Mr. Moore. Does your Lordship think this is evidence to affect the traversers; what was said or done by the people after the meeting had taken place, and whether that can give a character to the meeting.

Mr. Tomb. I submit that the effect produced by the meeting is evidence.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-The objection may be premature; but I think we cannot exclude the evidence.

Witness. I was obliged to stop on the bridge, it was so crammed, and there was such a lot of people there. One of them said "The Repeal is certain now; we must get it." Another said, "If we do not get it quietly we will fight for it." Another said, "We will turn out to a man and fight for Repeal."

Mr. Moore. Do your Lordships consider the traversers ought to be affected by expressions that any individuals think fit to use after the meeting has separated. See how dangerous the effect of such a line of examination might be. Your Lordships have lately ruled, that if persons in coming to a meeting conduct themselves in a particular way, and thereby give a character to the meeting, that would be admissible; but it would be going a very dangerous length to allow the traversers to be affected by conversation between individuals, when going home from a meeting. No man could possibly be safe if such a doctrine as that was held.

Mr. Hatchell. A party might be affected by what took place at a meeting where he was present, and from which he had the option of withdrawing if he pleased, and not giving by his presence his sanction to the proceedings. But suppose everything to have been fair, legal, and tranquil at a meeting, and when it separates, his connexion with it ceases, when it is impossible for him to set matters right, or to be answerable for the conduct or misconduct, the language or declarations of those parties, or of parties who may not have been at that meeting at all, although coming from the direction of it, it would be surely inconsistent that a man should be affected in character, property, liberty, or perhaps in life, by the conversations of persons over whom he had no control.

Mr. Tomb.-Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Witness a question or two, as to the distance of the place, where he heard these expressions, from the place of meeting.

How far is the bridge of Baltinglass from the place where the meeting was? I think it was about half-a-mile.

How long after the proceedings at the meeting was it you heard these expressions? It was not an hour.

Were the people going home from the meeting at the time? They were going off in every direction.

Mr. Tomb.-I respectfully submit that this is a proper question to be asked, and that the evidence as to what the Witness heard the people say on the bridge is admissible, on the grounds that it tends to shew what the nature of the meeting was, and the effect likely to be produced by the language used. The people who used the ex

pressions sworn to by the witness, appear to have been part of the crowd that met at that meeting and listened to what was said.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-Was it in a house you heard those words?

Witness. No, on the bridge.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-I thought you went into a house.

Mr. Tomb.-No, my Lord, he said the bridge. The evidence of the witness is admissible, inasmuch as it characterizes that meeting. I am not aware that there is any express or direct authority upon this point; but in the case of the Manchester riots, it was ruled that the persons, who seemed to have attended a meeting, showed the nature of that meeting.

Mr. Moore. In the absence of authority, the Court must look to the principles of common sense and common justice. Is every individual who has attended a meeting to be made responsible for every thing which may be said, an hour after the meeting, by persons who may act illegally or make use of illegal expressions? That is inconsistent alike with common sense and with common justice.

The Attorney-General.-My Lords, I conceive that it is inconsistent neither with common sense nor with common justice to receive this evidence. On the contrary, it would be inconsistent with common sense and common justice not to make the parties accountable for what was said and done after the meeting. In the case of Redford v. Birly the expressions used by persons going to the meeting were admitted by Mr. Justice Holroyd, and his decision was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench, on a motion for a new trial, as showing the character of the meeting. In that case, on the part of the defendant, it was proposed to examine a Mr. Andrews, who stated that he resided within two miles of Manchester, on the road from Manchester to Whitecross. The counsel for the defendant were proceeding to examine him as to the fact of his having seen bodies of men in the night of the 14th of August marching along the road near his house, and as to expressions used by them. It was objected that those facts were not admissible in evidence, unless it was shown that the plaintiff was one of the party. Mr. Justice Holroyd said that he was clearly of opinion that the evidence proposed was admissible as to part of the facts in issue. One of the issues was, whether a certain unlawful, wicked, and seditious conspiracy had not been entered into, to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the people, and hatred and contempt of the Government and constitution, &c., therefore the transactions which occurred in Manchester and the neighbourhood were clearly admissible evidence, which he was bound to hear when adduced for the purpose of proving that such a conspiracy did exist. What was said by a person leaving a meeting shows the character of it, just as much as what was said going to a meeting. We have in evidence the remarkable expression of Mr. O'Connell, "If I want you won't you come again ?" "We have also in evidence the language used by persons who attended the meeting, that they were ready to turn out to a man and fight for Repeal if neces

sary. The question for the jury is, how was that language understood? Common sense shows that the best way of proving that, is by the expressions of parties leaving the meeting, rather than by the expressions which were used before the meeting. At the time this conversation took place the meeting was not over: the people were dispersing. It is, therefore, part of the res geste at the meeting. In Regina v. Ďammanie, 15 Howell's St. Tr., 553, evidence of the expressions used by the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple was admitted. Nothing can be more important to show how the people understood the language of the speakers than the conversation of persons leaving the meeting. Suppose some of the parties had pulled down Mr. Saunders's house as they were returning from the meeting, that might be given in evidence against every one who took part in the meeting, and they would be responsible for it. Mr. Whiteside.-The case cited by the Attorney General makes for us. In that case, expressions of the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple were admitted; but it is not stated that those expressions were used after the meeting. Here are two men who are nearly half a mile from the place, after the meeting took place. If that can be given in evidence, the acts of the parties the next day may be admitted. In Lord George Gordon's case, the expressions were used by the mob, when they were pulling down a house.

The Attorney General.-In page 553, you will find that it was the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell home to the Temple, who used the expressions; that must have been after the meeting. We rely on this evidence as part of the res gesta.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-The evidenee in Daniel Dammanie's case was, that the mob accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple, but it does not say that they did so after the meeting. That is a very important fact.

Mr. JUSTICE PERRIN. It would be a very different thing if the shouts were made by the whole body, but this is a conversation between two men who were apparently connected with the meeting.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Let it be ascertained whether these persons were at the meeting.

Mr. Tomb. Where were the men? On the bridge when I came up. I cannot swear that they formed a portion of the people who were at the meeting.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-The Crown must withdraw the evidence; and if the Jury have taken a note of it, they must strike it out.

Cross-examined by MR. MOORE.

I came from Holywood, about fourteen miles from Baltinglass, the night before. Captain Drought is the Stipendiary Magistrate of that district. He was at Baltinglass the day before. I knew of the

meeting before, as it was quite notorious. I heard of it for about three weeks before that time. It was quite notorious in all the district, and we all knew it was a meeting for the Repeal of the Union. All was quiet at the meeting. There was perfect peace, no acts of

violence were committed. I did not see anything like the least breach of the peace.

Re-examined by Mr. Toмв.

Captain Drought was very unwell that day, and could not attend the meeting.

MANUS HUGHES sworn, and examined by MR. HOLMES.

I am in the Police, acting as Constable. I was stationed in Au. gust within twenty-one miles of Baltinglass; I was at Baltinglass on the 6th August last; there was a great assemblage of people there on that day. I think I know Mr. O'Connell. He was pointed out to me at the meeting. I never saw him before. I went to Baltinglass the day before the meeting. I went to the meeting in plain clothes; people were coming into the town all the morning. I saw Mr. O'Connell about two o'clock; he came in by the turnpike-road, the Dublin one; there were a great many people with him; when I saw him it was when he was coming near the platform. I did not see him until he was near the platform. I heard people speak of Mr. Saunders, before Mr. O'Connell came in. I took notes of what passed that day. I wrote them out next morning. I will swear to their correctness. I heard three or four people say that Mr. Saunders' house ought to be attacked, because it was once the seat of blood; this was said before Mr. O'Connell came in. I heard them say nothing more, except that Mr. O'Connell ordered to pull up opposite Mr. Saunders' house, until he had him cheered; this is what caused the conversation about the attack. A man came up who said he saw Mr. O'Connell at Mr. Saunders'. I heard a part of Mr. O'Connell's speech. I heard him say he would do away with the poor laws and taxes, and that the poor would be supported from the consolidated fund. Mr. O'Connell ordered the carriage to stop to have Mr. Saunders cheered. I heard some person say he gave those orders. I heard the crowd say they would and should have the Repeal; that was before the crowd dispersed. I heard no other expression; the expression I have just mentioned was used after the people left the field where the meeting was held. I heard no other expressions used but those I have mentioned before.

Cross-examined by MR. O'HAGAN.

I came from Tara the night before. I cannot tell the time that the people began to come in. I had no work to do in my capacity of a policeman. There was no breach of the peace that I saw, or even the appearance of it. I heard one person say, when Mr. O'Connell called to have three cheers for Mr. Saunders, that he ought to be attacked. I was then upon the platform. The crowd was very thick. There was not any other policeman there with me. I had an Inspector there that day, but he was not at the meeting. There was a superior in rank to me there, Constable Godfrey, and one other constable. I am not certain whether Mr. Hawkshaw was there that day. I was speaking to him one part of it. When Mr. O'Connell said there should be a cheer for Mr. Saunders, the people

said he should be attacked. After the meeting was over, the people went away peaceable.

Re-examined by MR. HOLMES.

I saw Mr. Hawkshaw in the town but not at the meeting. JOHN TAYLOR Sworn, and examined by the ATTORNey-General. I am a Police Constable; I was in Baltinglass on the 6th of August; I am not stationed there; I came in there on Saturday; I saw the meeting collecting; there were bands at it; the people came from different parts; there were great numbers at the meeting, about a couple of thousand; I was sometimes within about nine or ten yards of the platform; I saw a gentleman who was called Mr. O'Connell there; he made a speech; I took no note of it at the time or afterwards; I heard Mr. O'Connell say he would get the Repeal if the people stood to him; he was able to get it; I heard him say what a blessed thing it would be to have the Repeal; there was the Earl of Wicklow a member of parliament, and what did he do for Ireland? He was happy to see them there, and if he wanted them again he asked them would they not come, and they all shouted that they would come, and they held up their hands. When he said he would get the Repeal of the Union if they would stand to him, they said they would stand to him, and fight for it if necessary. I heard nothing else from any of the crowd assembled there. I heard another gentleman speak, whom I heard the people call Mr. O'Reilly; he spoke of the villanous government, who put Irishmen in the way of having their bones perishing in foreign lands-perishing at Cabul -Devil's cure to them, why did they go there? he also said he hoped they [the people] would never put themselves in such a way, and they said not; I remember nothing further.

Cross-examined by MR. M'CARTHY.

I am a policeman of the lowest grade. I saw Captain Conway, the County Inspector, at the meeting. I am not in the habit of reporting speeches at meetings. On the 6th of August I had occasion to refresh my memory of what took place, and having allowed six months to pass, I now come to give evidence without a note of what took place. Mr. O'Connell did use the words "We will have a Repeal of the Union if you stand to me." I did not see Mr. Hawkshaw at the meeting, nor Mr. Drought.

A Juror.-Repeat what Mr. O'Reilly said in his speech respecting the emigration of the people by the villanous Government. He said: "See how that villanous Government has treated Irishmen, leaving their bones to perish in a foreign land, in Cabul."

JOHN M'CANN examined by MR. SMYLY.

I am a Constable, and was stationed in August last in Drummartin station, in the county of Monaghan. I know a place called Clontibret, and was there on the 15th of August last. There was a meeting held there on that day. It was a large meeting. I did not