and defendant are
wine-merchants, the former carrying on business in Fenehurch-
street, and the latter in Fore-street. The plaintiff sold to the
defendant a quantity of cheap French wine, for which the sum
of 160/. 14s. bd. was agreed to be paid on delivery ; 1401. was
paid, leaving a balance of 20/. 14s. 5d., for which the present
action was brought. The defendant had from time to time, and
in the hearing of witnesses, promised to pay the amount, sub-
sequently refusing to do so on the ground that the wine, which
is known as •' sparkling Burgundy," and which was sold to him
at Bs. 6d. per dozen, exclusive of duty, was of an inferior quality, a
circumstance which caused some merriment in Court, owing to
its extremely moderate price. A sample was also produced in
Court

On the part of the defendant it was contended by the
Learned Counsel (Mr. Watson) that the wine in question was
drank by persons in warm climates. which, perhaps, was no
trivial cause of the mortality of many of the inhabitants of those
climates—that the species of wine, known as " Sparkling Bur-
gundy," was sold in large quantities to the animals who attend
masquerades. The wine did not correspond with the sample
tasted by the defendants ; and the very fact of this being so, was
sufficient to warrant him in refusing to pay the amount which
the plaintiff claimed. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff
stating that the wine was so bad that he could not dispose of it,
and requesting Mr. Goggs to send for it, or he would sell the
wine by auction for whatever it would fetch.
On the part of the plaintiff, it was contended that ths defen-
dant had had ample opportunity of examining and satisfying
himself of the real quality of the wine. There could be little
doubt that the whole of the wine was equal to the sample, that
no trick was intended, the bargain being made in all fairness.
Verdict for the plaintiff., 201.
OLIVER V. CRINNELT..
This was an action brought to recover the amount of a pro-
miseory note at two months' sight, given by the defendant
is the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered. The
plaintiff is a publican and maltster in Worcestershire ; the
defendant at the time the debt was incurred, being a general
dealer. The defendant, in a letter addressed to the plaintiff,
signed " Your unfortunate Creditor," admitted his liability to
pay the amount, but that at that time he was unable to do so,
owing to his distressed circumstances. The counsel of the
defendant complained of the extreme hardship of brioging the
ease from Worcester to London for trial, the expense of
bringing the witnesses to town being more than the amount of
the debt._ Witnesses were called to prove the delivering of the
goods, and the signature of the promissory note.—Verdict for
the plaintiff, 26/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE

BO W-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
it respectably-dressed young man, who gave his name as
Joks Netiatirv, was placed at the bar before Mr. Jardine,
ebar.A. %Wilk riding a horse furiously in the neighbourhood of
-the strand.
The officers ed that he saw the horse in question standing
opposite The _ n office, and he observed several persons
mount thwkintse, nd gallop up and down the street. He saw
Ilbeyisoner ge the horse, and ride furiously up Welling-
ten,strect, and,-14 then took him into custody.
- The prlsotterlaid he wanted to sell the horse to Mr. Young,
~°. ,- the pro learr- ot The Sun, and while he was waiting at The
"
48un o ce 4or for that gentleman, several newsboys rode the
tr
Alitoreern and down the street.
Mr. JARDINZ discharged the prisoner, as it did not appear
',lathe had authorised the boys to ride the horse. Still, if it
Ind been proved to his satisfaction that the prisoner had gal-
'loped the horse furiously in the street,be would have lined him
ibeayily•—lie was thee discharged

THE MONSTER MEETING.—AN ACCU-
RATE REPORT of this Extraordinary_ Meeting will
i appear in the February Number of COLBURN'S NEW
MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

Orders received by all Booksellers.

PROPERTY HAS ITS DUTIES AS WELL AS ITS

RIGHTS.
Just ready, in post Svo.,
THE "MONSTER" MISERY of IRELAND:
A PRACTICAL TREATISE ON
THE RELATION OP LANDLORD AND TENANT.
WITH SUGGESTIONS for LEGISLATIVE MEA-
SURES and the MANAGEMENT of LANDED PRO.
PERTY; the RESULT of ABOVE THIRTY YEARS'
EXPERIENCE and STUDY on the SUBJECT.
By JOHN WIGGINS, Esq., F.G.S.
English Agent to Estates in the South and North of Ireland.
Richard Bentley, New Burlington-street,
(Publisher in Ordinary to her Majesty).